Mitt Romney is now persona non grata

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Mitt Romney is now persona non grata

Viewing 33 posts - 51 through 83 (of 83 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1829701

    Moish28
    Participant

    You can all debate all day if what Trump did was impeachable or not. But included in what Romney said was that Trump “endangered national security”. I’m sorry but that is a false and fake invented accusation by the Dems. No rational thinking person can even entertain that. Some of the reasons include: The money was for future expenditures, and ended up being delivered on time. And this is money that Obama didn’t approve at all, all the while Ukraine was actually fighting Russia. Was he endangering national security also?
    So Romney’s sanctimonious position is BALONEY. He hates Trump and that is the only thing that drove him to vote as he did. He hates him so much, that he convinced himself (and a bunch of you suckers) that he did the right thing.

    #1829702

    klugeryid
    Participant

    reb e
    why should there be a difference?
    from before matan torah to after , i can hear since as you pointed out, basically the world could not exist w/o teshuvah
    but once we are separated, as long as we can do teshuvah maybe thats enough

    #1829728

    Milhouse
    Participant

    What Trump did was perfectly appropriate. Biden’s corruption needs to be looked into and it was completely appropriate to ask the Ukraine to do so. The Democrats who complain that the aid he temporarily held up was essential, and that holding it up harmed our national security, are hypocrites, because they refused to give it at all. It was Trump who decided to give the aid in the first place, so he had the right to delay it and to put conditions on it.

    #1829726

    Milhouse
    Participant

    Romney does NOT believe in a trinity. He believes there are THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of gods, one of whom happens to be the god of this world. And that this god used to be human, and has a wife and children. And that one day, if we are good, we will each be gods and create worlds to be god of.

    I don’t know if that counts as avoda zara, or is too crazy for that.

    #1829736

    jackk
    Participant

    This a transcript of what Mitt Romney said.
    “The House managers presented evidence supporting their case, and the White House counsel disputed that case. In addition, the president’s team presented three defenses, first that there could be no impeachment without a statutory crime, second that the Bidens’ conduct justified the president’s actions, and third, that the judgment of the president’s actions should be left to the voters. Let me first address those three defenses.
    The historic meaning of the words “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the writings of the founders and my own reasoned judgment convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they’re not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove such a president defies reason.

    The president’s counsel also notes that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor general. If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the vice president should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong. With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory, but also not a crime. Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the president’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the president’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There’s no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the president would never have done what he did.

    The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the president.
    Hamilton explained that the founders’ decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to the voters was intended to minimize, to the extent possible, the partisan sentiments of the public at large. So the verdict is ours to render under our Constitution. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfill our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasked senators to answer is whether the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Yes, he did.

    The president asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The president withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The president’s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”

    #1829749

    Ed in Miani
    Participant

    I voted for Romney for President in 2012 and also contributed to his campaign. Now I’m glad he lost. His current term in the US Senate isn’t up until 2024, and I doubt that he will run for re-election. He’s 72 now, and I think he will want to spend more time with his family, especially since he now has zero clout in the Senate Republican Caucus. Adios, Mitt.

    #1829752

    benignuman
    Participant

    Klugeryid and Reb Eliezer,

    Bilaam was an individual after Matan Torah. So I think that example satisfies both of you. I don’t see why Ninveh being a large number of people should matter. If one non-Jew can’t do teshuvah, then 1000 non-Jews also couldn’t do teshuvah.

    As for where the Seforno got his pshat, the Seforno is a border-line Rishon. It may be a mesora he got from his rabbeim. Or it might just be muchach from the posukim. Why would Hashem keep hinting to Bilaam to turn back and not go to Balak? Bilaam’s going wouldn’t hurt the Yidden because Hashem was going to make Bilaam say berochos not klalos anyway.

    Another example of an individual is Yishmael on whom Rashi says (at the end of Chayei Sarah): יצחק וישמעאל. מִכָּאן שֶׁעָשָׂה יִשְׁמָעֵאל תְּשׁוּבָה וְהוֹלִיךְ אֶת יִצְחָק לְפָנָיו, וְהִיא שֵׂיבָה טוֹבָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּאַבְרָהָם : This is also before Matan Torah but I don’t see why that should matter. If we know teshuvah existed for non-Jews before Matan Torah mehechi taisi that they lost it. Hamotzi m’chaveiro alav haraya.

