Mad Dog Mattis chosen for secretary of defense
-
Easy to break the law, Tour? That's a little harsh, if you consider granting the waiver breaking the law. So if you think the general is a well-qualified individual who would be a fine secretary of Defense why wouldn't you think the waiver is a good and proper thing?
Unless of course obstructionism for spite is going to be the game plan for the next two or four years.
3. 2. 1...
WSS
-
Easy to break the law, Tour? That's a little harsh, if you consider granting the waiver breaking the law. So if you think the general is a well-qualified individual who would be a fine secretary of Defense why wouldn't you think the waiver is a good and proper thing?
Unless of course obstructionism for spite is going to be the game plan for the next two or four years.
3. 2. 1...
WSS
Easy to break the law? That's a little harsh, if you consider granting the waiver breaking the law. So if you think the general is a well-qualified individual who would be a fine secretary of Defense why wouldn't you think the waiver is a good and proper thing?
Because presumably the law exists for a reason, and you either get the law overturned if it's not relevant, or it should be damn hard to get a waiver.
Unless of course obstructionism for spite is going to be the game plan for the next two or four years.
Well it's been the plan for the last 8 years...
WSS
-
The law presumably exists from the 1940s is to keep so many military officers from being involved in the civilian run military.
Huge surge of nationalism after the second World War. At least here in America. That's no longer the case and unless you have an actual b**** with the general I'd say the waiver is warranted.
WSS
-
I don't have a problem with the guy (yet?) but that's not the point. Still.
I expect the law will be overturned shortly then?
-
And thanks for the 3 2 1 triggered response, I'm surprised it was you and not Tour but.
As you might recall from your reading I was okay with giving Merrick Garland a hearing, he didn't seem like a bad choice compared to what Hillary probably would have put up.
And it was much more than spite it was a strategy because the apparent Democratic nominee was going to be such a distasteful candidate that at that time it seemed as if the Republicans would win the White House and be able to balance the court with a more Centrist nominee.
Seems that worked out even though at the time those best-laid plans that aft gang agley...
WSS
-
I don't have a problem with the guy (yet?) but that's not the point. Still.
I expect the law will be overturned shortly then?
I don't have a problem with the guy (yet?) but that's not the point. Still.
I expect the law will be overturned shortly then?
I guess, maybe, why not?
It's an eighty-year-old law and I'm sure you don't want to disappoint your protégé Woody by being an old man resistant to change.
WSS
-
I remember when we could just have a conversation, Steve. You wouldn't just talking in what's now become clichés and catchphrases, but we could actually discuss things like adults. You wouldn't put words in my mouth and then criticise them. You would actually be able to talk in points and counterpoints, not lump everyone who disagrees with you in to the same pigeonhole. Where's that guy? I'd like to see him come back.
-
I remember when we could just have a conversation, Steve. You wouldn't just talking in what's now become clichés and catchphrases, but we could actually discuss things like adults. You wouldn't put words in my mouth and then criticise them. You would actually be able to talk in points and counterpoints, not lump everyone who disagrees with you in to the same pigeonhole. Where's that guy? I'd like to see him come back.
I remember when we could just have a conversation, Steve. You wouldn't just talking in what's now become clichés and catchphrases, but we could actually discuss things like adults. You wouldn't put words in my mouth and then criticise them. You would actually be able to talk in points and counterpoints, not lump everyone who disagrees with you in to the same pigeonhole. Where's that guy? I'd like to see him come back.
Sorry my friend. I haven't been rude or snotty. Don't know what you expect of me. I disagreed with the Republicans on the handling of Merrick Garland and I feel the possible blowback against the general is just spite.
It was you that made that comparison right?
Speaking of a rational conversation was your response not something along the lines of well that's what you guys did? I'm serious.
Otherwise if you have serious problems with granting this waiver I'd be happy to read them should you care to give me a list.
PS I promise not to get angry about a little sarcasm.
WSS
-
pps
WSS
-
ppps
And it was tour who hoped for a long and difficult process.
WSS
-
I agree with Tour that in principle it should not be a trivial thing to get a waiver against a law. Perhaps this guy is worthy, but that should not be a hasty decision.
I made no comparison between Garland and Mattis. You did, then criticised the comparison, while saying I'm 'triggered'.
You got my response part right - "that's what the republicans did for eight years", yes, but you seem to be implying that I'm advocating the same from the democratic party for at least the next four years, which I'm not.
Then, for no apparent reason, a crack about woody and me agreeing on most things.
It's hard enough to have a rational conversation on here, but when stuff like this is happening it's nigh on impossible. If you want me to clarify anything (that we haven't already been over a thousand times...), ask.
-
"well it's been the plan for the last 8 years" is a direct quote.
If I misinterpreted that as a reference to the Supreme Court nomination I apologize.
If it wasn't, just for my own reference what was it about then?
And I think you're overly offended by a simple joke about Woody because he's the guy who repeatedly gripes that old people don't like change. As in changing an 80 year old law based on the circumstances of World War II. No hate intended toward either of you.
(a law which you indeed wondered if it should not be changed if I'm not mistaken.)
Frankly I have yet to hear any Democrat voice objections to the general so I can't really see another reason to block his nomination other than retaliation for justice Garland. Or possibly some other perceived transgression of the last 8 years.
By the way maybe unrelated, maybe not, but Chuck Schumer is already threatening filibuster on the Supreme Court nomination.
So I guess my point remains that General Mattis seems to be pretty well-respected across the aisle so in the absence of a Tit for Tat I can't think of a reason to block the nomination.
WSS
-
"well it's been the plan for the last 8 years" is a direct quote.
If I misinterpreted that as a reference to the Supreme Court nomination I apologize.
If it wasn't, just for my own reference what was it about then?
And I think you're overly offended by a simple joke about Woody because he's the guy who repeatedly gripes that old people don't like change. As in changing an 80 year old law based on the circumstances of World War II. No hate intended toward either of you.
(a law which you indeed wondered if it should not be changed if I'm not mistaken.)
Frankly I have yet to hear any Democrat voice objections to the general so I can't really see another reason to block his nomination other than retaliation for justice Garland. Or possibly some other perceived transgression of the last 8 years.
By the way maybe unrelated, maybe not, but Chuck Schumer is already threatening filibuster on the Supreme Court nomination.
So I guess my point remains that General Mattis seems to be pretty well-respected across the aisle so in the absence of a Tit for Tat I can't think of a reason to block the nomination.
WSS
OK, let's do this...
"well it's been the plan for the last 8 years" is a direct quote.
If I misinterpreted that as a reference to the Supreme Court nomination I apologize.
If it wasn't, just for my own reference what was it about then?The SCOTUS nomination didn't happen eight years ago, did it? it was maybe eight months? A year. The obstructionism from the republican party against Obama is well documented, including the government shutdown.
And I think you're overly offended by a simple joke about Woody because he's the guy who repeatedly gripes that old people don't like change. As in changing an 80 year old law based on the circumstances of World War II. No hate intended toward either of you.
I'm not offended, I'm talking about how it's just thrown in for no good reason.
(a law which you indeed wondered if it should not be changed if I'm not mistaken.)
Indeed, if it's pointless, get rid of it. I'm sure there are plenty of pointless laws. For example we have one here that governs how people can grow oranges. Oranges don't grow in the UK. It's a byproduct of being in the EU.
Frankly I have yet to hear any Democrat voice objections to the general so I can't really see another reason to block his nomination other than retaliation for justice Garland. Or possibly some other perceived transgression of the last 8 years.
It's still not about 'blocking' a nomination, and frankly, how could they? Republicans control everything. People just want to set a potentially dangerous precedent of rushing through waivers against laws because someone 'seems like a cool guy' or whatever. Due diligence is all that's being asked for.
By the way maybe unrelated, maybe not, but Chuck Schumer is already threatening filibuster on the Supreme Court nomination.
I hate the concept of filibustering. The idea that a bill can be defeated just because it's taking longer than the allotted time is stupid.
So I guess my point remains that General Mattis seems to be pretty well-respected across the aisle so in the absence of a Tit for Tat I can't think of a reason to block the nomination.
As above.
WSS
-
Okay first of all if we must split hairs if it hasn't been 8 years it's been 6. Obama had control of both houses for the first two. And Merrick Garland nomination was certainly within those six years.
I fully agreed with the government shutdown and raising of the debt limit. I agree with it if a Democrat refuses to raise the debt limit. There's a reason we have a debt limit and if it gets overwritten with ease it's useless.
The joke was thrown in for comic relief.
Of course it's about blocking the nomination. No reason not to waI've the rule otherwise. One thing I'm not sure of, maybe someone can help me out, is do you need 60 votes to waive that rule?
As for the waiver and the due diligence they are not mutually exclusive.
I completely agree on the filibuster. Seems like both sides have a tendency to Cave rather than just let the opposition stand there and talk for days at a time and look like idiots.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login