Annnnnnnnnnnd there it is, ladies and gentlemen.
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 4, 2024
The liberal media have another scalp to celebrate over. https://t.co/TMuChaJzdo
Annnnnnnnnnnd there it is, ladies and gentlemen.
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 4, 2024
The liberal media have another scalp to celebrate over. https://t.co/TMuChaJzdo
The only person being dumb in this discussion is the person claiming that Senators, as part of their constitutional duty with regard to approving nominees should simply ignore their responsibilities to evaluate a nominee because the president-elect is on their team. Here's a hint: that person isn't me.Tom Fox said:pagerman @ work said:So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?Tom Fox said:
Is this a joke? Congress is full of people exactly the same and it is not relevant to his job performance.
Again you probably wouldn't be ok with Trump being SECDEF either.
See article above by Hawg. You cannot be this dumb.
The House has nothing to do with confirmations, only the Senate.Science Denier said:
1. Nominate whoever you want
2. Let house republicans vote against him
3. Appoint someone anyway and let them do all the stuff that needs to be done prior to taking office
4. Once new senators are sworn, take another vote
5. Primary those that went against your nominations.
Was it a special occasion? From my experience, most fall down drunks I have encountered in my life are not seasoned, every day drinkers aka alcoholics. They are people who unexpectedly got way out over their skis because they aren't professional, experienced drinkers.pagerman @ work said:So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?Tom Fox said:
Is this a joke? Congress is full of people exactly the same and it is not relevant to his job performance.
Again you probably wouldn't be ok with Trump being SECDEF either.
Which would be the point of interviews with Senators and hearings.William Foster said:Was it a special occasion? From my experience, most fall down drunks I have encountered in my life are not seasoned, every day drinkers aka alcoholics. They are people who unexpectedly got way out over their skis because they aren't professional drinkers.pagerman @ work said:So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?Tom Fox said:
Is this a joke? Congress is full of people exactly the same and it is not relevant to his job performance.
Again you probably wouldn't be ok with Trump being SECDEF either.
I need more context or details. If they have been presented on this thread, my apologies, I missed it.
Ah yes, the old MAGA attack on DeSantis that he is really "deep state."Fitch said:Discuss. pic.twitter.com/fFQbeuuDxT
— Mark Halperin (@MarkHalperin) December 4, 2024
Edit: sorry, didn't realize this was already posted above
Rapier108 said:The House has nothing to do with confirmations, only the Senate.Science Denier said:
1. Nominate whoever you want
2. Let house republicans vote against him
3. Appoint someone anyway and let them do all the stuff that needs to be done prior to taking office
4. Once new senators are sworn, take another vote
5. Primary those that went against your nominations.
No vote on nominees is taken by the current Senate.
The new Senate will be sworn in before Trump takes office. His nominees are not official until he is in office.
Bet you justified the disgraceful Kavanaugh witch hunt in the same way.pagerman @ work said:Which would be the point of interviews with Senators and hearings.William Foster said:Was it a special occasion? From my experience, most fall down drunks I have encountered in my life are not seasoned, every day drinkers aka alcoholics. They are people who unexpectedly got way out over their skis because they aren't professional drinkers.pagerman @ work said:So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?Tom Fox said:
Is this a joke? Congress is full of people exactly the same and it is not relevant to his job performance.
Again you probably wouldn't be ok with Trump being SECDEF either.
I need more context or details. If they have been presented on this thread, my apologies, I missed it.
You would be 100% wrong.William Foster said:Bet you justified the disgraceful Kavanaugh witch hunt in the same way.pagerman @ work said:Which would be the point of interviews with Senators and hearings.William Foster said:Was it a special occasion? From my experience, most fall down drunks I have encountered in my life are not seasoned, every day drinkers aka alcoholics. They are people who unexpectedly got way out over their skis because they aren't professional drinkers.pagerman @ work said:So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?Tom Fox said:
Is this a joke? Congress is full of people exactly the same and it is not relevant to his job performance.
