Senate Democrats to Boycott Treasury and HHS Sec. Vote - One Dem. Vote Needed to Move Forward

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-31, 11:10

get ready for whiny outrage by the right wing snowflakes..

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-31, 11:11

oh - and this is per the mainstream media - who love Trump - so take it for what it's worth.

could be #FakeNews

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-31, 11:20

“This is one of the most alarming things I’ve seen in my 40 years in the U.S. Senate,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said in the hearing Tuesday. “There isn’t a fellow on the other side I do not care for. Normally they’re very honorable and decent people. That’s why it’s so shocking to me that they’re not here when we’ve given them every opportunity to be here. ... That’s not only ridiculous, it’s offensive.”

Senate Democrats to Boycott Treasury and HHS Sec. Vote - One Dem. Vote Needed to Move Forward 1550444538

Senate Democrats to Boycott Treasury and HHS Sec. Vote - One Dem. Vote Needed to Move Forward 502811600

this is the best part:

“I think they ought to stop posturing and acting like idiots,” he added. “Stop holding news conferences and come here and express yourself here and vote one way or the other.”

ummm... Senator Hatch - care to comment on Merrick Garland?

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the most-senior Republican in the chamber and a former Judiciary Committee chairman, was set to sit down with Garland Thursday afternoon, though Hatch made it clear before the meeting occurred that he wouldn’t suddenly agree to take up Garland’s nomination this year.

by Guest 2017-01-31, 12:03

Robert J Sakimano wrote:get ready for whiny outrage by the right wing snowflakes..

I expect nothing less from the children that are still whining about losing.

1st they prevent the formation of a government.

2nd they complain the government is unorganized.

3rd their lemmings point out how bad this government is.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-01-31, 12:06

LooseGoose wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:get ready for whiny outrage by the right wing snowflakes..

I expect nothing less from the children that are still whining about losing.

1st they prevent the formation of a government.

2nd they complain the government is unorganized.

3rd their lemmings point out how bad this government is.

Just like Obama's SC nomination? Hypocrite.

by **NigelUno** 2017-01-31, 12:07

LooseGoose wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:get ready for whiny outrage by the right wing snowflakes..

I expect nothing less from the children that are still whining about losing.

1st they prevent the formation of a government.

2nd they complain the government is unorganized.

3rd their lemmings point out how bad this government is.

Gosh. Sounds like your candidate won.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-31, 12:07

LooseGoose wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:get ready for whiny outrage by the right wing snowflakes..

I expect nothing less from the children that are still whining about losing.

1st they prevent the formation of a government.

2nd they complain the government is unorganized.

3rd their lemmings point out how bad this government is.

I'm sorry I offended you....#Snowflake

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-31, 12:07

NigelUno wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

I expect nothing less from the children that are still whining about losing.

1st they prevent the formation of a government.

2nd they complain the government is unorganized.

3rd their lemmings point out how bad this government is.

Gosh. Sounds like your candidate won.

by CheesySpartan 2017-01-31, 12:58

Wash Post wrote:The reality, too, is that thwarting Trump’s nominees is a goal that is largely out of reach for Democrats, thanks to their own party’s 2013 reform of filibuster rules, continued by Republicans ever since; it now takes just 51 votes to confirm a nominee for office lower than the Supreme Court.

Funny how the Dems screwed themselves on this back in 2013.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-31, 13:02

CheesySpartan wrote:
Wash Post wrote:The reality, too, is that thwarting Trump’s nominees is a goal that is largely out of reach for Democrats, thanks to their own party’s 2013 reform of filibuster rules, continued by Republicans ever since; it now takes just 51 votes to confirm a nominee for office lower than the Supreme Court.

Funny how the Dems screwed themselves on this back in 2013.

not as funny as "christians" voting for a sexual predator.

by CheesySpartan 2017-01-31, 13:17

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
CheesySpartan wrote:

Funny how the Dems screwed themselves on this back in 2013.
not as funny as "christians" voting for a sexual predator.

Nah, its way funnier! Agree to disagree.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-31, 13:19

CheesySpartan wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:not as funny as "christians" voting for a sexual predator.

Nah, its way funnier! Agree to disagree.

we probably find different things funny.

by **NigelUno** 2017-01-31, 14:13

LooseGoose wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:get ready for whiny outrage by the right wing snowflakes..

I expect nothing less from the children that are still whining about losing.

1st they prevent the formation of a government.

2nd they complain the government is unorganized.

3rd their lemmings point out how bad this government is.

Hmmm...

Democrats force delay of Tom Price confirmation vote over GOP objections

"Several GOP senators called Democrats’ boycott “unprecedented.” However, back in 2013 Republicans skipped out on a similar committee vote for Gina McCarthy, President Barack Obama’s then-nominee to lead the EPA. McCarthy was ultimately confirmed in July 2013, four months after she was first tapped to run the agency. (By comparison, it’s been nine weeks since Price was nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services.)"

by Guest 2017-01-31, 14:34

2 Trump Cabinet members approved.

Obama had 11 of his 15 Cabinet secretaries in place after his first week.

Bush had 13.

Clinton had 13.

So the Dems want to stop the winner from governing. Whiny babies.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-31, 14:39

LooseGoose wrote:2 Trump Cabinet members approved.

Obama had 11 of his 15 Cabinet secretaries in place after his first week.

Bush had 13.

Clinton had 13.

So the Dems want to stop the winner from governing. Whiny babies.

#Triggered

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-01-31, 14:58

LooseGoose wrote:2 Trump Cabinet members approved.

Obama had 11 of his 15 Cabinet secretaries in place after his first week.

Bush had 13.

Clinton had 13.

So the Dems want to stop the winner from governing. Whiny babies.

They're probably just doing some extreme vetting. You're ok with that, right?

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-31, 15:01

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:2 Trump Cabinet members approved.

Obama had 11 of his 15 Cabinet secretaries in place after his first week.

Bush had 13.

Clinton had 13.

So the Dems want to stop the winner from governing. Whiny babies.

They're probably just doing some extreme vetting. You're ok with that, right?

by **NigelUno** 2017-01-31, 15:26

LooseGoose wrote:2 Trump Cabinet members approved.

Obama had 11 of his 15 Cabinet secretaries in place after his first week.

Bush had 13.

Clinton had 13.

So the Dems want to stop the winner from governing. Whiny babies.

I'm sure if another candidate won, their Cabinet nominations would have skated through by now, right?

Like...even your candidate. Who was that again?

by Guest 2017-01-31, 15:35

NigelUno wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:2 Trump Cabinet members approved.

Obama had 11 of his 15 Cabinet secretaries in place after his first week.

Bush had 13.

Clinton had 13.

So the Dems want to stop the winner from governing. Whiny babies.

I'm sure if another candidate won, their Cabinet nominations would have skated through by now, right?

Like...even your candidate. Who was that again?

Cruz. He lost to Trump in case you missed it.

Your logic would tell you to support Hillary at that point.

by **NigelUno** 2017-01-31, 15:41

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

I'm sure if another candidate won, their Cabinet nominations would have skated through by now, right?

Like...even your candidate. Who was that again?

Cruz. He lost to Trump in case you missed it.

Your logic would tell you to support Hillary at that point.

Well...actually I meant another candidate who actually made it onto the ballot. Hypothetically, if Hillary (or your candidate) won...I'm sure you think her Cabinet nominees would have skated through by now, right? Senate Democrats to Boycott Treasury and HHS Sec. Vote - One Dem. Vote Needed to Move Forward 502811600

by CheesySpartan 2017-01-31, 15:45

NigelUno wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Cruz. He lost to Trump in case you missed it.

Your logic would tell you to support Hillary at that point.

Well...actually I meant another candidate who actually made it onto the ballot. Hypothetically, if Hillary (or your candidate) won...I'm sure you think her Cabinet nominees would have skated through by now, right?

Senate Democrats to Boycott Treasury and HHS Sec. Vote - One Dem. Vote Needed to Move Forward 4113017228

Hillary lost

by **GRR Spartan** 2017-01-31, 15:49

Hillary lost so the connies think we need authoritarian rule. One party rule and if you don't like it you get buried with alternative facts.

by **NigelUno** 2017-01-31, 15:49

CheesySpartan wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

Well...actually I meant another candidate who actually made it onto the ballot. Hypothetically, if Hillary (or your candidate) won...I'm sure you think her Cabinet nominees would have skated through by now, right?

Hillary lost

As did Goose's candidate.

by CheesySpartan 2017-01-31, 15:50

NigelUno wrote:
CheesySpartan wrote:

Hillary lost

As did Goose's candidate.

BTW Trump won

by **NigelUno** 2017-01-31, 15:53

CheesySpartan wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

As did Goose's candidate.

BTW Trump won

BTW Goose didn't vote for Trump and even called him an asshole, which makes it odd that he defends everything he says and does.

by Guest 2017-01-31, 16:08

NigelUno wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Cruz. He lost to Trump in case you missed it.

Your logic would tell you to support Hillary at that point.

Well...actually I meant another candidate who actually made it onto the ballot. Hypothetically, if Hillary (or your candidate) won...I'm sure you think her Cabinet nominees would have skated through by now, right?

