CDZ Republicans just don't like to vote on things it seems....

[320 Years of History]

At the GOP convention, some Republicans can't seem to get their own party to agree to merely hold a roll call vote on the rules by which the convention is bound. In the Senate, the GOP members refuse to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. I guess the trend extends down to polls offered on USMB for I don't often see many folks voting in them either, and this forum seems to be populated more by conservatives than by liberals.

What else will the GOP not be willing to vote on? I wonder if at some point the GOP will want to tell you and I we shouldn't or can't vote on "such and such?" Perhaps Republicans are all for accountability when it's someone other than they being held accountable as a consequence of the vote?

 

[Compost]

At the GOP convention, some Republicans can't seem to get their own party to agree to merely hold a roll call vote on the rules by which the convention is bound. In the Senate, the GOP members refuse to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. I guess the trend extends down to polls offered on USMB for I don't often see many folks voting in them either, and this forum seems to be populated more by conservatives than by liberals.

What else will the GOP not be willing to vote on? I wonder if at some point the GOP will want to tell you and I we shouldn't or can't vote on "such and such?" Perhaps Republicans are all for accountability when it's someone other than they being held accountable as a consequence of the vote?

You have glossed over the reasons some Republicans are not holding a roll call and not voting on nominees to the Supreme Court. Details matter. Some republicans at the convention don't want to proceed with nominating Trump. I don't know what they intend to do exactly, but why not find out before you declare that "republicans don't like to vote on things, it seems". As for nominee to SCOTUS, please name the viable candidate or candidates nominated and let's discuss them in turn. As for polls here at USMB, it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that not everybody feels a burning desire to participate in polls. Believe it or not, some people don't consider a little bitty opinion poll on an online discussion forum important enough to spend time on. That hardly equates to a widespread trend in the voting attitudes of conservatives, does it?

Do you have anything other than vague general accusations against republicans to support your premise?

 

[320 Years of History]

You have glossed over the reasons some Republicans are not holding a roll call and not voting on nominees to the Supreme Court. Details matter.

I agree details often matter. When the behavior itself begins looking like a trend, the "whys and wherefores" begin to matter less and less.

 

[Silent Warrior]

It is so much easier the way Democrats do it, where the nominee is chosen by the national committee and other candidates are left to drop by the wayside. Both parties simply want to hold on to power and don't worry to much about how it affects the country.

 

[320 Years of History]

Some republicans at the convention don't want to proceed with nominating Trump. I don't know what they intend to do exactly, but why not find out before you declare that "republicans don't like to vote on things, it seems".

I don't know what they are thinking either, but I do know that if they have a vote on a question, no matter the question, the majority will win and that'll be that. There won't be any need for further wrangling about it. Bring up the topic to be voted on, vote, count the votes, declare the winner and move on from there.

As I understand things, there remain in the GOP folks who want someone other than Trump to be the GOP nominee. Quite frankly, I think seeing as Trump has the votes to win that battle on the convention floor, by far the easiest and most demonstrative way to put an unequivocal end to the "Never Trump" movement was to let the vote happen and show the "Never Trumpers" and the rest of the world that most Republicans do indeed want Trump to be the nominee. The "Never Trumpers" will see that, they'll have made their "last stand" and lost and there will then be nothing else to say, either by them or by fair minded folks who just don't like the idea that a meaningfully large block of folks had their voices squelched in such a what that the "squelchers" aren't held individually and directly accountable for having done so.

As for nominee to SCOTUS, please name the viable candidate or candidates nominated and let's discuss them in turn.

Anyone a President nominates is a viable candidate for a SCOTUS chair is a viable candidate. There are no qualifications stipulated for that position. The President nominates, the Senate votes yes or no. The Senators don't have to say why the voted yea or no; they just need to vote one way or the other. What we have in the Senate is much like what happened on the GOP convention floor: a handful of powerfully influential folks prohibiting others from accountably making their own and others' voices heard.