Again you probably wouldn't be ok with Trump being SECDEF either.
I need more context or details. If they have been presented on this thread, my apologies, I missed it.
Your girl at work trying to ruin a man and his family because he's a constitutionalist and not a marxist...
Just part of the process right?
This one too?
F congress, every dem is a crook and most republicans are as well. Give me the veteran with "We The People" on his forearm. Of course they were going to make sh** up about him. They're insider trading trash. Tyrannical masters posing as our "servants".
He's a good poster, just highlighting what a sham these congressional witch hunts...sorry, "hearings"...against anyone conservative always are. Sick of it. And congress is so broken and disgustingly corrupt (morally as well), they are the last people we should be wanting to conduct such hearings. F em all, save a handful.aginresearch said:
Did you even look at pagerman@work's posting history or did you kneejerk reflexively insinuate something about the poster because they dared to question a person's qualifications or fitness to serve as SECDEF?
I'll save you the trouble of researching their posting history to say that pagerman@work has been consistently conservative and makes very incisive posts that show a deeper understanding of policy and politics.
Their concerns are purely political. They voted for Biden's nominees. That is all I need to know. Toe the line or get targeted by the head of your party for replacement.pagerman @ work said:The only person being dumb in this discussion is the person claiming that Senators, as part of their constitutional duty with regard to approving nominees should simply ignore their responsibilities to evaluate a nominee because the president-elect is on their team. Here's a hint: that person isn't me.Tom Fox said:pagerman @ work said:So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?Tom Fox said:
Is this a joke? Congress is full of people exactly the same and it is not relevant to his job performance.
Again you probably wouldn't be ok with Trump being SECDEF either.
See article above by Hawg. You cannot be this dumb.
If there is nothing to the allegations against Hegseth, he should be able to answer their questions easily and explain himself in a manner that puts the Senators' concerns to rest. But no nominee is ever above being questioned.
Stressboy said:I've seen your posting or should I say trolling for a while now and its not really worth discussing. If I made a mistake prove me wrong. Tell me how much you love Pete and conservative values. The only bull**** is your stick of acting ignorant.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Don't change directions. What is it about him that you think I don't like? Support your claim or just admit that you made a bull**** statement.Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Please explain what I don't like about him?Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
What makes this guy worth voting for?
You don't like him for one!
Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.
I'll tell you why Hegseth is worth their vote.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:1. The founding fathers gave the Senate the ability to vote down presidential nominees. You're putting your bias with the next sentence.flyrancher said:You cannot believe the founding fathers of this country established that clause of the Constitution so that a few nitpicking senators could completely derail a president's program for frivolous reasons. They want to wield power over a president in order to perpetuate the deep state bureaucracy. Think about it critically, keeping in mind that the bureaucracy did not exist and was not envisioned when it was written.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:How did you come to this conclusion?flyrancher said:The senate has to have the power to preclude a felon, serial killer, or Al Capone from being confirmed to an office if nominated by a misguided president.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
So why do they have the power to reject the nominee?
They should not vote against someone who they just suspect is not up to the job. Let the President have his choices for his staff and live with the result. If the nominees are that bed, they will be fired very quickly.
The President doesn't just get his choice. The Senate is also responsible for the well-being of this country.
Over my 65 years of voting, the Republican Party invariably fails to operate efficiently when in power because of internal power struggles and democrats will do all they can to promote those power struggles.
Maybe they were thinking about Benedict Arnold when they wrote that.
2. This is checks and balances. Trump does not have carte blanche power here to do whatever he wants within the government.
3. Why is Hegseth worth their vote?
Yes it is.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Stressboy said:I've seen your posting or should I say trolling for a while now and its not really worth discussing. If I made a mistake prove me wrong. Tell me how much you love Pete and conservative values. The only bull**** is your stick of acting ignorant.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Don't change directions. What is it about him that you think I don't like? Support your claim or just admit that you made a bull**** statement.Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Please explain what I don't like about him?Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
What makes this guy worth voting for?
