Full Senate passes waiver allowing Mattis to be defense secretary

a reply to: pirhanna

Too bad they pretty much just ushered him in without a fuss earlier this week. Even though they said they'd put up a fight.

While I think most of Trump's appointees are a hodgepodge nightmare of pay to play, conflicts of interest, or just incompetence, I haven't found anything objectionable about Mattis. He actually seems qualified and competent to serve the position.

Mattis is a great choice and would have been no matter which side won.

I caught some of the hearing and it looked like he was a popular choice compared to the questioning on other appointments.

The election is over and it is OK for both sides to agree on some things. The few who are still in election mode are doing a disservice to everyone. This garbage of opposing appointments just to be obstructionists needs to stop on both sides.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
So, they're going to ignore the law and give him their blessing?

Nice, let's all ignore the law and to hell with any order.

The law states he needs a waiver.

They are following the law. He still needs one from Congress.

Good though, Mattis is a great choice.

~Tenth

Okay, that's cool, a waiver is great.

Damn, I'm only 10, but I want to drive. Where do I get my waiver?

So...your answer is a nonsensical comparison?

Fake outrage towards the Trump admin then?

Got it.

If you can't provide a single reason why he should not be confirmed, outside of ' well they have this stupid law', then yeah, it's fake outrage.

~Tenth

Fake outrage? No, just trying to understand the complexity of the situation.

As I've said if the law needs changing, change it. I'm sure it was put in place with checks and balances in mind, but cool, it's no longer fit for purpose, now I understand.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
So, they're going to ignore the law and give him their blessing?

Nice, let's all ignore the law and to hell with any order.

The law provides them with the opportunity to apply a waiver.

All Trump's picks in hearings this week are doing well, especially Ben Carson and Jeff Sessions. Two with the biggest question marks over them. Carson sounded a cut above the senators on the HUD committee, and sessions was very cool as lies were told about him then debunked one by one.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
So, they're going to ignore the law and give him their blessing?

Nice, let's all ignore the law and to hell with any order.

The law states he needs a waiver.

They are following the law. He still needs one from Congress.

Good though, Mattis is a great choice.

~Tenth

Okay, that's cool, a waiver is great.

Damn, I'm only 10, but I want to drive. Where do I get my waiver?

So...your answer is a nonsensical comparison?

Fake outrage towards the Trump admin then?

Got it.

If you can't provide a single reason why he should not be confirmed, outside of ' well they have this stupid law', then yeah, it's fake outrage.

~Tenth

Fake outrage? No, just trying to understand the complexity of the situation.

As I've said if the law needs changing, change it. I'm sure it was put in place with checks and balances in mind, but cool, it's no longer fit for purpose, now I understand.

The law should be maintained to give the Senate the easy opportunity to reject a military person who they feel is not adequately separated from
their military duty.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I believe it's invention was to make sure that there was no military take over of civilian posts during elections and changing of powers at the executive level.

It's still a good law to have. I would rather a waiver be required by both houses, than to just let them go straight from military to policy maker if you know what I mean.

I apologise for my earlier tone.

~Tenth

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

They obeyed the law by granting the waiver. There is nothing below board in anyway here.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
As I've said if the law needs changing, change it. I'm sure it was put in place with checks and balances in mind, but cool, it's no longer fit for purpose, now I understand.

So tell us, why do you think this law needs changing?

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
So, they're going to ignore the law and give him their blessing?

Nice, let's all ignore the law and to hell with any order.

The military is the same way. If you have really any crime on your record, you may need a waiver. Even for a misdemeanor pot charge.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
So, they're going to ignore the law and give him their blessing?

Nice, let's all ignore the law and to hell with any order.

The law states he needs a waiver.

They are following the law. He still needs one from Congress.

Good though, Mattis is a great choice.

~Tenth

Okay, that's cool, a waiver is great.

Damn, I'm only 10, but I want to drive. Where do I get my waiver?

What an idiotic parallel to attempt to draw.

First you complain that they're ignoring the law and when that's proven to be demonstrably false, you come up with some false equivalence and continue to cling to your indignation.

But, just for poops and giggles, to answer your question: certain states have a waiver that allows someone as young as 13 to legally drive on a farm. So you just need to wait a few more years and you can get your farm license.

I know it was a ridiculous comparison, but thanks for providing more examples of the wonders of a waiver.

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
So, they're going to ignore the law and give him their blessing?

Nice, let's all ignore the law and to hell with any order.

The military is the same way. If you have really any crime on your record, you may need a waiver. Even for a misdemeanor pot charge.

Hooray for the waiver, eh?

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Damn I'm 10 and a genius and need to get into college... Where do I get my waiver?


There are always exceptions to the rules (or laws)

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
So, they're going to ignore the law and give him their blessing?

Nice, let's all ignore the law and to hell with any order.

The law states he needs a waiver.

They are following the law. He still needs one from Congress.

Good though, Mattis is a great choice.

~Tenth

Okay, that's cool, a waiver is great.

Damn, I'm only 10, but I want to drive. Where do I get my waiver?

What an idiotic parallel to attempt to draw.

First you complain that they're ignoring the law and when that's proven to be demonstrably false, you come up with some false equivalence and continue to cling to your indignation.

But, just for poops and giggles, to answer your question: certain states have a waiver that allows someone as young as 13 to legally drive on a farm. So you just need to wait a few more years and you can get your farm license.

I know it was a ridiculous comparison, but thanks for providing more examples of the wonders of a waiver.

Thanks for owning up to spewing idiotic (not merely ridiculous) nonsensical comparisons.

a reply to: PlasticWizard

Everything was done according to the rules, sorry you don't like it, but if it needs changing that badly, get it changed.

The U.S. House just passed the waiver.

It's official.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The U.S. House just passed the waiver.

It's official.

He'll be easily confirmed.
The only person who seems like he might struggle to get confirmed is Rex Tillerson... depends on whether Rubio is still on his mouth frothing rant at Russia and can pull away some Republican support.