Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Democrats plan to impede Trump cabinet


Merc14

Recommended Posts

Senate Democrats are reportedly plotting a course to either delay or put a stop to President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet picks.

“While House Democrats appear to be tripling down on their failing battle plan, led by a tired septuagenarian leadership team, Senate Democrats are changing course,” Townhall’s Guy Benson reported. “Rather than angrily decrying obstructionism – some convenient exceptions to these complaints always applied – they’re returning to the pro-obstructionism approach they haven’t embraced since, well … the last Republican administration.”

Leader of the Senate Democrats, Chuck Schumer (above), is maneuvering to turn the tables on Trump in time for the next session – in anticipation of Republicans controlling the White House and legislative chambers.

“Senate Democrats are preparing to put Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks through a grinding confirmation process, weighing delay tactics that could eat up weeks of the Senate calendar and hamper his first 100 days in office,” Politico announced.

Payback

In interviews last week, multiple Democratic senators expressed that after seeing Republicans sit on Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination for almost a full year, they are far from anxious to expedite Trump’s selections for his cabinet.

“They’ve been rewarded for stealing a Supreme Court justice,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) told Politico. “We’re going to help them confirm their nominees, many of whom are disqualified? It’s not obstruction, it’s not partisan – it’s just a duty to find out what they’d do in these jobs.”

For the Democrats, delaying is the name of the game.

Article continues:  http://www.gopusa.com/?p=18081?omhide=true

Hopefully the cowardly republicans have a plan to deal with this sabotage but probably not.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well ive already signed a petition to have Sessions blocked because he's a monster and Mad Dog doesnt meet qualifications (although im extremely conflicted about this) . It seems to me you can go down the list for most and find reasons to oppose them being in the position theyre nominated for that have nothing to do with party politics.

NOT that im claiming this is anything else, just that sometimes party politics and the right thing can collide. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Well ive already signed a petition to have Sessions blocked because he's a monster and Mad Dog doesnt meet qualifications (although im extremely conflicted about this) . It seems to me you can go down the list for most and find reasons to oppose them being in the position theyre nominated for that have nothing to do with party politics.

NOT that im claiming this is anything else, just that sometimes party politics and the right thing can collide. 

 

How is Sessions a monster?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both parties try to block their nominees. None thing new here

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Well ive already signed a petition to have Sessions blocked because he's a monster and Mad Dog doesnt meet qualifications (although im extremely conflicted about this) . It seems to me you can go down the list for most and find reasons to oppose them being in the position theyre nominated for that have nothing to do with party politics.

NOT that im claiming this is anything else, just that sometimes party politics and the right thing can collide. 

 

Mattis is perfect for sec of defense 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No this is nothing new at all and was expected.  Been going on between parties forever.  Both sides will cut off their nose to spite their face if it will hurt the other side.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Senate Democrats are reportedly plotting a course to either delay or put a stop to President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet picks.

“While House Democrats appear to be tripling down on their failing battle plan, led by a tired septuagenarian leadership team, Senate Democrats are changing course,” Townhall’s Guy Benson reported. “Rather than angrily decrying obstructionism – some convenient exceptions to these complaints always applied – they’re returning to the pro-obstructionism approach they haven’t embraced since, well … the last Republican administration.”

Leader of the Senate Democrats, Chuck Schumer (above), is maneuvering to turn the tables on Trump in time for the next session – in anticipation of Republicans controlling the White House and legislative chambers.

“Senate Democrats are preparing to put Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks through a grinding confirmation process, weighing delay tactics that could eat up weeks of the Senate calendar and hamper his first 100 days in office,” Politico announced.

Payback

In interviews last week, multiple Democratic senators expressed that after seeing Republicans sit on Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination for almost a full year, they are far from anxious to expedite Trump’s selections for his cabinet.

“They’ve been rewarded for stealing a Supreme Court justice,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) told Politico. “We’re going to help them confirm their nominees, many of whom are disqualified? It’s not obstruction, it’s not partisan – it’s just a duty to find out what they’d do in these jobs.”

