I’m actually fine with the Dems being generally less whippable than Republicans. I’d actually prefer MORE dissension from the ranks, not less. But I would like the yay votes to very pointedly asked to explain their decision.
Just because we should have confirmed doesn’t mean everyone should have voted yes
I think I agree with like everything I’ve ever read from you on these forums, but I have to HARD disagree with the idea that we’d get someone worse by blocking Haspel.
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The idea that we'd get someone worse than Haspel is like... it's not like by blocking Haspel we would've had to agree to a mystery backup. Blocking Haspel would've meant going through confirmation with the next person nominated. And if they were worse, then that person presumably would've been blocked too.
The idea that we'd get someone worse than Haspel is like... it's not like by blocking Haspel we would've had to agree to a mystery backup. Blocking Haspel would've meant going through confirmation with the next person nominated. And if they were worse, then that person presumably would've been blocked too.
Appointments are not the Mr. Burns mystery box.
No. It only would the Rs fall in line for the next vote but delaying let’s Trump interim appoint. It also lets him appoint an acting head.
We get worse results every which way.
Edit: like, we have had this conversation before. You’re not going to convince me by saying “nuh uh” again.
You’re not going to convince me that the non named abysmal temporary appointment you’ve imagined is totally worse than this very real abysmal appointment.
Haspel is a very real problem and people thinking like you put a torturer in charge of the CIA because maybe something worse might happen.
You’re not going to convince me that the non named abysmal temporary appointment you’ve imagined is totally worse than this very real abysmal appointment.
Haspel is a very real problem and people thinking like you put a torturer in charge of the CIA because maybe something worse might happen.
This is such a post-Reagan Democratic way of thinking. We have to accept this terrible thing the GOP is doing that would otherwise die, because otherwise they'll magically pass some even worse thing.
See also Clinton's welfare reform.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
And then refuse to vote for him. If the GOP wants to put torturers in place the GOP should be putting forward the votes to do it. You may be fine with appeasing them on supporting torture but I am most definitely not.
I don't give a fuck who's worse, I give a fuck that the party that's ostensibly good just helped promote a war criminal because they're either too terrible at their job or too disinterested in justice to whip on even something this fucking straight forward. Fuck Schumer, retire bitch.
I mean hell, by this logic Trump should have just started with Cotton if he really did wanted him. They’d have several Dem votes just to avoid someone “worse”.
I mean hell, by this logic Trump should have just started with Cotton if he really did wanted him. They’d have several Dem votes just to avoid someone “worse”.
Just because Trump didn’t want him more doesn’t mean he wouldn’t appoint him.
Haspel as almost certainly nominated because her name was put in a slightly larger font on the page and it’s the one Trump was first.
Vouched for by Brennan and Panetta. The whole fucking culture at CIA is a disgrace. After ICE, abolish them and start over.
Yeah, at this point I just have a list of agencies that need partially or entirely gutted. The CIA I think may fall into the "purge management" instead of "purge everything" category though, purely out of pragmatism for keeping the skills.
But as for everyone who voted to confirm them? Put their names on a list and primary their asses.
You’re not going to convince me that the non named abysmal temporary appointment you’ve imagined is totally worse than this very real abysmal appointment.
Haspel is a very real problem and people thinking like you put a torturer in charge of the CIA because maybe something worse might happen.
A proven torturer.
They've probably all been torturers, she's just the one who got outed. I don't buy for a second that Mike Pompeo would be less likely to assent to restarting the program if ordered.
Haspel at least knows how shit works. I'd rather have a competent civil servant in the job than a political toady.
The idea that we'd get someone worse than Haspel is like... it's not like by blocking Haspel we would've had to agree to a mystery backup. Blocking Haspel would've meant going through confirmation with the next person nominated. And if they were worse, then that person presumably would've been blocked too.
Appointments are not the Mr. Burns mystery box.
