Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 55

Thread: Rand just voted to confirm Lloyd Austin for SecDef

  1. #1

    Post Rand just voted to confirm Lloyd Austin for SecDef

    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Not surprising. Ask pointed questions and allow the President to have his pick. That's what he does.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by tebowlives View Post
    Not surprising. Ask pointed questions and allow the President to have his pick. That's what he does.
    Which is collaboration with the enemy and dereliction of duty.

    The Senate has the power to advise and CONSENT, bad nominees should be denied consent.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  5. #4
    Lawmakers voted 93-2 in a final floor vote. Two Republicans, Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Mike Lee of Utah, were the only members to vote no.
    ...
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...etary-n1255322
    What was Mike Lee’s reason?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Which is collaboration with the enemy and dereliction of duty.

    The Senate has the power to advise and CONSENT, bad nominees should be denied consent.
    You mean like Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton? Oops...my bad. Wrong administration.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Which is collaboration with the enemy and dereliction of duty.

    The Senate has the power to advise and CONSENT, bad nominees should be denied consent.
    The Senate President has the power to advise and CONSENT veto, bad nominees bills should be denied consent vetoed.

    Yet Trump failed to veto a number of bad bills.

    Is that not "dereliction of duty?" Is that not "collaboration with the enemy?"

    Perhaps you will say, "He had no choice, His vetoes would have been overridden."

    Well, then, by exactly the same logic, Rand also had no choice.

    A "nay" vote by Rand on Austin's confirmation would have been overridden.

    So why is Rand to be considered a "collaborator" while Trump gets a pass?



    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law." - The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      - Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      - Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
    MOFA (Make Orwell Fiction Again)

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Which is collaboration with the enemy and dereliction of duty.
    lmao Fake drama

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The Senate has the power to advise and CONSENT, bad nominees should be denied consent.
    It turns into partisanship.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    So why is Rand to be considered a "collaborator" while Trump gets a pass?

    Clearly, Rand is not a chess player.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    The Senate President has the power to advise and CONSENT veto, bad nominees bills should be denied consent vetoed.

    Yet Trump failed to veto a number of bad bills.

    Is that not "dereliction of duty?" Is that not "collaboration with the enemy?"

    Perhaps you will say, "He had no choice, His vetoes would have been overridden."

    Well, then, by exactly the same logic, Rand also had no choice.

    A "nay" vote by Rand on Austin's confirmation would have been overridden.

    So why is Rand to be considered a "collaborator" while Trump gets a pass?

    Because Rand says the enemy usurper and the last commie usurper have a right to have their bad nominees approved.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by tebowlives View Post
    lmao Fake drama

    It turns into partisanship.
    And you prefer bipartisanship like the swamp creatures.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    The Senate President has the power to advise and CONSENT veto, bad nominees bills should be denied consent vetoed.

    Yet Trump failed to veto a number of bad bills.

    Is that not "dereliction of duty?" Is that not "collaboration with the enemy?"

    Perhaps you will say, "He had no choice, His vetoes would have been overridden."

    Well, then, by exactly the same logic, Rand also had no choice.

    A "nay" vote by Rand on Austin's confirmation would have been overridden.

    So why is Rand to be considered a "collaborator" while Trump gets a pass?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Because Rand says the enemy usurper and the last commie usurper have a right to have their bad nominees approved.
    Also, Rand is currying favor with the greater evil who will not ever repay the favor, Trump had to horse trade with Republicans who did repay the favors to support good things.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And you prefer bipartisanship like the swamp creatures.
    Because I don't approve of Trump growing government somehow means I approve of the bipartisan swamp? The lessor of 2 evils is still evil.

    Lower Federal government spending
    Bring the troops home
    Audit the Federal Reserve for transparency.

    those 3 things still mean something on this forum

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Also, Rand is currying favor with the greater evil who will not ever repay the favor, Trump had to horse trade with Republicans who did repay the favors to support good things.
    Trump made John Bolton his NSA. Your argument is invalid.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Which is collaboration with the enemy and dereliction of duty.

    The Senate has the power to advise and CONSENT, bad nominees should be denied consent.
    You wouldn't stoop to applying a double standard like a Demoncrat, would you? There is a difference between you, a partisan Republican, and partisan Democrats, right?

    Because by this standard, Trump's entire administration was treason and dereliction of duty.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Trump made John Bolton his NSA. Your argument is invalid.
    It's not invalid. It's proof he holds Rand Paul to a completely different standard than DJTvtd (very treasonous derelict).
    Last edited by acptulsa; 01-24-2021 at 07:56 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by tebowlives View Post
    Not surprising. Ask pointed questions and allow the President to have his pick. That's what he does.
    If a four star general and CENTCOM commander is not qualified ( not saying he is ) we are not doing something right somewhere in a much deeper way .Like to know what Lees reasoning was . That said biden is going to make a lot of picks I wouldnt vote for . May as well save the nays for the unqualified .
    Last edited by oyarde; 01-24-2021 at 09:02 AM.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post

    So why is Rand to be considered a "collaborator" while Trump gets a pass?

