Annnnnnnnnnnd there it is, ladies and gentlemen.

The liberal media have another scalp to celebrate over. https://t.co/TMuChaJzdo

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 4, 2024

Tom Fox said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?

---

See article above by Hawg. You cannot be this dumb.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

The House has nothing to do with confirmations, only the Senate.

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.

pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?

---

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.

I need more context or details. If they have been presented on this thread, my apologies, I missed it.

William Foster said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?

---

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.

I need more context or details. If they have been presented on this thread, my apologies, I missed it.

---

Which would be the point of interviews with Senators and hearings.

Fitch said:

---

Discuss. pic.twitter.com/fFQbeuuDxT

— Mark Halperin (@MarkHalperin) December 4, 2024

Edit: sorry, didn't realize this was already posted above

---

Ah yes, the old MAGA attack on DeSantis that he is really "deep state."

Rapier108 said:

---

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.

---

The House has nothing to do with confirmations, only the Senate.

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.

---

lol. Said house. My bad.

pagerman @ work said:

---

William Foster said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?

---

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.

I need more context or details. If they have been presented on this thread, my apologies, I missed it.

---

Which would be the point of interviews with Senators and hearings.

---

Bet you justified the disgraceful Kavanaugh witch hunt in the same way.

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".

William Foster said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

William Foster said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?

---

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.

I need more context or details. If they have been presented on this thread, my apologies, I missed it.

---

Which would be the point of interviews with Senators and hearings.

---

Bet you justified the disgraceful Kavanaugh witch hunt in the same way.

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".

---

You would be 100% wrong.

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.

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.

---

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.

i have not been keeping up... an allegation of secs with a lady years ago is going to cause Hegseth to not be confirmed?

why is the bar so much higher for anti-communists?

four years ago, +81 million Americans said F Tara Reade, don't believe her credible story, and congress proceeded to confirm every last one of the candidates Reade's rapist former boss nominated, including Garland and Maryorkis.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?

---

See article above by Hawg. You cannot be this dumb.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What makes this guy worth voting for?

---

You don't like him for one!

---

Please explain what I don't like about him?

---

Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

flyrancher said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

flyrancher said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

So why do they have the power to reject the nominee?

---

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.

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.

---

How did you come to this conclusion?

The President doesn't just get his choice. The Senate is also responsible for the well-being of this country.

---

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.

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.

---

1. The founding fathers gave the Senate the ability to vote down presidential nominees. You're putting your bias with the next sentence.

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?

---

I'll tell you why Hegseth is worth their vote.

Let me start by saying I was saddend and somewhat concerned with the initial revelations that came out about Hegseth's tryst in 2017. My initial reaction was that Semper Fidelis should apply to more than just the Marines.

But now, I am 100% behind Hegseth being confirmed. Why? Because of all the bull**** that is coming out about him from the opposition media, that's why. NONE of these people had any question at all with Lloyd Austin being confirmed as SecDef. And all were silent when it came to Austin's poor handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, his implementation of DEI and having DEI supplant military readiness as the #1 objective of our military, Austin's poor decisionmaking in going AWOL without notifying the White House that he was temporarily incapacitated. And more.

And NOTHING has been said by those people with regard to Austin's mismanagement of our military. And I'll go one farther and challenge YOU to provide any link of a quote over the past 4 years where YOU have taken issue with Austin's leadership as SecDef.

Comparing Hegseth to Austin is NO comparison. I'll take Hegseth any day of the week. I am SICK of this game being played by the left to attempt to destroy Republicans and undermine a Republican administration before it even starts. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven, so I have ZERO inclination to give any credence to a leftist wants to play games an torpedo Hegseth. THAT is why Hegseth is worth their vote.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What makes this guy worth voting for?

---

You don't like him for one!

---

Please explain what I don't like about him?

---

Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.

---

Yes it is.

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?

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.

---

Trump will certainly nominate somebody for that position and he'll get confirmed. It may simply not be Hegseth.

Yeah, I don't know why some posters now seem to be opining as though as though Hegseth is now the only possible man in the universe that would be acceptable to them to do that job. If Trump were to change to somebody else, would anybody on this message board thread really still be thinking about Hegseth a couple of months from now?

And there seems to be this feeling by some that every single nomination by a POTUS (presumably Dem or GOP) should simply be rubber stamped by a Congress without any vetting or questioning whatsoever. Like how dare Congress politics play out like they've been playing out for hundreds of years.

Tom Fox said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?

---

See article above by Hawg. You cannot be this dumb.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Sure, you could try to primary Collins, but it isn't exactly a deep red state and even if you got a "real" republican on the ballot, the chance of them winning is vanishingly small. It would likely simply result in the republicans losing that seat if they were successful.

Graham you could threaten, but he won the general in 2020 by slightly more than 10 points, so he's more solid in his home state than he is on this forum.

By 2028 everyone's attention will be on the presidential race and no one will care about Trump's initial nominees in the beginning of his 2nd term, so anyone up for re-election (Thune and Murkowski) is safe, and obviously anyone in 2030 will be utterly unconcerned with any threats.

