Okay --- so WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I watched part of it, got tired of long-winded speeches, and reverted to watching specific sections. Call me lazy; I just don't have time or desire to listen to a bunch of long-winded Congressmen enjoying the sound of their own voices.

I won't call you "lazy." I will, however, point out that you are not an original voice responding to the actual proceedings.

I have watched various "here it is in 90 seconds!" postings too.....the thing with fake news? Is that they only show the stuff their viewers will clap about. THAT IS not exactly "FAKE NEWS" but is definitively BIASED NEWS ----

so. As a concerned, and stake-holding citizen of these United States, you need to make yourself listen to the ENTIRE THING.
And then APPLY YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM, and EXPERIENCE to what you actually hear.


DeVos is not qualified.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Well, Warren does remind me of a rabid bulldog when she smells blood... but I agree, DeVos should have been much more able to handle those questions and much more familiar with existing policy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

thank you.

Warren rocks my world.....but regardless of our impressions of her....SHE IS RIGHT.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I looked for every actual question/answer session from different questioners. I do not look for 'agreeable' positions when I'm looking for information. I actually want opposing positions. The cabinet works for the President, so I immediately give them the benefit of the doubt (like I have done either every President since I was old enough to understand what a President was). But the job of the Congress is to ensure the selections are reasonable. So I actually wanted to see her toughest clips. It takes one poor performance to show me problems; it takes all good performances to show me acceptability.

I call it "efficiency"... rhymes with Grug.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

But see, that's the part you missed. You missed how the committee members all challenged Sen Alexander about not having enough time to question the nominee.

Sure, you can watch clips of "what she said to Kaine" or whatever --- but the ENTIRE HEARING needs to be viewed to get a better view and deeper understanding of what is happening.


Red, I UNDERSTAND the position you are taking, and I RESPECT that you are doing your due diligence...the problem with "journalism" is that people fall for the "DeVos hearing highlights in 60 seconds!" posts.


The journalists pick and carefully choose which phrases to copy and paste, which segments of responses they are going to include in their 'responses.'

THAT is how "fake news" is born.

Look at the entire process yourself. Set aside the 3.5 hours to do that. At LEAST on DeVos. While I acknowledge you are noting your concern about her qualifications, I really do think it's imperative for you to watch THE UNABRIDGED VERSION of the hearing.

really.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I disagree with Warren more than I agree, but I'may not looking for issues, believe it or not. Trump will set the policies; his cabinet will carry them out or find another job. I'm looking for strength, knowledge, and ability... that was lacking in DeVos, as Warren proved.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you then. So, despite our ideological disagreements, we can BOTH agree she is not the one that should be hired.

THANK YOU.


thank you.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

And I understand your point, completely. But at this moment, nothing in those hearings could change my opinion on DeVos as it pertains to the appointment. I do not think she is fit.

I heard plenty of references to the questioning process, and as I understand it, they used the same format they have been using. There was a second round, although it was apparently less than was wanted. I believe the hearings were sufficient. Why beat a dead horse?

Ironically, if I had only heard good things in the clips (not 60 seconds; I watched at least 10 clips of 5+ minutes each), I would have watched the whole thing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

No need for thanks, Buzzy. That is simply my opinion and it agrees with yours. It would still be my opinion if it disagreed with you.

But I am glad we can agree this time.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

as I understand it, they used the same format they have been using. There was a second round,

NO THERE WAS NOT. PLEASE GOD PLEASE WATCH THE ENTIRE HEARING!! There were a dozen senators ASKING for a second round of questions, and they were DENIED.
There was NOT a second round.

although it was apparently less than was wanted. I believe the hearings were sufficient. Why beat a dead horse?

Because they were not sufficient, your "belief" notwithstanding. And the horse is NOT YET DEAD.

I am actually rather nonplussed by this attitude;

Alexander absolutely refused to allow a second round in a public hearing. He talked about "doing the same thing to her that we did to Obama's nominees" ----- with NO regard for the fact that those people's records were already public, and they already had resumes proving their outcomes.

This woman somehow escaped the ordeal.
It is truly truly nepotistic and partisan.

NO.

No.

But. For whatever differences of sources we viewed, I appreciate you saying you agree she is unfit. Now. The next step for our exchange here would be for you to show us what sources you used.
Please.

What sources did you access in order to make your decision?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

As I said, I watched quite a few complete question sessions, including Warren, Kaine, Sanders, Scott, and several others. I was not looking for position on issues; I was looking to see how she responded to difficult questions. Kaine ran all over her, cut her off several times demanding a yes or no answer. DeVos never even protested. Fail.

Warren brought out her lack of formal experience. The result I would have accepted was to tout other experience. She could not. The only attempt was to say she had friends who dealt with Pell Grants. Insufficient IMO. Fail.

Another Senator (can't recall her name, sorry) brought up the 'protecting students with disabilities' argument. I would have expected some strong agreement on the idea at least, if not the implementation. She did not; she deferred to her standard "I look forward to working with you on..." line. Fail.

Sanders questioned her about ensuring secondary school accessibility for the poor. She did not commit. Her only real response was along the lines of "nothing is free." Fail.

She is in over her head. Is that Sufficient?

TheRedneck

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The format: the purpose of me watching any of the hearing was to determine whether or not I agreed with her appointment. If I agreed, I would not be overly critical of her actions, but if I disagreed, I would be more apt to keep an eye on her after confirmation.

