*** Admin note: Please keep the conversation on Romney's reasoning and beliefs, and stay away from political specifics. The latter will be removed. Thanks! CZ -- admin ***

Not sure what his intentions were (revenge, attention, feeling guilty about something, etc) but it still screams weak of character to not just come right out and say I am doing this because I alone believe what I have seen in these hearings is wrong. Instead he invokes God made him do it or would hold him accountable or whatever BS.

Why can't mormons just stand for what's right on their own? I didn't know standing up for the truth in all circumstances at church, in congress, in whatsoever circumstances they may be in involved such church crutchery. It is like they are incomplete people without a conscience that they have to be told what to do.
Maybe this is why the church gets away with so much abuse and its many lies. People who are too busy not standing but falling for anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2020 08:07PM by Concrete Zipper.

Why is that BS? Maybe he actually does believe a good Mormon chooses the right. I doubt he believes God will smite him because most of us suspect he's had his second anointing. If that's the case, he can lie all he wants. It's the thing that the Evangelical senators fall back on. They're saved. God will not hold them responsible for their evil deeds. At the end of the day, it was certainly interesting.

Morg Press Office: "Gee, thanks, Mitt, you idiot!

"Trending on social media are

"Does Mitt Romney and other Mormons really wear magic panties?

"Does Mitt really believe that a polygamous dude on a planet called Kolob ordered him to vote to impeach President Trump on one charge, but not another?

"Flip you, Mitt Romney!" (Shakes first, starts to sob.)

Lol...

It is BS because somehow he never, ever heard from God about T-Rump paying $130,000 to a hooker or about any of the other women he has bought.

> it still screams weak of character to not just
> come right out and say I am doing this because I
> alone believe what I have seen in these hearings
> is wrong. Instead he invokes God made him do it or
> would hold him accountable or whatever BS.

I think you may want to read, or listen, to the speech again. He specifically 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 to 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 the public trust.

. . . it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security interests, and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can imagine."


----------------
That strikes me as exactly what you say he should have done.

However, I think we can all agree that in the end, he only did right because he sees this as beneficial to himself and his ambitions.

I believe that Romney's record is exactly as you state--except that this time he is not staying on script. This action contravenes his political interests: a very large part of the GOP will never forgive what he did today, and without their support he cannot mount a successful campaign for the presidency.

So I think this is the one time he has actually acted morally instead of opportunistically.

Or he could have simply been seeing himself as the hero in the White Horse Prophecy. The current GOP is going to completely implode soon. I don't think this will be as harmful to Mitt as many seem to think.

Only time will tell.

There are two issues in what you write.

First, the white horse prophecy. I agree with you. I think he originally thought of fulfilling that vision through the presidency. Now, however, the odds of that proving possible are quite reduced and he sees saving the constitution as a more humble endeavor. It is my guess that the Mormon stuff about the constitution remains, as much as ever, how he perceives his moral duty. He has an obligation before God to preserve the nation's values.

Second, his political future. Here I disagree with you. There is, as you intimate, a significant chance that the GOP won't last long. These constitutional and human considerations could severely hurt it, and if the party survives the next several years it will erode like a snowman in the sun given that its support among younger people is exiguous.

Those problems, however, are unlikely to emerge between now and the election, which I think the cult will win. But whether the GOP collapses right away or in 10 years, the odds of its trying to reorganize under Romney are almost non-existence. I cannot foresee any scenario in which the Strumpets do not continue to represent 20-50% of the GOP, and even if the rest of the party loves Romney those people will not forgive his contribution to its demise. If the party decides to go a different direction, they will choose a fresh face acceptable both to the old Strumpets and the centrists; they will not endorse someone who has effectively tried to ruin a Republican presidency.

It is this diminution in his GOP prospects that makes his action more moral than anything I've ever seen out of such a "flexible" man.

Simple reasoning.

Yet, he says his decision to convict was the hardest decision he ever made in his life.

Really? Adhering to your oath - as a “profoundly religious man” - was the hardest decision in your life?

And he had to gulp hard and almost cry when he thought of his oath and god and how religious he is? Mitt, thanks for sharing with us how hard it was for you to be a man of god in the face of the simple line of reasoning laid out above. Wasn’t it a page out of a testimony? With the tears.

