Live Stream - Senate debate on Jeff Sessions as Attorney General

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Democracy is such a joke. Not that they voted, or acted on the vote, but that people give 6 vote lead such authority.

It's fine to align with a winning vote, but can you act like it was any more unanimous? It doesn't bother you nearly half the vote disagrees with what was passed? It doesn't bother you that Republicans outnumber Democrats by 6, but it only won by 6? It probably doesn't, but I'm speaking more about how things in general are handled, not this specific grudge, you again probably have no problem with.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Not really because nearly half is still less than those who voted in favor. Democrats are the ones who changed the rules. Dont like the outcome blame them.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

You should thank the obama-era democrats for changing it from a 3/5 supermajority requirement to a simple majority.

On November 21, 2013, the Senate voted to require a simple majority vote of 51 Senators to pass cloture motions ending filibusters on presidential nominations for Cabinet secretary posts.

Sessions won the popular vote.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Not really because nearly half is still less than those who voted in favor. Democrats are the ones who changed the rules. Dont like the outcome blame them.

HARRY REID was so short-sighted..even without that patch on his eye.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So Democrats make the rules Republicans rule by?

How far the apple falls from the tree.

I said Democracy is kind of dumb, but mostly when not kept in perspective and as a Republican your stance was "blame the Democrats"

'kay.

You know, in school, 50% is failing.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Sessions won the popular vote.

*poke*

*poke*

what a meanie head.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
I think people should accept even one vote over half. 51 out of 100 should win. That's just my opinion.

To me when people are kids and having a vote about something and they end in a tie it only takes one person to be the vote-breaker.

All or nothing politics doesn't work very well. 100% of the representing body can't possibly agree all the time. People are different and if they're doing their job correctly then they'll vote on behalf of their constituents instead of their personal views anyway.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON

Yes Republicans are using the rule changes the Democrats made. Like I said if you dont like it bitch at them. I notice you didnt seem to have a problem with it during the last 8 years - why?

This is an issue Democrats seem to have. They are all for EO's, rule changes etc until a person wins an election they dont like. Then they throw a fit when that person uses the very authority granted to their predecessor.

Stop acting like one party will retain control forever.

a reply to: Noncents

I understand it can't be 100% all the time.

There just should be some recognition when something is passed by few percent.

All or nothing isn't what I was implying. I do think the choice should be respected, but 'all' should be the goal of good legislation.

I mean you say it can't be all, but it's just not true. Things pass with massive support a lot. This means something when things barely pass.

a reply to: ROBOTNINJADRAGON
I get where you're coming from. There's a lot of reasons for the close calls. Right now it seems to be petty partisanship going on. But that's only a piece of it. The way these lizards vote is fascinating.

Sometimes it's posturing for a future position and they want a certain thing on their track record. It might not even have anything to do with the actual subject at hand.

Sometimes it's that someone stopped by before the vote and made an offer they shouldn't refuse.

Sometimes it's about payback for donations from some organization.

I've mentioned before around here that if you watch enough politics, CSPAN live, you'll see some dumbfounding things. Someone like a recognized tried-and-true party member will go and vote against their party. Walk off the floor and give a smug little speech about their parties stance. It's wild.

ETA: And riders. Sometimes they'll vote against a perfectly good proposal because it didn't contain the riders they wanted or vice versa.

Politics is an ugly snake in the talons of a strange bird.

Sad day in America. A guy that was rejected in the 80's BY REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS alike for being an outright racist, just got confirmed as the US AG.

Anyone who wants an example of how far Republicans have fallen and how radicalized it has become, here it is.

For us moderate republicans, Jeff Sessions as the AG is one of many shames of this administration.

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Well this pretty much blows Warren's smear camapaign out of the water.

Coretta Scott King Thanks Jeff Sessions For Rosa Parks Library

Credit to Deny Arrogance in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
And of course there is this award to Sessions from the NAACP for the outstanding work he has done in civil rights.

m.imgur.com...

Credit to Deny Arrogance in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

originally posted by: Grambler

And we know because the liberal main stream media went nuts about it, that we HAVE to repsect the thougfhts of Dr. Kings family!!!

On that note, here is another gem!

The niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. says that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was attempting to play the race card by reading a letter from Coretta Scott King to smear Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions on the floor of the Senate Tuesday night.

“It’s almost like a bait and switch — stir up their emotions, use the name of King…play the race card, which she was attempting to do,” Dr. Alveda King told Fox Business’ Neil Cavuto during an interview on Wednesday.

truepundit.com...

I won't hold my breath waiting for the main stream media to show Dr. Kings family criticizing Warren for uses Corretta words as "playing the race card'.

Credit to Grambler in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Sad day in America. A guy that was rejected in the 80's BY REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS alike for being an outright racist, just got confirmed as the US AG.

Anyone who wants an example of how far Republicans have fallen and how radicalized it has become, here it is.

For us moderate republicans, Jeff Sessions as the AG is one of many shames of this administration.

sad times, but imagen had the racist kkk kissing one got elected.

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

originally posted by: TheBulk

...
If sessions is such an evil, racist man, why did the NAACP give him an award in 2009?

m.townhall.com...

Credit to TheBulk in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: interupt42

Ewwww. Hillary was feeling "the force" with that kiss from the Emperor!

That's just one video. Look at his wrap sheet. He's a down right southern hick and what makes it worse is that he is going to appoint another Alabama racist hick, Chuck Cooper as his solicitor general.

Sad.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
And of course there is this award to Sessions from the NAACP for the outstanding work he has done in civil rights.

m.imgur.com...

a reply to: Noncents

Partisan or not, it's always propaganda with the Right that ends up bothering me about these votes. Marginal victories is always 'moving mountains', while when Democrats barely pass things revision is always in order, even among themselves.

Revision of anything that barely passes should always been in order. Even if it's the Republican's that vote more as a pool in line with partisanship, I still agree that when they help pass things it sends a message too, and so I know it's low hanging fruit to complain about a victory of 6, what really bothers me is the constant "in your face, we run this, we are the majority" talk. You won by exactly the amount of seats you hold control over Democrats. To me, that's a bad message for our country.