Members banned from this thread: evince


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 52

Thread: Who Needs a Secretary of State?

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Which is the exact reason individuals as Bolton when Bush put him at the UN were appointed the way they are, to avoid the obvious. If you have the majority in the Senate it should never come done to a close vote if you nominate the right people

    And the Senate's role goes beyond "advice and consent," it is approval of the nominee, did you think it was established that they need the majority approval because they were just "advising and consenting?"
    you misunderstand the Senates role, and you fail to look at the historical role of deference to a presidents cabinet.
    The majority is non existent with McCain being AWOL on the committee.

    "right people?" he passed as CIA easily

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    jpp
    Posts
    2,661
    Thanks
    2,914
    Thanked 838 Times in 632 Posts
    Groans
    211
    Groaned 400 Times in 363 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    SCOTUS isn't a cabinet nomination. the criteria are different. SCOTUS is lifetime.
    cabinet is pleasure of POTUS
    yeah the one the turtle kept from getting nominated by obama. MOFOing McConnell.
    TRUMP SUCKS. TRUMP SUCKS! TRUMP SUCKS! TRUMP SUCKS!
    ​The worst name you can call trump is trump. be best PIP LUTZ
    I come in peace! YO MAMA SHOULD KNOW UH HUH!

    PIMP DADDY STFU>YURT Come Closer

  3. The Following User Groans At Oracle Of JPP 714 For This Awful Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (04-20-2018)

  4. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    I was fully aware of what a spectacularly hideous blunder post Cold War NATO expansion would be.
    My predictions have been validated.
    "Crimea was a reaction to US meddling" n #26
    That may well have played a role. But I suspect it was as much or more simply a matter of Putin's contempt for the West, with his own political ambitions.

    Some may think I'm over-thinking it here, but I trace much of this mess back to the Bush (elder) administration.

    At the end of WWII the U.S. & Germany were bitter enemies.

    BUT !!

    If Truman had showed vanquished Germany a cold shoulder, the Soviets (Stalin) could have swooped in, and turned Germany to the dark side.
    We may have had to pinch our nostrils shut to do it, but it's a good thing we did. A Germany allied with Russia today would be a very grim prospect.

    Bush?
    When the Cold War w/ USSR ended, Bush did little if anything to seduce Russia to the light side.
    Russia was left to fend for itself, and clearly, decades and a new millennium later, Russia still feels stiff-armed by the West.

    The bitter irony is, a few $Billion in ostensible charity to Russia would have been a spectacular investment, and would have paid for itself many times over.
    "Head games are silly, but if you want to buy into them.."
    Read Timothy Snider's book on Russia. Much of what the professor mentioned may fall into the category of "head-game".
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  5. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,725
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 3,573 Times in 2,247 Posts
    Groans
    8
    Groaned 161 Times in 153 Posts

    Default

    What's the point, he's just going to resign like everyone else!

  6. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Badguy View Post
    What's the point, he's just going to resign like everyone else!
    Who Needs a Secretary of State?

  7. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,725
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 3,573 Times in 2,247 Posts
    Groans
    8
    Groaned 161 Times in 153 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    Who Needs a Secretary of State?
    Just add it to the list for Kushner.

  8. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Badguy View Post
    Just add it to the list for Kushner.
    no clue what you mean,but i realize your intent.. ha ha

  9. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    SCOTUS isn't a cabinet nomination. the criteria are different. SCOTUS is lifetime.
    cabinet is pleasure of POTUS
    Thats just a feeble excuse.

  10. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    10,731
    Thanks
    4,096
    Thanked 4,265 Times in 3,123 Posts
    Groans
    1,077
    Groaned 266 Times in 254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Never
    Why do you waste board space with your idiocy?
    Keep changing the names. It doesn't change the meaning.



