“It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”

[tstor]

Can't filibuster Cabinet picks. Senate majority leader is a Republican. How are the Democrats pulling off this miraculous feat of obstructing these picks when they have no power or means to do so?

I did not say "filibuster." You asked about obstruction, which can be done in numerous ways.

 

[LoAmmi]

I did not say "filibuster." You asked about obstruction, which can be done in numerous ways.

Such as? What was stopping the Republicans setting up votes for Cabinet picks right after the hearings were over? Hearings which, let's remember, were also run by the Republicans who could set the time limits and all that. Bad words by the Democrats? Democrat wishes on falling stars?

 

[tstor]

Such as? What was stopping the Republicans setting up votes for Cabinet picks right after the hearings were over? Hearings which, let's remember, were also run by the Republicans who could set the time limits and all that. Bad words by the Democrats? Democrat wishes on falling stars?

Trump Nominees Face ‘Unprecedented’ Democrat Delays

 

[Giovanna_]

Yes, the checks and balances statement was my observation. The rules are there for a purpose. President Trump does not understand the Senate nor its "archaic and slow moving" process. He called the Senate's rules archaic.

He's only been in office 3 months and already he's complaining about how slow the Senate moves...well mr POTUS, you are not running a family business. Welcome to government.

TRUMP: Just a system. It's just a very, very bureaucratic system. I think the rules in Congress and in particular the rules in the Senate are unbelievably archaic and slow moving. And in many cases, unfair. In many cases, you're forced to make deals that are not the deal you'd make. You'd make a much different kind of a deal.

Why does the government waste so much time, effort, energy when it could be run much more efficiently? Why isn't run like a business? Why is it run they wasteful way it is?

 

[Rion]

So it started out with a claim that Trump disliked the constitution, but has moved on to obstructionism in Congress after the claim was proven false. Am I up to date?

 

[LoAmmi]

Trump Nominees Face ‘Unprecedented’ Democrat Delays

I should be but I'm not shocked that the Daily Signal doesn't provide any details for how this obstruction is happening, just saying that it is happening. I'm still curious how the minority party, who controls nothing, who doesn't have the power of filibuster here, was able to bully the poor, weak Republicans into not holding votes when Republicans wanted.

Now, it probably doesn't help that a number of the picks answered the questions less well than a cat would have, but that's beside the point.

 

[Nithavela]

So it started out with a claim that Trump disliked the constitution, but has moved on to obstructionism in Congress after the claim was proven false. Am I up to date?

Not exactly. The article claimed that Trump blamed the checks and balances.

He blamed the constitutional checks and balances built in to US governance. “It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”

You're correct in saying that Trump never said that he disliked the constitution. Neither did the article. That's just the OP.

 

[tstor]

I should be but I'm not shocked that the Daily Signal doesn't provide any details for how this obstruction is happening, just saying that it is happening. I'm still curious how the minority party, who controls nothing, who doesn't have the power of filibuster here, was able to bully the poor, weak Republicans into not holding votes when Republicans wanted.

Now, it probably doesn't help that a number of the picks answered the questions less well than a cat would have, but that's beside the point.

The Senate confirmed two Trump nominees on Inauguration Day: James Mattis to be secretary of defense (98-1) and John Kelly to be secretary of homeland security (88-11). Senators were also supposed to vote Friday on a non-Cabinet nominee—Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., to be CIA director—but Democrats objected and delayed the vote until Monday.​

[...]

None of Trump’s nominees currently face the likelihood of defeat, yet that hasn’t stopped Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., from delaying the confirmation process.​

Schumer said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he would continue to play the role of obstructionist.

“There are so many of these nominees that have different views than what the president-elect, now the president, campaigned on that of course there should be scrutiny,” Schumer said. “Now will we win some of these fights? Possibly. That’s why we have a debate.”

[...]

A new president’s national security team is usually the first to be confirmed. In the case of the CIA, both Director John Brennan and Deputy Director David Cohen resigned Friday, leaving the agency without a permanent director.

“It makes no sense to leave this post open,” McConnell said Friday. “Not for another week, not for another day, not for another hour. America’s enemies will not pause in plotting, planning, and training simply because the Democrats refuse to vote.”​

So you did not read the article?

 

[whatbogsends]

Doesn't particularly matter. His statement is true regardless of whether or not the obstructionism was provoked.

No, his statement is one of those half-truths. The Republicans have made it fashionable for the opposition party to play the role of obstruction. The Democrats are now doing it, but not to the extent that the Republicans did.

The Democrats delayed the Gorsuch appointment to the Supreme Court. Republicans didn't only delay, they outright stopped the process for Garland's nomination.

