Trump Administration Appointments

[TahoeHorn 107]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/?utm_term=.7eabc1b009ed

Kenneth L Marcus, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights was just confirmed.  It was the 331st key position filled.  335 are unfilled.  The Dems are obstructing and Trump isn't doing a good job of pushing.  There are a lot of Obama folks in the Administration.

It isn't reality TV but the way to promote a President's agenda is to appoint good people who support the agenda.  I'd rather have a GOP appointee to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights than hear the President yap about civil rights issues.

[Gil Bang 25509]

197 "No Nominee"

tl/dr Trump's a lazy piece of shit. 

[Pods 7426]

Hey...another Tahoe post complaining about faux Democrat obstruction that doesn't acknowledge the utter shittastic nominees the ass-clown-in-chief is appointing. Another post, that once again, fails to note that the GOP also control both houses of Congress and is obstructing themselves with their own incompetence. 

 

[lemonlime 5482]

From your own link-- there were 191 nominees sent over who were not yet confirmed.  At this point in Obama's first term he had sent over 219 nominees who weren't confirmed.

[TahoeHorn 107]

I am describing the situation.  I was clear - very clear - that Dem obstruction was only one component of the problem.

[Pods 7426]

3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I am describing the situation.  I was clear - very clear - that Dem obstruction was only one component of the problem.

A very minor portion of the problem and the only one you specifically chose to call out other than "Trump isn't doing a good job of pushing". Anyone who has been reading your posts knows this is absolutely par for the course with you.  

You should get the giant fucking beam of Trump and his nominees corruption and incompetence out of your own eye before you start bitching about the speck of imaginary Democratic obstruction you think you perceive. 

Narrator: He didn't .

 

[Gil Bang 25509]

25 minutes ago, Pods said:

Hey...another Tahoe post complaining about faux Democrat obstruction that doesn't acknowledge the utter shittastic nominees the ass-clown-in-chief is appointing. Another post, that once again, fails to note that the GOP also control both houses of Congress and is obstructing themselves with their own incompetence. 

 

They can't be shittastic.  They were on the GOP "list". 

[hayden_horn 11311]

Quote

Of 666 key positions requiring Senate confirmation …

197

No nominee

4

Awaiting nomination

134

Formally nominated

331

so, off 666 total positions, nearly a third don't even have a nominee? 

[Pods 7426]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

so, off 666 total positions, nearly a third don't even have a nominee? 

Goddamn Democrats obstructing again. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

Anybody not nominated would be at least a year away from getting confirmed.  And it doesn't make sense to appoint the lieutenants if the colonels haven't been confirmed and the colonel want a say in choosing their majors who want a say in choosing their lieutenants.

Again, some is the fault of Dems, some the fault of Trump and some just the realities of the political process.

You can be interested in discussing the topic or not.  Having an opinion doesn't prevent having an intelligent discussion.  Or maybe in your case it does.

[kevwun 15192]

We're not interested because your games have grown tedious.

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

We're not interested because your games have grown tedious.

What's this "we" business?  Is their some club of thought police?  Does your group show lack of interest by responding to my posts? (an odd indicator)  Or are you informed in another way?

[kevwun 15192]

Yes, it's the club of people who aren't still playing Republicans vs. Democrats while Trump burns the country to the ground.  You just keep on believing the scorpion is going to merrily go on his way when you get to the other side of the river, TahoeFrog.

Edited June 8, 2018 by kevwun

[TahoeHorn 107]

That's an argument if favor of obstruction.  Others are arguing that there is no obstruction.  Your group isn't on the same page.

 

I'll argue that Trump appointees are not Trump puppets.  The lawyer who gets appointed to the Labor Relations board does not jump when Trump says rabbit.  Trump's most famous appointee, Gorsuch, damn sure doesn't.

Edited June 8, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Pancho 41825]

I, for one, do not want any GOP members overseeing Civil Rights

[kevwun 15192]

5 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

That's an argument if favor of obstruction.  Others are arguing that there is no obstruction.  Your group isn't on the same page.

