What would it take?

I can't get over this quote from the party of obstruction and do nothing.



:doh:




https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-ram-through-committee-approval-of-trump-cabinet-nominees/2017/02/01/aa2b5458-e87f-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.20c86142d11a

The Republicans are a total shit show. Say what you want about Democrats, but Republicans have taken insanity and "alternative facts" to a new level. It's why I won't vote for them anymore. That party died two decades ago.

this stuff usually happens...its typical nonsense, political bickering back and forth. 9.9 times out of 10 the picks go through. I blame both sides for committing the same type of acts...It just petty and really just waste time.

both sides are taking it to new levels with each moment of obstruction. The Republicans just used the cabinet appointees as a shot across the bow that they will absolutely pass this SC nominee.

The other side of the Garland debate is that HAD Democrats had the majority in the Senate they would clearly have run him through, and the Republicans would have used the same tactics the Democrats are now using. At this point there is no greater imperative in DC at then to get your agenda through, and if the other side doesn't like it, win the seats and use whatever tactics you can while you have the power. It doesn't matter which side started it now, because both sides have done it repeatedly.

...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-ram-through-committee-approval-of-trump-cabinet-nominees/2017/02/01/aa2b5458-e87f-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.20c86142d11a

...

They need to fire the proofreader for that article. Not saying anything about the actions - just the editing:

I know what the writer means, but the Post is supposed to be better than this
...
There is Democrats they can do to prevent final confirmation of any of Trump’s picks but the plan to focus
...

I didn't know the Democrats need 60 votes to block the confirmation. I was pretty sure they only needed 41. [/sarc]
...
Supreme Court was met with fierce resistance from some Democrats, though it’s unclear whether they will have the 60 votes needed to block his confirmation.
...

Deleted Post.

both sides are taking it to new levels with each moment of obstruction. The Republicans just used the cabinet appointees as a shot across the bow that they will absolutely pass this SC nominee.



The other side of the Garland debate is that HAD Democrats had the majority in the Senate they would clearly have run him through, and the Republicans would have used the same tactics the Democrats are now using. At this point there is no greater imperative in DC at then to get your agenda through, and if the other side doesn't like it, win the seats and use whatever tactics you can while you have the power. It doesn't matter which side started it now, because both sides have done it repeatedly.



Which brings us full circle to the point that the Republicans are being headed up by a narcissistic con artist. Lol. He is a lightning rod like politics has never seen, and as long as he continues the drama, bold faces lies, and hateful comments about people, religions, races, and every thing else under the sun the tactics will continue.

Which brings us full circle to the point that the Republicans are being headed up by a narcissistic con artist. Lol. He is a lightning rod like politics has never seen, and as long as he continues the drama, bold faces lies, and hateful comments about people, religions, races, and every thing else under the sun the tactics will continue.

This all started way before Trump. I would say Pres Obama was a similar lightning rod (and not because of his skin color). I won't argue about Trump taking it to another level (I might argue Hillary would have taken it to the same that Trump is at) but it I would call it a downward spiral, and I have already said I pin the start of it somewhere around the middle of Bush 1.

So you agree. The media should wait for the facts, that's all Im asking.

The media is so corrupt that dumb people believe this stuff.

I think the media should report the facts as given to them. If the administration can't figure out what the hell its doing I am not holding the media accountable for that. If it was investigative I would agree with you that needs to be fact checked but you can't tell the media they should not report something when it is clearly the fault of the executive office. When you ask a question and get a statement from the official the accountability falls with them to have their facts together before making that order not the other way around.

They need to fire the proofreader for that article. Not saying anything about the actions - just the editing:

I know what the writer means, but the Post is supposed to be better than this


I didn't know the Democrats need 60 votes to block the confirmation. I was pretty sure they only needed 41. [/sarc]

I have been very disappointed with the writing in the Post lately.

See, the GOP needed to put their foot down on this candidate selection.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-senate-confirms-former-exxon-ceo-secretary-state-200145344--finance.html

I'm not sure who is worse, this guy or Bannon.


I'm really surprised 2 Republicans voted no do Devos.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-republicans-wont-vote-trump-education-pick-devos-194138305.html


She has no business near our education system.

Garland was not a unifying pick and, to me, was arguably more divisive in that he would have definitively swung the majority of the Court left. He would have removed the "swing vote" that Kennedy represents. Gorsuch, however, maintains the balance between the two competing substantive legal theories.

With Garland, there would be no more "you win some; you lose some" for each side of the spectrum b/c he would have been with Ginsburg/Sotomayer/Breyer/Kagan 9 times out of 10. Gorsuch preserves status quo by preserving the importance of the Kennedy swing vote.

Gorsuch is well qualified, an excellent jurist, and highly respected. He is no wing-nut, knee jerk purely political appointee (like DeVos for example). Even if you disagree with is decisions, you will be hard-pressed to find rhetorical or logical flaws in his opinions (unlike, for example, Sotomayer, who is a "jurist" by profession rather than ethic).

I expect that I will end up agreeing with the majority of his opinions.


Lord knows you guys know how I feel about Trump but from what I have read and info I have seen an heard about this guy he is the best that we can expect from Trump and honestly he seems fine with me .The Dems need to pick their battles with Trump ....this one they should let go.