Mitt Romney for president, 2020.

[Katzpur]

I'm curious about why that is.
On the one hand, he would probably hold a wide array of policy positions I would not support. On the other hand, he does have the integrity and experience I consider necessary in the White House.

Since I'm pretty sure your opposition isn't due to his belonging to a cult, why do you say that. And who, or at least what sort, would you find more acceptable?

Personally, I would consider your opinion vastly more important than the large majority of other RF members.
Tom

I don't really have anything against Romney, and I do think he has greater integrity than most politicians (which isn't saying much). I'm just a little more left-leaning than he is. I actually quite like Elizabeth Warren. What about her don't you like?

 

[metis]

Do you think that the GOP can get Romney to run?

"If the Mitt don't fit, you must acquit!".

 

[pearl]

Governor Weld has an unblemished record of public service. In addition to seven years in the Department of Justice, he served two terms as Governor in Massachusetts, where he was reelected by the largest margin in state history. He cut taxes 21 times, never raised them, balanced the budget, and oversaw six upgrades in the state’s bond rating. He signed landmark welfare reform, made public schools accountable, and was a trailblazer as an early proponent for LGBT civil rights. Governor Weld was ranked the most fiscally conservative Governor in the country by the Cato Institute and the Wall Street Journal.

A considerable political history when one considers that Massachusetts is a democratic electorate with a democratic majority in both House and Senate. And I think he would have won a third term but chose not to run after being offered the
ambassadorship to Mexico by President Clinton. It was a carrot offering to get Weld out of the way for one of the Kennedy's to run for governor. Unfortunately for Weld his nomination never made to a vote because Jesse Helms blocked it from the floor which I think was a move against Clinton more than Weld who was a progressive and accused by Helms of promoting medical marijuana. I would not think of him as the run of the mill conservative. As for balancing the budget the states are not allowed to carry a deficit, I think the budget must be balanced every year. But he most certainly has the competency to hold the office of President. I do not understand why the networks do not offer him more air time.

 

[ecco]

(and the Democrats voted for a rapist and, perhaps, a murderer

What?

 

[ecco]

Negative. Warren is intelligent and has very little baggage. Both great ingredients for a leader.

Like Biden and Sanders, she's too old.

 

[dianaiad]

What?

William Jefferson Clinton.

Who was, in fact, impeached over the rape thing.

Not fired, but he was indeed impeached because he lied to congress over the rape thing. You know...or perhaps you are too young. I don't know....the "I did not have sex with that woman..." bit?

Using one's power as President in order to sexually harrass an intern )That would be Monica Lewinski, btw) in the Oval Office is rape. Paula Jones, Juanita Broadrick, Kathleen Willey...

NONE of whom are allowed to participate in the "ME TOO' movement, since of course these women were talking about Clinton. Such stuff only counts, in politics, if the target is a conservative. True, a bunch of women got even with liberal show business types, (given that about half of the men who got fired ended up with female replacements, I have to wonder a little about ambition, but that seems to be same-old, same-old..) but as far as politics goes?

Not so much.

At the time, there was a lot of speculation about the Clintons and the death of Vince Foster...and a body count of 34 or more was attributed to them. True, Snopes 'debunked' the idea, and honestly, I don't think they were responsible for Foster's death...or Epstien's death (though that one is being speculated about, too) , but it seems to me that there is as much evidence for that as there is that Trump is conniving with the Ukraine to fix an election. Hey. If it works for you guys, the guys on the right can do it too.

Just sayin.'

but then, I don't like Bill Clinton. Or Hillary. I'm a tad bit biased.

 

[metis]

Who was, in fact, impeached over the rape thing.

Not fired, but he was indeed impeached because he lied to congress over the rape thing.

It was not rape but consensual sex with an adult intern. He was impeached for lying under oath, but not obviously removed by the Senate.

 

[columbus]

It was not rape but consensual sex with an adult intern. He was impeached for lying under oath, but not obviously removed by the Senate.

It gets annoying when partisans keep repeating the same fake news.