No. It only would the Rs fall in line for the next vote but delaying let’s Trump interim appoint. It also lets him appoint an acting head.
We get worse results every which way.
Edit: like, we have had this conversation before. You’re not going to convince me by saying “nuh uh” again.
No, at worse we get an equivalent result to what just actually happened. Except without Democrats condoning torture.
“It’s more complicated” than it looks for Democratic leaders to keep the caucus together, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said in an interview. “We don’t have a parliamentary system … we don’t have that kind of party discipline.”
“The decision by leadership and the caucus suggests they decided this was not the hill they wanted to die on, this was not the battle they wanted to fight,” ACLU national political director Faiz Shakir, a former aide to past Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, said in an interview. “And that’s unfortunate, because it was a winnable fight.”
In theory, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) could have whipped his caucus to oppose Haspel. But in reality, that was never going to happen.
“Listen. There’s a mistaken idea that we do these caucus positions, duty bound by it. None of that ever happened,” said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Democrats’ chief vote-counter. “We find out what’s on the minds of members. But it isn’t like: ‘I’m sorry, 100 percent of us have to be for this.’”
“Chuck is extraordinarily skillful in maintaining unity in the caucus. But that’s partly because he doesn’t push it too far,” said Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a member of the whip team. “If you have unending unanimity, eventually it all falls apart.”
Bonus Manchin quote:
“Chuck doesn’t do that with me,” said Manchin, who came out for Haspel before the classified portion of her confirmation hearing was over. “That’s just not our relationship.”
And bonus Paul quote:
“Some of them want to buy off the Republican vote in their state by appearing to side with a Trump nominee,” Paul said. “It’s probably a mistake for them politically to think it’s going to help them.”
Can't imagine what is like to have to hear that from Rand Paul.
I'm gonna lay a lot of the blame on Chuck Schumer, too. In a year where all the momentum is on your side, how the fuck do you allow ANY Democrat to defect on something like this?
Because Schumer's power is far from infinite. The way y'all set up your political parties makes them extremely weak overall. (see - Obama and Sanders during Presidential Primaries as an example).
Shit, look what it's done to the Republican party.
I'm okay with Haspel only because the bar for a Trump nominee is so low. She has not wavered on whether she'd start the program again and that, for the moment, for me, is good enough. She and the rest of her ilk should probably have been imprisoned, or at least fired, but I really don't have any doubt the next nominee would be worse. Potentially far worse, given how far they could be from Haspel on both the Incompetence and the Support For War Crimes axes.
We went from Spicer to Sanders. McMaster to Bolton. Priebus to Kelly. This administration does not improve its appointees.
“Chuck doesn’t do that with me,” said Manchin, who came out for Haspel before the classified portion of her confirmation hearing was over. “That’s just not our relationship.”
Sounds like Chuck Schumer doesn't do his fucking job.
“Chuck doesn’t do that with me,” said Manchin, who came out for Haspel before the classified portion of her confirmation hearing was over. “That’s just not our relationship.”
Sounds like Chuck Schumer doesn't do his fucking job.
He can't. Especially in the Senate, whipping in the american political system is pathetically weak.
Obamacare lives because of this. That was McConnell "not doing his fucking job". Because there's only so much they can actually do.
“Chuck doesn’t do that with me,” said Manchin, who came out for Haspel before the classified portion of her confirmation hearing was over. “That’s just not our relationship.”
Sounds like Chuck Schumer doesn't do his fucking job.
More like Manchin is precisely aware of who has leverage in the relationship, especially with the party out of the majority.
I wish there was a coup against Schumer sometime soon. He is a man with a complete lack of vision and his aspirations for the party are for it to be the milquetoast entity that passes corporate kid gloves legislation and takes baby steps towards any and all social justice.