    Granted he appointed Pompeo, Bolton, Iraq war architect Abrams to cabinet positions, Trump should be given a pass because he also established himself as the "most pro Israel President in history" , put sanctions on Iran, billions in US foreign aid , setup US military base in Israel to defend our closest ally and the only well funded democracy in mideast. Rand OTOH was opposed to such policies and should be held to a different standard.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    You wouldn't stoop to applying a double standard like a Demoncrat, would you? There is a difference between you, a partisan Republican, and partisan Democrats, right?

    Because by this standard, Trump's entire administration was treason and dereliction of duty.



    It's not invalid. It's proof he holds Rand Paul to a completely different standard than DJTvtd (very treasonous derelict).
    ON. THE. NOSE.
    There is no spoon.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Because Rand says the enemy usurper and the last commie usurper have a right to have their bad nominees approved.
    Trump was the last commie usurper that had his bad nominees approved.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Also, Rand is currying favor with the greater evil who will not ever repay the favor, Trump had to horse trade with Republicans who did repay the favors to support good things.
    So you HONESTLY BELIEVE that if Trump had nominated Ted Cruz to be head of the NSA (just picking one name out of many that would have been better than Bolton), he would have had REPUBLICANS fighting him on that? SMH!
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    So you HONESTLY BELIEVE that if Trump had nominated Ted Cruz to be head of the NSA (just picking one name out of many that would have been better than Bolton), he would have had REPUBLICANS fighting him on that? SMH!
    LOL- I'd take "honestly" out of that sentence.
    There is no spoon.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    The Senate President has the power to advise and CONSENT veto, bad nominees bills should be denied consent vetoed.

    Yet Trump failed to veto a number of bad bills.

    Is that not "dereliction of duty?" Is that not "collaboration with the enemy?"

    Perhaps you will say, "He had no choice, His vetoes would have been overridden."

    Well, then, by exactly the same logic, Rand also had no choice.

    A "nay" vote by Rand on Austin's confirmation would have been overridden.

    So why is Rand to be considered a "collaborator" while Trump gets a pass?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Because Rand says the enemy usurper and the last commie usurper have a right to have their bad nominees approved.
    So ... Trump actively puts forward nominees like John Bolton (who are not just "bad" but hideously awful) and he gets a pass, but Rand merely votes to confirm a nominee who was going to be confirmed regardless (and who was going to be "bad" no matter what) and this makes him some kind of seditious traitor. This is plainly contradictory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Also, Rand is currying favor with the greater evil who will not ever repay the favor, Trump had to horse trade with Republicans who did repay the favors to support good things.
    Given the massively lopsided vote in favor of confirming Austin, what "horse trade" could Rand have possibly made (with Republicans or anyone else) by withholding his "yea" vote?[1] You don't get to excuse Trump's refusal to veto bad bills on the basis that his vetoes would have been uselessly overridden, and then blame Rand when, mutatis mutandis, he does exactly the same thing.

    If Trump gets a pass, then so does Rand.

    If Rand doesn't get a pass, then neither does Trump.

    Pick one. You don't get to have it both ways.



    [1] And if you say that Rand should have voted "nay" on principle because Austin's confirmation was assured and therefore there were no "horse trades" to be made, then exactly the same thing goes for Trump with respect to vetoes: he should have vetoed bad bills on principle because veto overrides were assured and therefore there were no "horse trades" to be made. (And you can't say that Trump's lack of vetoes was some kind of attempt at "horse trading" in the face of assured veto overrides, because a veto threat is worthless as a bargaining chip when it is assured that the veto will be overridden.)

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    So ... Trump actively puts forward nominees like John Bolton (who are not just "bad" but hideously awful) and he gets a pass, but Rand merely votes to confirm a nominee who was going to be confirmed regardless (and who was going to be "bad" no matter what) and this makes him some kind of seditious traitor. This is plainly contradictory.



    Given the massively lopsided vote in favor of confirming Austin, what "horse trade" could Rand have possibly made (with Republicans or anyone else) by withholding his "yea" vote?[1] You don't get to excuse Trump's refusal to veto bad bills on the basis that his vetoes would have been uselessly overridden, and then blame Rand when, mutatis mutandis, he does exactly the same thing.

    If Trump gets a pass, then so does Rand.

    If Rand doesn't get a pass, then neither does Trump.

    Pick one. You don't get to have it both ways.