 

I'll argue that Trump appointees are not Trump puppets.  The lawyer who gets appointed to the Labor Relations board does not jump when Trump says rabbit.  Trump's most famous appointee, Gorsuch, damn sure doesn't.

It's because someone didn't bring enough donuts to our last meeting and we had to adjourn early.

Edited June 8, 2018 by kevwun

[Gil Bang 25509]

20 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Anybody not nominated would be at least a year away from getting confirmed.  And it doesn't make sense to appoint the lieutenants if the colonels haven't been confirmed and the colonel want a say in choosing their majors who want a say in choosing their lieutenants.

Again, some is the fault of Dems, some the fault of Trump and some just the realities of the political process.

You can be interested in discussing the topic or not.  Having an opinion doesn't prevent having an intelligent discussion.  Or maybe in your case it does.

Bullshit.  That's you making fucking excuses for the orange dipshit, as usual.  

The OVERWHELMING majority of these appointments will go through. Now, I don't know about you, but back when I was in management, if I were looking for a Colonel, one of the questions I'd ask him would be "who do you want as a Major?".    Everybody that's been appointed at this point has had plenty of time to put together their list of desired staff, and the WH has had plenty of time to vet and nominate them too. 

 

 

[David Dennison 17660]

Reminder: Republicans control the Senate and there is no more filibuster for non-SCOTUS appointees.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23245]

I thought Republicans liked smaller government 

[scottsins 1921]

31 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

That's an argument if favor of obstruction.  Others are arguing that there is no obstruction.  Your group isn't on the same page.

 

I'll argue that Trump appointees are not Trump puppets.  The lawyer who gets appointed to the Labor Relations board does not jump when Trump says rabbit.  Trump's most famous appointee, Gorsuch, damn sure doesn't.

Ummm...Gorsuch?  That’s really the example you want to use?  One of those things is not like the other.  AT ALL.

[TahoeHorn 107]

The nominations for executive positions work just like the nominations for judicial positions.  That is, the general confirmation process is the same.  It takes a long time to get somebody through the process.  Right now there are about 90 names or so in the Senate's court.  Trump needs to give them another 80 or so.  They wouldn't get confirmed any faster if they were submitted today than if they were submitted next month.  I watch the stuff every stinking day, monitoring how each nominee moves through each  laborious step.  They won't do the lieutenants until after the majors, and they won't do the majors until after the colonels.   And I can see when they'll be getting around to the lieutenants.  (not any time this year). That's fact.  Of the 335 to go (not including ones that will need to get redone as people quit), we'll be lucky to get 100 this year.  It doesn't really matter whether we have a nominee to be Ambassador to the Congo or not.  The Senate won't get to that this year.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

[David Dennison 17660]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

The nominations for executive positions work just like the nominations for judicial positions.  That is, the general confirmation process is the same.  It takes a long time to get somebody through the process.  Right now there are about 90 names or so in the Senate's court.  Trump needs to give them another 80 or so.  They wouldn't get confirmed any faster if they were submitted today than if they were submitted next month.  I watch the stuff every stinking day, monitoring how each nominee moves through each  laborious step.  They won't do the lieutenants until after the majors, and they won't do the majors until after the colonels.   And I can see when they'll be getting around to the lieutenants.  (not any time this year). That's fact.  Of the 335 to go (not including ones that will need to get redone as people quit), we'll be lucky to get 100 this year.  It doesn't really matter whether we have a nominee to be Ambassador to the Congo or not.  The Senate won't get to that this year.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf

Sounds like Republicans need to get their shit together.

[TahoeHorn 107]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Reminder: Republicans control the Senate and there is no more filibuster for non-SCOTUS appointees.

 

Yes there is.  And that's the point.  The Dems can, and do,  take up hours and hours with each appointee.The GOP can eventually stop it but unless they change the rules the Dems can chew up the calendar.  From the time a person is nominated till the time he's confirmed is taking about three months if he's a priority.