The format used has no more bearing on my decision than the Chairman applauding her in his opening remarks. It is therefore a moot subject. I hope she is not confirmed, and if she is, I will be watching her actions closely.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That is BRILLIANT. Thank you. Still, I suggest that you will get a much richer experience if you can actually view the hearings. SO FEW of us/we adult voters ever watch this stuff...EVER.

Like I said, this is the FIRST TIME I have ever spent my energy watching what happens.


THIS is our common ground. We have to listen to what the guy across the aisle actually says.
Thus, I am talking to you.

THANK YOU.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The PURPOSE is to be well-informed. Not to just accept whatever your favorite celebrity or government representative thinks.

YES. You MUST watch the thing yourself. If you will NOT do that, then any opinion you have will not be considered legitimate. Because you HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES. Personally. Yourself.

These people who are running our country are responsible for our collective welfare. This "fake news" crap has gone on long enough. Even this woman said "that is fake/false news!" ....... Franken challenged her "980% INCREASE" in student loan debt. She was COMPLETELY unaware.


ugh...

anyway ---

hey, man, I totally respect that you are too busy and working too hard to be able to watch this stuff. I understand.

See-----you ought to be able to watch it, and read it, and question it, and talk about it............from YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE and YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR DIALOGUE!!!
THat is all we "sjw" people are fighting for.
YOUR RIGHTS.

originally posted by: intrptr

First we have cut out the cancer. Trump may have won an election, but did you notice? Last I checked the vote spread in Washington DC was 95 % Hillary and 4 % Trump.

How welcome will that inaugural be?

Just bumping a timely post here......

yeah. The "inauguration" is really not so much going as expected.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That actually explains a lot. I have watched politics since Nixon resigned. I still remember it. He and Agnew were both under fire. Agnew resigned; Nixon pardoned Agnew and appointed Ford as VP; Nixon resigned; Ford pardoned Nixon.

Criminally brilliant.

Maybe I have become somewhat numbed to the shenanigans that go on every day in the cesspool capital, but I do remember being just as enthusiastic as you are now. Let me offer one word of advise: Warren is corrupt, Ryan is corrupt; McCain is corrupt: Kaine is corrupt; Pelosi is corrupt. I still have respect for a few: Sanders, Shelby, Sessions, a few others. But even with them I would not be shocked to see some corruption. That's why I keep adding exceptions to my support for Trump. I don't fully trust any of them.

Don't trust any of them. Their job is to trick you into doing so. Just like the e-mail scams, once they get your trust, they can rob you blind.

That experience you had with calling the government... your government... is typical. You will likely never talk to to anyone you ever voted for. You might get lucky enough someday to get a letter with an actual signature (not a computer-printed one), but the odds are one in a billion that they even read it before they signed it. The same goes for me, for anyone not a mover and shaker. It sucks, but it is what it is.

Watch the politics, yes... but never, ever believe the politicians' words. They mean nothing. Actions and results do mean something.

Usually something bad, in my experience.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Warren is corrupt, Ryan is corrupt; McCain is corrupt: Kaine is corrupt; Pelosi is corrupt. I still have respect for a few: Sanders, Shelby, Sessions, a few others. But even with them I would not be shocked to see some corruption. That's why I keep adding exceptions to my support for Trump. I don't fully trust any of them.

ok I am responding to this part without hearing the rest.

None of us here trust any of them!!! That is evident and sort of a 'membership' thing.......


I just really and earnestly want you to look into the FINANCIAL HOLDINGS of these people. I know you think "well, they're successful, so I want to have them as the boss." I UNDERSTAND THAT.

The thing is that you are not looking at the bigger picture, and considering that we are on ATS (and NOT youtube or FB or twitter or reddit) I would actually expect that membership has at least rudimentary knowledge about a topic.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I never liked that "SJW" thing. I don't like labels, to start with, probably my biggest gripe with the last 8 years.

I'm glad you're fighting for my rights... I am, believe it or not, fighting for yours. Just be careful you're really fighting for what you think you're fighting for. Sometimes the two are not the same.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I never liked that "SJW" thing. I don't like labels, to start with, probably my biggest gripe with the last 8 years.

I'm glad you're fighting for my rights... I am, believe it or not, fighting for yours. Just be careful you're really fighting for what you think you're fighting for. Sometimes the two are not the same.

TheRedneck

really? You're going to address me as an inferior regarding the real on-the-ground and in-the-classroom expert?

really?










that is SUCH a loaded response.


AND SO RUDE and dismissive.
wow.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You mean like Elizabeth Warren?

Kinda ironic, really... Trump released his full financial information, when he first decided to run (much more involved and detailed than his tax returns), and yet Warren has never done so.

I don't mean to pick on Warren. Really. I could find the same on McCain, Sessions, Cruz... there are no poor Senators. Even Bernie is pretty well off, despite the jokes. Pelosi is so mired in financial conflicts of interest I am amazed she still stoops to the level of being in government. The entire Bush family is so wealthy it should be illegal. The Clintons are filthy, filthy, filthy rich.

And I really don't care. I want what's mine, a chance to get filthy rich if I want or to just survive if I want. I don't care what someone else has, unless that someone else hurts me (or anyone) to get more.

So, no, I'm not going to waste time and energy researching who owns what unless they start interfering with me. Unproductive and self-destructive.

TheRedneck