You don't like him for one!
Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.
I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.
Trump will certainly nominate somebody for that position and he'll get confirmed. It may simply not be Hegseth.BoydCrowder13 said:
It is kind of funny how this is the hill some posters want to die on. Even Trump seems to be wavering.
No one knew or cared who this guy was a month ago. Now he is the only hope for the DOD.
Just to remind that Senate terms are 6 years, which means that every 2 years only 1/3rd of the Senate is up for re-election. So in two years, only 2 of the Senators on the list of 6 will be up for re-election, Collins from Maine and Graham.Tom Fox said:Their concerns are purely political. They voted for Biden's nominees. That is all I need to know. Toe the line or get targeted by the head of your party for replacement.pagerman @ work said:The only person being dumb in this discussion is the person claiming that Senators, as part of their constitutional duty with regard to approving nominees should simply ignore their responsibilities to evaluate a nominee because the president-elect is on their team. Here's a hint: that person isn't me.Tom Fox said:pagerman @ work said:So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?Tom Fox said:
Is this a joke? Congress is full of people exactly the same and it is not relevant to his job performance.
Again you probably wouldn't be ok with Trump being SECDEF either.
See article above by Hawg. You cannot be this dumb.
If there is nothing to the allegations against Hegseth, he should be able to answer their questions easily and explain himself in a manner that puts the Senators' concerns to rest. But no nominee is ever above being questioned.
I agree and think everyone and especially most politicians have had their moments of imbibing too much. However, it is certainly reasonable to explore allegations of drinking on the job and other things especially if the person in question is basically going to be in a 24/7 job that requires them being on their game all the time. And if there are enough that are concerned, move on to the next candidate.William Foster said:Was it a special occasion? From my experience, most fall down drunks I have encountered in my life are not seasoned, every day drinkers aka alcoholics. They are people who unexpectedly got way out over their skis because they aren't professional, experienced drinkers.pagerman @ work said:So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?Tom Fox said:
Is this a joke? Congress is full of people exactly the same and it is not relevant to his job performance.
Again you probably wouldn't be ok with Trump being SECDEF either.
I need more context or details. If they have been presented on this thread, my apologies, I missed it.
So the Senate, despite being an equal branch of government to the executive, should roll over for any president's nominees, and thus abrogate their constitutional role in the nomination process?jrdaustin said:Yes it is.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Stressboy said:I've seen your posting or should I say trolling for a while now and its not really worth discussing. If I made a mistake prove me wrong. Tell me how much you love Pete and conservative values. The only bull**** is your stick of acting ignorant.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Don't change directions. What is it about him that you think I don't like? Support your claim or just admit that you made a bull**** statement.Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Please explain what I don't like about him?Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
What makes this guy worth voting for?
You don't like him for one!
Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.
I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.
Did you have issues with Austin? He was confirmed 93-2.
What about Pete Buttigieg, who's primary qualification was that he was gay and a mayor of a mid sized town? He was confirmed 86-13.
What about Anthony Blinken, the architect of the Hunter laptop letter that has been proven to be a political misinformation scheme? He was confirmed 78-22.
What about Mayorkas, who has picked and chosen what laws to enforce, thereby violating his oath of office? He was confirmed 56-43.
Let's not forget Merrick Garland, the most openly political AG in history who ushered in lawfare on the opposition. He was confirmed 70-30.
NONE of these people were denied consent. So it seems to me that the only time we have calls for denial of consent is when Republicans are being considered. So who are the partisans, again?
pagerman @ work said:So the Senate, despite being an equal branch of government to the executive, should roll over for any president's nominees, and thus abrogate their constitutional role in the nomination process?jrdaustin said:Yes it is.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Stressboy said:I've seen your posting or should I say trolling for a while now and its not really worth discussing. If I made a mistake prove me wrong. Tell me how much you love Pete and conservative values. The only bull**** is your stick of acting ignorant.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Don't change directions. What is it about him that you think I don't like? Support your claim or just admit that you made a bull**** statement.Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Please explain what I don't like about him?Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
What makes this guy worth voting for?