 

[2aguy]

At the GOP convention, some Republicans can't seem to get their own party to agree to merely hold a roll call vote on the rules by which the convention is bound. In the Senate, the GOP members refuse to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. I guess the trend extends down to polls offered on USMB for I don't often see many folks voting in them either, and this forum seems to be populated more by conservatives than by liberals.

What else will the GOP not be willing to vote on? I wonder if at some point the GOP will want to tell you and I we shouldn't or can't vote on "such and such?" Perhaps Republicans are all for accountability when it's someone other than they being held accountable as a consequence of the vote?

You mean like the way Hilary used "super delegates". To beat Bernie....you mean like that non voting?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Nah! He wants everyone to toe the line and just sign prior to reading...

*****CHUCKLE*****





...While we're at it I have a contract for 320 to sign. Don't worry 320, you can read the signed copy I send to you later.

 

[Compost]

You have glossed over the reasons some Republicans are not holding a roll call and not voting on nominees to the Supreme Court. Details matter.

I agree details often matter. When the behavior itself begins looking like a trend, the "whys and wherefores" begin to matter less and less.

When you ignore the whys and wherefores you are left with unsubstantiated kvetching about wispy trends.

 

[Compost]

Some republicans at the convention don't want to proceed with nominating Trump. I don't know what they intend to do exactly, but why not find out before you declare that "republicans don't like to vote on things, it seems".

I don't know what they are thinking either, but I do know that if they have a vote on a question, no matter the question, the majority will win and that'll be that. There won't be any need for further wrangling about it. Bring up the topic to be voted on, vote, count the votes, declare the winner and move on from there.

As I understand things, there remain in the GOP folks who want someone other than Trump to be the GOP nominee. Quite frankly, I think seeing as Trump has the votes to win that battle on the convention floor, by far the easiest and most demonstrative way to put an unequivocal end to the "Never Trump" movement was to let the vote happen and show the "Never Trumpers" and the rest of the world that most Republicans do indeed want Trump to be the nominee. The "Never Trumpers" will see that, they'll have made their "last stand" and lost and there will then be nothing else to say, either by them or by fair minded folks who just don't like the idea that a meaningfully large block of folks had their voices squelched in such a what that the "squelchers" aren't held individually and directly accountable for having done so.

As for nominee to SCOTUS, please name the viable candidate or candidates nominated and let's discuss them in turn.

Anyone a President nominates is a viable candidate for a SCOTUS chair is a viable candidate. There are no qualifications stipulated for that position. The President nominates, the Senate votes yes or no. The Senators don't have to say why the voted yea or no; they just need to vote one way or the other. What we have in the Senate is much like what happened on the GOP convention floor: a handful of powerfully influential folks prohibiting others from accountably making their own and others' voices heard.

The Never Trumpers indeed want to have their say. Why shouldn't they? If we are to pretend there's anything to the democratic process, let them speak. Frankly, I'm delighted to have something going on on the convention floor other than usual bland rah rah speeches. Not sure what you mean by squelchers being held "accountable" for speaking out, for delaying a vote. It seems to me they are simply expressing their opinions. A free society ought not squelch squelchers.

Anyone a president nominate is a viable candidate for SCOTUS? Really? Does that include Harriet Miers?

 

[Compost]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it seems that republicans do vote.

CLEVELAND (AP) — Over angry and prolonged objections from anti-Donald Trump forces, Republican Party leaders approved rules for their national convention on Monday and rejected demands for a state-by-state roll call vote, a discordant start to a gathering designed to project unity.

Hundreds of socially conservative delegates opposed to nominating Trump bellowed in outrage after the convention's presiding officer, Arkansas GOP Rep. Steve Womack, abruptly put the rules to a vote and declared them approved by voice, not an individual tally of each state's delegation.

Though likely to lose, the dissidents had demanded a roll call, a slow-moving vote that they hoped would underscore their claims that party leaders were unfairly railroading through rules that give too much clout to the GOP hierarchy. Top Republicans and Trump campaign officials wanted to avoid such a scenario, and ended up contending with a shorter but more raucous display of fury.
"Call the roll, call the roll," opponents shouted. Practically drowning them out were chants of "USA, USA" by Trump supporters and party loyalists.

