Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

U.S. Senate votes in "Nuclear Option" to pass presidental appointments on a clean majority

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Aleister

My purpose in putting up a thread was to alert ATS to the breaking news, not to indulge in an echo chamber.


Nice cop out..... Don't remind me of History. Especially when it doesn't fit my worldview.

LOL Rich, dude or dudette.




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OpenMindedRealist
 


Kinda impressive how much the Founding Fathers got right...........



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by BobM88
 


I'm hearing many figures about this, but one sticks out, that of presidential appointees filibustered in the last number of decades the majority are under Obama's presidency (not talking only of judges here, but of all nominees that the president has to send to the Senate).



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

pavil

Aleister

My purpose in putting up a thread was to alert ATS to the breaking news, not to indulge in an echo chamber.


Nice cop out..... Don't remind me of History. Especially when it doesn't fit my worldview.

LOL Rich, dude or dudette.


I was addressing the claim that I wouldn't find an echo chamber here, which wasn't my intention and I told the poster that. Not copping out of anything, but answering a question. As for history, threads like this need history, they need numbers, and exact information about why something has occurred. So all points of view are welcome, at least in "my worldview". The topic is put up, then data flows to it. Hopefully from all points of view.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Fair enough.

Many here on one side or another seem to ignore the warts of their own side, while diligently pointing out every foible of the other side.

I will take you at your word....

I think one thing we all can agree on....... Politicians aren't perfect. Even though they think they are.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Thanks. Of course all points of view should show up on almost every thread here, that's why it's so fun and educational to hang around these parts.

Most of the politicians I've met don't think they're perfect, but they do feel privileged and something changes in them. The handshakes, the people coming to them to kiss the ring or wanting something, many things occur in a successful politicians life that most people will never encounter and thus not know what that particular virus of power feels like. I would have voted for Obama in '08 but not in '12, because he changed, as all people at that level change: he ordered killings. With drones, or with troops, or just not getting in the way of an operation. He became a murderer, and so he was not the same person he was even seconds before the first time he had the final say in ordered a murder. So the Obama who was elected in 2008 is a far cry from the person he became, and that's the lot of all hugely successful politicians.
edit on 21-11-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by BobM88
 


I'm hearing many figures about this, but one sticks out, that of presidential appointees filibustered in the last number of decades the majority are under Obama's presidency (not talking only of judges here, but of all nominees that the president has to send to the Senate).



That may be, but since you brought it up, I'll leave it to you to show me the numbers on it.

Recall too, though, that Bush...and, believe me, I am not, and was not, a fan of his...had people like Josh Bolton stalled for quite some time, and he was the nominee for representative to the UN.

I can't prove it, and I really don't want to try, at least not at 11PM EST, but I think the majority of the GOP filibusters since Obama became President were aimed at issues like the ACA. I could be wrong, that's just my hunch without digging up data tonight.

But think about this: of all the filibusters since January 2009, only 6 were to oppose judicial appointees. 3 of those 6 got a cloture vote anyways. 3 failed. 187 or so have passed and been confirmed. Today Harry Reid and Obama said how they had to have a straight up or down vote in the Senate because of all the obstruction at getting these appointees confirmed. They said that it was due to the obstruction of not confirming the administrations appointees, so whether or not there have been a lot of filibusters in total is irrelevant, because they claim their move here was due to appointees being held up. Its not a wonder they couldn't get a 60 vote cloture because 3 democrat Senators didn't vote for this, today.

6 filibusters of judicial appointees and they go for the nuclear option. I'm saying that just doesn't sound right. What is it they're *really* setting this precedent for? What is going to come to the Senate that they want to get through on a straight vote?

Sure, I sound suspicious and paranoid, but this is the US Government we're talking about.

Not to mention the precedent set now. If, God help us, Sarah Palin is nominated for Secretary of State...the future GOP president insane enough to nominate her can just have her pushed through with 51 votes...that's an executive appointment after all. I hope to hell that this proves to be simply hyperbole to give an example, and not some terrifying prophecy. lol.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


My echo-chamber comment was harsh, and I am sorry I said that. It was too much, and I hope you didn't take it personally. I disagree with you on this topic, but I don't mean to be an ass about it.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 10:15 PM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by buster2010
 


the list on Obama muslim appointees with ties to the muslim brotherhood has been exhausted here in ATS due a search and find it.

He got bout 6 of them with key positions.

knock yourself out.



You are the one that made the claim let's see the proof.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   

eLPresidente
So suddenly the Democratic party, which supposedly strives to represent minorities, have shut down the only voice of the minority in the Senate.

LOVE LOVE LOVE the hypocrisy.


Yes because in America majority isn't supposed to rule. And isn't the Republicans always crying about the social programs Democrats try to pass that mainly deals with minorities.

LOVE LOVE LOVE the hypocrisy.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by BobM88
 


Am signing off myself soon, so more next time, but yes, that's the horror of this action today. At some point somebody will be nominated for one of these offices who the other party abhors. John McCain did choose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate, on very little personal knowledge (he was trusting Steve Schmidt, who himself was trusting others to vet her, and it's turtles all the way down, almost a miracle that she was selected), so having someone like her nominated for a major office may be Reid's worse nightmare. Sen. Mitch McConnell told Reid on the Senate floor that he would regret this move, maybe sooner than he thinks, and as we know the elephant has a long memory. Jeez, it used to be they all got along and were buddies outside the floor, now some of them hardly talk to one another.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   

BobM88
reply to post by Aleister
 


My echo-chamber comment was harsh, and I am sorry I said that. It was too much, and I hope you didn't take it personally. I disagree with you on this topic, but I don't mean to be an ass about it.


Wow, thanks. Not for myself, but for how cool that is. You are a gentleman and a scholar, and your points and numbers are real and not pulled out of the air, you make people like me think and have to dig to back up my words, and in addition to that you are self-aware enough to take someone else's feelings into consideration. Appreciated. I hope I live up to that standard and those words myself as I post.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


I just got too caught up into something that neither of us can do anything about, and fell into that stupid trap of forgetting that I'm not just writing words in the ether, there's a real person on the other end of our conversation here. Truthfully, your post saying that you didn't want an echo chamber, you enjoyed the actual dialogue:
A. Reminded me that I like that about this place too.
and
B. Made me realize I'd been a jag and had to man up and apologize. So, hey, right back at you!


Enough of that, heh...I posted somewhere earlier tonight about George Carlin's gift for reminding us that we're all idiots, and while this is sort of OT, its actually not...especially not the first minute or two:




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by BABYBULL24
 


Someone wrote in another thread that it was incorrect that Reid said this, and that he, (Reid), had resisted this until the "obstructionism" was just too great. Senator Reid is apparently a great statesman and I simply never noticed.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


And you are baiting, you know the threads because you, yourself posted on most of them, search, that is what the search button is for.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Unless I've missed it, no one has commented of the fact that the Supreme Court nominees remain super majority while all the rest simple majorities.

Why is this? If it's good enough for all other nominees, why not the supreme court nominees as well?

Is this an admission on the Democrats part that a super majority is, in fact, a wise thing?

Is it merely due to the new rule being advantageous for the Dems in this form?

I don't get it???





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join