You don't like him for one!
Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.
I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.
Did you have issues with Austin? He was confirmed 93-2.
What about Pete Buttigieg, who's primary qualification was that he was gay and a mayor of a mid sized town? He was confirmed 86-13.
What about Anthony Blinken, the architect of the Hunter laptop letter that has been proven to be a political misinformation scheme? He was confirmed 78-22.
What about Mayorkas, who has picked and chosen what laws to enforce, thereby violating his oath of office? He was confirmed 56-43.
Let's not forget Merrick Garland, the most openly political AG in history who ushered in lawfare on the opposition. He was confirmed 70-30.
NONE of these people were denied consent. So it seems to me that the only time we have calls for denial of consent is when Republicans are being considered. So who are the partisans, again?
Darth Randy said:Annnnnnnnnnnd there it is, ladies and gentlemen.
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 4, 2024
The liberal media have another scalp to celebrate over. https://t.co/TMuChaJzdo
Pete has several member meetings on the calendar tomorrow in DC. This isn’t accurate. https://t.co/Zip0wyiKlN
— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) December 4, 2024
Elon is probably not that stupid with his money.Tom Fox said:
No matter how hard or when, I would have Elon bankroll the opponent and Trump campaign against them actively even after he is out of office.
This bs has to stop.
pagerman @ work said:So the Senate, despite being an equal branch of government to the executive, should roll over for any president's nominees, and thus abrogate their constitutional role in the nomination process?jrdaustin said:Yes it is.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Stressboy said:I've seen your posting or should I say trolling for a while now and its not really worth discussing. If I made a mistake prove me wrong. Tell me how much you love Pete and conservative values. The only bull**** is your stick of acting ignorant.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Don't change directions. What is it about him that you think I don't like? Support your claim or just admit that you made a bull**** statement.Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Please explain what I don't like about him?Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
What makes this guy worth voting for?
You don't like him for one!
Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.
I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.
Did you have issues with Austin? He was confirmed 93-2.
What about Pete Buttigieg, who's primary qualification was that he was gay and a mayor of a mid sized town? He was confirmed 86-13.
What about Anthony Blinken, the architect of the Hunter laptop letter that has been proven to be a political misinformation scheme? He was confirmed 78-22.
What about Mayorkas, who has picked and chosen what laws to enforce, thereby violating his oath of office? He was confirmed 56-43.
Let's not forget Merrick Garland, the most openly political AG in history who ushered in lawfare on the opposition. He was confirmed 70-30.
NONE of these people were denied consent. So it seems to me that the only time we have calls for denial of consent is when Republicans are being considered. So who are the partisans, again?
Not rubber stamping something because your party said so is literally the exact opposite of the swamp.TTUArmy said:The Dems had Sinema and Manchin.Ozzy Osbourne said:
A who's who of squish Republicans
We have the list in the OP.
I cringe when people say, "Republicans have a majority in the House or Senate". Do we really? Seems to be a fair amount of fence-riders and lukewarm R's to deal with on this side. Swamp is swampy.
So surely you have evidence to back up your assertion that the allegations against Hegseth are "made up sh/t", and that the Senators in question only have stopping Trump as their goal?Science Denier said:pagerman @ work said:So the Senate, despite being an equal branch of government to the executive, should roll over for any president's nominees, and thus abrogate their constitutional role in the nomination process?jrdaustin said:Yes it is.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Stressboy said:I've seen your posting or should I say trolling for a while now and its not really worth discussing. If I made a mistake prove me wrong. Tell me how much you love Pete and conservative values. The only bull**** is your stick of acting ignorant.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Don't change directions. What is it about him that you think I don't like? Support your claim or just admit that you made a bull**** statement.Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Please explain what I don't like about him?Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
What makes this guy worth voting for?