Minutes later, Womack had the convention vote by voice again, with both sides again shouting their votes lustily. Once again, he said, the rules' supporters had prevailed.

continued here
GOP leaders approve convention rules, block insurgents

 

[320 Years of History]

Anyone a president nominate is a viable candidate for SCOTUS? Really? Does that include Harriet Miers?

Yes.

 

[yiostheoy]

At the GOP convention, some Republicans can't seem to get their own party to agree to merely hold a roll call vote on the rules by which the convention is bound. In the Senate, the GOP members refuse to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. I guess the trend extends down to polls offered on USMB for I don't often see many folks voting in them either, and this forum seems to be populated more by conservatives than by liberals.

What else will the GOP not be willing to vote on? I wonder if at some point the GOP will want to tell you and I we shouldn't or can't vote on "such and such?" Perhaps Republicans are all for accountability when it's someone other than they being held accountable as a consequence of the vote?

320 You are a funny man.

I appreciate your very dignified and piercing humor however.

I am an independent nonpartisan who votes not for either major party but for the person running for office.

I always understand that whether I vote for a Democrat or a Republican there are going to be pro's and con's with any candidate.

Having said that, I agree with you that many commentators across the Nation were troubled by the dismissal of the call for a roll call vote in the RNC Convention which happened early on. That was a blatant violation of orderly procedure.

The SCOTUS nomination in the US Senate is a completely different matter.

We have a major weakness in the US Constitution about the appointment of SCOTUS justices unfortunately. The problem is that it is too vague on that point. The fact that a justice like Ginsberg has been allowed to be appointed to the High Court is a bright line that the Constitution is not working in this respect.

The Court cannot afford to seat yet another Ginsberg let alone two more of them. If that were to happen then the SCOTUS would simply become a 2nd Federal Legislature, and not really a US Supreme Court.

Now you may or may not agree with me, but that is what I see as a major problem, from my perspective of an independent nonpartisan voter.

Therefore I fully support Mitch McConnell's refusal to conduct any hearings at the present time.

While I agree that under normal circumstance it would be an outrage and an affront to the President to completely ignore his nominations, it is because of our current special circumstances on the High Court that it make perfect sense for McConnell to refuse. If BHO had nominated a truly strict-constructionist candidate then I am sure McConnell would have proceeded with the confirmation hearings. But BHO did not.

This problem is not going away after Hillary becomes elected.

Therefore it is likely that McConnell will need to refuse to conduct hearings for the next 4 years as well.

Therefore I suspect the High Court will shrink to only 7 justices in the near future, and after Ginsberg resigns or dies, then it will be a balanced Court again with Kennedy becoming the swing voter.

What the court needs is more swing voters. Not more Ginsberg's.

Ginsberg has been an insult to the US Constitution and to the US Supreme Court.

 

[yiostheoy]

In addition, Ginsberg is the ugliest most stupid Jewish b!tch I have ever seen in my life.

She fears no god, whether a Jewish God nor a Christian God.

She respects no rule of law either.

She only thinks of herself and she does whatever the fokk she wants to -- a typical Jewish b!tch.

She is the reason that a lot of Jewish men try to find non-Jewish wives in their lives.

Fokk me! Ginsberg has been fokking us all.

 

[yiostheoy]

Anyone a president nominate is a viable candidate for SCOTUS? Really? Does that include Harriet Miers?

Yes.

Now 320 I cannot tell if you are being honest or just being politically correct.

So what about Bork?

After he fired the special prosecutor in the Nixon investigations quid pro quo, do you think HE also would have been a qualified candidate ?!

It is the job of the US Senate to weed out all the Bork's and Ginsberg's of the world and make sure they do NOT get appointed to the High Court. Or do you disagree with that statement also ?!

 

[yiostheoy]

Some republicans at the convention don't want to proceed with nominating Trump. I don't know what they intend to do exactly, but why not find out before you declare that "republicans don't like to vote on things, it seems".