    #1829761

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “What Trump did was perfectly appropriate.”

    that is certainly debatable, and I think reasonable people can disagree.
    What is NOT debatable is that a majority of congress both a majority of the house and a majority of the senate ( 48 who voted yes and at least several others Collins, Murkowski, Rubio, Toomey, Ernst Alexander who said it was “inappropriate” but not bad enough to be impeached. (and of course to be removed, anyway majority isnt enough) .

    Thus calling it a “hoax” is a bit silly . Perhaps not as silly, as the argument that impeachment is up to the voters, but still silly.

    #1829763

    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    The seforno is a kadmon born in 1475 where the border of the Rishonim is 1400. The Mechaber was born in 1488.

    #1829768

    “Here in America we are descended in blood and spirit from revolutionaries and rebels-men and women who dared to dissent..As their heirs may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion”
    Dwight D. Eisenhower

    #1829776

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    Ubiquitin – is it possible to step out of the emotional part of the political debate for a sec cuz I am curious about something.
    IF YES — continue here. IF NO, skip til next post 🙂
    Separate it , please, from the whole picture of the Trumpers using it as an acquittal angle cuz I am really curious to hear a logical/rational/honest thought process to this – (like I said, got nobody in real life to ask. And I am NOT asking what the officials think, I mean specifically what a frum individual thinks)

    1. given that some have said they need trump out so he doesn’t get reelected, how is that not election interference?
    2. I am not understanding how people can claim that someone is dangerous and that ‘everyone was able to see that thru the hearing but they’re afraid to admit it’, and yet he will still win the election. That idea baffles me a bit and I am curious about the thought behind it. (again, not defending trump or discussing the impeachment details, just really curious about the logic)
    Regardless of how dumb, boring or irrelevant I find many topics and conversations, I am often fascinated by the thought processes behind them. It is hard to find people who can separate the topic from the process but I figured I’d give it a try.

    #1829774

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Jackk
    Thank you.
    So Romney says high crimes and misdemeanors, doesn’t have to actually be a crime or a misdemeanor because it would be impossible to list them all. So it’s up to the judgement of the senate.
    So take your average Joe cop. Hauls some kid in front of a judge for spinning on his head on top of a soda bottle balanced on a unicycle in the middle of an empty lot at 3 am
    Judge sentences him to ten years in the slammer because ”someone who engages in such offbeat behavior, In my opinion is a public menace that must be taken off the streets ”

    Kids lawyer says, your honor what crime exactly is my client being accused of?
    Judge responds, buddy, it’s impossible to have the law list every type of crime, that’s why there are judges.
    I vote to put him in the slammer.

    You think that would work???
    It says HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS we got thousands of those on the books
    True the constitution doesn’t need to list it. But some law code does.
    So according to you Romney was over the mitzvah of din which is one of the seven.
    Straight to hell with him.
    Even according to his lovers here.
    Upstanding skunk that he is

    #1829786

    Sorry incorrect,
    Jack, excetera
    Israel,for example, Has three levels of jails
    for regular crimes on the books is the lowest level
    for terrorists and higher crimes is a higher level
    then there’s the highest level in jail for the worst for example Spies
    most of those don’t do anything technically illegal
    now this is not to say that I’m Pro impeachment
    it’s just many times those in the inside have an idea where was going on and can’t come out with it at least not for a bunch of years

    #1829797

    benignuman
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer,

    Where did you get the idea that the era of Rishonim ended in 1400? The Abarbanel is widely viewed as a Rishon and he was born after 1400. The two dates I have seen as the cut-off for Rishonim is the expulsion from Spain in 1492 or the publishing of the Shulchan Aruch in the 1560s.

    Klugeryid,

    I mean no personal offense but you are writing about things of which you no very little. You are reading the phrase “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” the way someone would read it today, not the way it was understood at the time it was written. (l’havdil, it is like reading the Torah without the Oral Tradition). The writings from the Constitutional convention, the Federalist Papers, and the political nature of impeachment make clear that actual statutory crimes are not necessary. Alan Dershowitz’s argument that the behavior has to be “crime-like” (although he concedes it does not need to be a statutory crime) is plausible.

    It should be noted, however, that at the time of ratification, common law crimes still existed. Common law crimes were crimes made up by Judges for actions that they felt should obviously be criminal (like murder or theft). So your scenario is not that far off the actual state of the law at the time the Constitution was written.

    #1829796

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Jackk I’d like to pose a hypothetical question
    According to your understanding
    If the president finds out that a political opponent of his is a spy against the United States. Operating in some country that we have no network on the ground but one of our allies has an extensive network,
    Should the president
    1) ignore the situation since the accused is his political opponent
    2)ask the ally to use their network to find out what the real story is
    3) use our own guys at substantial risk to life and huge financial outlay, in order not to get ”foreign governments ” involved?

