danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
There is no reason not to have a 90 day pause. No, Trump cannot walk and chew gum simultaneously. The reason? Because the so-called "Democrats" won't even give the man his cabinet. What they are doing is unprecedented--and un American. It's like they've all become Canadians.

WTF?
So, which cabinet picks have been rejected so far? Sessions and DeVos are already in.

Part of the delay that he had not actually properly nominated them all as early as his predecessors. And most of his recent predecessors had not had their full cabinet approved by now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38913709

At its most basic level, Mr Trump's tweet about the historic nature of the delays in assembling his "full cabinet" is demonstrably false.
As of 8 February, Mr Trump has had six of his 15 cabinet selections confirmed by the Senate, with several more awaiting final Senate approval. While he still has a way to go before his entire team is in place, it's hardly historic at this point.
Bill Clinton didn't have his final spot filled until 11 March. Republican George HW Bush took until 17 March. Barack Obama holds the modern record, as his last pick - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - didn't get her Senate vote until 28 April.
Only George W Bush, who like Mr Trump won the presidency without securing a plurality of the popular vote, had his full team in place within weeks of his inauguration, following John Ashcroft's confirmation as attorney general on 30 January.

And...

Part of the reason it took so long to fit those last pieces into their cabinets is because those past presidents had to withdraw initial selections due to scandal or insurmountable political opposition. George HW Bush's defence pick, John Tower, was voted down by the Senate. Mr Clinton swung and missed twice on attorney general before settling on Janet Reno. Mr Obama withdrew commerce nominees twice and health and human services once.
So far, Mr Trump has stuck with his original picks - although labour secretary nominee Andrew Puzder has yet to complete his ethics review and has had his confirmation hearing delayed four times.
Puzder isn't the only one of Mr Trump's wealthy nominees who has had difficulty completing the Office of Government Ethics' vetting paperwork, which has contributed to confirmation delays. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were among those who were tardy in complying with background-check requirements.
Mr Trump was also remarkably slow to come up with several cabinet picks. He didn't announce Veterans Affairs nominee David Shulkin until 11 January. Agriculture pick Sonny Perdue was unveiled just two days before inauguration on 20 January - an astounding fact, considering of Mr Trump's four predecessors, only four original nominations came after New Year's Day (George HW Bush's energy pick James Watkins was the latest, on 12 January).

Yes, Democrats are obstructionist. But as I understand it, the Republicans have the votes in Congress to win votes. But your narrative is false.

Also note that some nominees were late with their paperwork

No, it's not false. The Democrats have even stayed up all night to delay votes they KNEW they would not win.

Furthermore, compare the votes with those that Obama's initial cabinet received. Even Holder, who had a ton of baggage from his tutelage under Reno, received Republican support. Virtually none of Trump's picks have had Democratic votes. It's as if they think they should pick his cabinet.

Doctor Fate wrote:No, it's not false. The Democrats have even stayed up all night to delay votes they KNEW they would not win.

Delaying conformations by whole hours, or even a day! Clutch them pearls, darlin'.

Furthermore, compare the votes with those that Obama's initial cabinet received. Even Holder, who had a ton of baggage from his tutelage under Reno, received Republican support. Virtually none of Trump's picks have had Democratic votes. It's as if they think they should pick his cabinet.

Meh. More like they want him and the Republicans to own their choices, and make it clear they oppose. Given that, as you said, they knew they would not win, and thus far they haven't, what is the problem here? The minority and the opposition are under no obligation to support the majority and government. Indeed, some would argue that they have a duty to oppose. Clearly sometimes you do, and sometimes you don't. And you usually can only win if there is a split in the majority.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No, it's not false. The Democrats have even stayed up all night to delay votes they KNEW they would not win.

Delaying conformations by whole hours, or even a day! Clutch them pearls, darlin'.

Furthermore, compare the votes with those that Obama's initial cabinet received. Even Holder, who had a ton of baggage from his tutelage under Reno, received Republican support. Virtually none of Trump's picks have had Democratic votes. It's as if they think they should pick his cabinet.

Meh. More like they want him and the Republicans to own their choices, and make it clear they oppose. Given that, as you said, they knew they would not win, and thus far they haven't, what is the problem here? The minority and the opposition are under no obligation to support the majority and government. Indeed, some would argue that they have a duty to oppose. Clearly sometimes you do, and sometimes you don't. And you usually can only win if there is a split in the majority.