Clinton got impeached for lying about cheating on his wife. Which was a subject having nothing to do with national interests. For some reason, the Trump Derangement Syndrome base seem to think that lying about a hostile foreign government helping Trump get into the White House is less important.

What's with that?
Tom

 

[metis]

Clinton got impeached for lying about cheating on his wife. Which was a subject having nothing to do with national interests.

Agreed, which is also a reason why so many in the Senate voted against his removal.

For some reason, the Trump Derangement Syndrome base seem to think that lying about a hostile foreign government helping Trump get into the White House is less important.

I'm not sure what you're really saying with the above, but maybe that's because I haven't enough coffee yet. Maybe you can help to clarify this for my still-snoozing mind.

 

[dianaiad]

It was not rape but consensual sex with an adult intern. He was impeached for lying under oath, but not obviously removed by the Senate.

With all due respect....

When the power difference is that great...it doesn't matter whether the one without the power says it's consensual at the time or not.

It's why statutory rape is rape. It doesn't matter HOW much the sixteen year old says 'it was consensual.' It's rape. The power difference between the President of the United States and a 21 year old intern is HUGE...not simply the age difference, but also general power difference and 'workplace' difference in power. Lewinski could have been actively seeking the affair and it STILL would have been rape.

It's rape, because the one without the power can't really say no.
And Monica later acknowledged that herself.

Not to mention that Paula Jones, et al actually did accuse him of forcible rape.

You are correct, as I mentioned earlier; Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to congress, but not removed from office. The dems on the warpath now might want to remember that 'impeachment' doesn't mean 'fired.' Especially the way they are trying to do things at the moment.

The problem with playing partisan using constitutional things like impeachment is that if the dems do it, they are giving implicit approval to having it done back at them. The Dems are playing fast and loose with the process, and they don't seem to have figured out that sharpening swords to slice at their opponents means that when those opponents have the swords in their own hands, those edges can, and will, still be sharp....and aimed back at them. It's the corollary of the Golden Rule; if you do unto others, others will feel justified in doing back to you.

Might not be right. Certainly not wise...but it WILL happen.
.

 

[metis]

When the power difference is that great...it doesn't matter whether the one without the power says it's consensual at the time or not.

It was not rape and she was not underage. She testified that she made a mistake due to her infatuation with him but that it was consensual. There was no trial for rape, therefore it is simply wrong to call it as such.

Personally, I felt he should have resigned and I said as such, so I'm not playing any partisan politics on this.

The problem with playing partisan using constitutional things like impeachment is that if the dems do it, they are giving implicit approval to having it done back at them.

Even some Republicans now say that what Trump did is impeachable, and conservative Republican Abby Huntsman yesterday said that he should be impeached for his violation of federal law.

To put it another way, I'm not one to play partisan politics on things like this--wrong is wrong regardless as to whom is doing it.

 

[dianaiad]

It was not rape and she was not underage. She testified that she made a mistake due to her infatuation with him but that it was consensual. There was no trial for rape, therefore it is simply wrong to call it as such.

I don't particularly care what the legality is here. It is pretty universally acknowledged that in cases such as this, whether the rapist gets away with it or not, with that level of power difference, it's rape.

Whether the one without the power was 'old enough' (and hon, 21 ain't 'old enough' when one is talking about that level of work place power difference) or not. The thing is, she would not have been allowed to say no, had she wanted to say no, and that's what makes it rape.

After all, Clinton was impeached for lying to congress. We KNOW he lied to congress. We have the statements he made. We have the oath he took. We have his admission that yeah, he lied to congress. However, he was not convicted of lying to congress. Does that mean that he did not, after all, actually lie to congress?

No. It just means that he got away with it....congress didn't think that what he did rose to the level of removing him from office. BTW, like you, I would have preferred that he resign, but he didn't and I, like congress and most of America, didn't think it would have been a good idea to remove him from office.

And I really, REALLY didn't like some of the things he did as President.

Still, what he did was rape, whether he was nailed legally for it or not.

Personally, I felt he should have resigned and I said as such, so I'm not playing any partisan politics on this.

Even some Republicans now say that what Trump did is impeachable, and conservative Republican Abby Huntsman yesterday said that he should be impeached for his violation of federal law.

To put it another way, I'm not one to play partisan politics on things like this--wrong is wrong regardless as to whom is doing it.

In this case, though, it IS partisan. The Dems have been hollering 'impeachment' since 24 hours after the election results were announced. They didn't even wait for the man to take office.

I don't see any impeachable offense. I honestly don't.

I mean, really....nothing he said on that phone call comes even CLOSE to what Obama told Medvedev in 2012, when he said that he would have more flexibility to negotiate with Putin after his election...and Medvedev told Obama that he would inform Putin of that fact. Talk about a 'quid pro quo,' given the nature of Russian interference with elections! I mean, really; just how clearly can you say 'you fix it so that I win this, and I'll play ball with you on nuclear stuff? " Certainly, if any Republican had said this on a 'hot mic' to the Russian President, all hell would now be breaking loose. That phone call would be relegated to the 'so what?' file instantly. Every Democrat in the USA would be having collective meltdowns.

But because OBAMA did it (and later, because Hillary pulled stuff) nobody gives a good hoot. Nobody cares. It's OK if YOU GUYS are guilty. It's only horrific if the opposition does.

And I am tired to death of the whole thing. Hypocrisy is more than a little wearing.

 

[columbus]

Whether the one without the power was 'old enough' (and hon, 21 ain't 'old enough' when one is talking about that level of work place power difference) or not. The thing is, she would not have been allowed to say no, had she wanted to say no, and that's what makes it rape.

I find it quite ironic when people like you assume that adult females are too childlike to take responsibility for their own behavior.
Seriously.

Monica was banging a married man for whatever purposes of her own.

Personally, I think she was doing it for the Republican elite. Clinton had led the country into peace and prosperity, so they couldn't attack him or his party on that score. But he was a sleazebag who cheated on Hillary Clinton. So they pretended that cheating on your wife was a big deal. Worthy of a Congressional inquiry.

Now, in the 21st century, Republicans don't think that cheating on your wife is any big deal. They don't even think that colluding with hostile governments is a big deal.

Put Trump under oath, let Nancy Pelosi ask him anything she wants, and see how long it takes for Trump to tell a lie far more important to national security than Clinton lying about fooling around on Hillary.

Double dare ya.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

I find it quite ironic when people like you assume that adult females are too childlike to take responsibility for their own behavior.
Seriously.

You weren't paying attention. It doesn't MATTER what Monica said, or thought. It doesn't matter whether she should/would/could have taken responsibility. The thing that matters HERE is that she should never have been put in the position TO 'take responsibility,' because of the power difference. What SHE decided to do is entirely aside from what Clinton did.

And it is what CLINTON did that made it rape. I mean, really, columbus; Lewinski's attitude at the time meant nothing more than...accepting the inevitable. "Relax and enjoy it' or whatever.

It. Doesn't. MATTER. Because of the situation...she an intern whose position depended upon what Clinton did, and he the President who COULD have ruined her career and life (which of course he did...) had she turned him down, it was rape. It always is. If someone has that sort of power, real or potential, over another, that someone has absolutely NO business engaging in sexual anything with that other. Whether 'that other' is agreeable or not.

Now as to whether Monica should take responsibility for HER actions? Of course. But you are demanding that she take responsibility for HIS. She couldn't get HIM fired.

Monica was banging a married man for whatever purposes of her own.

And this excuses him, how, precisely?

Personally, I think she was doing it for the Republican elite. Clinton had led the country into peace and prosperity, so they couldn't attack him or his party on that score. But he was a sleazebag who cheated on Hillary Clinton. So they pretended that cheating on your wife was a big deal. Worthy of a Congressional inquiry.

He wasn't impeached for having an affair or for cheating on his wife. He was impeached for lying to congress about it. Catch up.

......and I have to admit, that's quite a conspiracy theory you have going on there.