I guess if I was a believer I’d see following my oath as a pretty simple thing under the circumstances. But, he really wanted to highlight and draw attention to his deep relationship to god. So, he cried for public praise (while unwittingly letting us know that doing what he thought his god required was the most difficult thing he’d ever done).

When Mormons make unpopular choices, it can be customary to blame God for their choices. Romney is no different in this respect.

As long as Romney's decisions are influenced by Mormonism (a part of who he says he is) we won't be able to trust him. To some degree, the same is true of other mormon politicians also, although some mormon politicians may be capable of using their own conscience to do the right things. But by Romney using his religion as a crutch as he did in this decision, Romney abdicated his potential for good decision making to elements that are not entirely clear to us. We know by Romney's talk about his religious beliefs that mormon beliefs and influences played a part of his decision or at least, to provide cover needed to hide from taking full responsibility for his decision. This is all bad any way you look at it. I don't agree with his decision but I would have had more respect for him if he had simply stated the facts of the case as he saw them and left it at that. By bringing up his religion, he proves that he is hiding something and doesn't want to be responsible for his actions. If I were for conviction, I might be thinking '...so he did the right thing. But it appears that he may have done it for the wrong reasons, despite the fact that he said the right things about why he decided as he did'.


I wish this board would put my posts where I put them. In this case, I posted this second post at the bottom of the chain, far below my comment above. Does anyone know how to make a post go where we put them instead of stacking them all below your first post in any given thread? The only thing I've found that works is to log out of RFM and then to go back in again, find the chain, and then make your other comments.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2020 08:48AM by azsteve.

I left the church partly because of Mitt Romney. I felt he often said miss truths. This led me to investigating him more. As I did this, I was exposed to more information about the Church. One article was dealing with lying for the Lord. That article exposed me to several other Mormon discrepancies.

As I resigned my position in the church, I brought up my concerns to a member of the Stake Presidency. His answer was “all politicians lie.” That was not what I wanted to hear. I wanted to hear him defend Romney or say Mormons should not lie or to make a statement against lying. To me, I thought honesty was one of the most important Mormon values...” Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?”

THIS TIME, GOOD FOR ROMENY TO TRULY (AT LEAST TRY TO) FOLLOW HIS VALUES.

I don’t believe in his church. I am currently not very high on any religion. It is bad that the only Republican, to at least try, to follow his values is from someone I know his church is not true. But at least in this case, he is true to his values. What does that say for all these evangelicals that turn a blind eye?

I think in the end, these so called religious people sold their souls. Their children are watching. There will be massive future defections from their religious beliefs from their children and grand children. Hypocrisy hurts.

I agree Value if the Lord's servants and his people have to lie, what good is their truth?

Might as well throw your Do What is Right and Let the Consequences Follow mormon ad poster in the garbage. You have become no different than any other con man who believes the ends justifies the means.

Yes, even if Romney acted honorably in this case that in no way indicates that the LDS church is honest or honorable. There is no vindication for Mormonism in this.

I am not saying good mormons can't choose the right but I am asking why can't they just choose it on their own. Why do they have to be led into it, coerced into it like children?

Also just because someone does something that is not in their best interest politically in the short term does not automatically ensure they are doing it because it is right. This is the long con the church plays by being unpopular talking about issues that appear they are standing for something while waiting until you aren't looking to slip you the tithing bill later.

In his speech, Romney says he "swore an oath before God ... I am a profoundly religious person. (Did he really say this? Yes) I take an oath before God as enormously consequential." He says he hopes "we respect each other's good faith." Further, his promise before God to apply impartial justice required he put his personal biases aside. Wouldn't we expect this is even he weren't religious?

My point is does this sound like the thinking of an independent person? Or does it sound like his God made him do it. Unfortunately the Senate floor did not allow yellow t shirts to be worn at this time but here again someone is acting as a puppet instead of an independent agent able to reason for themself what's right.

I normally don't wade into debates here, but I've seen a lot of Mitt Romney over the years. He has many flaws, including (sometimes) a lack of honesty. However, I think there's adequate evidence to show that he is a true believer: a believer in both God and the LDS church.

Mormons are programmed from an early age to believe in covenants and oaths before God. This is done from baptism through the endowment ceremony and beyond. Lying for the Lord is one thing, but breaking a vow made to God is quite another.

I find it very plausible that Mitt wanted to vote to acquit for political reasons, but had to vote to convict solely due to his conscience. This is what he said in his speech:

"As a senator-juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong."