The bigger point being that it is much more difficult to "primary" Senators than it is House members.

And Trump's record with his preferred candidates is pretty bad.

William Foster said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

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.

---

So being a fall down drunk is not relevant to his ability to do his job heading the Department of Defense?

---

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.

I need more context or details. If they have been presented on this thread, my apologies, I missed it.

---

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.

What baffles me is that people are either treating this like there aren't any more qualified candidates committed to Trump's vision with some related experience....or they take the victimhood perspective and think that if we lose a nominee that it some how scores a point for the left...which is ridiculous. Consideration of what the left thinks shouldn't be even be a remote consideration. The best person for the job should be....period.

jrdaustin said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What makes this guy worth voting for?

---

You don't like him for one!

---

Please explain what I don't like about him?

---

Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.

---

Yes it is.

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?

---

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?

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:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What makes this guy worth voting for?

---

You don't like him for one!

---

Please explain what I don't like about him?

---

Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.

---

Yes it is.

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?

---

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?

---

Yes, the Republicans should give Trump his first choices and if they do not work out that is on Trump. Exactly as was done for Biden.

Darth Randy said:

---

Annnnnnnnnnnd there it is, ladies and gentlemen.

The liberal media have another scalp to celebrate over. https://t.co/TMuChaJzdo

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 4, 2024

---

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

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.

---

Elon is probably not that stupid with his money.

And by "bs" you mean the Senate performing its constitutional role in the nomination process?

pagerman @ work said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What makes this guy worth voting for?

---

You don't like him for one!

---

Please explain what I don't like about him?

---

Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.

---

Yes it is.

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?

---

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?

---

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.

TTUArmy said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

A who's who of squish Republicans

---

The Dems had Sinema and Manchin.

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 rubber stamping something because your party said so is literally the exact opposite of the swamp.

Science Denier said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What makes this guy worth voting for?

---

You don't like him for one!

---

Please explain what I don't like about him?

---

Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.

---

Yes it is.

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

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.

pagerman @ work said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What makes this guy worth voting for?

---

You don't like him for one!

---

Please explain what I don't like about him?

---

Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.

---

Yes it is.

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?

---

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?

---

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.

I have no problem with asking questions during the confirmation process. I have a BIG problem with torpedoing candidates before they even get to the process using questionable allegations, innuendo, and false accusations.

I am unequivally stating the the process is not remotely the same between Republican and Democrat candidates, and THAT is what I am sick of. I will no longer play that game. They brought it on themselves, so I say let the nominee be confirmed, and hold him accountable in the position he holds. (Something that the opposition party does NOT do...)

pagerman @ work said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What makes this guy worth voting for?

---

You don't like him for one!

---

Please explain what I don't like about him?

---

Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.

---

Yes it is.

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

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.

Science Denier said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What makes this guy worth voting for?

---

You don't like him for one!

---

Please explain what I don't like about him?

---

Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.

---

Yes it is.

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

Wow is your handle appropriate.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What makes this guy worth voting for?

---

You don't like him for one!

---

Please explain what I don't like about him?

---

Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.

---

Yes it is.

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

Wow is your handle appropriate.

---

What science am I denying here? Just curious.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

What makes this guy worth voting for?

---

You don't like him for one!

---

Please explain what I don't like about him?

---

Playing dumb about a nominee who has been know for weeks is not a good look.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I don't love or hate the guy. Hence my question, why should they vote for him? That's not a partisan question.

---

Yes it is.

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

Hegseth is definitely guilty of sleeping around prior to his latest marriage, but he is by no means alone in that shortcoming.

The allegation of rape has been examined by Megyn with a fine tooth comb, and I'm inclined to say that that specific allegation is a fabrication, for a variety of reasons which she lays out in detail. Listen to Megyn's podcast and come back with your refutations if you disagree.

The letter from Hegseth's mom was also in a different time in Hegseth's life, and his mom stated today that she wrote the email in anger, wishes she had not sent it, and states that Hegseth is not the same person he was years ago when that email was written.

The media - who hates Trump - has sights set on a Hegseth scalp, and will do ANYTHING to get it. THAT's the motivation, here, not some altruistic idea of providing advice and consent.

AgLA06 said:

---

TTUArmy said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

A who's who of squish Republicans

---

The Dems had Sinema and Manchin.

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 rubber stamping something because your party said so is literally the exact opposite of the swamp.

---

That's actually incorrect since Trump is NOT the swamp.

AgLA06 said:

---

TTUArmy said:

---

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

A who's who of squish Republicans

---

The Dems had Sinema and Manchin.

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 rubber stamping something because your party said so is literally the exact opposite of the swamp.

---

Not when the intended result is to get yet another longtime beltway insider. That is the definition of The Swamp.

My biggest takeaway from this whole story is the super secret slush fund to pay out congressional sexual harassment settlements needs to become public asap and the practice stop.