I don't know what they are thinking either, but I do know that if they have a vote on a question, no matter the question, the majority will win and that'll be that. There won't be any need for further wrangling about it. Bring up the topic to be voted on, vote, count the votes, declare the winner and move on from there.

As I understand things, there remain in the GOP folks who want someone other than Trump to be the GOP nominee. Quite frankly, I think seeing as Trump has the votes to win that battle on the convention floor, by far the easiest and most demonstrative way to put an unequivocal end to the "Never Trump" movement was to let the vote happen and show the "Never Trumpers" and the rest of the world that most Republicans do indeed want Trump to be the nominee. The "Never Trumpers" will see that, they'll have made their "last stand" and lost and there will then be nothing else to say, either by them or by fair minded folks who just don't like the idea that a meaningfully large block of folks had their voices squelched in such a what that the "squelchers" aren't held individually and directly accountable for having done so.

As for nominee to SCOTUS, please name the viable candidate or candidates nominated and let's discuss them in turn.

Anyone a President nominates is a viable candidate for a SCOTUS chair is a viable candidate. There are no qualifications stipulated for that position. The President nominates, the Senate votes yes or no. The Senators don't have to say why the voted yea or no; they just need to vote one way or the other. What we have in the Senate is much like what happened on the GOP convention floor: a handful of powerfully influential folks prohibiting others from accountably making their own and others' voices heard.

The Never Trumpers indeed want to have their say. Why shouldn't they? If we are to pretend there's anything to the democratic process, let them speak. Frankly, I'm delighted to have something going on on the convention floor other than usual bland rah rah speeches. Not sure what you mean by squelchers being held "accountable" for speaking out, for delaying a vote. It seems to me they are simply expressing their opinions. A free society ought not squelch squelchers.

Anyone a president nominate is a viable candidate for SCOTUS? Really? Does that include Harriet Miers?

Compost, I also cannot tell if you are being truly honest or only being politically correct yourself.

The Never Trump-er's have been duly squelched but in a manner that was out of order.

A roll call vote should have been called. It was not. That was a violation of due procedure in any formal assembly. You can check Robert's Rules Of Order if you need to.

Any motion, when seconded, should have been followed. It was not.

The Never Trumper's should have had their voices heard. There should have been a vote.

Q.E.D.

 

[yiostheoy]

At the GOP convention, some Republicans can't seem to get their own party to agree to merely hold a roll call vote on the rules by which the convention is bound. In the Senate, the GOP members refuse to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. I guess the trend extends down to polls offered on USMB for I don't often see many folks voting in them either, and this forum seems to be populated more by conservatives than by liberals.

What else will the GOP not be willing to vote on? I wonder if at some point the GOP will want to tell you and I we shouldn't or can't vote on "such and such?" Perhaps Republicans are all for accountability when it's someone other than they being held accountable as a consequence of the vote?

You have glossed over the reasons some Republicans are not holding a roll call and not voting on nominees to the Supreme Court. Details matter. Some republicans at the convention don't want to proceed with nominating Trump. I don't know what they intend to do exactly, but why not find out before you declare that "republicans don't like to vote on things, it seems". As for nominee to SCOTUS, please name the viable candidate or candidates nominated and let's discuss them in turn. As for polls here at USMB, it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that not everybody feels a burning desire to participate in polls. Believe it or not, some people don't consider a little bitty opinion poll on an online discussion forum important enough to spend time on. That hardly equates to a widespread trend in the voting attitudes of conservatives, does it?

Do you have anything other than vague general accusations against republicans to support your premise?

It does not matter "why".

Rules of order are rules of order. They should be followed.

Otherwise what do you do next? Does everybody go get their guns out, and then you have a melee to determine order ?!

Rules of order exist precisely to prevent guns of order.

Q.E.D.

 

[Compost]

Some republicans at the convention don't want to proceed with nominating Trump. I don't know what they intend to do exactly, but why not find out before you declare that "republicans don't like to vote on things, it seems".