    [1] And if you say that Rand should have voted "nay" on principle because Austin's confirmation was assured and therefore there were no "horse trades" to be made, then exactly the same thing goes for Trump with respect to vetoes: he should have vetoed bad bills on principle because veto overrides were assured and therefore there were no "horse trades" to be made. (And you can't say that Trump's lack of vetoes was some kind of attempt at "horse trading" in the face of assured veto overrides, because a veto threat is worthless as a bargaining chip when it is assured that the veto will be overridden.)
    AMEN.
    There is no spoon.

  26. #23
    Since the Senate is rubber stamping SecDefs and overriding 10 USC 113 (a)
    A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.
    Why not just amend it to strike the language? Oh, that right! This really isn't about what is written into the law, but rather the arbitrary and capricious manner of passing a workaround to this and any other law whenever they feel like it. Both parties prefer this approach.

    XNN
    "They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us every thing from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are. I want to hear somebody asking them why. They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are but theyre never the ones to fight or to die." - Jackson Browne Lives In The Balance

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by tebowlives View Post
    Because I don't approve of Trump growing government somehow means I approve of the bipartisan swamp? The lessor of 2 evils is still evil.

    Lower Federal government spending
    Bring the troops home
    Audit the Federal Reserve for transparency.

    those 3 things still mean something on this forum
    Try to keep track of what we are talking about, you said voting against Biden's cabinet picks would be partisan so Rand should vote for them like he does.
    You want bipartisanship like the swamp, which puts the lie to the results you claim to want.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Trump made John Bolton his NSA. Your argument is invalid.
    NSA is a powerless position and Trump proceeded to ignore and humiliate him.
    Your argument is invalid.
    Trump needed Republican support so he could do things like the Afghan peace deal so he had to make deals but he always got more than he gave.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    So you HONESTLY BELIEVE that if Trump had nominated Ted Cruz to be head of the NSA (just picking one name out of many that would have been better than Bolton), he would have had REPUBLICANS fighting him on that? SMH!
    You fail in your attempt to put words in my mouth, he would not have earned support for other things from those who wanted Bolton.
    And NSA is a powerless position which got Bolton nothing but humiliation.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    So ... Trump actively puts forward nominees like John Bolton (who are not just "bad" but hideously awful) and he gets a pass, but Rand merely votes to confirm a nominee who was going to be confirmed regardless (and who was going to be "bad" no matter what) and this makes him some kind of seditious traitor. This is plainly contradictory.



    Given the massively lopsided vote in favor of confirming Austin, what "horse trade" could Rand have possibly made (with Republicans or anyone else) by withholding his "yea" vote?[1] You don't get to excuse Trump's refusal to veto bad bills on the basis that his vetoes would have been uselessly overridden, and then blame Rand when, mutatis mutandis, he does exactly the same thing.

    If Trump gets a pass, then so does Rand.

    If Rand doesn't get a pass, then neither does Trump.

    Pick one. You don't get to have it both ways.



    [1] And if you say that Rand should have voted "nay" on principle because Austin's confirmation was assured and therefore there were no "horse trades" to be made, then exactly the same thing goes for Trump with respect to vetoes: he should have vetoed bad bills on principle because veto overrides were assured and therefore there were no "horse trades" to be made. (And you can't say that Trump's lack of vetoes was some kind of attempt at "horse trading" in the face of assured veto overrides, because a veto threat is worthless as a bargaining chip when it is assured that the veto will be overridden.)
    Bolton got a worthless position and humiliation but Trump got to please Republicans who wanted him and get their support for other good things.
    Rand gets nothing out of this vote and continues his stated betrayal of the Senate's role of consenting or not to cabinet nominees, Trump never said Congress has a right to pass bills so he would never veto one.
    Rand is also a Senator, the only power he has is to vote, Trump as POTUS had power to do far more than sign or veto bills and needed support from Republicans for what he did.
    Rand has no leverage with his single vote and would lose nothing by voting no, Trump had lots of leverage as the single person with veto power and he was able to use it to influence bills (if not dictate their entire contents) or to horse trade for Republican support on other things, he would have lost all of that if he went around vetoing bills and getting overridden all the time.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  32. #28

    Cool He is more loyal to our UNION than Sec' of War Edwin Stanton was.... becuz 100% > 99.99%

    RAYTHEON....

    He went from the U.S Military to RAYTHEON.

    RAYTHEON....

  33. #29
    Joe Biden could have done much worse. Senator Rand Paul's vote most quietly makes sense on several levels.

  34. #30
    Austin seems like a competent man for Defense Sec

    Picking Bolton is indefensible.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Senate voted 92-0 to confirm Obama's new drug czar
    By Lucille in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-10-2015, 07:40 PM
  2. TANSTAAFL. Austin progs didn't get the memo, voted themselves out of their homes.
    By Lucille in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-06-2014, 11:31 AM
  3. Rick Santorum Santorum voted to confirm Greenspan as Fed chairman
    By emazur in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-05-2012, 10:59 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-14-2009, 07:27 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-02-2009, 05:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •