Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by samcraig, Jan 30, 2017.
It's not obstruction. It's called extreme vetting... I thought he was a fan?
Turnabout is fair play. Suck it up, buttercup. Apparently, he was in an alternate reality the last eight years.
Barack Obama's first Cabinet was confirmed by overwhelming majorities within days.
1st... Most of Obama's nominees were not controversial
2nd...most had less conflicts of interest and more thorough ethics vetting
3rd...Obama came into office with approval ratings over 80% and won massive majorities in both houses of congress (republicans have a majority but they lost seats this election)
4th...Obama's transition was arguably better planned. It's like he actually expected to win
5th...while Obama had some very questionable policies during his tenure, he didn't spark a constitutional crisis in the first week of his presidency
Trump will do anything to deflect from him taking ownership of his decisions. He's a classic narcissist. I should note that this is not a Partisan critique - it's a critique on Trump.
*edit* wait...when was this from? he fired the AG....
There is no excuse to be delaying the votes on Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Linda McMahon, or his Treasury pick.
Democrats have also just announced that they will filibuster his Supreme Court nominee before they even know who it is. Screams of obstructionism.
Republicans were guilty of it, now the Democrats are doing it.
And, as @R.Perez has already eloquently explained, there are very good reasons for that: Not least that Mr Obama put plenty of thought into his Transition, had a mandate, chose for his administration individuals who did not have that telling whiff of cordite about themselves, - such as conflict of interest issues, - and thus, who were not deemed controversial appointments.
1. They have grounds on SCOTUS. If you don't like it blame McConnel and crew for not even giving Garland a hearing
2. Manuchin and Sessions are highly controversial. Sessions was deemed too racist by a Republican congress to be a given a federal judgeship in the 80s...not exactly a PC era. And Manuchin participated in shady mortgage practices and he has already demonstrably lied to the senate in his confirmation
3. DeVos, Perry and Carson are qualified how exactly?
4. Pruitt and the labor guy are antithetical to the agencies they will be heading
None of them should be confirmed IMO
I get your point. I, personally, would like there to be a little delay in these quoted nominations - just because it seems recklessly fast. Sure, some would say efficient - but hell, a dictatorship is more efficient than a Democracy in passing laws - so be careful. That said, there is a difference between slowing down the process and outright political obstructionism - and (generally) I'm not in the favor of the latter. These days, however, who knows..
'They did it, too' is grounds for doing it? I agree, Republicans should've given him a hearing just like Democrats should do so now.
So because you don't like them their votes should be delayed? Democrats have had plenty of time to question the nominees and Trump is not going to withdraw them. It's time for them to vote on the nominees. If they don't like the nominee, they may cast a nay vote. I said exactly the same thing when Republicans were obstructing Obama and my position has not changed.
Ah, poor little Trump. Diddums didn't get his way?
After the stunt the GOP pulled in regard to Obama's nominee for the SCOTUS, and their other obstructionist nonsense they have pulled over the years, they have no grounds for complaint whatsoever. What goes around comes around.
So because you like them or think they should just be given a free pass, they should be confirmed. Feel free to run your country how you want. In the meantime, those that live in this country and have to deal with the outcome of who is in the offices that make up policy will question any or everything we want. That's what's great about this country. And we didn't need Trump to make things great in that respect.
Like my snarky comment above - consider it extreme vetting. Trump should have NO problem with that. Why would it be ok to do this to someone entering the country but not someone about to make policy for it?
Further, any example to show Trump that he doesn't have a dictatorship is OK by me. He has some very tough lessons to learn and is probably too stubborn to learn them.
Who said anything about a free pass? By definition requiring confirmation means they don't get a free pass. I said they should get a VOTE after first having a hearing, which they've had. That's the proper process.
They can take as much time as they want to make the decision. Please indicate a law that says otherwise.
Trump created EOs outside the "proper process" - rules do not apply here.
IMO the politics and swap-like antics that area going on within both sides of the Senate and House are what put Trump in office. Let it continue as I believe the people will speak out again and continue to replace those they see as being part of the swap.
His confirmations are going to eventually happen and his SCOTUS pick battle will no doubt be several days of headlines but will also likely go through so in the end it won't matter.
How can you be in any position to criticise Republicans for doing the same if your position is that they can take as much time as they want? It may be legal, but that doesn't mean they're immune to criticism.
I get you're completely in the tank for the Democrats, but at least call a spade a spade. When Republicans blocked Garland from being given a hearing, it was disgusting. If they didn't want him they should have voted him down after questioning him, not simply ignored him. Likewise, what Democrats are doing now is disgusting. If they don't want the nominees, vote them down, don't just deny them the vote for no reason. It's especially insulting given that they've already been questioned, now they just don't want to vote.
These matters aren't to be taken lightly. If they need extra time to vote. So be it. The situations are not parallel because the candidates being deliberated on are not remotely on the same level.
And you know nothing if you think I am just in the tank for the Democrats. And it's funny that YOU are questioning MY ability to criticize.
You mean Citigroup's/Goldman Sachs's cabinet. Gee why oh why would the Republicans go along with those picks?
They've already decided to vote against many of the nominees. Heck, some of them even testified against the nominees. Why not just go ahead and vote against them then?
Perhaps it's different in your country. But right now there is grassroots movement in some Republican states to get them to vote against the nominees. Isn't it possible the Democrats are waiting to see 6 if some can be convinced? Think big picture.
I hope the Dems and Reps chose Betsy DeVos as their sacrificial goat. I completely reversed my opinion of hers, she's as unfit for the DoE as I might be. Actually, I might be a better fit (I will make sure that Italian becomes the primary subject, and that Dante's Comedy and Manzoni's The Betrothed become obligatory readings, in original language of course).
As for the other guys, especially Tillerson, they should hurry up in their vetting and vote.
Exactly!!! And Trump, the self proclaimed non politician, is acting just like the run of the mill conservative politician.
Mnunchin as well....who literally perjured himself in open questioning at the end of the hearing on the topic of robosigning.
But hell what are you gonna do, the GOP can make any small inconsequential lie into months of media stories, this guy ****ing perjures himself in front of them and any resistance to him is "just politics".
Betsy would be a complete disaster. You would be a better fit, no doubt.
Just as it took you a whole to revise your opinion on DeVos, some others need time before they can vote in good conscience.
As for Menuchen... He forgot a million dollars?! Riiiiiiiiiiiight.