    I’d love an answer

    #1829795

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Syag

    “1. given that some have said they need trump out so he doesn’t get reelected, how is that not election interference?”

    I’m not sure what you mean. Every time a person campaigns or endorses a candidate or him/herself its election interference. Election interference isn’t wrong. The idea being of course, that you are acting in the best interest of the country. you think the country is better off with say Trump, so you convince me and whoever else will listen to vote. for Trump. that is fine.

    The problem is foreign election interference. A Foreign country (or so the argument goes) does NOT have our best interests in mind, they have theirs. thus a foreign country meddling in our election is to their benefit that is why it is wrong. IF Trump hired a private eye to investigate a rival that would be fine, using a foreign government is what is questionable
    furthermore the problem here is abuse of power. Even hiring a private eye would be wrong if he paid him with government funds, or did him a favor as President. He would have to pay him with his own (or campaign) money. Using his office to benefit himself is the LITERAL definition of abuse of power. His job is to enforce congresses laws. when congress authorizes money to a foreign country his job is to deliver it. It is wrong for him to abuse his power and personally gain from it whether by having them interfere in an election or stop blocking his driveway.

    2. I don’t really understand your second question either. Are you asking, if Trump is so terrible How can he have been elected by so many people?
    Are you asking how can he be so obviously guilty yet they acquitted him ?

    Take Susan Collins. she said he is guilty but thinks he learned his lesson and wont do it again (that is almost a verbatim quote) At its face this is absurd. He STILL insists he didn’t do anything wrong “The phone call was perfect” how could he have learned his lesson (even assuming he is capable of learning lessons) ? she isnt a stupid person, she knows he didn’t learn anything. so why did she acquit? not becasue he didn’t do what is alleged (she said he did) not because he learnt his lesson (he said he didn’t) it must be some other reason….

    #1829794

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Syag can I try?

    1) it is
    2) 2part answer
    2a) they don’t really believe the first half, they are afraid of the second half, and they need to say something.
    2b) they honestly believe the average American is as dumb clueless and naive as can be. So they DO believe what they are saying.

    I know 2a and 2b are at odds with each other. It’s a choice.

    #1829809

    Health
    Participant

    Romney doesn’t keep the 7 Mitzvos. There are a lot of Shittos that hold things that are logical, a Goy has to keep. He embarrassed the President. He’s a Kofoy Tov. And the list goes on & on!

    #1829828

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ben
    No offense taken
    I know zero about constitutional law.
    I do know however that there are two schools of thought in interpretation of it.
    Constructionist which I think means it is what it says. Go break your head. And evolving
    Which are you using?

    #1829793

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Jackk
    This quote is rich!!!

    If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the vice president should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong. With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory, but also not a crime.
    Let’s pause here to let this sink in
    I’m going to vote to impeach a president, (which is really also voting as to what the president has done, for that is really the debate in the impeachment trial) even though no official crime has been committed, because one does not need to have the crime listed on the books for it to be wrong.
    But I’m going to give the bidens a pass, even though In their case it has already been agreed by all and or proven that unsavory behavior has taken place , because there is no official law that they broke!!!
    How’s that for some before breakfast hypocrisy??!!

    Let’s continue with the quote

    Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the president’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the president’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit.

    Um, care to repeat that?
    Sure!
    Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the president’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the president’s insistence that they be investigated
    Wait! Isn’t that usually what an investigation is for?
    To find evidence in a situation where something doesn’t seem correct?
    Silly me. I forgot that In the liberal utopia, the accuser is supposed to provide the investigator with the evidence. Ala communist Russia.
    So part of trumps crime (unwritten of course) is failure to fabricate evidence against his political enemies. A crime of omission if you will
    Glad to clear this all up

    And for this we have posters calling the dog mutt Romney an honorable upstanding role model.
    Wow.

    #1829893

    benignuman
    Participant

    Klugeryid,

    There are two broad schools of thought but there are many more subdivisions within those schools. What you are calling “Constructionist” is typically called “Originalist” when applied to the Constitution (as opposed to ordinary statutes). I am an Originalist. Which means that I interpret the Constitution as it would have been understood by an objective reader at the time it was ratified. (Note, however, that even Originalists will occasionally have to engage in Construction where they seek to apply the Constitution in area where it is vague or ambiguous.)