    Abortion
    Pro-Choice
    Women's rights
    Women's Health


  11. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    14,239
    Thanks
    1,579
    Thanked 4,734 Times in 3,515 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 291 Times in 282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hvilleherb View Post
    It should be law that Senators have an up or down vote on the president's nominees within 30 days of nomination. This is a clear case of Democrats abusing their power.
    Guess that either doesn't include Supreme Court justices, or perhaps you're just another rabid frothymouthed partisanshithead sans a memory.

  12. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    Who Needs a Secretary of State?
    We went through the Obama Administration without one........

  13. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    you misunderstand the Senates role, and you fail to look at the historical role of deference to a presidents cabinet.
    The majority is non existent with McCain being AWOL on the committee.

    "right people?" he passed as CIA easily
    How did I misunderstand? Is the Senate's role to "advise and consent" when they vote on Supreme Court Justices?

    Tradition was that the Senate gives the elected President the team that he requested but if you remember the "we're going to do our best to make him a one term President" Congress threw out those precedents during Obama's tenure

    You already have Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota saying she will vote for him and other Democrats will also, your intial article was creating a conspiracy that never existed

  14. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Irish View Post
    Why do you waste board space with your idiocy?
    You asked a question and it was answered, what do you think this is Fox and everybody wants to tell you what you want to hear?

  15. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    14,239
    Thanks
    1,579
    Thanked 4,734 Times in 3,515 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 291 Times in 282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    a) I know.

    b) Trump neither knows nor cares. To Trump it's just "drain the swamp".
    Don's draining the swamp?

    https://www.propublica.org/article/t...ncy-he-lobbied

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/u...team.html?_r=0

    http://time.com/donald-trump-drain-swamp/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.c6f6ade76246

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-n...eam-1480453288

    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/27/coal-doj-trump/

    http://fortune.com/2016/11/16/trump-...establishment/


    Another of Don’s Swamp Rats Bails …

    ... just before publication of this New Yorker article. Must be "fake" n shit.

    Icahn’s role was novel. He would be an adviser with a formal title, but he would not receive a salary, and he would not be required to divest himself of any of his holdings, or to make any disclosures about potential conflicts of interest. “Carl Icahn will be advising the President in his individual capacity,” Trump’s transition team asserted.

    In the months after the election, the stock price of CVR, Icahn’s refiner, nearly doubled—a surge that is difficult to explain without acknowledging the appointment of the company’s lead shareholder to a White House position. The rally meant a personal benefit for Icahn, at least on paper, of half a billion dollars. There was an expectation in the market—an expectation created, in part, by Icahn’s own remarks—that, with Trump in the White House and Icahn playing consigliere, the rules were about to change, and not just at the E.P.A. Icahn’s empire ranges across many economic sectors, from energy to pharmaceuticals to auto supplies to mining, and all of them are governed by the types of regulations about which he would now potentially be advising Trump.

    Janet McCabe, who left the E.P.A. in January, and now works at the Environmental Law and Policy Center, told me, “I’m not naïve. People in business try to influence the government. But the job of the government is to serve the American people, not the specific business interests of the President’s friends. To think that you have somebody with that kind of agenda bending the President’s ear is troubling.”

    Conflicts of interest have been a defining trait of the Trump Administration. The President has not only refused to release his tax returns; he has declined to divest from his companies, instead putting them in a trust managed by his children. Questions have emerged about the ongoing business ties of his daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, who, since Trump took office, have reaped nearly two hundred million dollars from the Trump hotel in Washington, D.C., and from other investments. Although Trump promised to “drain the swamp,” he has assembled a Cabinet of ultra-rich Americans, including two billionaires: Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, and Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of Commerce.

    But Icahn is worth more than the Trump family and all the members of the Cabinet combined—and, with no constraint on his license to counsel the President on regulations that might help his businesses, he was poised to become much richer. Robert Weissman, who runs the watchdog group Public Citizen, told me, “This kind of self-enrichment and influence over decision-making by an individual mogul who is simultaneously inside and outside the Administration is unprecedented. In terms of corruption, there’s nothing like it. Maybe ever.” In conversations with me, financiers who have worked with Icahn described his appointment as a kind of corporate raid on Washington. One said, “It’s the cheapest takeover Carl’s ever done.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...-on-washington

  16. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    8,490
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 3,180 Times in 2,409 Posts
    Groans
    376
    Groaned 244 Times in 225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anatta View Post
    Senate Democrats have stalled nearly every Trump nominee in government, but their growing opposition to Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State suggests they don’t want the President to have even his top national security officials.
    Their new standard seems to be that any nominee who agrees with the elected President is disqualified.