[David Dennison 17660]

3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Yes there is.  And that's the point.  The Dems can, and do,  take up hours and hours with each appointee.The GOP can eventually stop it but unless they change the rules the Dems can chew up the calendar.  From the time a person is nominated till the time he's confirmed is taking about three months if he's a priority.

Change the rules. Republicans are in charge. 

And there is no filibuster for non-SCOTUS appointees.

EDIT: Check that. The filibuster is only good for legislation. The Republicans went nuclear for Gorsuch.

Edited June 8, 2018 by David Dennison

[DanRydell 799]

Specifically which nominations are being obstructed by Dems and how?

[TahoeHorn 107]

9 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Ummm...Gorsuch?  That’s really the example you want to use?  One of those things is not like the other.  AT ALL.

You lost me.  Are you arguing that a federal judge or a board member of the NLRB is a Trump puppet?  What are you saying?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

The Dems aren't "obstructing," and that they aren't helping to speed Trump's terrible picks along doesn't make it so.  There are legitimate reasons for the minimal procedure that the Dems are invoking, and the Rs aren't in any hurry either because they know it too.

And if you build an OP based around a partisan narrative, you aren't going to get responses that treat your take with the seriousness that it doesn't deserve.  Then again, if you had to post something thoughtful and sincere, you wouldn't ever have anything to say. 

[Gil Bang 25509]

4 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

You lost me.  Are you arguing that a federal judge or a board member of the NLRB is a Trump puppet?  What are you saying?

He's saying that it was a ridiculous comparison by you. 

SCOUTUS is a lifetime appt, some jackoff at the NLRB can be shitcanned by Trump anytime his orange asshole itches. 

[TexLonghorn 5556]

If Dems are slowing down or preventing these positions from being filled but utterly incompetent and unqualified nominees, then I wouldn't really consider that as obstruction, more like responsible job performance.

[Fozzz 152]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

He's saying that it was a ridiculous comparison by you. 

SCOUTUS is a lifetime appt, some jackoff at the NLRB can be shitcanned by Trump anytime his orange asshole itches. 

Klanhorn is a little slow in his old age.

[TahoeHorn 107]

Just now, DanRydell said:

Specifically which nominations are being obstructed by Dems and how?

They cannot stop any.  They can force all through a time-consuming process.  And they do.

 

A District Judge that gets confirmed 95-0 isn't just brought to the floor for a vote.  He's brought to the floor for speeches.  Then, about a week later there is a vote to cut off debate.  Then later there is a vote to confirm.  There are about 40 that are ready to come to the floor today.  Maybe 40 more will be ready soon.  How many days of Senate time will it take just for  170 judges?  How many for 335 Administration appointees?  This week there were 3 judges and one appointee.  If this is the way the Dems want to do it McConnell will have to start scheduling a lot of all day sessions with a bunch of votes.  How many hours of Senate time should it take to vote through 40 judges that will pass with overwhelming majorities?  Everybody knows almost to the exact number what the vote for each will be.

[TahoeHorn 107]

7 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

He's saying that it was a ridiculous comparison by you. 

SCOUTUS is a lifetime appt, some jackoff at the NLRB can be shitcanned by Trump anytime his orange asshole itches. 

Is that an argument that the NLRB guy is a puppet?

[David Dennison 17660]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

They cannot stop any.  They can force all through a time-consuming process.  And they do.

 

A District Judge that gets confirmed 95-0 isn't just brought to the floor for a vote.  He's brought to the floor for speeches.  Then, about a week later there is a vote to cut off debate.  Then later there is a vote to confirm.  There are about 40 that are ready to come to the floor today.  Maybe 40 more will be ready soon.  How many days of Senate time will it take just for  170 judges?  How many for 335 Administration appointees?  This week there were 3 judges and one appointee.  If this is the way the Dems want to do it McConnell will have to start scheduling a lot of all day sessions with a bunch of votes.  How many hours of Senate time should it take to vote through 40 judges that will pass with overwhelming majorities?  Everybody knows almost to the exact number what the vote for each will be.

You didn't explain what the Democrats are doing to slow down the process other than making McConnell go through the process.

[Pods 7426]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

They cannot stop any.  They can force all through a time-consuming process.  And they do.