    The other school, Living Constitutionalists, don’t maintain that they have a right just to read in whatever they want. Rather they believe that interpretation of the Constitution can and should change where the society as a whole has changed. But even living Constitutionalists would require evidence that societies mores have changed regarding the matter before them. It is possible to make the argument, that from a living Constitution perspective (assuming State Constitutions match this) impeachment requires a statutory violation. But this argument is not that strong because ultimately there is no check on the Impeachment power (other than voters). Therefore, whatever Congress and 2/3ds of the Senate say is impeachable becomes removable. Because practically it does not require a crime a Living Constitutionalist would not be inclined to read the requirement of a statutory crime into the text.

    #1829906

    jackk
    Participant

    KlugerYid,

    Romney directly answered your question about not needing an actual crime for impeachment and quoted the founders.

    If a political opponent was a spy ? Boruch Hashem the US of America has government agencies that are well funded and tasked to protect the USA.
    (Please stop talking about money. America has enough money when it needs to go to war and provide security.)
    Why in the world would you send your personal lawyer?

    I think you can understand the difference between the constitution allowing an impeachment for a president violating his powers without breaking a law and demanding an investigation into American Citizens that did not break the law.
    The bottom line is what Romney said
    “The president asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The president withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The president delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders. The president’s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust.”

    #1829917

    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    There are certain laws in the Torah that change with times. ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו it’s dependent what their current behavior is. If there is no explanation than the Mahrik says it might be a’z and we should not follow it.

    #1829931

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Jackk
    Honestly I don’t see the difference between getting the fbi irs cia or a foreign government to investigate someone.
    If it’s OK to sick the fbi on trump, who cares if it was Ukraine that trump asked to investigate Biden.
    Had he asked the FBI t o do so it would be OK?
    Sounds weird to me
    But someone here seemed to claim is the law so I guess that part is too bad

    #1830146

    1
    Participant

    Romney’s a RINO weasel.

    #1830175

    jackk
    Participant

    Trump is a RINO.
    Romney is a life long real Republican. Romney was the parties candidate a few years ago. That the Trump supporters have turned their back on him show that they are the RINO’s. They all belong to the Trump CULT party.
    That they can turn against a Jewish American Purple heart recipient (Vindman) and a celebrated Vietnam war hero (McCain) in favor of a draft dodging lying impeached president makes me wonder if they are patriotic Americans.

    #1830195

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Jackk,

    😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂

    You should belong in either stand up or in an asylum

    Hillary was the Democrats choice four years ago and since Democrats turned their backs on her if they nominate sanders it shows her supporters were really dinos (they are anyways 😜)

    Do you see the idiocy of that logic?

    #1830200

    Health
    Participant

    jackk – “That they can turn against a Jewish American Purple heart recipient (Vindman) and a celebrated Vietnam war hero (McCain) in favor of a draft dodging lying impeached president makes me wonder if they are patriotic Americans.”

    Let’s be clear about Politics nowadays!
    It all started with the Clintons. Billy Boy was impeached, not because like Trump he obstructed Congress, but by Perjury. This by the way is a Crime! Of course the Dems didn’t remove him from office.
    In our day and age – KY wrote -“Only a mean uncouth guy like trump can get past the radical left. He doesn’t let their words stop him, their words embolden him.”
    JACKK – STOP with the Hypocrisy!

    #1830203

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Jackk

    May I also note that Bill Clinton said in his state of the union speech that he didn’t want illegal immigration (Barack Obama said it too) and now you have sanctuary cities run by democrats

    #1830381

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Coffee Addict, what if you are both right?

    #1830437

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Ry23,

    I’m just commenting like the tag on this thread

    “there-are-none-so-blind-as-those-who-refuse-to-see-said-both-parties-to-each-other”

    #1832323

    klugeryid
    Participant

    But why should ”the pan American Highway should extend through the Darién Gap”?

    #1832558

    jackk
    Participant

    CA,
    When did the Dems turn their backs on their Democratic beliefs?
    Hillary is not running.
    I think I belong right here in the coffee room discussing these issues with people who think that everything is so simple. 🙂 R means right and D means wrong.
    Which Tanna or Amora said that ? I will answer – none.
    Both parties are driven by people that הֱווּ זְהִירִין בָּרָשׁוּת, שֶׁאֵין מְקָרְבִין לוֹ לָאָדָם אֶלָּא לְצֹרֶךְ עַצְמָן. נִרְאִין כְּאוֹהֲבִין בִּשְׁעַת הֲנָאָתָן, וְאֵין עוֹמְדִין לוֹ לָאָדָם בִּשְׁעַת דָּחְקוֹ:

Viewing 33 posts - 51 through 83 (of 83 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.