    “I don’t want a Secretary of State who is going to exacerbate the [sic] President Trump’s tendencies to oppose diplomacy,” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine (D., Va.) told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. He cited Mr. Pompeo’s opposition to Barack Obama’s nuclear deal

    Mr. Kaine may recall that Donald Trump campaigned and won while opposing the Iran nuclear deal, and if Mr. Kaine is still sore about the outcome he should have told his running mate to campaign in Wisconsin. As for regime change, that isn’t Mr. Trump’s policy as far as we can tell, though does Mr. Kaine think the world is better with a regime in Iran that spreads terror around the world?

    California Democrat Dianne Feinstein attributes her come-lately opposition to Mr. Pompeo’s allegedly undiplomatic statements about “Muslims and the LGBT community.” She doesn't like that Mr. Pompeo supports traditional marriage. This has nothing to do with rallying allies to support a containment strategy for Iran, though it might relate to her Senate primary challenge from the left this year.

    Sens. Feinstein and Kaine and 12 other Democrats voted to confirm Mr. Pompeo as CIA director—he was confirmed 66-32—perhaps because he’s so well qualified. Mr. Pompeo is a West Point and Harvard Law graduate who served three terms in Congress, and along with fellow Republican Tom Cotton unearthed the Obama Administration’s secret side deals with Tehran. He has invigorated the CIA clandestine service, tried to give Mr. Trump options on North Korea, and has gained the President’s trust. With Rex Tillerson out at State, Mr. Trump said Wednesday he had already dispatched Mr. Pompeo to conduct diplomacy with Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang.

    Defeating a Secretary of State nominee would be extraordinary. George W. Bush’s first nominee,
    Colin Powell, was confirmed by unanimous voice vote, and his second, Condoleezza Rice, by 85-13.
    Hillary Clinton received two no votes and John Kerry only three.
    Every Secretary of State nominee since 1925 has been reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee favorably.

    Mr. Pompeo may not get that courtesy. Kentucky Republican Rand Paul opposes Mr. Pompeo because he’s still litigating the 2003 Iraq war, if his questions at last week’s confirmation hearing are an indication.
    Cory Booker of New Jersey asked Mr. Pompeo if he thought “gay sex is a perversion.” Mr. Booker is an all but declared Democratic candidate for President—don’t laugh.

    All of this means that Mr. Pompeo may receive a rare unfavorable recommendation from the committee next week. His nomination can still get to the floor, but Republicans have only a 50-vote majority on foreign policy with Mr. Paul as a party of one.

    What a message that would send to America’s enemies as President Trump prepares for his North Korea summit, decides on the fate of the Iran nuclear deal, and confronts a hostile Russia. Democrats say they don’t trust Mr. Trump, but in denying him senior advisers they make it more likely he will govern by himself. Mark it down as one more example that hatred for Mr. Trump has caused many of his opponents to abandon rational judgment.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-nee...ate-1524092104
    Meh. Don't really follow Trump nominees. Even if they are confirmed, they will either quit or be fired in 6 months so why bother even learning their names.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Irish Exit For This Post:

    Oracle Of JPP 714 (04-19-2018)

Similar Threads

  1. Tillerson out and Pompeo is Secretary of State
    By katzgar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-13-2018, 09:44 AM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-01-2016, 06:00 AM
  3. We need a princess for Secretary of State!
    By tsuke in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-01-2016, 04:59 AM
  4. Meet the new Brit Secretary of State
    By moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-18-2016, 09:26 AM
  5. Clinton signals not a two-term Secretary of State
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-29-2010, 06:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •