Democrats before impeachment: "Mitt Romney is a racist, mysoginist capitalist scumbag."

Democrats after impeachment: "Mitt Romney is a saint. A man of the highest integrity and honor."

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Nah, he's still a racist, misogynist, capitalist scumbag. He's just also a devout Mormon in a Mormon state.

It's also nothing like saying you are protecting people with pre-existing conditions as you fight them in the courts. Or saying you're for small government when never oppossing wars commited by your guys. Or saying you're Constitutionalists while trampling on the Bill of Rights at every turn..

I assume you have quotes?

Why anyone engages with joe6pack is beyond me at this point. How many times do you think Trump asked if he could fire Romney?

joe, are you scared to engage? You called Romney a fraud but would not answer if you think it's important to not be a fraud. Everyone knows why you want to answer is because the hypocrisy of supporting Trump and holding that position is actually breathtaking.

To punish the mod for not banning an obvious troll is one (arguably poor) reason.

I'll call Romney and Trump a fraud. Is that ok?

I do think people defending Romney is pretty hilarious. His vote against Trump is basically the equivalent of Pelosi ripping up Trump's speech. But if it keeps the people entertained..

No, it isn't basically equivalent.

So it's not a completely meaningless gesture that stays in the news cycle for a day and allows some rubes to think that partisan politics is real?

Even if that property is common to them, it does not make them basically equivalent.

Is this another semantics discussion where you argue that because they are two different things that they aren't actually the same?

jfc dude...

apples and oranges are not basically equivalent just because they are both round

Both fruit though and they sell them in grocery stores and make juice out of them..
But yeah--apparently it is a semantics discussion.
Anyways though--the Romney stuff is a meaningless gesture. I can't pretend to state what the purpose is but probably because Romney is safe in Utah and it allows the Trumpkins to pretend like there are still big bad establishment GOP out there out to get Trump--if they don't all think qanon is blackmailing them or something. And because they could. Because they had a couple votes to play with so why not.

Tearing up Trump's speech is a symbolic gesture of protest. (It's also not meaningless.) Voting to convict and remove a sitting U.S. President is not a symbolic gesture, even when the result is forgone. They are fundamentally different.

I get that you (an ardent not a trump supporter) want to diminish Romney's action with a false equivalence. Crying about the semantics of my analogy when you could easily understand the point doesn't get it done either.

I don't even know what analogy you made. I've just seen Romney's name a bunch of times in this thread. Definitely not crying over it. (Oh I see....the apples and oranges analogy. Yeah both fruit still).
But I do like the "not a symbolic gesture....even when it's a foregone conclusion" idea.

To think that Romney's gesture was for real you'd have to believe all sorts of things about the nature of politics that aren't true--like it not being a totally scripted soap opera for mass consumption.
And thinking that Romney is a fake has nothing to do with Trump. I wasn't posting during the 2012 election but if I was you can be sure I would have been calling Romney a corporate hack then. And Trump is also a corporate hack/media creation. So that's why I can determine that it's a meaningless gesture. Because it's all fake. The comparison to Pelosi ripping up the speech is completely apt. Only it's intra-party violence as opposed to inter-party violence. Sort of like all the nonsense with John McCain.

When you're going to fall back to one of these "it's all fake" style defenses, can you save us a lot of time and just get straight to it? Like I don't really want to engage only to have any possible point hand waved away with it's all just a dream, CHESSMATE!


Me thinking Romney voting to convict and remove Trump from the Presidency being fundamentally different than Pelosi ripping up some paper with Trump's SOTU printed on it has nothing to do with my opinion of Romney.

What do you mean defense? This isn't the first time we've ever interacted. What do you think I mean when I call it meaningless theater? Theater is staged. They have actors, a script, and a production manager. The purpose is to have people like you and Joe think that politics is real. And it works.
It isn't like they are wheeling away bodies on this one. It's a vote we are talking about. A vote that means absolutely nothing. Admittedly by you. And yet you are still trying to claim it means something.
Question: Romney is a corporate hack and horrible person in every way, right?
Yet this one time he decided to go with his conscience why?
Is it your belief that out of the 53 GOP senators, that Romney is now the only honorable one? [Hint: They don't let honorable people run for president as the Republican nominee even if the plan is for them to lose]

position

I did not admit it's meaningless, only that it did not change the result. They are not the same. **** off with any semantics argument.

No, not in every way.

I don't know that he did. For his opinion, read his transcript.

The only one that honored his oath, yes.

Ok. So up are willing to accept that the Pelosi stuff is theater but not accept that the Romney stuff is theater. I suppose because you think an impeachment vote is super serious. Is this correct. One would think you would think the opposing party stuff is not theater and the intra-party stuff is theater, but you have the opposite take which is interesting.
But I need to point out that what I'm saying isn't a "defense". It's an affirmative statement. Perhaps if the conversation was me saying "politics is all fake" and you saying "it can't be fake because of Romney's (meaningless) vote" and I said "ha that vote is fake he had no intention of removing Trump"..then maybe you could call that a defense.

No. I told you I think Pelosi's action was symbolic protest. I don't think either action was meaningless theater.

+1

Luckbox:. If everything is fake, why are you even posting in this Forum?

Ok
Symbolic protest not theater.
Says totally not semantics guy.