I don't know what they are thinking either, but I do know that if they have a vote on a question, no matter the question, the majority will win and that'll be that. There won't be any need for further wrangling about it. Bring up the topic to be voted on, vote, count the votes, declare the winner and move on from there.

As I understand things, there remain in the GOP folks who want someone other than Trump to be the GOP nominee. Quite frankly, I think seeing as Trump has the votes to win that battle on the convention floor, by far the easiest and most demonstrative way to put an unequivocal end to the "Never Trump" movement was to let the vote happen and show the "Never Trumpers" and the rest of the world that most Republicans do indeed want Trump to be the nominee. The "Never Trumpers" will see that, they'll have made their "last stand" and lost and there will then be nothing else to say, either by them or by fair minded folks who just don't like the idea that a meaningfully large block of folks had their voices squelched in such a what that the "squelchers" aren't held individually and directly accountable for having done so.

As for nominee to SCOTUS, please name the viable candidate or candidates nominated and let's discuss them in turn.

Anyone a President nominates is a viable candidate for a SCOTUS chair is a viable candidate. There are no qualifications stipulated for that position. The President nominates, the Senate votes yes or no. The Senators don't have to say why the voted yea or no; they just need to vote one way or the other. What we have in the Senate is much like what happened on the GOP convention floor: a handful of powerfully influential folks prohibiting others from accountably making their own and others' voices heard.

The Never Trumpers indeed want to have their say. Why shouldn't they? If we are to pretend there's anything to the democratic process, let them speak. Frankly, I'm delighted to have something going on on the convention floor other than usual bland rah rah speeches. Not sure what you mean by squelchers being held "accountable" for speaking out, for delaying a vote. It seems to me they are simply expressing their opinions. A free society ought not squelch squelchers.

Anyone a president nominate is a viable candidate for SCOTUS? Really? Does that include Harriet Miers?

Compost, I also cannot tell if you are being truly honest or only being politically correct yourself.

The Never Trump-er's have been duly squelched but in a manner that was out of order.

A roll call vote should have been called. It was not. That was a violation of due procedure in any formal assembly. You can check Robert's Rules Of Order if you need to.

Any motion, when seconded, should have been followed. It was not.

The Never Trumper's should have had their voices heard. There should have been a vote.

Q.E.D.

FYI, I don't do PC. I also don't appreciate having to announce that I am honest.

I believe I said that the Never Trumps ought to have their voices heard in my #9.

 

[yiostheoy]

It is so much easier the way Democrats do it, where the nominee is chosen by the national committee and other candidates are left to drop by the wayside. Both parties simply want to hold on to power and don't worry to much about how it affects the country.

Actually the DEM's have their own problems.

They cheated Bernie out of a fair representation.

Bernie was actually more popular than either Hillary or Donald.

And Bernie was cheated.

Both major parties are quite fokked up at this point.

It is all power politics at this point.

However when it comes to power politics the DEM's have the upper hand over the GOP.

Part of the reason for that is more tax cuts for the rich.

Part of it is raping the land.

Part of it is GOP obstruction of progress on meaningful immigration reform.

Ergo Hillary is set to beat the crap out of Trump in November.

Therefore the GOP's only hope of winning The White House this time around was a roll call vote for the benefit of the Never Trump movement, and then the selection of a dark horse candidate to replace Trump.

But instead what the GOP is doing in their convention is for the third time in a row is selecting a candidate (read: Trump) who CANNOT be elected nationally. Same as Robber Barron Romney. Same is Inept McCain.

Kasich would have been a good choice.

The Navy SEAL from Montana would also have been a good choice.

But no. The third time.

 

[Compost]

At the GOP convention, some Republicans can't seem to get their own party to agree to merely hold a roll call vote on the rules by which the convention is bound. In the Senate, the GOP members refuse to vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court. I guess the trend extends down to polls offered on USMB for I don't often see many folks voting in them either, and this forum seems to be populated more by conservatives than by liberals.

