Juror#8
-
Posts
1,568 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Juror#8
-
-
3 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:
Is Romney really the first member of an impeached president's party to vote to convict?
I think so.
Think about that for a second.
What is wrong with our politics that everyone is so married to party?
Does anyone here not think that if you change Trump’s name to Clinton or Obama, situation remains the same, all the narratives, justifications, arguments, and allegiances wouldn’t swap?
That situational ethics ***** is sad.
And we do nothing but perpetuate it - these boards, at the dinner table, on tv - we perpetuate this ***** brand of faction politics where right and wrong is a “d” and “r” proposition.
Call me what you want but there is something just odious about that.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Well, therein lies the point. If, as some feel, the attempt to impeach was a bunch of political nonsense, one assumes a Republican senator would see it that way as well. Given his background with Trump, it’s fair to consider the level of personal animus he feels and whether or not that impacted his vote. He rejected the Constitutional arguments made by the President’s lawyers, opted instead to believe the narrative laid out by the opposition, and voted accordingly. When people feel betrayed, it’s natural to lash out at the betrayer. On the other hand, maybe he does feel like Trump will sell Alaska to the Russians in a WH Garage Sake as impeachment manager Schiff suggested.
Had he the strength of his convictions during his presidential run, had he the courage to speak loudly and proudly, he might have appeared more presidential and less neutered.
Well I voted for Romney (just wanted Buddy Roemer on the ticket too). So maybe I’m biased.
And I also voted or wrote in B. Clinton, and Obama, and W. Bush and Kasich.
So I’m a fan of the independent and politically unaffiliated. I dig it.
4 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:Isn't that what the two party system is for?
Indeed brother.-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:
Juror#8 The Pious,
Forgive me, the uneducated rube Trump supporter. I ain't read no good, but I think those four corners specify grounds for impeachment. You know, a crime. As a hillbilly rube, I would think these brilliant lawyers put forth as house managers would list actual crimes in the articles of impeachment. These brilliant, humble public servants, did not create articles around an actual crime. No crime, no grounds for impeachment. So, yeah, it should be "punted" to voters to decide. Romney voting to impeach is a turd-person move.
Cosmological constant. -
31 minutes ago, GG said:
The "hate" is there because of ulterior motives by Romney. There probably wouldn't be as much vitriol if Murkowski, Collins or Alexander voted that way.
I think the ulterior motives are assumed based on disagreement with his vote. He voted and he provided a reason which I’m not prepared to say is a lie.
I’ll say again, that *at least* one of those Senators that you mentioned went with the [paraphrasing] “what he did was very concerning but let’s let the voters make the call on removal at the ballot box” routine - for all intents and purposes punting their constitutional responsibility. With that in mind I’m not convinced that those three (or at least that one) should be the barometer for Romney’s ingeniousness.
28 minutes ago, dubs said:
I don’t hate Romney, I am just ridiculing him for such a misguided and wrongheaded decision. even if he truly believes he’s voting the right way he is wrong based on both the facts of the situation and the standard in the constitution.
I agree with you that I don’t think Trump’s actions (though probably calculated and existing somewhere in the penumbra) met the high bar of removal from office.
I just think Romney is a good man and I don’t think the vitriol that some have aimed squarely at them seems properly placed.
It’s also strange that some who are taking aim at Romney for voicing his opinion and voting consistently with it, are the same ones saying that the left is intolerant.
We just should have a better, less accusatory, brand of politics. Are people really happy with these entrenched factions?
-
8 minutes ago, dubs said:
anyone who could listen to the story from the house Dems and be convinced that it’s a reason to remove an elected president (9 months before an election) is a tool or a complete moron.
If you want to name-call your way through this then ok.
If you want to discuss then all the better.
I don’t think Trump should have been removed from office for reasons related to my understanding of the incredibly high bar for the execution of that step.
The issue here though is why so much hate for Romney. He voted based on appraising the evidence. He knew the vote wouldn’t change the course of next steps. He voted independently and as per his Constitutional responsibility. In his explanation he names faith, conscious, and an agonizing appraisal of the evidence as the deciding factors.
In this political climate of factions, vapidity, and popularity contests on both sides, I sorta, kinda dig independence and solemnity.
-
I believe him when he says that he did it out of conviction. Mitt seems like a principled man of faith and conviction.
I didn’t agree with impeachment or removal because I don’t think the allegations, as I understood them, satisfied what I believe to be a very high bar (without some mental gymnastics and to be fair I didn’t think they did for Clinton either). But I don’t have any reason to believe that Romney didn’t appraise the evidence and vote in good conscious.
-
1
-
-
For folks who talk about how the left being so intolerant of other opinions, and then to demonize Romney, who, by all accounts voted based on his interpretation of the evidence and his conviction is strange indeed. The man used his voice and performed his Constitutional responsibility to cast a vote that he felt was right.
This is especially interesting given that there were other Republican senators who said that they feel what Trump did was wrong but punted to the voters to make the decision around whether the wrong justified removal from office.
Not that I’m a Constitutional purist or anything but I’ve never seen that assignment of responsibility in the four corners of the document.
But back to Romney ... why the hate for a good man?
-
2 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:
Apparently, Mitt is not running in 2024 or he hopes Utah forgets. What a tool.
I am surprised about Manchin. Anyhoooo on to the real lawbreakers.
Why? Why is he a tool?
Because he heard the evidence and voted, by all accounts, his conviction?
Or is there another reason?
-
Yea ref. Winner must be Buffalo.
-
Josh has to figure this ***** out in overtime.
Please let this be the tale of three parts. Us. Them. Now us.
-
Woohoo! White is a beast!
-
3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
They call that all the time during the season.Then the league is off balance.
They keep saying “common sense prevails.” I think they want the assumption of the returners intent. But that principally goes against the the way the game should be officiated. It should be officiated based on precision and specifically as it relates to the proper execution of movements and non-movement even. Think about the precision that goes into “what constitutes a catch,” and staying in stance to avoid a penalty.
What’s done is done. But I can’t square it.
-
6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
Maybe.
I'm okay with it, on the principle that if you don't run the ball out of the end zone you're de facto giving yourself up for a touchback. But I'm not sure that's what the rules actually say.
I’m not. And not because I’m a rabid fan. But because I don’t understand how he “gave himself up.” They keep saying “common sense prevails.” I think they want the assumption of the returners intent. But that principally goes against the the way the game should be officiated. It should be officiated based on precision and specifically as it relates to the proper execution of movements and non-movement even. Think about the precision that goes into “what constitutes a catch,” and staying in stance to avoid a penalty.
I can’t reconcile any of that with how they ruled.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
Not challengeable, but they got it right. The runner gave himself up.How? What was the gesture? How was it communicated? I really
want to know because I don’t see it.
I think that instead they want to use the “assume his intent” approach which I don’t think should fly in a game of rules and architecture.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, NoSaint said:
what is the official method for giving yourself up that he completed?Exactly. This. He didn’t waive his hand. So what was the gesture and how did he accomplish it in this case?
-
What does “giving himself up” mean?
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
First playoff win in 20-something years looks like it starts with a Josh Allen tuddy catch! Nice!
But he took a hit as he entered the end zone. Has to get in quicker and save his knees.
-
2 minutes ago, NI Bills Fan said:
That was superb.
The in studio team on the UK broadcast were all about Dallas in the build up and during the 1st quarter.... how satisfying it was to witness their realisation that this Bills team are for real.
Bring on the Ravens!
Go Bills
Happy Thanksgiving to you all from across the pond.
Seems like Dallas nutswinging knows no geographical boundaries. Figures.
Enjoy the the win there across the pond fellow Bills fan!
-
1
-
-
Just now, ChronicAndKnuckles said:
I keep hearing every week that the following week is the “real test” and then we beat that team and then the NEXT week is the real test. What is the real test?
Aced this test. Next.
-
Just now, BillsFan4 said:
Great win! Everyone played pretty well today (minus a couple exceptions).
Honestly, I can’t believe they didn’t crap the bed in prime time. It seems like the Bills Always struggle when they play on national TV, but not today! Maybe this team really is different...
It feels so good to truly believe the Bills are FINALLY headed in the right direction.
It's a new morning in Western New York.
-
1
-
-
Biggest win as I've seen in nearly 3 decades of Buffalo Bills football. I fully anticipate this one to be bested many times over with this regime and these players though.
This has indeed been a good Thankgiving. Maybe now we'll get some freakin respect.
-
7
-
3
-
2
-
Slavery Ended 150 years ago. GET OVER IT!
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by Juror#8
Not sure this topic is intellectually fair.
Maybe.
I guess maybe it assumes that egalitarianism found its way into meaningful aspects of the black American experience because Northern Aggression won out.
Didn’t happen that way.
Brown v Board and it’s progeny started the legal ball really rolling.
“All deliberate speed” didn’t do anything for the actionability.
Creative jurisprudence had to use Article 1 Section 8 in the 60s in an expansive [read: textually poor] way so black folks could score a square at a convenience store while traveling and/or get laid in their choice of hotels somewhere along the way.
That was my mom’s generation. She was proximately impacted by barriers to education, opportunities, etc.
We are about a generation and a half (maybe two) removed from racism being countenanced by the law. Now with that said, it is about time for negroes to get along on their own two feet but it’s not unreasonable to still see vestiges.
So I both agree and disagree with the op.
He or she just presents it in a myopic way.