Rand just voted to confirm Lloyd Austin for SecDef

[Matt Collins]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybe...h=715ab23e19cc

[tebowlives]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybe...h=715ab23e19cc

Not surprising. Ask pointed questions and allow the President to have his pick. That's what he does.

[Swordsmyth]

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.

[Brian4Liberty]

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?

[jmdrake]

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.

[Occam's Banana]

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?

[tebowlives]

Which is collaboration with the enemy and dereliction of duty.

lmao Fake drama

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

It turns into partisanship.

[CaptUSA]

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

Clearly, Rand is not a chess player.

[Swordsmyth]

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.

[Swordsmyth]

lmao Fake drama

It turns into partisanship.

And you prefer bipartisanship like the swamp creatures.

[Swordsmyth]

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.

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.

[tebowlives]

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

[A Son of Liberty]

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.

[acptulsa]

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.

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).

[oyarde]

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 .

[enhanced_deficit]

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.

[Ender]

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.

[jmdrake]

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.

[jmdrake]

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!

[Ender]

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.

[Occam's Banana]

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.

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.

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.)

[Ender]

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.

[XNavyNuke]

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

[Swordsmyth]

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.

[Swordsmyth]

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.

[Swordsmyth]

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.

[Swordsmyth]

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.

[Aratus]

RAYTHEON....

He went from the U.S Military to RAYTHEON.

RAYTHEON....

[Aratus]

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

[vita3]

Austin seems like a competent man for Defense Sec

Picking Bolton is indefensible.