He's Harry Reid without a cool story about him strangling someone offering him a bribe.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I'm okay with Haspel only because the bar for a Trump nominee is so low. She has not wavered on whether she'd start the program again and that, for the moment, for me, is good enough. She and the rest of her ilk should probably have been imprisoned, or at least fired, but I really don't have any doubt the next nominee would be worse. Potentially far worse, given how far they could be from Haspel on both the Incompetence and the Support For War Crimes axes.
We went from Spicer to Sanders. McMaster to Bolton. Priebus to Kelly. This administration does not improve its appointees.
This is a good point. Can we name any point in which the second pick was better than the first?
I'm okay with Haspel only because the bar for a Trump nominee is so low. She has not wavered on whether she'd start the program again and that, for the moment, for me, is good enough. She and the rest of her ilk should probably have been imprisoned, or at least fired, but I really don't have any doubt the next nominee would be worse. Potentially far worse, given how far they could be from Haspel on both the Incompetence and the Support For War Crimes axes.
We went from Spicer to Sanders. McMaster to Bolton. Priebus to Kelly. This administration does not improve its appointees.
This is a good point. Can we name any point in which the second pick was better than the first?
I'm okay with Haspel only because the bar for a Trump nominee is so low. She has not wavered on whether she'd start the program again and that, for the moment, for me, is good enough. She and the rest of her ilk should probably have been imprisoned, or at least fired, but I really don't have any doubt the next nominee would be worse. Potentially far worse, given how far they could be from Haspel on both the Incompetence and the Support For War Crimes axes.
We went from Spicer to Sanders. McMaster to Bolton. Priebus to Kelly. This administration does not improve its appointees.
This is a good point. Can we name any point in which the second pick was better than the first?
I'm okay with Haspel only because the bar for a Trump nominee is so low. She has not wavered on whether she'd start the program again and that, for the moment, for me, is good enough. She and the rest of her ilk should probably have been imprisoned, or at least fired, but I really don't have any doubt the next nominee would be worse. Potentially far worse, given how far they could be from Haspel on both the Incompetence and the Support For War Crimes axes.
We went from Spicer to Sanders. McMaster to Bolton. Priebus to Kelly. This administration does not improve its appointees.
This is a good point. Can we name any point in which the second pick was better than the first?
None of those required senate confirmation.
Especially senate confirmation where D votes were needed.
As much as I would love to fuck the CIA's shit up, the Democratic Party isn't the party to do that.
They still have to play with the CIA as it is now, so that means not politicizing the CIA too much, as the torture issue brings up a lot of dirt that everyone just wants to keep under the rug.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Yeah, this was a winnable fight. As fucking stupid as Rand Paul is on a ton of things, he's probably right that this isn't going to help any of the dems that voted for garbage like Haspel. It likely alienated voters they needed and the die hard Trump people are still going to vote against them. Since we don't parliamentary system, politicians not being in locked step with their party might be preferable at times, but the the answer to torture should always be "hell no."
The frustrating thing is that the democrats up for election that voted for Trump's shitty nominee have put non-asshole voters in a serious bind. I believe Haspel did something that created a line, that shouldn't have been crossed, which these idiots did. Unfortunately, they are probably still a better option than their republican opponents, who would are highly likely to rubber stamp Trump's bullshit and try to let him weasel out of justice because of "party over country." It was are real shitty thing for them today because they shouldn't get re-elected, but the alternative is worse (actually, this is exactly why I'd prefer a parliamentary system where the party has more control because I feel like it's easier to discourage this shit. At the very least, probably easier to start building up an alternative if people in a party don't shape). I guess I'll be looking into what the options are for people that challenge Warner, if he decides to run for another term. Obviously, the answer to Warner and Shaheen is fairly easy, primary their asses in 2020. Actually, I don't even know what the fuck Warner was thinking, he had a close election last time because he decided to be Republican lite and Virginia fucking hates Trump. Voting against Haspel should have been a no brainer decision.
As much as I would love to fuck the CIA's shit up, the Democratic Party isn't the party to do that.