You don't like him for one!
Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.
I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.
Did you have issues with Austin? He was confirmed 93-2.
What about Pete Buttigieg, who's primary qualification was that he was gay and a mayor of a mid sized town? He was confirmed 86-13.
What about Anthony Blinken, the architect of the Hunter laptop letter that has been proven to be a political misinformation scheme? He was confirmed 78-22.
What about Mayorkas, who has picked and chosen what laws to enforce, thereby violating his oath of office? He was confirmed 56-43.
Let's not forget Merrick Garland, the most openly political AG in history who ushered in lawfare on the opposition. He was confirmed 70-30.
NONE of these people were denied consent. So it seems to me that the only time we have calls for denial of consent is when Republicans are being considered. So who are the partisans, again?
Yes if there is a reason to exclude him or her.
This is a BS, made up ***** The fact that R's are standing in the way is disgusting. Also their reason for pushback is purely trying to get Trumps policies not implemented. Specifically cleaning out the crap that is in his departments.
I'm saying that by historical example, we only have these conversations when it is an incoming Republican administration. An incoming democrat POTUS seems to historically been granted the leeway to choose his own cabinet.pagerman @ work said:So the Senate, despite being an equal branch of government to the executive, should roll over for any president's nominees, and thus abrogate their constitutional role in the nomination process?jrdaustin said:Yes it is.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Stressboy said:I've seen your posting or should I say trolling for a while now and its not really worth discussing. If I made a mistake prove me wrong. Tell me how much you love Pete and conservative values. The only bull**** is your stick of acting ignorant.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Don't change directions. What is it about him that you think I don't like? Support your claim or just admit that you made a bull**** statement.Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Please explain what I don't like about him?Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
What makes this guy worth voting for?
You don't like him for one!
Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.
I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.
Did you have issues with Austin? He was confirmed 93-2.
What about Pete Buttigieg, who's primary qualification was that he was gay and a mayor of a mid sized town? He was confirmed 86-13.
What about Anthony Blinken, the architect of the Hunter laptop letter that has been proven to be a political misinformation scheme? He was confirmed 78-22.
What about Mayorkas, who has picked and chosen what laws to enforce, thereby violating his oath of office? He was confirmed 56-43.
Let's not forget Merrick Garland, the most openly political AG in history who ushered in lawfare on the opposition. He was confirmed 70-30.
NONE of these people were denied consent. So it seems to me that the only time we have calls for denial of consent is when Republicans are being considered. So who are the partisans, again?
pagerman @ work said:So surely you have evidence to back up your assertion that the allegations against Hegseth are "made up sh/t", and that the Senators in question only have stopping Trump as their goal?Science Denier said:pagerman @ work said:So the Senate, despite being an equal branch of government to the executive, should roll over for any president's nominees, and thus abrogate their constitutional role in the nomination process?jrdaustin said:Yes it is.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Stressboy said:I've seen your posting or should I say trolling for a while now and its not really worth discussing. If I made a mistake prove me wrong. Tell me how much you love Pete and conservative values. The only bull**** is your stick of acting ignorant.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Don't change directions. What is it about him that you think I don't like? Support your claim or just admit that you made a bull**** statement.Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Please explain what I don't like about him?Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
What makes this guy worth voting for?
You don't like him for one!
Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.
I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.
Did you have issues with Austin? He was confirmed 93-2.
What about Pete Buttigieg, who's primary qualification was that he was gay and a mayor of a mid sized town? He was confirmed 86-13.
What about Anthony Blinken, the architect of the Hunter laptop letter that has been proven to be a political misinformation scheme? He was confirmed 78-22.
What about Mayorkas, who has picked and chosen what laws to enforce, thereby violating his oath of office? He was confirmed 56-43.