What else will the GOP not be willing to vote on? I wonder if at some point the GOP will want to tell you and I we shouldn't or can't vote on "such and such?" Perhaps Republicans are all for accountability when it's someone other than they being held accountable as a consequence of the vote?

You have glossed over the reasons some Republicans are not holding a roll call and not voting on nominees to the Supreme Court. Details matter. Some republicans at the convention don't want to proceed with nominating Trump. I don't know what they intend to do exactly, but why not find out before you declare that "republicans don't like to vote on things, it seems". As for nominee to SCOTUS, please name the viable candidate or candidates nominated and let's discuss them in turn. As for polls here at USMB, it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that not everybody feels a burning desire to participate in polls. Believe it or not, some people don't consider a little bitty opinion poll on an online discussion forum important enough to spend time on. That hardly equates to a widespread trend in the voting attitudes of conservatives, does it?

Do you have anything other than vague general accusations against republicans to support your premise?

It does not matter "why".

Rules of order are rules of order. They should be followed.

Otherwise what do you do next? Does everybody go get their guns out, and then you have a melee to determine order ?!

Rules of order exist precisely to prevent guns of order.

Q.E.D.

My point was that OP's sweeping generalization about republican's willingness to vote requires some fleshing out. You appear to be obsessed with Rules of Order. Still, thanks for reiterating your point.

 

[yiostheoy]

Some republicans at the convention don't want to proceed with nominating Trump. I don't know what they intend to do exactly, but why not find out before you declare that "republicans don't like to vote on things, it seems".

I don't know what they are thinking either, but I do know that if they have a vote on a question, no matter the question, the majority will win and that'll be that. There won't be any need for further wrangling about it. Bring up the topic to be voted on, vote, count the votes, declare the winner and move on from there.

As I understand things, there remain in the GOP folks who want someone other than Trump to be the GOP nominee. Quite frankly, I think seeing as Trump has the votes to win that battle on the convention floor, by far the easiest and most demonstrative way to put an unequivocal end to the "Never Trump" movement was to let the vote happen and show the "Never Trumpers" and the rest of the world that most Republicans do indeed want Trump to be the nominee. The "Never Trumpers" will see that, they'll have made their "last stand" and lost and there will then be nothing else to say, either by them or by fair minded folks who just don't like the idea that a meaningfully large block of folks had their voices squelched in such a what that the "squelchers" aren't held individually and directly accountable for having done so.

As for nominee to SCOTUS, please name the viable candidate or candidates nominated and let's discuss them in turn.

Anyone a President nominates is a viable candidate for a SCOTUS chair is a viable candidate. There are no qualifications stipulated for that position. The President nominates, the Senate votes yes or no. The Senators don't have to say why the voted yea or no; they just need to vote one way or the other. What we have in the Senate is much like what happened on the GOP convention floor: a handful of powerfully influential folks prohibiting others from accountably making their own and others' voices heard.

The Never Trumpers indeed want to have their say. Why shouldn't they? If we are to pretend there's anything to the democratic process, let them speak. Frankly, I'm delighted to have something going on on the convention floor other than usual bland rah rah speeches. Not sure what you mean by squelchers being held "accountable" for speaking out, for delaying a vote. It seems to me they are simply expressing their opinions. A free society ought not squelch squelchers.

Anyone a president nominate is a viable candidate for SCOTUS? Really? Does that include Harriet Miers?

Compost, I also cannot tell if you are being truly honest or only being politically correct yourself.

The Never Trump-er's have been duly squelched but in a manner that was out of order.

A roll call vote should have been called. It was not. That was a violation of due procedure in any formal assembly. You can check Robert's Rules Of Order if you need to.

Any motion, when seconded, should have been followed. It was not.

The Never Trumper's should have had their voices heard. There should have been a vote.

Q.E.D.

FYI, I don't do PC. I also don't appreciate having to announce that I am honest.

I believe I said that the Never Trumps ought to have their voices heard in my #9.

I'm afraid that I just don't agree with you, Compost, that a Senate Majority Leader is obliged to waste the Senate's time.