He's pretty explicit. Something had to make him vote contrary to all of the political pressure that he was under, and I think he told us exactly what it was.

CZ

Yes, the faucets in the Romney home dispense Kool-Aid rather than water. He is a true believer.

Several years ago he did a radio interview with a host who was critical of Romney and his religion. After the conclusion of the discussion, when the mic was off, he went off on the interviewer for misrepresentations of Mormonism. The conversation is off-the-cuff, heated, and in my opinion frank. The impression it conveys is of a true believer.

I just looked up the interview. The last five minutes are powerful; the last ten minutes worth hearing; and the first ten useful if you want to hear what stimulated the argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IFkaCji-UDA

oops, sorry... didn't see the note at the top from admin. So I'll write something else that's different from what I just said and got deleted.

Romney's got some personal animosity against Trump, which has nothing to do with the politics or god, He doesn't let past slights be forgotten. He's probably basking in the Mormon thought that at the judgement day he will sit as judge against all his enemies and condemn them to Hell.

Romney is a noodle head.

People are impressed that Romney got choked up talking about his oath to god.

Ugh, thought hearing about Romney this and Romney that in the news was all over with in 2012. Now here we are again.

Mormons sure are publicity hungry.

I took an oath before my dog and these stuffed animals that I would never discuss Romney in 2020. (Choking up) This thread made me break that oath.

in b 4 ~ momjeans.gif ~

I have a little bit of the inside story on this, so I'm going to explain exactly what is happening.

First, let me explain that unless you have specific training in the particular personality disorder I'm going to mention then when you read this you won't really comprehend what I'm talking about.

Second, Yes Romney is a True Believer. And he is a man of integrity. That doesn't mean I agree with him. He is brainwashed by having been raised in the Mormon Church and by the need to be obedient to the church. If only he was able to stop believing I think he could be a big influence for good.

Background info: While the 2016 campaign was going on there were certain people with psychological training who began to take a close look at Trump. Hereafter I will refer to Trump as "T". Romney at the time held a high position in the Republican Party. It was Romney they brought their concerns to. Do I need to rehash the numerous falsehoods told by T? Things such as claiming his political rivals in the primary campaign were incredibly evil such as being confederates of Lee Harvey Oswald etc. The accusations were outrageous and not normal.

Many Republicans for a long time have felt their representatives and candidates have let their opponents on the other side of the aisle get away with murder (literally). Regardless of what T said, people who felt invigorated by seeing a Republican candidate who would hit hard and not pull any punches flocked to T. They saw T as a Savior of sorts: Finally someone who is not a political insider who can come from the outside and clean up the swamp. Someone who doesn't owe anyone. And he's not running around pushing religion in order to get the nomination. T attracted lots of people who have been tired of being walked on and tired of watching their representatives in D.C. get trampled and never achieve their promises.

Here's 6 minutes of background on the personality disorder:
http://www.fisheadmovie.com/watch1

This disorder is diagnosed by looking at lifetime behaviors and patterns. It takes a long, and extensive record to get this diagnosis. Included in the diagnosis are such behaviors as:
1) promiscuity
2) inability to be faithful to a spouse/significant other for long term
3) behaviors of a con artist
4) cheating others
5) financial irresponsibility or appropriating the resources of others for his own personal use.
6) extravagant lifestyle
7) bullying
8) hatred of others when does not get own way (sometimes this can be concealed for years until the time to strike is decided).
9) manipulation of others for ones own ends.
10) Charisma: the ability to put other people at ease. Friendliness. Charming. Humorous.
11) Fearless. Lack of anxiety.
12) Ability to read others and pick up on their vulnerabilities
13) quick with comeback comments

The many concerns were reported to Romney, and this is why Romney made the speech he did calling "T" a Con Artist.

After T won the election Romney second-guessed himself and when T asked him to interview to become Secretary of State, Romney being the kind of guy who is willing to forgive, believing people can change, and being pressured by other people to indeed join T's administration, did go and interview. However, the motivation of T was not what Romney hoped. T is a master at manipulating people and Romney is not. Romney got conned.

I very much believe Romney really is following his conscience.

Now, this does not mean the impeachment hearings have been right or wrong, nor does it mean there are not other politicians who are not Con Artists. Fact is the vast majority of members of Congress are likely people who have varying degrees of this personality disorder. One does not get elected to high office nowadays with the amount of money that it requires without being charming and capable of conning people. And being able to get lots of money out of people. In modern society where money talks and people fawn over those who are charming, a con artist nearly always wins.