Now, in the 21st century, Republicans don't think that cheating on your wife is any big deal. They don't even think that colluding with hostile governments is a big deal.

They think that colluding with hostile governments is a bigger deal than you do. After all, YOU don't think that Hillary and Biden's actions are a problem. You only think they are when you think you can make it look like a Republican is doing it.

Put Trump under oath, let Nancy Pelosi ask him anything she wants, and see how long it takes for Trump to tell a lie far more important to national security than Clinton lying about fooling around on Hillary.

Double dare ya.
Tom

Well, I wouldn't mind, but I don't have that sort of power.
But y'know, given what Hillary pulled, and what Pelosi is trying at the moment, I don't think either one of 'em really wants to do that. It will backfire on them hugely.

Y'know, none of 'em really want to get Trump to trial. They know very well the whole thing will fizzle. All they want is to derail the election. Strictly and only partisan politics. That's it.

 

[columbus]

William Jefferson Clinton.

Who was, in fact, impeached over the rape thing.

He wasn't impeached for having an affair or for cheating on his wife.

You might want to get your story straight.
Tom

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who in their right mind would vote for Trump or Warren?

Who in their right mind would mention the two in the same sentence?

 

[ecco]

........and yes, evangelicals voted for Trump. Your perception of his flaws notwithstanding (and the Democrats voted for a rapist and, perhaps, a murderer...

What?

William Jefferson Clinton.

Who was, in fact, impeached over the rape thing.

Who was William Jefferson Clinton convicted of murdering? No one.
Who was William Jefferson Clinton convicted of raping? No one.

Using one's power as President in order to sexually harrass an intern )That would be Monica Lewinski, btw) in the Oval Office is rape. Paula Jones, Juanita Broadrick, Kathleen Willey...

It's really hypocritically funny and sad that you consider Clinton using his power as President having sex with an over 21 consenting female to be rape.

Yet you are completely OK with your 1/3 God using his power as God having sex with a young ignorant virgin.

Do you ever really think about the positions you take?

 

[ecco]

NONE of whom are allowed to participate in the "ME TOO' movement, since of course these women were talking about Clinton. Such stuff only counts, in politics, if the target is a conservative. True, a bunch of women got even with liberal show business types, (given that about half of the men who got fired ended up with female replacements, I have to wonder a little about ambition, but that seems to be same-old, same-old..) but as far as politics goes?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds:

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia
Donald Trump, an American businessman and current president of the United States, has been accused of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, including non-consensual kissing or groping, by at least 22 women since the 1980s.[5] The accusations have resulted in three much reported instances of litigation: his then-wife Ivana made a rape claim during their 1989 divorce litigation but later recanted that claim; businesswoman Jill Harth sued Trump in 1997 alleging breach of contract while also suing for nonviolent sexual harassment but withdrew the latter suit as part of a settlement for relating to the former suit; and, in 2017, former The Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit after Trump called her a liar.[6]
​

How many women did Clinton pay off?
How many women did Trump pay off?

 

[columbus]

Who in their right mind would mention the two in the same sentence?

Why did you take me off of <ignore>?

I mentioned them in the same sentence because I see them as similar. Both are partisan and divisive.
Tom

 

[ecco]

I don't particularly care what the legality is here.

You don't care about the legality? That's really sad. Perhaps you should move to a country where there are no laws. Oh, wait - all Countries have laws. I wonder why that is?

It is pretty universally acknowledged that in cases such as this, whether the rapist gets away with it or not, with that level of power difference, it's rape.

Rape as in the 22 women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct. Many of whom were paid off and threatened to remain silent.

Apparently, in addition to not caring about legalities, you also don't care about your ethics and morals.

Whether the one without the power was 'old enough' (and hon, 21 ain't 'old enough' when one is talking about that level of work place power difference) or not. The thing is, she would not have been allowed to say no, had she wanted to say no, and that's what makes it rape.

But, again, you are OK with 1/3 of your God impregnating a virgin who was probably well under age 21. Balance of power? Seriously?

Intern : President
Ignorant Virgin : God

Balance of power? Seriously?