They still have to play with the CIA as it is now, so that means not politicizing the CIA too much, as the torture issue brings up a lot of dirt that everyone just wants to keep under the rug.
I mean at the end of the day they're not going to raze Langley because as a party they're strongly pro-intelligence community.
You’re not going to convince me that the non named abysmal temporary appointment you’ve imagined is totally worse than this very real abysmal appointment.
Haspel is a very real problem and people thinking like you put a torturer in charge of the CIA because maybe something worse might happen.
Just because we don’t who could have been next, doesn’t mean the senators didn’t. It’s possible, maybe even likely, that there was a short list of names for the nomination, the voting senators knew the other names on the list, and they decided Haspel was the one they hated the least.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
You’re not going to convince me that the non named abysmal temporary appointment you’ve imagined is totally worse than this very real abysmal appointment.
Haspel is a very real problem and people thinking like you put a torturer in charge of the CIA because maybe something worse might happen.
Just because we don’t who could have been next, doesn’t mean the senators didn’t. It’s possible, maybe even likely, that there was a short list of names for the nomination, the voting senators knew the other names on the list, and they decided Haspel was the one they hated the least.
You’re not going to convince me that the non named abysmal temporary appointment you’ve imagined is totally worse than this very real abysmal appointment.
Haspel is a very real problem and people thinking like you put a torturer in charge of the CIA because maybe something worse might happen.
Just because we don’t who could have been next, doesn’t mean the senators didn’t. It’s possible, maybe even likely, that there was a short list of names for the nomination, the voting senators knew the other names on the list, and they decided Haspel was the one they hated the least.
Democrats don't really play 4D chess
That wouldnt even qualify as chess, let alone a multi-dimensional version. It’s a fairly obvious question if you are unhappy with the nominee. “Wow this nominee is bad, who else where they even considering? Holy shit those people are terrible, maybe this nominee isn’t that awful.”
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I mean, they could just not vote for any of the monsters. They haven't tried that yet.
I mean, they could just not vote for any of the monsters. They haven't tried that yet.
Eh. To me that’s like saying just don’t vote if you don’t like the republican or democratic candidate for president. Someone is going to get selected for the position. Might as well throw your hat in with the one you hate the least.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Posts
I think I agree with like everything I’ve ever read from you on these forums, but I have to HARD disagree with the idea that we’d get someone worse by blocking Haspel.
Appointments are not the Mr. Burns mystery box.
The idea that the party decides feels more outdated than ever.
No. It only would the Rs fall in line for the next vote but delaying let’s Trump interim appoint. It also lets him appoint an acting head.
We get worse results every which way.
Edit: like, we have had this conversation before. You’re not going to convince me by saying “nuh uh” again.
Haspel is a very real problem and people thinking like you put a torturer in charge of the CIA because maybe something worse might happen.
Yes but what if Trump appointed super Haspel?
What if!?
Not if she fails confirmation
This is such a post-Reagan Democratic way of thinking. We have to accept this terrible thing the GOP is doing that would otherwise die, because otherwise they'll magically pass some even worse thing.
See also Clinton's welfare reform.
And then refuse to vote for him. If the GOP wants to put torturers in place the GOP should be putting forward the votes to do it. You may be fine with appeasing them on supporting torture but I am most definitely not.
My 4th dimension chess playing reason is:
"Maybe you want to put all the rats on the sinking ship"
But that smells of accelerationism so.
Just because Trump didn’t want him more doesn’t mean he wouldn’t appoint him.
Haspel as almost certainly nominated because her name was put in a slightly larger font on the page and it’s the one Trump was first.
Yeah, at this point I just have a list of agencies that need partially or entirely gutted. The CIA I think may fall into the "purge management" instead of "purge everything" category though, purely out of pragmatism for keeping the skills.
But as for everyone who voted to confirm them? Put their names on a list and primary their asses.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
A proven torturer.