Clutch these pearls: no party has ever forced a President to start like this.

Ever.

They're the biggest whiners in history. They lost. Their candidate sucked.

Losers.

So, now they are in the corner pouting.

Doctor Fate wrote:Clutch these pearls: no party has ever forced a President to start like this.

Ever.

Cry me a river. No President in history has been such a jackass

They're the biggest whiners in history. They lost. Their candidate sucked.

Losers.

So, now they are in the corner pouting.

Maybe so, but the point remains - they have so far not been able to stop one Trump nominee, have they? Slowed it down a bit, but if he had made his picks at the usual time, and if they had submitted the required information for vetting, it would have been quicker.

And who cares if the minority who CANNOT block nominees unless majority members cross the aisle sit and pout? Your own assertions that they know they can't win the votes PROVE that it should not matter what they do.

How in earth does the slow confirmation process now justify the earlier EO? Also, clearly Trump can do more than one thing at once. He does a lot of delegation (perhaps over-relies on it where Bannon is concerned), he's entertaining the Japanese PM Mar a Lago, while complaining about the media, the Democrats and judges.

fate

no party has ever forced a President to start like this

You're blaming the Trump incompetency on the Democrats now? That's rich.

Fate

Virtually none of Trump's picks have had Democratic votes

An alternative fact worthy of Conway or Trump.

Total confirming Votes: Mattis 98 Cho 93 Tillerson 56 Kelly 88 Pompeo 66 Haley 96

Only the obviously incompetent Devos, who lost republican votes, and the known racist Sessions couldn't get Dem votes. (well Sessions got 1) .

rickyp wrote:fate

no party has ever forced a President to start like this

You're blaming the Trump incompetency on the Democrats now? That's rich.

Fate

Virtually none of Trump's picks have had Democratic votes

An alternative fact worthy of Conway or Trump.

Total confirming Votes: Mattis 98 Cho 93 Tillerson 56 Kelly 88 Pompeo 66 Haley 96

Only the obviously incompetent Devos, who lost republican votes, and the known racist Sessions couldn't get Dem votes. (well Sessions got 1) .

I am sure DF can turn these facts into something else.

A timely article on Fred Korematsu--the man who stood up against the Japanese internment order in WWII.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... f26fe8c899

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:fate

no party has ever forced a President to start like this

You're blaming the Trump incompetency on the Democrats now? That's rich.

Fate

Virtually none of Trump's picks have had Democratic votes

An alternative fact worthy of Conway or Trump.

Total confirming Votes: Mattis 98 Cho 93 Tillerson 56 Kelly 88 Pompeo 66 Haley 96

Only the obviously incompetent Devos, who lost republican votes, and the known racist Sessions couldn't get Dem votes. (well Sessions got 1) .

I am sure DF can turn these facts into something else.

Nope, I'm going to deal with the FACTS which liberals seem immune to.

I've never stuck up for Trump, so jam it. That's free.

Trump's "Incompetence" has no part in the Democrats' unparalleled obstructionism. No President has ever faced anything of this scale. It demonstrates the sheer fascist nature of today's Left.

Now, rickyp cherry-picked a few cabinet spots. I would note Tillerson at 56 is "so what?" That means 4 Democrats voted 'aye'. So what? Hillary had a TON of baggage and she received how many GOP votes?

Those were not "alternative facts." I was talking about the current batch of votes. I'm sorry I wasn't specific enough for you.

And, again, NO President in our history has ever had such a slow approval process When was the last time the opposing party spent all night filibustering? When was the last time nearly every nominee was delayed, delayed, delayed? When was the last time the minority party walked out so committees could not hold votes?

Those are the facts, deal with them.

freeman3 wrote:A timely article on Fred Korematsu--the man who stood up against the Japanese internment order in WWII.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... f26fe8c899

It's not timely.

Thank God we don't have a Democrat in the White House. That's the party that has historically fought for bigotry. See slavery; see the civil rights votes.

Oh yeah. Also see the denial of entry to German Jews and the Japanese internment camps.

Rwanda? Yeah, Bill Clinton.

No Democrat can lecture anyone about issues of race.

Y'all just have the attention span of Ritalin addicts.

fate

Now, rickyp cherry-picked a few cabinet spots

That's all the cherries there were to pick.
I listed all the cabinet members that had been confirmed as of Friday. The delays on others have been, as earlier documented, largely self inflicted.
And that's the actual fact. Not an alternative.

Fate

Thank God we don't have a Democrat in the White House. That's the party that has historically fought for bigotry. See slavery; see the civil rights votes.

Until July 2nd 1964.
Since then, the fight against civil rights has been under new management.
Have you been in a coma since 1964?


Fate

And, again, NO President in our history has ever had such a slow approval process

Tell that to Merrick Garland.

Flynn may be out of a job before the whole cabinet is sworn in. That might be a record.

rickyp wrote:fate

Now, rickyp cherry-picked a few cabinet spots

That's all the cherries there were to pick.
I listed all the cabinet members that had been confirmed as of Friday. The delays on others have been, as earlier documented, largely self inflicted.
And that's the actual fact. Not an alternative.

No, not "self-inflicted." This has been unprecedented hyper-partisanship for this early in the term of a President.

Fate

Thank God we don't have a Democrat in the White House. That's the party that has historically fought for bigotry. See slavery; see the civil rights votes.

Until July 2nd 1964.
Since then, the fight against civil rights has been under new management.
Have you been in a coma since 1964?

You just don't know what you're freaking talking about.

Again, Democrats fought to maintain slavery. That is something you can't negate.

The CRA would not have passed if left to the Democrats. All you're hand-wringing won't change that.

Now, that the Republicans don't want anyone enslaved to the State is a bad thing in your opinion. That's becoming an increasingly difficult position to support.

Anyway, historically, Democrats have been in favor of oppression of minorities--internment camps, etc. Of course, that's not a fun thing for you to deal with, so you ignore it and pray no one will notice. Being an atheist, you have no deity to hear your bleating.

Fate

And, again, NO President in our history has ever had such a slow approval process

Tell that to Merrick Garland.

Flynn may be out of a job before the whole cabinet is sworn in. That might be a record.

Marrick Garland was not a cabinet pick. Do try to stay on topic. I know it's difficult for you, particularly if you have been mixing your meds again.

Fate

Again, Democrats fought to maintain slavery. That is something you can't negate

.
Its true that the 13th amendment passed with 100$ republican support and only a quarter democrats. In 1865.
What on earth makes this relevant to anything today?
Are you incapable of understanding the evolving nature of your nation and of your political parties>? That things changed in the 60s?
Are you ignorant of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the republicans southern strategy?
I read these talking points on right wing sites and hear idiots like Tomi Lahren blathering them like its somehow relevant today. Since you bring the nonsense up ...how is it relevant today Fate? How does the long ago history actually impact upon the positions of the two parties today?

Fate

This has been unprecedented hyper-partisanship for this early in the term of a President

Since you bring up ancient history.... Like its somehow relevant.
In this case you might consider that the US appointments from (1789-1828), was considered by Privilege . A certain elite were chosen.
Then came the Patronage stage from (1829-1882), where almost all civil service and administration changed hands if the election changed things..
linked to where you can learn a little if you care...
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brief-hi ... ric-marmer

fate

Marrick Garland was not a cabinet pick

A difference. But meaningless.
Because the significant distinction is that the Scotus pick is a permanent choice, whereas a cabinet officer is for a limited period of time.
Another difference in that there was no confirmation vote ever called, even to vote his nomination down.
Whereas Trump has managed 9 confirmations. And would have managed more if the transition had been competent, and his picks weren't - in several cases - ethically challenged.

Yeah, the Democrats used to have racists in their party until they all migrated to the Republican Party due to Democratic support of civil rights in the 1960s. It takes a twisted logic to try and defend Republican racist policies today by going back 50 years and pointing a finger at Southern Democrats who were against civil rights when those Southern Democrats moved over to the Republican Party.

Just for clarification, could we get a definition of what a racist policy is?

I would say that a racist policy is the better treatment of one race over another by the unequal treatment of that policy.

Wel, that definition ignores power relationships which is the biggest concern. A white majority could slightly inconvenience itself by giving preference to minorities in an attempt to even the playing field after many years of discrimination and I would not call that racism. The problem with some whites is they are seemingly unaware of the all the benefits from being a white male so when they see any attempt to give preferential treatment to another group they cry unfair. I am pretty sure you're going to go with the treat everyone equally the same argument, but the problem is that we are not starting with a blank state. If the government today came up with a policy that gave preferences for blacks or Hispanics it would only have a marginal effect on the society-wide preferences that white males get, even white males that come from poor families.