Probably too political.

True.

That's right. And he's the closest thing ever to the "White Horse Prophecy." It's conceivable that, over time, he will become respected in the party. He could possibly save it from remaining the ugly thing that it is now.

What's ironic is that Mormons won't see it. They see nothing but conformity and groupthink.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2020 07:55PM by donbagley.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/


Someone should write a book / screenplay about the interplay between the two.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2020 10:49PM by GNPE.

Pierre: About that job as Secretary of State...

Don: Yes, What about it?

Pierre: Isn't that what you wanted to talk about?

Don: That job's filled. I do have an opening as 3rd Alternate Trade Delegate to Quebec. I gather you know French?

Pierre: My French is kind of rusty. Have you spoken to John Kerry?

I’m and ex mormon 2nd but an American first. Props to him.

I’m an independent btw. I don’t care what party you know who is. He’s scum. I could be civil towards anyone as long as they’re left of you know who.

Romney saw what every other intelligent person could see. It has nothing to do with Mormonism.

I'm an anti-Mormon, and I would have voted the same way.

Mitt better get a dog. The dog will be the only friend he will have after what he has done. The dog won't even like him because Mitt will put the dog and kennel on top of the car and drive down the highway.

"Mitt will put the dog and kennel on top of the car and drive down the highway."

I am still pissed about this.

Re: Romney’s thinking at the time of the dog carrier on top the car episode:

The episode is just a snapshot regarding how Mormons are taught to think of “The Born in the Covenant” person as being a special descendant of God, whereas animals are evolved creatures over whom Man is designed to have dominion.

Therefore, the thinking in Mormonism is: whatever the Man decides is correct to do with the animal is absolutely correct. Why? Because God ordered it that way. Hopefully nowadays a lot of Mormons are now able to recognize that animals have feelings of fear and anxiety just as humans do.

Hopefully Romney even recognizes that now. We all have done stupid things when we were younger and now are able to see that we did wrong. The important question is “Did we learn a lesson from it?” and “Have we corrected our wrong thinking?” We can’t all be perfect. And, we shouldn’t be trying to be perfect. As humans who are NOT descended from God we should have the ability to admit we can’t be perfect and we are going to make bad judgement calls. We each should be allowed the chance to correct our wrong thinking and not be forever condemned by our past mistakes.

Point still is: if Romney were able to divorce himself from the false beliefs of the church he could really be a great leader and a man of integrity. He would just need to see that the wrong ideas he has held that diminished others were wrong.

And Rubicon’s comment that Romney is not going to have any friend at all after this is exactly correct. The Republican Party is known for NEVER FORGIVING even so much as a wayward delegate who makes a statement in support of a non-Republican candidate.

Romney publicly cast a vote against the party’s power brokers. He will never be forgiven. And Democrats aren’t about to forgive him either for his past. He’s going to be “a man without a country” so-to-speak, from here on. I think the GOP will work against his re-election. So will all the Democrats. He just committed political suicide. The 2 Party system is now going to go completely against him.

If this guy had any brains he’d wake up and realize what a load of hooey the Mormon Church is. But he’s brainwashed, so that can never happen. That would be a 1 in a Million Miracle.

Me, too. Romney? Pah! The dog story was enough to convince me that Romney is unfit for any office, let alone one where he gets to sit in judgement on anyone. Even President Trump.

Yeah, where was his self righteous moral outrage as a Bain executive while buying out companies and displacing tens of thousands of working people?

His self righteous moral outrage is packed up in the dog carrier on the roof of the car. He feels perfectly fine that way. Not a hint of pangs of conscience.

A Midwesterner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, where was his self righteous moral outrage
> as a Bain executive while buying out companies and
> displacing tens of thousands of working people?

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
> His self righteous moral outrage is packed up in the dog
> carrier on the roof of the car. He feels perfectly fine that
> way. Not a hint of pangs of conscience.

I deeply agree with both of the posters quoted above, and I also have a different take on "what" Romney did, and "where" he [probably] is as a developing moral and ethical "adult."

As all of us who are adults know, when we reflect on it, "growing up" is a messy, and frequently unpredictable, process--and it doesn't end with the coming of legal age (at least for the majority of us).

