Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yes, most definitely, how many of the demofks did as their constituency wanted? just curious, like the folks of WI, MI, PA?Romney did not respect The Rule of Law, nor Due Process, and men like him are a danger to The Republic.You’re so far out in another solar system with your train of thought that I really don’t even want to try and explain what reality is here on earth. You go ahead with your whackos narratives. I can’t take them seriously.America was saved from Tyranny and Lawlessness today. Celebrate that! The Democrats were attacking every Constitution of ours in order to Tear Down America, and then Fundamentally Change it, to Structurally Change it in to a Socialist Nation.i agree about the response but how sad is that?! It’s a large leap backwards when we can’t be respectful of those who see things differently than ourselves. It’s a step to far to go after revenge and sling lazy emotional threats. We all need to grow upthe blow back against romney is going to be so bad that it will be stark warning against rhinos and dems in states that Trump carried! they will think twice about going along with future despicable acts being planned by the communist party !
Trump was not The REAL Target. He was nothing but the EXCUSE for The Assault on Our Democracy, and for The Siege on The White House and on our Republic.
And you want to make this about REVENGE?
You have to vote vengeful idiots like Romney, McCain, Schummer, Schiff, Pelosi, Omar, Talib, AOC, Sanders, Booker, Jeffries, Warren, and Nadler out of office. THEY are the real danger to THE REPUBLIC!
The Rule of Law says a Senator represents his constituents, not a political party. It also says a Senator can vote any way he or she wants to. So that box is checked.
"Due Process" says everybody in the Senate gets a vote, and the vote is counted. Check again.
Finally, if you want to vote "Romney, McCain, Schummer [sic], Schiff, Pelosi, Omar, Talib, AOC, Sanders, Booker, Jeffries, Warren, and Nadler" out of office, you'll need to be a resident of roughly a dozen different states, plus you'll have to explain why you're voting for a dead man.
Rotsa ruck on that.
accept ask the constituents of Utah, and someone already did that and they wanted acquittal. oops. that shot your entire argument down.Do you respect things born in dishonesty and secrecy?
I bet you do.
Romney has no courage. It is not an act of courage to cast a meaningless vote you knew the outcome of for a Sham which you knew was partisan political warfare that put America and it’s institutions under siege for 4 years!
Romney made himself part of that!
What began in dishonor and disgrace ended in dishonor and disgrace, and now you dishonor yourself too by giving legitimacy to it.
I respect honesty and independence. I would not have voted for impeachment but give Romney props for what he did. I also wouldn’t vote for half those name on your list to get into office. Many of them are just as bad as the puppet Trump republicansRomney did not respect The Rule of Law, nor Due Process, and men like him are a danger to The Republic.
And you want to make this about REVENGE?
You have to vote vengeful idiots like Romney, McCain, Schummer, Schiff, Pelosi, Omar, Talib, AOC, Sanders, Booker, Jeffries, Warren, and Nadler out of office. THEY are the real danger to THE REPUBLIC!
What state do you live in? Your avatar says "OHIO".
How far is OHIO from frickin' Utah?
It’s About as far as Hillary Clinton is from The White House.
If Hillary Clinton's still living in New York, that's fairly close.
What the fuck does it have to do with anything here? The fact is you're not Romney's constituent, and there's nothing you can do about that except move to frickin' Utah.
he's on the wrong side of history just like his lost presidency.If you didn’t catch Romney’s senate speech about impeachment I suggest you take a few minutes and watch it. That was incredible. He’s a yes, on impeachment. I’ll post a video once one becomes available.
At least he has principles.
Oh, what might those be ?
What could he possibly stand to gain and what principle drove him in this losing battle ?
Bizarre. One of the things you folks admire about Trump is he is "genuine", well - here you have Romney appearing to be genuine, because he certainly has no apparent political gain from this.
Maybe integrity matters.
If you didn’t catch Romney’s senate speech about impeachment I suggest you take a few minutes and watch it. That was incredible. He’s a YES, on the abuse of power article and a No on obstruction of congress.
If you didn’t catch Romney’s senate speech about impeachment I suggest you take a few minutes and watch it. That was incredible. He’s a YES, on the abuse of power article and a No on obstruction of congress.
He is free to ask the FBI to investigate corruption, but not a foreign country to investigate an American citizen, so America was not in any handicapped!if a president can’t ask about corruption you’re handicapping America
Who cares who finds corruption dnc hired a foreign agent, Dick Durbin told Ukraine to investigate trump or they won’t get money, biden said fore the man investigating my son or you won’t get money!He is free to ask the FBI to investigate corruption, but not a foreign country to investigate an American citizen, so America was not in any handicapped!if a president can’t ask about corruption you’re handicapping America
But you knew that already!!!!!
Ok, so if you don’t think he was sincere with his conviction then what do think his agenda is?does that include this latest speech and reasoning for his vote?Do you think it was sincere?do you think he voted this way because of hate or because it’s how he truly sees the situation
I think it was inevitable
I don’t think much of anything Romney has done over his political career has been sincere.
