The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Schumer has announced he will vote no for Gorsuch. And McCain is doing McCain things.

What has happened with Gorsuch?

When he was first announced, everything I read seemed to indicate that he was an appointment that would actually be easy enough to swallow for Democrats. All of a sudden it seems they've decided to kick off over it?
 
The vote to repeal Obamacare has been postponed indefinitely.

Probably a smart move for the President and Republicans - all things considered. It preserves at least a little room for the President to pretend this isn't a major policy failure and doesn't force congressmen to go on record with a vote that was likely going to hurt them in 2018 whichever way they went (some congressmen, not all).
 
What has happened with Gorsuch?

When he was first announced, everything I read seemed to indicate that he was an appointment that would actually be easy enough to swallow for Democrats. All of a sudden it seems they've decided to kick off over it?

It's the sky-high negative polling for President Trump amongst Democrats. The party has a very unfavorable 2018 senate map - with something like 24 of 33 seats in Democratic hands and at least a dozen in states that went for President Trump in 2016 (my numbers could be off - I haven't checked them - but I think the principle of more D senate seats in danger than R seats in the 2018 election year). So, senate Democrats see the massive anger in the party at President Trump and see compromise or bi-partisanship as something that will be poison to their base. Means it's tough for them to support even reasonable Trump administration appointments.

To be fair, Judge Gorsuch is a very conservative jurist. His views and decisions would go against most modern liberal principles - but, he is qualified for the post so in a reasonable, bi-partisan structure he should receive at least an up-or-down vote. The view dominating the Democratic party is that Judge Garland was in the same boat - and the Republicans said 'fuck you' on that one so Democrats shouldn't roll over for Gorsuch.

I think, like a lot of politics, it's smart in the short-term but disastrous in the long-term for Democrats to oppose him. It's going to build support amongst Republicans to kill the filibuster - which will decimate the ability of the minority party to oppose majority policy.
 
Gorsuch will be confirmed. If you watched any of the confirmation hearing the Feinstein and Franken need to gtfo the Senate. Total pieces of crap. Here's some good stuff:
 
What has happened with Gorsuch?

When he was first announced, everything I read seemed to indicate that he was an appointment that would actually be easy enough to swallow for Democrats. All of a sudden it seems they've decided to kick off over it?
He's certainly qualified, but as @Il Duce pointed out he's a pretty strict textualist in the same vein as Samuel Alito. Beyond that, they're mostly opposing him because senate republicans stonewalled Obama's SCOTUS nominee last year.
 
I am completely sick and tired of the entire House and Senate. It's Romper Room at its finest. A bunch of "old" adolescents who play kid games and get benefits for it. How about acting like humans and adults and vote for the best person regardless of whether they have a D, R, or I next to their name. How about put the electorate before your childish punk antics for once. Bunch of kids....
 
I am completely sick and tired of the entire House and Senate. It's Romper Room at its finest. A bunch of "old" adolescents who play kid games and get benefits for it. How about acting like humans and adults and vote for the best person regardless of whether they have a D, R, or I next to their name. How about put the electorate before your childish punk antics for once. Bunch of kids....

Yeah that would have been great for the year that Obamas nominee sat around...
 
Yeah that would have been great for the year that Obamas nominee sat around...
What's your point? To continue the BS? Cool, that doesn't help. Gorsuch should have been one of the first people confirmed, because his bonafides are up there with some of the best. DeVos should have been stopped. But again, we're not about governance anymore it seems.
 
Yeah that would have been great for the year that Obamas nominee sat around...

Not sure if you are in agreement or not, but I am one of those guys that deal with the hand that was dealt me. Vote up or down and let the dice fall where they may. I simply hate when the "game" of politics wins over the needs of the electorate. I didn't agree with what they did with Obama either.
 
What's your point? To continue the BS? Cool, that doesn't help. Gorsuch should have been one of the first people confirmed, because his bonafides are up there with some of the best. DeVos should have been stopped. But again, we're not about governance anymore it seems.

My point is that no one was bitching then. Getting the smallest dose of your own medicine shouldn't be surprising.
 
Not sure if you are in agreement or not, but I am one of those guys that deal with the hand that was dealt me. Vote up or down and let the dice fall where they may. I simply hate when the "game" of politics wins over the needs of the electorate. I didn't agree with what they did with Obama either.

I agree with you. Seeing the gnashing of teeth and bitching just starting up now is funny to me though. Very much a double standard.
 
Merrick Garland was specifically chosen to pass a Republican Senate. So yeah, it was stupid. I and my girlfriend thought he was a good choice...but here is what I said then:

My girlfriend says Merrick Garland was a wise choice by Obama, but wondering if he's just the shock troops and will be sent back full of holes for only Obama to nominate someone as bad as Kagan who will make it through because the Republicans will have used all of their political capital on Garland.

I've been bitching about this crap for a long time, maybe we should allow them to physically accost each other since we already know that the Democrats will violate the standards of discourse within the Senate. At least then it will be entertaining.
 
Pretty disheartening that reports seem to indicate President Trump will be retiring to Mar a Lago yet again this weekend. I am aware work can be done everywhere, but I seem to remember someone being very upset at President Obama's golf/vacation schedule.

Shouldnt the great businessman be trying to get the votes he needs (from his own party no less) for his healthcare bid this weekend, in DC? And why is he mad at Jared Kushner for going skiing instead of working?
 
I don't get the point. Bush was attacked for how much "vacation" he took, so was Obama. You know what, Eisenhower spent an insane amount of time at Augusta and the country didn't get bombed by the Soviets.
 
I don't get the point. Bush was attacked for how much "vacation" he took, so was Obama. You know what, Eisenhower spent an insane amount of time at Augusta and the country didn't get bombed by the Soviets.

I think the point is it was President Trump personally who consistently attacked President Obama for taking vacations and playing golf - and on at least one occasion that I recall as candidate Trump he said he wouldn't take vacations as President as there was too much work to be done. Now, 64 days in President Trump has taken more vacation, played more golf, and set a higher presidential security spending rate than any of his predecessors.

A particularly glaring case of chutzpah, even for him.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top