 

A District Judge that gets confirmed 95-0 isn't just brought to the floor for a vote.  He's brought to the floor for speeches.  Then, about a week later there is a vote to cut off debate.  Then later there is a vote to confirm.  There are about 40 that are ready to come to the floor today.  Maybe 40 more will be ready soon.  How many days of Senate time will it take just for  170 judges?  How many for 335 Administration appointees?  This week there were 3 judges and one appointee.  If this is the way the Dems want to do it McConnell will have to start scheduling a lot of all day sessions with a bunch of votes.  How many hours of Senate time should it take to vote through 40 judges that will pass with overwhelming majorities?  Everybody knows almost to the exact number what the vote for each will be.

You already have a separate thread bitching about imaginary Democrat obstruction of Trump's unqualified judicial nominees. This is your thread bitching about imaginary Democrat obstruction of Trump's unqualified Administration positions.

It's almost like making a partisan attack against Democrats is more important to you than the actual topic of the respective threads you've started. 

[DanRydell 799]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

They cannot stop any.  They can force all through a time-consuming process.  And they do.

 

A District Judge that gets confirmed 95-0 isn't just brought to the floor for a vote.  He's brought to the floor for speeches.  Then, about a week later there is a vote to cut off debate.  Then later there is a vote to confirm.  There are about 40 that are ready to come to the floor today.  Maybe 40 more will be ready soon.  How many days of Senate time will it take just for  170 judges?  How many for 335 Administration appointees?  This week there were 3 judges and one appointee.  If this is the way the Dems want to do it McConnell will have to start scheduling a lot of all day sessions with a bunch of votes.  How many hours of Senate time should it take to vote through 40 judges that will pass with overwhelming majorities?  Everybody knows almost to the exact number what the vote for each will be.

I didn't ask you how legislative bodies work. I'm quite familiar with the process, House rules, and parliamentary procedure. 

I asked you specifically which nominations are being obstructed by Democrats and in what manner. 

[lemonlime 5482]

The GOP is now the party of whining snowflakes.  they control the presidency and both houses of Congress, but take responsibility for zilch.

[TornACL 7652]

I remember when the Republican Party was the party of personal responsibility.

SAD!

[David Dennison 17660]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

The GOP is now the party of whining snowflakes.  they control the presidency and both houses of Congress, but take responsibility for zilch.

The GOP has been the party of crybitches since the New Deal. They get to Washington and fuck everything to hell and then Democrats have to come in and clean up their mess. Then they have the audacity to run on Democrats doing what had to be done to clean up what they fucked up. It's a never ending cycle.

[TahoeHorn 107]

Just now, DanRydell said:

I didn't ask you how legislative bodies work. I'm quite familiar with the process, House rules, and parliamentary procedure. 

I asked you specifically which nominations are being obstructed by Democrats and in what manner. 

They are demanding hearings, using filibusters and demanding roll call votes for uncontroversial nominees.  This has the effect of allowing confirmation of only a few a week instead of many.  Nothing gets stopped.  Everything gets dramatically slowed down.  It's stalling, not blocking.

[TahoeHorn 107]

3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

The GOP is now the party of whining snowflakes.  they control the presidency and both houses of Congress, but take responsibility for zilch.

The GOP does not control the Senate.  They need 60 votes to control the Senate.  Many things can get blocked.  Everything can get stalled.

[David Dennison 17660]

Just now, TahoeHorn said:

They are demanding hearings, using filibusters and demanding roll call votes for uncontroversial nominees.  This has the effect of allowing confirmation of only a few a week instead of many.  Nothing gets stopped.  Everything gets dramatically slowed down.  It's stalling, not blocking.

They can't filibuster nominees. They can only filibuster legislation. The Republicans do not need 60 votes to end debate on any nominee. They changed the Senate rules for Gorsuch.

[DanRydell 799]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

They are demanding hearings, using filibusters and demanding roll call votes for uncontroversial nominees.  This has the effect of allowing confirmation of only a few a week instead of many.  Nothing gets stopped.  Everything gets dramatically slowed down.  It's stalling, not blocking.

