Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

When Democracts decided to vote "yes" on some of the more ridiculous appointments, even though they would have been appointed even if those Democrats voted no, it was done for them. I can't take a single thing a Democrat congressman says seriously when opposing Trump if they couldn't even say no to Ben Carson being appointed as HUD secretary.

Grow a spine. What do they even stand for these days?



This article speaks directly to your point: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14397448/de...

Basically, the standard practice used to be for most cabinet appointments to be easily confirmed with bipartisan support. Obama's appointments saw unprecedented levels of push-back from republicans, but still received significant numbers of republican votes. Democratic opposition to Trump's nominations has been, again, unprecedented.

My opinion: perhaps, given the fact that their votes are purely symbolic anyway, some democrats are choosing to 'pick their battles', and vote yes to the picks they feel are halfway reasonable, saving opposition for the cases where (again, in their opinions) it matters most.


I remember during Alito's nomination, the Democrats stomped their feet, huffed and puffed, but eventually confirmed him anyway.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: