What I don’t understand is why he simply hasn’t been removed; he’s not doing his job (on purpose) and is can basically be called a traitor. So… remove him???
Tuberville, of Alabama, has delayed the confirmations of more than 300 top military nominees over his opposition to the Pentagon’s policy of reimbursing service members and their families who have to travel to receive abortion care. In the Senate, one senator can hold up nominations or legislation, and Tuberville’s stance has left three military services to operate without a Senate-confirmed leader for the first time in history.
Like… how is not the actions of a traitor? Remove him from power, hold a new election for his position, and get things back on track.
In July, Tuberville posted on X, “I didn’t start this. The Biden admin injected politics in the military and imposed an unlawful abortion policy on American taxpayers. I am trying to get politics out of the military.”
Lying sack of shit. He’s putting politics in (his own politics).
It’s always projection with these people. If they complain about “politics” or “activist judges” they are really calling for their own politics or active judges to undo the will of the people.
Same reason that the Trump appointed head of the Post Office hasn’t been removed… Democrats are cowards who are never willing to go on the offensive and make a huge stink about things.
Do you think for even a second that Dejoy or Tuberville would still be in the positions that they are in if the parties were reversed? Not a fucken chance.
Republicans would have started an endless war if Democrats had someone in the Post Office fucking everything up or they had someone holding up that many military nominees. They would be on the news 24/7 vilifying these people and all hell would have broken loose. They would use this as a perfect example of how Democrats are supposedly anti-military. And the news media would have gone right along with it.
What do Democrats do? crickets… in fact I try to follow the news fairly closely and this is the first time I have heard the name Tuberville.
I’m old enough that my grandfathers fought in WWI. My mother’s second husband was a B-17 captain. Third husband was a fighter pilot in the Pacific theater. My father retired from the regular army as a LTC. Col.
These bastards would have fought each other to get to the head of the line to beat the shit out of Turderville.
But as others have noted, we have this obstructionist process in place.
As one of the other commentators said, maybe we should change the fucking rule. I just don’t know how.
I’ve never voted Republikklan in my life, but there were some who had honor. Senator McCain, for example. But now we’re stuck with this shit with legs.
McCain was one of the last respectable Republicans. I disagreed with many many of his ideas, but I think he was honorable as a person and thought he was doing what was right for the country.
The guy would rather be called "Coach" than "Senator," by choice. He doesn't care about what's best for the United States, it's citizens, and his constituents. That's his second job. His first job is "Coach."
Yes and no. Yes, officers can fill in as acting whatever, so the essential work still gets done, but acting positions also tend to be conservative in how they exercise that authority. But as the article mentions, there are also people stuck waiting for their nomination to be approved so they can actually relocate and take up the job. These people are currently in limbo while Tuberville is fucking around.
I don’t get how holding up military appointments (and thus, promotions) can be done for any reasons outside of concerns for the ability to perform. It makes sense to hold up a position, a single position, out of many due to how an individual has performed in the past and allow for some discourse on the individual’s suitability. That’s completely reasonable and perhaps even desired.
How a single senator holds up hundreds of such individuals over something completely unrelated to the job performance of these flag officers is bewildering. The justification is bullshit.
How a single senator holds up hundreds of such individuals over something completely unrelated to the job performance of these flag officers is bewildering.
There’s a senate rule that all general offiver promotions require unanimous consent. Like the cloture rule for judicial appointments, they could change it tomorrow, but a lot of Senate rules are there to allow Senators to feel powerful.
Rhetoric aside, it is chilling that a sitting Senator would take such a step and we should all be concerned about what this could lead to.
Today it’s Tuberville’s hold on nominations for non-military political reasons. Maybe tomorrow it’s the Armed Services committees treating these appointments and promotions like judicial nominations. All of a sudden, you effectively have de-facto political appointments for in-the-ranks military leadership, and U.S. politics is far scarier than it’s ever been.
Sure, I’m committing a slippery slope fallacy here, but given the track record of our political leaders to cause institutional decay with zero-sum game partisan politics, I don’t think it’s a stretch.
I think, given the fact that we are all living in the same era of American politics and that we are all in the comments section of a story about a Republican Senator, that it was obvious Republicans are the perpetrators I’m speaking of. Their behavior with regard to institutional security is obviously abhorrent.
I am a bit bothered by your reply though. And I do mean to operate in good faith here, but I am curious about whether my comment was unclear or were you hoping for “Democrat good” to be my reply?
Let me clarify that I’m not trying to sound like an “enlightened centrist here,” I’m just trying to make the point that playing the finger-pointing game in relation to this story also contributes to the zero-sum-game politics that causes this institutional decay. There are no winners here, only losers.
No, not hoping for "Democrat good." It's probably just a matter of mild miscommunication/misunderstanding.
The only reference you make to a Republican Senator is naming him as today's problem. Tomorrow's problems are described neutrally. And the last line, especially the part I quoted above, can be read in a "bOtH sIDeS" kind of way. That's the read I was responding to, and I apologize if I misunderstood.
I still think it's worth saying. The major and pressing problem with politics in the US in 2023 is the Republican party. This is not to say that Democrats are immune from criticism. This is not saying anything about Democrats. It's unfortunate that the construction of our elections force a two-party system. Perhaps the right wing wouldn't be so crazy if we had ranked choice voting, full passage of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, better civics and US history education, etc, etc.
Add comment