They've probably all been torturers, she's just the one who got outed. I don't buy for a second that Mike Pompeo would be less likely to assent to restarting the program if ordered.
Haspel at least knows how shit works. I'd rather have a competent civil servant in the job than a political toady.
No, at worse we get an equivalent result to what just actually happened. Except without Democrats condoning torture.
Politico has Dems answering to "Why you guys voted for Haspel again?". Is...not flattering to Dems: Bonus Manchin quote: And bonus Paul quote: Can't imagine what is like to have to hear that from Rand Paul.
Because Schumer's power is far from infinite. The way y'all set up your political parties makes them extremely weak overall. (see - Obama and Sanders during Presidential Primaries as an example).
Shit, look what it's done to the Republican party.
We went from Spicer to Sanders. McMaster to Bolton. Priebus to Kelly. This administration does not improve its appointees.
Sounds like Chuck Schumer doesn't do his fucking job.
He can't. Especially in the Senate, whipping in the american political system is pathetically weak.
Obamacare lives because of this. That was McConnell "not doing his fucking job". Because there's only so much they can actually do.
More like Manchin is precisely aware of who has leverage in the relationship, especially with the party out of the majority.
I wish there was a coup against Schumer sometime soon. He is a man with a complete lack of vision and his aspirations for the party are for it to be the milquetoast entity that passes corporate kid gloves legislation and takes baby steps towards any and all social justice.
He's Harry Reid without a cool story about him strangling someone offering him a bribe.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
This is a good point. Can we name any point in which the second pick was better than the first?
Department of Labor.
https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/15027-cair-opposes-nominations-of-islamophobe-pompeo-for-secretary-of-state-torturer-haspel-for-cia-director.html
:?
..Haspel?
None of those required senate confirmation.
Especially senate confirmation where D votes were needed.
Dems fucked this up. This was a fuck up. Let’s not pretend otherwise just because it feels bad to admit we’re wrong every now and then.
This was a fuck up. Whoooooops!
They still have to play with the CIA as it is now, so that means not politicizing the CIA too much, as the torture issue brings up a lot of dirt that everyone just wants to keep under the rug.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The frustrating thing is that the democrats up for election that voted for Trump's shitty nominee have put non-asshole voters in a serious bind. I believe Haspel did something that created a line, that shouldn't have been crossed, which these idiots did. Unfortunately, they are probably still a better option than their republican opponents, who would are highly likely to rubber stamp Trump's bullshit and try to let him weasel out of justice because of "party over country." It was are real shitty thing for them today because they shouldn't get re-elected, but the alternative is worse (actually, this is exactly why I'd prefer a parliamentary system where the party has more control because I feel like it's easier to discourage this shit. At the very least, probably easier to start building up an alternative if people in a party don't shape). I guess I'll be looking into what the options are for people that challenge Warner, if he decides to run for another term. Obviously, the answer to Warner and Shaheen is fairly easy, primary their asses in 2020. Actually, I don't even know what the fuck Warner was thinking, he had a close election last time because he decided to be Republican lite and Virginia fucking hates Trump. Voting against Haspel should have been a no brainer decision.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I mean at the end of the day they're not going to raze Langley because as a party they're strongly pro-intelligence community.
Just because we don’t who could have been next, doesn’t mean the senators didn’t. It’s possible, maybe even likely, that there was a short list of names for the nomination, the voting senators knew the other names on the list, and they decided Haspel was the one they hated the least.
Democrats don't really play 4D chess
That wouldnt even qualify as chess, let alone a multi-dimensional version. It’s a fairly obvious question if you are unhappy with the nominee. “Wow this nominee is bad, who else where they even considering? Holy shit those people are terrible, maybe this nominee isn’t that awful.”
Eh. To me that’s like saying just don’t vote if you don’t like the republican or democratic candidate for president. Someone is going to get selected for the position. Might as well throw your hat in with the one you hate the least.