Mitch McConnell is holding up the AG vote
- Thread starter lucas80
- Start date
Is it Mitch being Mitch or is it the GOP just being "The Party of NO!"
Methinks it is the later. Because, we all understand the GOP is the Party of NO! (ideas, included).
Methinks it is the later. Because, we all understand the GOP is the Party of NO! (ideas, included).
I've never seen much reason for Congress to interfere with who the President wants to surround themselves with. The President needs to have people they believe in carrying out their agenda. If they can't do the job they'll be exposed. Lynch passed the Judiciary Committee with three Republicans voting to let the nomination move on. Time to give her the straight up vote she deserves.
People say Washington DC cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. McConnell is proving that he can't accomplish walking or chewing gum solo.
OK. Dirty Harry had 350 bills on his desk submitted by the Republicans. He refused to bring them to a vote regardless of what they were. He and the Dems are the party of "no".
Nice try. Do some research because you look like a fool.
Haha. The Dems are complaining about voting for something they already agreed to but, as usual, our resident libs ignore the facts and just wade in attacking. Typical
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I thought the cons didn't like Eric Holder? Obama offers you cons a more palatable AG and you think its a win if you hold onto the guy we libs like? OK, that works for me, I enjoy watching this.Originally posted by IMCC965:
We won.
That sounds awfully familiar. Who said that again ..?
Is it too much to ask that our nations prospective top law enforcement officer should have to answer questions about whether they will follow the law? I don't think so.
I thought she had her hearings and got high marks from all. Could you link to the exchange where she refused to answer this question. TiA.
Psst, thats not a black Democratic woman applying for AG.Originally posted by timinatoria:
Originally posted by Torg:
There are none.
Except she is a black Democratic woman.
You're right........it's a woman of color that has held the highest office of ANY woman of color in the history of our Country.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Psst, thats not a black Democratic woman applying for AG.Originally posted by timinatoria:
Originally posted by Torg:
There are none.
Except she is a black Democratic woman.
Bush had a Latino/Hispanic AG......and the Dems threw fits over that. So it goes both ways.
Most of those fits were based on his job performance after he got his up or down vote where most Ds prophetically predicted he wouldn't be up for the job. IMO, the smart R move would be to simply vote Lynch down and force BHO to nominate someone new. The current strategy just keeps Holder in office forever. Maybe Rs secretly like that? Is it a big fund raising point? I know how politicians like to have a bogeyman to point to when they ask you to take out your wallet.Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:
You're right........it's a woman of color that has held the highest office of ANY woman of color in the history of our Country.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Psst, thats not a black Democratic woman applying for AG.Originally posted by timinatoria:
Originally posted by Torg:
There are none.
Except she is a black Democratic woman.
Bush had a Latino/Hispanic AG......and the Dems threw fits over that. So it goes both ways.
If Torg didn't think it mattered that she was a black woman he wouldn't have put it in his post. If he doesn't think it matters, then why type it?Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Psst, thats not a black Democratic woman applying for AG.Originally posted by timinatoria:
Originally posted by Torg:
There are none.
Except she is a black Democratic woman.
How do you arrive at that conclusion when its D's fighting for their agency and its Rs insisting those victims be forced to carry their rape babies to term? You're twisted.
Show me where in the bill that rape victims "are required to carry their babies to term". They're not, and you know it.
As far as I know, the bill is designed so that fees or penalties collected to aid victims cannot be used for abortions, which is simply re-affirming current federal law that federal money cannot be used to fund abortions.
Oh please, don't fake indignity when you charictorize fighting for victim rights as hating the victim. Either play the game, or don't. But don't get mad when you jump into the arena and get popped in the nose.
Thats not my burden. My burden is to refute your assertion that fighting for victim rights is some how hating on the victims. I've done that. Now if you want to have a real conversation about the human trafficking law, you'll need to comport yourself accordingly. If you find hyperbolic bombasity problematic, you shouldn't engage in it. Its sort of a poor showing to cry foul when you get beaten by your own rhetorical tactic.
Similar threads