I believe I already said that
well at least I read and watch info about the topics of things I’m discussing. If you’re gonna ignore the topic of the OP and not even watch the video then why are you in this thread?says the dumdass who ignorantly remains a leftist.If you didn’t catch Romney’s senate speech about impeachment I suggest you take a few minutes and watch it. That was incredible. He’s a YES, on the abuse of power article and a No on obstruction of congress.
I didn't see it and I'm not going to see it now
his vote was enough for me.to know he's one and done
Stay ignorant my friend
If you didn’t catch Romney’s senate speech about impeachment I suggest you take a few minutes and watch it. That was incredible. He’s a YES, on the abuse of power article and a No on obstruction of congress.
Romney is so wrong!
What if this had been a murder trial and Romney was on the jury and he declare's the defendant as guilty, i.e Trump.
Romney's rational was that there weren't any witnesses like Bolton...i.e. the murderer had no one and no evidence to prove the murderer did it. Zero.
So Romney assumes than the murderer did it because the prosecutors declare the murderer guilty while the defendant's lawyer and the rest of
us have always thought under law, a person charged is innocent until proven guilty. As in the murder case, there were no witnesses that
could directly prove that Trump was guilty as there were NO ONE in the witnesses to prove definitely Trump did something wrong.
In fact the KEY witness said:
“I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement,” Mr. Sondland said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ny-describing-ukraine-quid-pro-quo/ar-AAJTPJr
He presumed!
And that's what Romney believed is legitimate testimony?
Finally Romney seemed ignorant that the "executive privilege" against Bolton was NEVER taken to the courts for validation. Schiff et.al. dropped.
Why? Bolton was suppose to be the KEY witness! Why didn't Schiff, Pelosi, et.al. allow the courts to adjudicate the subpoenas legitimacy ?
If you didn’t catch Romney’s senate speech about impeachment I suggest you take a few minutes and watch it. That was incredible. He’s a YES, on the abuse of power article and a No on obstruction of congress.
WOW!
So compelling for those whom want it to be...haha
So weird, he framed a rebuttal to fit his personal opinions and personal agenda...WOW, we never see that shit.
Not in the least. What I meant is exactly what said.it sure seems heavily implied.It would be indeed. If that is what I said.It's a bit disingenuous to say people who disagree with you have no principles.he's on the wrong side of history just like his lost presidency.If you didn’t catch Romney’s senate speech about impeachment I suggest you take a few minutes and watch it. That was incredible. He’s a yes, on impeachment. I’ll post a video once one becomes available.
At least he has principles.
Trump is the epitome of vindictive.he's on the wrong side of history just like his lost presidency.If you didn’t catch Romney’s senate speech about impeachment I suggest you take a few minutes and watch it. That was incredible. He’s a yes, on impeachment. I’ll post a video once one becomes available.
At least he has principles.
Oh, what might those be ?
What could he possibly stand to gain and what principle drove him in this losing battle ?
Bizarre. One of the things you folks admire about Trump is he is "genuine", well - here you have Romney appearing to be genuine, because he certainly has no apparent political gain from this.
Maybe integrity matters.
Never assume integrity where vindictiveness works just as well.
Trump is the epitome of vindictive.he's on the wrong side of history just like his lost presidency.
At least he has principles.
Oh, what might those be ?
What could he possibly stand to gain and what principle drove him in this losing battle ?
Bizarre. One of the things you folks admire about Trump is he is "genuine", well - here you have Romney appearing to be genuine, because he certainly has no apparent political gain from this.
Maybe integrity matters.
Never assume integrity where vindictiveness works just as well.
for a side that seems to make it "ok" to run with what is implied out of what is said and running with their own impression of it, you're getting defensive to ensure you're understood yourself.Not in the least. What I meant is exactly what said.it sure seems heavily implied.It would be indeed. If that is what I said.It's a bit disingenuous to say people who disagree with you have no principles.he's on the wrong side of history just like his lost presidency.
At least he has principles.
If you didn’t catch Romney’s senate speech about impeachment I suggest you take a few minutes and watch it. That was incredible. He’s a YES, on the abuse of power article and a No on obstruction of congress.
well not to nitpick, although I will, they don't assume, they manufacture statements by the mere intent by mind reading. They think they know what anyone is thinking and use that information as their right of passage.for a side that seems to make it "ok" to run with what is implied out of what is said and running with their own impression of it, you're getting defensive to ensure you're understood yourself.Not in the least. What I meant is exactly what said.it sure seems heavily implied.It would be indeed. If that is what I said.It's a bit disingenuous to say people who disagree with you have no principles.At least he has principles.
if that in itself doesn't seem a bit odd, not much else i can say. "the left" wants to assume what was said and run with it. you don't want that done to you.
