I got that. I said it in my post!
Trump cabinet picks - off to a good start
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Not how I'd phrase it. More like unethical. You have a governor effectively DIRECTLY influencing a federal body.
In any case, there are lots of state rules to override such stunts - some require time associated with a party or whatever party most recently nominated you - so switching parties wouldn't work. Some, it's not the sole discretion of the governor but the state government - and they can sniff out a stunt. The governor can't just appoint their best friend.
Suffice it to say, the right thing to do is have the decision made by the people of that state remain. If they elected a Democrat - and by a lot - it's completely unethical to replace him with a Republican.
Ideally - a special election is the right thing to do. The people of the state have the right to choose their Senator.
I definitely read the posts out of order. I can see this, too (for Gaetz)
I saw it when Hannity asked her that last night. She looked like the cat that ate the canary!Damn, I'd go for her too
Then, they lost the signal and had to get her back and she STILL looked like that!
Under FL law could, DeSantis be named Rubio's replacement?
Right. He would be appointed Senator to take Rubio's place.
I heard this morning on the way into work, that he wasn't even ON the list until yesterday. He was on the plane with Trump back to FL, from DC (I think?) when this came up. (I have a 5 min ride to work, didn't hear the whole thing)
Governor's have always had the right to name replacements. Not sure why you think them doing their job is so nefarious.
Sure they can.
That's a standard whiny Democrat talking point, one they don't adhere to themselves. Chuck Schumer loves to say chit like that after he gets his ass handed to him.
We need to get past the fear of making Democrats mad. They don't care if they make us mad, so why do we care about their feefees? No doubt state AGS know the laws in their state. I'm not suggesting anyone break the law, I'm suggesting meeting the Democrats on their own field and coming up with creative ways to defeat them.
Rogue Republicans, too. If Trump wanted to bring in Kyrsten Sinema to replace some slimy treasonous Gooper, I'm there for it.
Dems are always mad - it's absolutely pointless to ever take it into consideration. It ranks up there with being called a racist. It's so common, it is meaningless.
I'm talking ethics. I believe that it is wrong to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. I don't know of an instance where this has happened - a governor of a different party switching the party of a replacement. If the people WANT a Senator from the other party, then they get to show that in a special election. I mean, damn, Massachusetts did that with Scott Brown - he wasn't appointed, he was elected. To TED KENNEDY's "spot". He didn't last long, but the people actually chose him in the bluest state in the nation.
And I mention this because - it cuts both ways. This isn't whiny Democrat point - this is for both sides. Right now, the Dems are pushing Sotomayor to resign quickly so they can appoint a left-leaning SCOTUS before Trump can do it. This is your "outside the box" rationale, but I don't agree. Kicking Trump off the ballot in several states because he "participated in an insurrection" and by the 14th Amendment is ineligible for office kind of stunt. I'm glad they struck that down. Let the voters decide if they want him - don't pull "outisde the box" political stunts. Just let the chips fall where they may.
They tried that before and ended up with Neal Gorsuch. You'd think they'd stop doing things that are doomed to fail, and yet here we are.
Why? What's so unethical about following the law?
If the voters in that district/state don't like the appointment, they vote him/her out. That's how it works.
See, the lawfare used against Trump - was - LEGAL. It was just transparent that they were using LEGAL means to pursue a blatantly political and partisan goal of keeping him from being elected. The whole Stormy/Bragg thing was them using loopholes in the law to extend an expired law - another to turn a misdemeanour into a felony - and a lotta legal crap to find a way to pin a felony on him. Yeah -all legal. But bullcht anyway.
To me, that's why we HAVE a SCOTUS - so that people DON'T use the law to do something the law was designed to prevent. I do wish they can stop all the cases on the Hill where - they investigate something they KNOW the answer to (i.e. who illegally outed Valerie Plame?) and then badger, intimidate and get someone to reverse their testimoney and THEN threaten them with perjury (that they made them DO). I don't like lawyers. "Legally" they can nail your ass ten ways to Sunday, but it's not right.
Democrats started that chit, all I want to do is level the playing field. It's a loser's game to say, "Oh, I will not stoop to their level
" Well fine then, have fun losing all the time. When you're in a gulag you can console yourself with that.This is why Republicans are like Charlie Brown and Democrats are Lucy with the football. Don't you just one time want to see Charlie Brown slap the ** out of her? Even once?
Exactly and HELL YES!Democrats started that chit, all I want to do is level the playing field. It's a loser's game to say, "Oh, I will not stoop to their level
This is why Republicans are like Charlie Brown and Democrats are Lucy with the football. Don't you just one time want to see Charlie Brown slap the ** out of her? Even once?
Nope, I'd rather they outsmart her. Put glue on the football and have her get her hands kicked.Democrats started that chit, all I want to do is level the playing field. It's a loser's game to say, "Oh, I will not stoop to their level
This is why Republicans are like Charlie Brown and Democrats are Lucy with the football. Don't you just one time want to see Charlie Brown slap the ** out of her? Even once?
I don't like playing games with the law. They tried to remove him from the ballot - nope, beat you.
They tried to get him guilty of a felony, thinking it would get him off the ballot - nope, beat you.
They hoped that tarnishing him with a felony would have voters NOT vote for him - nope, beat you AND - now that I WON - you can't do nothing.
The Democrats are about "winning" even if it means CHEATING. For the moment - the GOP isn't, but partly because, they're just bad at it.
I mentioned in another post, my wife was surprised when she met a guy she was certain would have voted Harris. NOPE. Votes Democrat NORMALLY but he wasn't fooled this time. That's how he won. He was just - better.
Grumpy
Well-Known Member
APPALLING: New Trump Appointee Has Zero Experience Being A Useless Government Bureaucrat
WASHINGTON, D.C. — To date, Donald Trump has appointed seven people to his presidential cabinet, with at least seven more on the way. But is the damage already done? Critics are sounding the alarm that his current picks have zero experience as useless government bureaucrats.
babylonbee.com
Just announced. RFK Jr. as Sec HHS.