His statement reeks of a combination of partisan nonsense, coupled with ignorance of recent history.

 

[tstor]

No, his statement is one of those half-truths.

What is the "half-truth"? Democrats are obstructing. You can argue with me as to whether or not such obstructionism is provoked/reasonable, but I am not even sure I believe it is unreasonable. Regardless, Trump did not tell a "half-truth."

 

[Nithavela]

No, his statement is one of those half-truths. The Republicans have made it fashionable for the opposition party to play the role of obstruction. The Democrats are now doing it, but not to the extent that the Republicans did.

Mostly because they can't, not because they don't want to.

If the Democrats controlled the house and senate, I have little doubt they wouldn't go full obama on Trump.

 

[LoAmmi]

The Senate confirmed two Trump nominees on Inauguration Day: James Mattis to be secretary of defense (98-1) and John Kelly to be secretary of homeland security (88-11). Senators were also supposed to vote Friday on a non-Cabinet nominee—Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., to be CIA director—but Democrats objected and delayed the vote until Monday.​

[...]

None of Trump’s nominees currently face the likelihood of defeat, yet that hasn’t stopped Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., from delaying the confirmation process.​

Schumer said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he would continue to play the role of obstructionist.

“There are so many of these nominees that have different views than what the president-elect, now the president, campaigned on that of course there should be scrutiny,” Schumer said. “Now will we win some of these fights? Possibly. That’s why we have a debate.”

[...]

A new president’s national security team is usually the first to be confirmed. In the case of the CIA, both Director John Brennan and Deputy Director David Cohen resigned Friday, leaving the agency without a permanent director.

“It makes no sense to leave this post open,” McConnell said Friday. “Not for another week, not for another day, not for another hour. America’s enemies will not pause in plotting, planning, and training simply because the Democrats refuse to vote.”​

So you did not read the article?

Oh, I did. So, what the first one should say is that "Republicans caved to Democrat demands and delayed the vote".

 

[tstor]

Oh, I did. So, what the first one should say is that "Republicans caved to Democrat demands and delayed the vote".

Alright, I am tired of playing the Trump/Republican apologist. Someone else can do it

 

[LoAmmi]

Alright, I am tired of playing the Trump/Republican apologist. Someone else can do it

Hey, I *wish* the Democrats could have obstructed people like DeVos entirely. So if they were doing it, I'd cheer. But I know they don't have the power to do it for this. They don't have the filibuster and the Republicans can set votes. But it seems like Republicans want to be victims as I think that appeals to their base so they play it even when they won.

 

[tstor]

Hey, I *wish* the Democrats could have obstructed people like DeVos entirely. So if they were doing it, I'd cheer. But I know they don't have the power to do it for this. They don't have the filibuster and the Republicans can set votes. But it seems like Republicans want to be victims as I think that appeals to their base so they play it even when they won.

Democrats are obstructing, but they are not filibustering. And who can blame them? They are just doing what their base wants:

A new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll of 2,070 registered voters, including 740 self-identified Democrats, shows that just 34 percent of those Democrats said they want their party’s elected officials to find ways to work with the new president. A 56-percent majority said Democrats in Congress should stick to their principles, even “if that means blocking all legislation or nominees for government posts.”
​

Poll: Democrats want leaders to block Trump

 

[LoAmmi]

Democrats are obstructing, but they are not filibustering. And who can blame them? They are just doing what their base wants:

A new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll of 2,070 registered voters, including 740 self-identified Democrats, shows that just 34 percent of those Democrats said they want their party’s elected officials to find ways to work with the new president. A 56-percent majority said Democrats in Congress should stick to their principles, even “if that means blocking all legislation or nominees for government posts.”
​

Poll: Democrats want leaders to block Trump

But you aren't explaining by what method they are obstructing. If we simply mean not voting for things, then fine but I'd hardly call that obstructing.

 

[HawgWyld]

Imagine the outcry if a democrat suggested the constitution were bad for the country.

There needs to be an outcry if any politician suggests the Constitution is bad for the country. That's not even a Democrat or Republican issue -- the Constitution is the only thing protecting us from the whims of both the federal government and state governments (by virtue of the 14th Amendment). Sadly, people tend to only share that view of the Constitution if the party they don't like is in charge.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We'll see if Trump is still against those "archaic" rules when the Democrats take the Senate in 2018.

 

[AirPo]

Doesn't particularly matter. His statement is true regardless of whether or not the obstructionism was provoked.

If you don't think that is important for the President to avoid saying stupid things in public, then of course it doesn't matter.

 

[tstor]

If you don't think that is important for the President to avoid saying stupid things in public, then of course it doesn't matter.

So saying the truth is considered stupid to you?