Although in some ways it would be nice if we, as a society, could accurately predict that more developed, "adult," moral and ethical integrity came to us right around the time we each turn(ed) of legal age--we all know this isn't true. What hopefully happens around the time we each turn of legal age is that we immediately enter a brand new series of inner transformations and depths that (again hopefully) will never cease until we, as individuals, cease our biological lifetimes.

I think this is what we observed in Romney's statement, which was obviously deeply and genuinely felt by him, as the reasoned identification of where he, as an individual, "is" right now.

And that person that he "is" right now is not the person he once was, in ways intensely and positively important to his moral and ethical development.

His statement did take courage: for him to acknowledge to himself, and for him to publicly acknowledge to the [literal] global world.

He is evolving.

Inside, he is maturing.

Might he still repeat/continue his moral/ethical lapses with Bain-type financial activities?

Might he, even in 2020, repeat something akin to the "dog on the car roof" incident (particularly if a hypothesized new incident did not involve either a dog or a car roof)?

Yes to both questions.

Even a huge and courageous step forward does not mean that the "war" (our long-term development towards the goal of being a mensch) has been won.

But he is, obviously, actively working on it, and for him, this speech, which involved deep thought and putting together significant courage, was a big step--towards a vital inner goal that he (to my perception) obviously feels, but very likely cannot yet envision.

Which doesn't really matter much, because what I see is that (whether he realizes it or not) he has stepped onto the right path forward--even if he doesn't know, and can't conceptualize, his own personal destination.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2020 01:12PM by Tevai.

I know that old fashioned mormonism from the 1960's onward had a deep element of patriotism. It wouldn't surprise me to find that Mitt is as passionately a Mormon as he is an American. And so I was not terribly surprised by his stance, but I also know it was a calculation based on the fact that he wouldn't actually change the outcome in any way, except to be labeled a traitor to the GOP. That took courage.

I think you are giving the junior senator from Utah way too much credit.

He's a religious narcissist and now a self made martyr. We're supposed to believe his virtue signalling while he managed to coordinate with The Atlantic an article to be released the same day of his speech on the Senate floor that he was voting for impeachment? An article, I might add, that he quotes LDS scripture and hymns. It is vomit inducing. The guy literally believes he exists on a higher spiritual plane that the rest of the unwashed and un-anointed masses.

Which leads me to believe the guy has actually had his 2A because he sure acts smug and arrogant enough.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-05/romney-utah-trump-impeachment

They still haven't got that name right--mormon. They used it on the Today Show today, too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2020 11:59AM by cl2.

"My faith is at the heart of who I am."

Truer words were never spoken.

IMO, he represents exactly what TSCC is all about: he's a cold-hearted businessman who happens to be a member of and believe whole-heartedly in his cult.

You nailed it, v-queen

valkyriequeen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a member of and believe whole-heartedly in his
> cult.

A cult with no qualms about bribing people to get their games.

I can believe he acted out of a deeply held belief. As opposed to the one who fakes a belief for his own ends

Mormons are Experts at fitting their wishes / dreams / motivation into 'the gospel', among the higher ranks, there are few exceptions.


When things explode, they have an overwhelming reserve of excuses to brandish.

We know Mormonism is BS. However, didn’t Romney, somehow, put to shame the other, true believing, so called religious senators, and what their religious beliefs teach them?

You mean one yayhoo legislator from Happy Valley? That person's phone will be hearing from #50 East North Temple shortly.

I think Joe Scarborough nailed it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhbXXMjv_rQ

Joe: "A Higher Calling Guided Mitt Romney"

I respect Romney for stepping away from the herd. He has been getting a lot of abuse from LDS people on Facebook recently so it may cost him Mormon votes big time.

Wonder if this will cost him a shot at being a GA, which is clearly what he is bucking for.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/what-is-consistent-about-mitt-romney/

The following paragraph caught my eye comparing Romney's political calculus with the church's history of shifting policies:

"At the risk of alienating any readers who have stuck with me, perhaps this is the downside of all the things I admire about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. Romney takes grave and costly moral stands and reverses them with unsatisfying and incoherent explanations. His Church does the same — on polygamy and on the admissibility of black people to the universal priesthood of his Church. The Church digs in, firing thunderbolts at its critics. And then a political opportunity (statehood) or a political cost (boycotts led by the Reverend Jesse Jackson) comes into view. No coherent explanation is given for the change; no rational account of God’s provident change is offered. A revelation just comes from on high."