History shows they would have. But I'm sure you know better.

by Guest 2017-01-31, 16:10

NigelUno wrote:
CheesySpartan wrote:

BTW Trump won

BTW Goose didn't vote for Trump and even called him an asshole, which makes it odd that he defends everything he says and does.

Oh? there are many things I've not defended but you're too blindly partisan to remember them.

Did you happen to read over the weekend where all of the people that chime in with you all week actually think you're a partisan hack? Funny thing about that is that they never disagree with you on here. So either they're lying to themselves or they're afraid that you might try your bullying act on them.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-01-31, 16:18

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

BTW Goose didn't vote for Trump and even called him an asshole, which makes it odd that he defends everything he says and does.

Oh? there are many things I've not defended but you're too blindly partisan to remember them.

Did you happen to read over the weekend where all of the people that chime in with you all week actually think you're a partisan hack? Funny thing about that is that they never disagree with you on here. So either they're lying to themselves or they're afraid that you might try your bullying act on them.

Senate Democrats to Boycott Treasury and HHS Sec. Vote - One Dem. Vote Needed to Move Forward E2ff35dda17dd259540baa0713256ba7

by **NigelUno** 2017-01-31, 16:21

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

Well...actually I meant another candidate who actually made it onto the ballot. Hypothetically, if Hillary (or your candidate) won...I'm sure you think her Cabinet nominees would have skated through by now, right?

History shows they would have. But I'm sure you know better.

So, a Republican Senate would have confirmed all of Hillary's nominees by now?

Senate Democrats to Boycott Treasury and HHS Sec. Vote - One Dem. Vote Needed to Move Forward 502811600

(again)

by **NigelUno** 2017-01-31, 16:24

LooseGoose wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

BTW Goose didn't vote for Trump and even called him an asshole, which makes it odd that he defends everything he says and does.

Oh? there are many things I've not defended but you're too blindly partisan to remember them.

Did you happen to read over the weekend where all of the people that chime in with you all week actually think you're a partisan hack? Funny thing about that is that they never disagree with you on here. So either they're lying to themselves or they're afraid that you might try your bullying act on them.

I did not read where all of the people who chime in think I'm a partisan hack.

Sounds like fake news.

by **Cameron** 2017-01-31, 20:33

LooseGoose wrote:2 Trump Cabinet members approved.

Obama had 11 of his 15 Cabinet secretaries in place after his first week.

Bush had 13.

Clinton had 13.

So the Dems want to stop the winner from governing. Whiny babies.

I will concede that the Democrats are being a bit stupid about how they're going about this, and justifying their obstructionism by pointing out Republican obstructionism of Obama does not help the political climate at all, it just makes them look petty.

On the other hand, do you think that Trump's nominees are of a quality commensurate with, say, GW Bush's nominees? I submit to you that they are not, and that that is a contributing factor in the delay. If the confirmation process is meant to be nothing more than a rubber stamp, then why do it? I think the people tasked with confirming these nominees have a duty to perform due diligence and ensure that the nominees are capable of executing their post, and that goes for both sides of the aisle.

by Guest 2017-01-31, 20:54

Cameron wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:2 Trump Cabinet members approved.

Obama had 11 of his 15 Cabinet secretaries in place after his first week.

Bush had 13.

Clinton had 13.

So the Dems want to stop the winner from governing. Whiny babies.

I will concede that the Democrats are being a bit stupid about how they're going about this, and justifying their obstructionism by pointing out Republican obstructionism of Obama does not help the political climate at all, it just makes them look petty.

On the other hand, do you think that Trump's nominees are of a quality commensurate with, say, GW Bush's nominees? I submit to you that they are not, and that that is a contributing factor in the delay. If the confirmation process is meant to be nothing more than a rubber stamp, then why do it? I think the people tasked with confirming these nominees have a duty to perform due diligence and ensure that the nominees are capable of executing their post, and that goes for both sides of the aisle.

I'm hoping they're better than Bush's. Instead of getting us into stupid wars with no end they will get us out of them.

by **Cameron** 2017-01-31, 21:45

LooseGoose wrote:
Cameron wrote:

I will concede that the Democrats are being a bit stupid about how they're going about this, and justifying their obstructionism by pointing out Republican obstructionism of Obama does not help the political climate at all, it just makes them look petty.

On the other hand, do you think that Trump's nominees are of a quality commensurate with, say, GW Bush's nominees? I submit to you that they are not, and that that is a contributing factor in the delay. If the confirmation process is meant to be nothing more than a rubber stamp, then why do it? I think the people tasked with confirming these nominees have a duty to perform due diligence and ensure that the nominees are capable of executing their post, and that goes for both sides of the aisle.

I'm hoping they're better than Bush's. Instead of getting us into stupid wars with no end they will get us out of them.