Let's not forget Merrick Garland, the most openly political AG in history who ushered in lawfare on the opposition. He was confirmed 70-30.
NONE of these people were denied consent. So it seems to me that the only time we have calls for denial of consent is when Republicans are being considered. So who are the partisans, again?
Yes if there is a reason to exclude him or her.
This is a BS, made up ***** The fact that R's are standing in the way is disgusting. Also their reason for pushback is purely trying to get Trumps policies not implemented. Specifically cleaning out the crap that is in his departments.
And keep in mind, none of them are saying they won't vote for him, merely that they have questions and will not, as of now, say that they absolutely will support him.
Wow is your handle appropriate.Science Denier said:pagerman @ work said:So surely you have evidence to back up your assertion that the allegations against Hegseth are "made up sh/t", and that the Senators in question only have stopping Trump as their goal?Science Denier said:pagerman @ work said:So the Senate, despite being an equal branch of government to the executive, should roll over for any president's nominees, and thus abrogate their constitutional role in the nomination process?jrdaustin said:Yes it is.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Stressboy said:I've seen your posting or should I say trolling for a while now and its not really worth discussing. If I made a mistake prove me wrong. Tell me how much you love Pete and conservative values. The only bull**** is your stick of acting ignorant.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Don't change directions. What is it about him that you think I don't like? Support your claim or just admit that you made a bull**** statement.Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Please explain what I don't like about him?Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
What makes this guy worth voting for?
You don't like him for one!
Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.
I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.
Did you have issues with Austin? He was confirmed 93-2.
What about Pete Buttigieg, who's primary qualification was that he was gay and a mayor of a mid sized town? He was confirmed 86-13.
What about Anthony Blinken, the architect of the Hunter laptop letter that has been proven to be a political misinformation scheme? He was confirmed 78-22.
What about Mayorkas, who has picked and chosen what laws to enforce, thereby violating his oath of office? He was confirmed 56-43.
Let's not forget Merrick Garland, the most openly political AG in history who ushered in lawfare on the opposition. He was confirmed 70-30.
NONE of these people were denied consent. So it seems to me that the only time we have calls for denial of consent is when Republicans are being considered. So who are the partisans, again?
Yes if there is a reason to exclude him or her.
This is a BS, made up ***** The fact that R's are standing in the way is disgusting. Also their reason for pushback is purely trying to get Trumps policies not implemented. Specifically cleaning out the crap that is in his departments.
And keep in mind, none of them are saying they won't vote for him, merely that they have questions and will not, as of now, say that they absolutely will support him.
There is zero evidence showing this **** is real.
Plus, the VAST amount of time, these made up bull**** narratives have been proven false.
My evidence is there is no evidence proving anything.
pagerman @ work said:Wow is your handle appropriate.Science Denier said:pagerman @ work said:So surely you have evidence to back up your assertion that the allegations against Hegseth are "made up sh/t", and that the Senators in question only have stopping Trump as their goal?Science Denier said:pagerman @ work said:So the Senate, despite being an equal branch of government to the executive, should roll over for any president's nominees, and thus abrogate their constitutional role in the nomination process?jrdaustin said:Yes it is.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Stressboy said:I've seen your posting or should I say trolling for a while now and its not really worth discussing. If I made a mistake prove me wrong. Tell me how much you love Pete and conservative values. The only bull**** is your stick of acting ignorant.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Don't change directions. What is it about him that you think I don't like? Support your claim or just admit that you made a bull**** statement.Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Please explain what I don't like about him?Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
What makes this guy worth voting for?
You don't like him for one!
Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.
I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.
Did you have issues with Austin? He was confirmed 93-2.
What about Pete Buttigieg, who's primary qualification was that he was gay and a mayor of a mid sized town? He was confirmed 86-13.
What about Anthony Blinken, the architect of the Hunter laptop letter that has been proven to be a political misinformation scheme? He was confirmed 78-22.
