Republicans Have Absolutely Had It With Tommy Tuberville: “Xi Jinping Is Loving This”
3 years ago by MicroWave to c/politics
Senate Republicans are starting to turn on Tommy Tuberville over his blockade of military promotions.
The Senate brought 61 individual nominees to the floor for a vote Wednesday night. Tuberville objected to all of them, tanking each officer’s promotion. He has repeatedly insisted that his blockade, a protest of the Department of Defense’s abortion policy, does not harm military readiness.
But his Republican colleagues were finally sick of hearing it. “No offense, but that’s just ridiculous,” Senator Dan Sullivan said. “He knows it. We all know it.”
Sullivan revealed that the military expects Tuberville’s blockade to affect 89 percent of all general officer positions, across all branches.
“Xi Jinping is loving this. So is Putin,” Sullivan said, referring to the presidents of China and Russia. “How dumb can we be, man?”
I kinda like this line of thought, but it's not completely tit-for-tat. Menendez isn't re-electable, Tuberville is. So, dems would be giving up something they're going to lose anyway, repubs would be giving up an incumbent.
A first term incumbent in Alabama who hasn't even served half his term. They aren't losing much seniority and unless they run a known pedophile again, he'll be replaced with a republican.
unless they run a known pedophile again
It's the GOP, there's a pretty good chance they do.
The end goal of all of this seems to be about giving a long list of military appointees for a potential Trump part 2 presidency. No doubt these military appointees would be seeded with people who would go along with another coup attempt. So, yeah, it's just all part of the plan.
It's not even specifically tied to Trump. It's just fascist doing what fascists do. And every single one of them that isn't calling for tubervils resignation is complicit. But yes they absolutely want loyal little soldiers. Who will not oppose the next potential further.
They could revoke his committee memberships and replace him with someone else at any time.
This still wouldn't stop the hold, any single senator can place a hold on any motion. Normally the work around would be to just call a vote to proceed, but because others are literally hundreds of promotions on hold, it wouldn't really be possible to hold individual votes on them all.
I think the GOP was hoping to not have to rock the boat of a trump loyalist, they've been trying to mend the schism between their radical and traditional members since Jan 6.
I don't have the energy to pore through Senate rules and find out why this is a thing. But letting one of the Senate's biggest responsibilities be barred by a single Senator seems like a huge oversight.
It was originally utilized as an emergency procedure to halt a motion that may negatively affect an individual senator's state. Giving the senator time to pause the motion until he has read through the bill.
If utilized for it's original purpose, it's not actually that problematic of a rule, as it doesn't usually really take much to motivate a motion to continue if the motion is really important.
The issue is that holds were never designed not to be utilized for several hundred motions at the same time. The Senate got rid of holds all together at some point in the 90s but reinstated it the year or so after. I'm guessing this is going to cause them to close this particular loophole by amending the rules.
Though I doubt they will get rid of it all together, as conservatives benefit from holds like this and the filibuster a lot more than progressives.
You hit the nail on the head
This is what the Republican Party has become: working against U.S. interests, embracing totalitarianism, and receiving funds from Russia and China. Tuberville is a prime example of this disturbing trend within the GOP.
Have they or are they using him as an excuse to get nothing useful done? Because they could easily team up with Democrats to expel him if they're so tired of him.
Tubervile (typo, but I'm keeping it) is like McConnell - a useful hatchet man for the GOP. He's in no danger of losing his seat, has no shame, and is willing to do the dirty work regardless of how it affects his nationwide popularity.
On top of that Faux "News" and hard-line Republicans have made compromise akin to traitorous. As soon as any Republicans joined Democrats in calling for his replacement on the committee, they'd not only have a likely Republican opponent the next campaign cycle, but probably death threats.
Case-in-point, Adam Kinsinger, who only agreed to join the impeachment team knowing he was done in politics afterwards.
He's still butthurt that Alabama didn't get Space Force
He started the blockade before that decision though and that blockade is part of the reason they didn’t.
Though won’t argue that he may be upset. Granted Huntsville is more liberal than a lot of Al, so may also view it as owning the libs.
So what you start doing is when it's his turn to vote yes or no and he starts talking about abortion you have he biggest guy in the room punch him square in the face. Then ask for his vote again. Repeat until he votes
This is democracy manifest!
deleted by creator
I am in agreement with everything you wrote here.
But I only brought Fetterman into this because the guy I was replying to wanted "the biggest guy in the room" to punch Coach repeatedly. And I think it's well known that Fetterman is the biggest guy in that chamber.
deleted by creator
Sort of. This gets into the Senate rules so you really need to ask the Senate Parliamentarian. But my understanding is that under the normal rules, everything the Senate does is subject to some minimum amount of debate on the floor. Including each and every single one of these promotions.
The Senate can waive the normal rules if nobody objects, which happens quite often. For these military promotions, they are often bundled together and voted on all at once. but even a single Senator objecting can force them back to the normal rules. Coach said that the Senate can still approve these, one by one, like the normal rules say.
So, the Senate Leadership decided to offer them one by one, but still waive the debate time for each, which is still circumventing the rules and requires unanimous consent and Coach is continuing to object.
I think it's a bit of performance theater ahead of a push to formally change the rule, which requires 60 votes, so they need Republican support to do it. But if you simply count up the outspoken Republicans who were fighting with Coach and add them to the Senate majority, the math doesn't add up to 60 yet. I think the entire night was a performance for the five or six Republicans they still need to get to 60 votes.
Hahahahahaha, what happened to tubbyville's BrInG EaCh OnE iNdIvIdUaLlY bullshit he was lying about? Who here is surprised the Republican fucker is lying?
His first mistake is thinking he can bring any type of "life ethics" into the american military.
They are literally the walking talking example of telling you to screw off lol.
I mean seriously, they have triple the swear word vocabulary of the average person. Not even the happiest and purest hearted of some coast guard CO is going to listen to him.
The marines would eat him alongside their crayons and MRE wrappers.
Not even trying to be an edge lord or a treasonist here, asking in earnest...
He's an outsider. Haven't the movies taught us they'll break his knee caps so he can't make it to the Senate floor to do this?
There aren't enough hours in the Senate to do it individually. Also there's other shit to get done. This is not both sides. One man, not even the whole GOP for once is about it. Please don't falsely equivocate. It's dangerous.
Did you know a comment you've made like this may have stopped a potential swing voter from switching over bc while they're conservative they hate obstructionism and prefer a functioning government? "But both sides so whatever.. might as well keep voting against your abortions and trans people existing"
So you admit that the senate could do it if they wanted to without any republican support. And you're also claiming that it's not worth scheduling ANY individual position fill votes and better to just let one dumbshit destroy our military leadership because the dems can blame it on the republicans.
I'm not going to lie and claim that dems are perfect and theres no time to line up 400 votes (each of which takes approx 20 minutes) in the YEARS this bullshit has been blocked just in case some low information dumbfuck who would never have voted for not facism anyway.
Are you really claiming that there's no time or circumstances when those who can work around an obstruction simply refuse to do so have to start sharing the blame?
You ignored the substantive part of my response. And I don't understand what your point is. I actually don't understand your comment at all.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
If the Republican party was fed up with this. They could revoke his committee memberships and replace him with someone else at any time. So you have to ask yourself. Are they fed up really? Or is this all just performative. And is he doing exactly what they want.
save