For the Democrats, delaying is the name of the game.

Article continues:  http://www.gopusa.com/?p=18081?omhide=true

Hopefully the cowardly republicans have a plan to deal with this sabotage but probably not.

i believe its called revenge.  they have the right and responsibility to stop bad nominees.  that is their job.  but, to drag on for ever for revenge, i don't know.

Edited by danielost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Well ive already signed a petition to have Sessions blocked because he's a monster and Mad Dog doesnt meet qualifications (although im extremely conflicted about this) . It seems to me you can go down the list for most and find reasons to oppose them being in the position theyre nominated for that have nothing to do with party politics.

NOT that im claiming this is anything else, just that sometimes party politics and the right thing can collide. 

 

and, a non-commissioned officer was qualified to give orders to 4 star generals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ashotep said:

How is Sessions a monster?

Wishful, desperate thinking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Ashotep said:

How is Sessions a monster?

 Well for me its mostly about Marijuana. His position is simply untenable in the face of the evidence. He has clearly sold his soul to lobbyists and that makes him an enemy of freedom. 

Now to go a bit further , I think if a man is deemed too racist to be a judge he should at least be fully examined prior to being allowed to become the attorney general, ESPECIALLY in light of the race problems we currently have as it relates to law enforcement. 

 

16 minutes ago, danielost said:

and, a non-commissioned officer was qualified to give orders to 4 star generals.

 General Mattis Needs a Waiver from Congress to Serve as Secretary of Defense    

This is what I was referring to about qualifications. Not his resume. 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

 Well for me its mostly about Marijuana. His position is simply untenable in the face of the evidence. He has clearly sold his soul to lobbyists and that makes him an enemy of freedom. 

Now to go a bit further , I think if a man is deemed too racist to be a judge he should at least be fully examined prior to being allowed to become the attorney general, ESPECIALLY in light of the race problems we currently have as it relates to law enforcement. 

 

General Mattis Needs a Waiver from Congress to Serve as Secretary of Defense  Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442748/general-mattis-needs-congressional-waiver-serve-defense-secretary

 

i think everyone needs a congressional waiver to serve in any position.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, danielost said:

i think everyone needs a congressional waiver to serve in any position.

In this case he needs a waiver because he hasnt been out of the military long enough. The Sec Def has been a civilian at least 7 years removed from active service by law since 1947 

 

Edit to add:Mattis is one of the , hell the only trump appointee who I have appreciated thus far. Im just saying that in light of the OP there are valid reasons 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, danielost said:

i think everyone needs a congressional waiver to serve in any position.

What do you mean?  You "think everyone needs a congressional waiver to serve in any position" as an opinion.  Or, you "think everyone needs a congressional waiver to serve in any position" as a fact that you are either uncertain of or cannot remember?  Or, are you saying that congressional waiver means confirmation to you?

Like Farmer said, Mattis needs a Congressional waiver to serve because, as of 1947 (The National Security Act of 1947), to serve as Sec. of Defense, by law (passed by Congress), you must be removed from military service for at least seven years.  Congress must provide a waiver or repeal the law.

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/02/504165486/trumps-defense-pick-challenges-rules-around-civilian-control-of-the-military

Edited by Aftermath
correct typo
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending on who you talk to, all of Trump's picks for Cabinet and other positions are either evil incarnate or the greatest for the position.  That sounds typical.  But what is known is that Trump has his agenda in mind and he has been carefully choosing the right people (initially anyway) for each position.  He's picking people with experience and not rewarding for loyalty.  That is a major plus.