Well, better is a matter of hindsight in that sense. I should have asked "Do you think Trump's nominees are as qualified for their respective positions as Bush's nominees were?"

by Guest 2017-01-31, 21:53

Cameron wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

I'm hoping they're better than Bush's. Instead of getting us into stupid wars with no end they will get us out of them.

Well, better is a matter of hindsight in that sense. I should have asked "Do you think Trump's nominees are as qualified for their respective positions as Bush's nominees were?"

I'm biased but I think they are. DeVos might be the most questionable but she supports charters and vouchers which are what Trump wants to do. Who do you think is underqualified? Honestly I've not gone through most of them that closely because no matter the sturm und drang how much do cabinet members beyond State, Defense and Treasury really matter? The action is in the White House and Congress.

by **Cameron** 2017-01-31, 22:30

LooseGoose wrote:
Cameron wrote:

Well, better is a matter of hindsight in that sense. I should have asked "Do you think Trump's nominees are as qualified for their respective positions as Bush's nominees were?"

I'm biased but I think they are. DeVos might be the most questionable but she supports charters and vouchers which are what Trump wants to do. Who do you think is underqualified? Honestly I've not gone through most of them that closely because no matter the sturm und drang how much do cabinet members beyond State, Defense and Treasury really matter? The action is in the White House and Congress.

"Who do you think is underqualified?"

Off the top of my head:

DeVos is the one I think is most unqualified. Ben Carson is an excellent surgeon, from what I understand, but I don't know of anything in his resume that supports him being in charge of housing and urban development. I think Rick Perry is a complete fucking moron, so I haven't bothered to look into what qualifications he may or may not have to run the department of energy. Scott Pruitt seems unqualified to me, but I suspect you probably like him. I apologize if that's not the case.

I'll let others weigh in on the rest of them as going through them one by one would be a bit time consuming and I don't care enough right now to do it. Perhaps later I'll get bored and revisit it.

by Guest 2017-01-31, 22:36

Cameron wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

I'm biased but I think they are. DeVos might be the most questionable but she supports charters and vouchers which are what Trump wants to do. Who do you think is underqualified? Honestly I've not gone through most of them that closely because no matter the sturm und drang how much do cabinet members beyond State, Defense and Treasury really matter? The action is in the White House and Congress.

"Who do you think is underqualified?"

Off the top of my head:

DeVos is the one I think is most unqualified. Ben Carson is an excellent surgeon, from what I understand, but I don't know of anything in his resume that supports him being in charge of housing and urban development. I think Rick Perry is a complete fucking moron, so I haven't bothered to look into what qualifications he may or may not have to run the department of energy. Scott Pruitt seems unqualified to me, but I suspect you probably like him. I apologize if that's not the case.

I'll let others weigh in on the rest of them as going through them one by one would be a bit time consuming and I don't care enough right now to do it. Perhaps later I'll get bored and revisit it.

I mentioned Carson in another thread....let's be real, he's wacky as hell but smart so he'll learn and honestly Trump needed the diversity. He's already getting killed for no Hispanic. I'm blah on Pruitt. No strong feelings either way. Perry comes off as dumb but somehow he had a damned successful run as Governor of Texas - Forrest Gump?

by **Cameron** 2017-01-31, 22:42

LooseGoose wrote:Perry comes off as dumb but somehow he had a damned successful run as Governor of Texas - Forrest Gump?

I'm far from an expert on Texas so I can't really say with any authority. What I will say is that Trent Dilfer had a damned successful run as the QB of the Ravens that one year. It might well be that Perry is to governors what Dilfer is to QBs (succeed in spite of, not because of).

by Guest 2017-01-31, 22:45

Cameron wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:Perry comes off as dumb but somehow he had a damned successful run as Governor of Texas - Forrest Gump?

I'm far from an expert on Texas so I can't really say with any authority. What I will say is that Trent Dilfer had a damned successful run as the QB of the Ravens that one year. It might well be that Perry is to governors what Dilfer is to QBs (succeed in spite of, not because of).

I'm sure some of it was luck but he was Governor for over 14 years so he had to be doing something right. Maybe he had good advisers? Who knows?

by **NigelUno** 2017-02-01, 10:30

NigelUno wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Oh? there are many things I've not defended but you're too blindly partisan to remember them.

Did you happen to read over the weekend where all of the people that chime in with you all week actually think you're a partisan hack? Funny thing about that is that they never disagree with you on here. So either they're lying to themselves or they're afraid that you might try your bullying act on them.

I did not read where all of the people who chime in think I'm a partisan hack.

Sounds like fake news.

Fake news bump.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-02-01, 10:33

my favorite thing about Ben Carson is the fact that he has a painting in his house of him and jesus.

by Sponsored content