What about Mayorkas, who has picked and chosen what laws to enforce, thereby violating his oath of office? He was confirmed 56-43.
Let's not forget Merrick Garland, the most openly political AG in history who ushered in lawfare on the opposition. He was confirmed 70-30.
NONE of these people were denied consent. So it seems to me that the only time we have calls for denial of consent is when Republicans are being considered. So who are the partisans, again?
Yes if there is a reason to exclude him or her.
This is a BS, made up ***** The fact that R's are standing in the way is disgusting. Also their reason for pushback is purely trying to get Trumps policies not implemented. Specifically cleaning out the crap that is in his departments.
And keep in mind, none of them are saying they won't vote for him, merely that they have questions and will not, as of now, say that they absolutely will support him.
There is zero evidence showing this **** is real.
Plus, the VAST amount of time, these made up bull**** narratives have been proven false.
My evidence is there is no evidence proving anything.
Hegseth is definitely guilty of sleeping around prior to his latest marriage, but he is by no means alone in that shortcoming.pagerman @ work said:So surely you have evidence to back up your assertion that the allegations against Hegseth are "made up sh/t", and that the Senators in question only have stopping Trump as their goal?Science Denier said:pagerman @ work said:So the Senate, despite being an equal branch of government to the executive, should roll over for any president's nominees, and thus abrogate their constitutional role in the nomination process?jrdaustin said:Yes it is.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Stressboy said:I've seen your posting or should I say trolling for a while now and its not really worth discussing. If I made a mistake prove me wrong. Tell me how much you love Pete and conservative values. The only bull**** is your stick of acting ignorant.Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Don't change directions. What is it about him that you think I don't like? Support your claim or just admit that you made a bull**** statement.Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:Please explain what I don't like about him?Stressboy said:Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
What makes this guy worth voting for?
You don't like him for one!
Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.
I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.
Did you have issues with Austin? He was confirmed 93-2.
What about Pete Buttigieg, who's primary qualification was that he was gay and a mayor of a mid sized town? He was confirmed 86-13.
What about Anthony Blinken, the architect of the Hunter laptop letter that has been proven to be a political misinformation scheme? He was confirmed 78-22.
What about Mayorkas, who has picked and chosen what laws to enforce, thereby violating his oath of office? He was confirmed 56-43.
Let's not forget Merrick Garland, the most openly political AG in history who ushered in lawfare on the opposition. He was confirmed 70-30.
NONE of these people were denied consent. So it seems to me that the only time we have calls for denial of consent is when Republicans are being considered. So who are the partisans, again?
Yes if there is a reason to exclude him or her.
This is a BS, made up ***** The fact that R's are standing in the way is disgusting. Also their reason for pushback is purely trying to get Trumps policies not implemented. Specifically cleaning out the crap that is in his departments.
And keep in mind, none of them are saying they won't vote for him, merely that they have questions and will not, as of now, say that they absolutely will support him.
AgLA06 said:Not rubber stamping something because your party said so is literally the exact opposite of the swamp.TTUArmy said:The Dems had Sinema and Manchin.Ozzy Osbourne said:
A who's who of squish Republicans
We have the list in the OP.
I cringe when people say, "Republicans have a majority in the House or Senate". Do we really? Seems to be a fair amount of fence-riders and lukewarm R's to deal with on this side. Swamp is swampy.
Not when the intended result is to get yet another longtime beltway insider. That is the definition of The Swamp.AgLA06 said:Not rubber stamping something because your party said so is literally the exact opposite of the swamp.TTUArmy said:The Dems had Sinema and Manchin.Ozzy Osbourne said:
A who's who of squish Republicans
We have the list in the OP.
I cringe when people say, "Republicans have a majority in the House or Senate". Do we really? Seems to be a fair amount of fence-riders and lukewarm R's to deal with on this side. Swamp is swampy.