 

As far as Mattis goes, what difference are four years going to make?  That rule really isn't all that pertinent anymore.  Flynn, Mattis, and now Kelly (and throw in Dunford) will make a winning team.  Besides, my brother who works inside the beltway, was under Dunford who was under Mattis when he was in Iraq.  I hear nothing but good things.  With Flynn and Kelly having been in Iraq, we are seeing competent leaders step forward like they did at the Battle of Fallen Timbers and in the Mexican-American War and WWI.  This moment is history making.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

Both parties try to block their nominees. None thing new here

Not true, Obama had almost no resistance to any of his cabinet picks and that is the norm unless someone is obviously radicalized in some way.  Disrupting a presidents first 100 days with the county in as bad a shape as I have ever seen it  is unheard of.   As for not giving Obama a SCOTUS Justice, that is also the norm when within one year of the election.  Look it up.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

 

As far as Mattis goes, what difference are four years going to make?  That rule really isn't all that pertinent anymore.  Flynn, Mattis, and now Kelly (and throw in Dunford) will make a winning team.  Besides, my brother who works inside the beltway, was under Dunford who was under Mattis when he was in Iraq.  I hear nothing but good things.  With Flynn and Kelly having been in Iraq, we are seeing competent leaders step forward like they did at the Battle of Fallen Timbers and in the Mexican-American War and WWI.  This moment is history making.

Ive seen several different headlines claiming the 7 year rule is no longer needed. Can you advise what has changed to make that so? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Farmer77 said:

Ive seen several different headlines claiming the 7 year rule is no longer needed. Can you advise what has changed to make that so? 

Well, why not make it 20 (or 30 or 50 or lifetime) years?  What is magical about 7?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RavenHawk said:

Well, why not make it 20 (or 30 or 50 or lifetime) years?  What is magical about 7?

I dont know thats why I was asking you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to guess, it is to make sure that there was adequate time for the men formerly under him to lose direct loyalty to him in the event he wanted to do a coup or something.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

If I had to guess, it is to make sure that there was adequate time for the men formerly under him to lose direct loyalty to him in the event he wanted to do a coup or something.

I believe thats the gist as well. 7 years removed from being paid to see everything as a nail also plays into this I think but I thought some of our more military minded members might have better insight. 

Edited by Farmer77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Decent article about it What Mad Dog means for the military

 

Civilian control of the military is inscribed in the Constitution, and it’s rooted in the belief that democratic governance benefits from an independent decision-making structure over military affairs. Civilian leaders help ensure that military decisions are more directly responsible to the public, and that military officials remain insulated from the whims of popular opinion.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

If I had to guess, it is to make sure that there was adequate time for the men formerly under him to lose direct loyalty to him in the event he wanted to do a coup or something.

That was the thinking but that was 1947 thinking.  It doesn’t apply today, not in today’s “Professional” military.  Loyalties are lifelong.  Back in 1947, it was draftee mentality.  Once you served your time, you were out.  Why do you think that most civilian contractors are ex-military?  We took an oath to this nation and as far as I am aware of, that oath has no expiration date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ought to be interesting, since Trump has out smarted and out maneuvered every opponent and obstacle on his way to winning the election.  Now that he's in, if the Dems want to oppose him right from the start it may be to their peril.  I'm sure he has a few tricks up his sleeve.  The Dems are all still thinking like the politicians they are and Trump is a pragmatist.  If any of his nominees are completely stonewalled it wouldn't surprise me if he renominated Democrats just as a way of saying "ok, block this."  It wouldn't matter because Trump would still be the boss and they all serve at the pleasure of the President.  He could, in effect, Shanghai a bunch of Dems and make them work as Republicans.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That was the thinking but that was 1947 thinking.  It doesn’t apply today, not in today’s “Professional” military.  Loyalties are lifelong.  Back in 1947, it was draftee mentality.  Once you served your time, you were out.  Why do you think that most civilian contractors are ex-military?  We took an oath to this nation and as far as I am aware of, that oath has no expiration date.

  That's an argument against any former military serving as the chair.  If today's military never loses their loyalty to their generals and that loyalty is greater than the loyalty to say the President for example, then the risk of coup is great.  It's the reason why the military is supposed to be non-partisan and many behaviors in uniform are forbidden. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.