For which uncontroversial nominees have Dems demanded hearings and roll call votes and/or filibustered? What is your test for whether a nominee is uncontroversial?

[scottsins 1921]

19 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

You lost me.  Are you arguing that a federal judge or a board member of the NLRB is a Trump puppet?  What are you saying?

I wasn’t reading carefully.  I thought the example was a “regular” cabinet/agency position. 

[lemonlime 5482]

I should make these excuses to my boss.  It would go over real well.  Everything is someone else's fault.    Maybe the GOP should try some fucking bipartisanship or nominating qualified candidates, and they would get the 60 votes.  But if every little thing doesn't go exactly their way with zero GOP compromise, well then it's all everyone's fault except the 51 senators who hold the majority in the senate or that of the president.  Party of personal responsibility my ass.  It's the party of cry babies.

[hayden_horn 11311]

2 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

For which uncontroversial nominees have Dems demanded hearings and roll call votes and/or filibustered? What is your test for whether a nominee is uncontroversial?

this is what i want to know. 

[David Dennison 17660]

I'd love to know which nominees required 60 votes for cloture.

[TahoeHorn 107]

8 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

For which uncontroversial nominees have Dems demanded hearings and roll call votes and/or filibustered? What is your test for whether a nominee is uncontroversial?

I don't have a handy chart for the votes on executive nominees.  Here's one on judicial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

You'll see that almost no District Court nominee is controversial.  (the 20 confirmed)  I can tell you that the ones in gray have gone through the Judiciary Committee and most of them were reported out with Dem support.  Almost all went though the full blow-by-blow process.  All took a long time.  Hell some of these were also Obama appointees and suggested by Dems.

 

I'll use one confirmed three days ago as an example.  He's number 18, Robert Weir.  He was nominated ten months ago and finally got confirmed this week.  The vote was 95-0.  He went through the whole shmear including a filibuster process with a vote to cut off debate after thirty hours of floor time for speeches (which of course was not used).  Using time for Robert Wier meant the GOP counln't use that time for something else.

Edited June 8, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[David Dennison 17660]

 

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I don't have a handy chart for the votes on executive nominees.  Here's one on judicial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

You'll see that almost no District Court nominee is controversial.  (the 20 confirmed)  I can tell you that the ones in gray have gone through the Judiciary Committee and most of them were reported out with Dem support.  Almost all went though the full blow-by-blow process.  All took a long time.  Hell some of these were also Obama appointees and suggested by Dems.

 Which ones were filibustered?

[bad_teammate 13018]

23 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

They cannot stop any.  They can force all through a time-consuming process.  And they do.

A District Judge that gets confirmed 95-0 isn't just brought to the floor for a vote.  He's brought to the floor for speeches.  Then, about a week later there is a vote to cut off debate.  Then later there is a vote to confirm.  There are about 40 that are ready to come to the floor today.  Maybe 40 more will be ready soon.  How many days of Senate time will it take just for  170 judges?  How many for 335 Administration appointees?  This week there were 3 judges and one appointee.  If this is the way the Dems want to do it McConnell will have to start scheduling a lot of all day sessions with a bunch of votes.  How many hours of Senate time should it take to vote through 40 judges that will pass with overwhelming majorities?  Everybody knows almost to the exact number what the vote for each will be.

So your complaint is, basically, that we have a democratic process to check the power of the executive?

The barrier between a mainstream conservative and a fascist is as thin as tissue paper.

[DanRydell 799]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I don't have a handy chart for the votes on executive nominees.  Here's one on judicial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

You'll see that almost no District Court nominee is controversial.  (the 20 confirmed)  I can tell you that the ones in gray have gone through the Judiciary Committee and most of them were reported out with Dem support.  Almost all went though the full blow-by-blow process.  All took a long time.  Hell some of these were also Obama appointees and suggested by Dems.

So you started a thread for the purpose of accusing Democrats of obstructing Trump's executive nominees but you don't actually have any knowledge of what nominees have been obstructed or how?