Is something wrong with Mitch McConnell?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently if you go on TV and tell lies about “bipartisanship” the Lord will strike you mute in the middle of that very sentence, which should worry a lot of them.

In all seriousness: it is hard to see any fellow human have that experience.

Nah, I will never feel sorry for Mitch. You sell your soul to the devil he does eventually comes to collect. Hoping it’s miserable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is utterly shocking.
She’s clearly suffering from dementia
and should be immediately dismissed.
Democrats must be appalled, no?
Poor woman.

This Democrat would love for her to resign, except the Republicans in the Senate have said they won’t replace her on the Judiciary Committee if she does.

Agree. Every Democrat and Progressive Independent that I know would love for her to resign, and think that she should have done so long ago. BUT, as the PP has said, we’re even more appalled at the way the Republicans would respond to her resignation.

This isn't true. You guys are really gullible and believe half truths. The Republicans have said they won't let her stay in the senate and have someone else temporarily serve on the judiciary committee. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-block-temporary-replacement-for-sen-feinstein-on-judiciary-committee#:~:text=Feinstein%20on%20Judiciary%20Committee,-Politics%20Updated%20on&text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Republicans%20blocked,Joe%20Biden%27s%20stalled%20judicial%20nominees.

Did you read that article? It clearly said that Republicans already did not allow Cardin to replace Feinstein while she was sidelined earlier this year, and also that “several Republican senators said on Monday that they wouldn’t support the Democratic plan — both because they don’t want to help Democrats confirm liberal judges and because they don’t think senators should try to push out one of their own.” So there’s clearly a bloc who wants the Democratic majority vote on the committee eliminated. Why should she resign in that scenario? Of course Newsom would appoint her replacement to vote in the full Senate, but there’s no guarantee that there are 60 votes to replace her as the 11th Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which without her or another Democrat would stay 50-50 with the ability to block every Biden judicial nominee going forward.

Also, there’s an entire thread about Feinstein here https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/919823.page where you will find me and the many other Democrats who wish she could retire and know a lot more about this than you do. And talking about her in a thread about Mitch McConnell is whataboutism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should a one for one and allow the replacements on committees. McConnell and Feinstein.

McConnell as leader isn’t on any committees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there's something wrong with Mitch McConnell. He outright stole SCOTUS nominees. He willfully sabotaged productive legislation that would have helped millions of Americans to score political points.

What's wrong with him is that he is a craven a-hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is utterly shocking.
She’s clearly suffering from dementia
and should be immediately dismissed.
Democrats must be appalled, no?
Poor woman.

This Democrat would love for her to resign, except the Republicans in the Senate have said they won’t replace her on the Judiciary Committee if she does.

Agree. Every Democrat and Progressive Independent that I know would love for her to resign, and think that she should have done so long ago. BUT, as the PP has said, we’re even more appalled at the way the Republicans would respond to her resignation.

This isn't true. You guys are really gullible and believe half truths. The Republicans have said they won't let her stay in the senate and have someone else temporarily serve on the judiciary committee. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-block-temporary-replacement-for-sen-feinstein-on-judiciary-committee#:~:text=Feinstein%20on%20Judiciary%20Committee,-Politics%20Updated%20on&text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Republicans%20blocked,Joe%20Biden%27s%20stalled%20judicial%20nominees.

Did you read that article? It clearly said that Republicans already did not allow Cardin to replace Feinstein while she was sidelined earlier this year, and also that “several Republican senators said on Monday that they wouldn’t support the Democratic plan — both because they don’t want to help Democrats confirm liberal judges and because they don’t think senators should try to push out one of their own.” So there’s clearly a bloc who wants the Democratic majority vote on the committee eliminated. Why should she resign in that scenario? Of course Newsom would appoint her replacement to vote in the full Senate, but there’s no guarantee that there are 60 votes to replace her as the 11th Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which without her or another Democrat would stay 50-50 with the ability to block every Biden judicial nominee going forward.

Also, there’s an entire thread about Feinstein here https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/919823.page where you will find me and the many other Democrats who wish she could retire and know a lot more about this than you do. And talking about her in a thread about Mitch McConnell is whataboutism.

You’re misreading the article. If she leaves the senate, they get a new senator on the committee. They don’t get to appoint a proxy while she’s still in the senate. That’s not done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is utterly shocking.
She’s clearly suffering from dementia
and should be immediately dismissed.
Democrats must be appalled, no?
Poor woman.

This Democrat would love for her to resign, except the Republicans in the Senate have said they won’t replace her on the Judiciary Committee if she does.

Agree. Every Democrat and Progressive Independent that I know would love for her to resign, and think that she should have done so long ago. BUT, as the PP has said, we’re even more appalled at the way the Republicans would respond to her resignation.

This isn't true. You guys are really gullible and believe half truths. The Republicans have said they won't let her stay in the senate and have someone else temporarily serve on the judiciary committee. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-block-temporary-replacement-for-sen-feinstein-on-judiciary-committee#:~:text=Feinstein%20on%20Judiciary%20Committee,-Politics%20Updated%20on&text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Republicans%20blocked,Joe%20Biden%27s%20stalled%20judicial%20nominees.

Yes Dems are gullible if they believe Republicans will play fairly and nicely. Fat chance. They will say one thing and do another. We all know it because we've seen it time after time. Never trust a Republican, ever.

Lovely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is utterly shocking.
She’s clearly suffering from dementia
and should be immediately dismissed.
Democrats must be appalled, no?
Poor woman.

This Democrat would love for her to resign, except the Republicans in the Senate have said they won’t replace her on the Judiciary Committee if she does.

Agree. Every Democrat and Progressive Independent that I know would love for her to resign, and think that she should have done so long ago. BUT, as the PP has said, we’re even more appalled at the way the Republicans would respond to her resignation.

This isn't true. You guys are really gullible and believe half truths. The Republicans have said they won't let her stay in the senate and have someone else temporarily serve on the judiciary committee. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-block-temporary-replacement-for-sen-feinstein-on-judiciary-committee#:~:text=Feinstein%20on%20Judiciary%20Committee,-Politics%20Updated%20on&text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Republicans%20blocked,Joe%20Biden%27s%20stalled%20judicial%20nominees.

Did you read that article? It clearly said that Republicans already did not allow Cardin to replace Feinstein while she was sidelined earlier this year, and also that “several Republican senators said on Monday that they wouldn’t support the Democratic plan — both because they don’t want to help Democrats confirm liberal judges and because they don’t think senators should try to push out one of their own.” So there’s clearly a bloc who wants the Democratic majority vote on the committee eliminated. Why should she resign in that scenario? Of course Newsom would appoint her replacement to vote in the full Senate, but there’s no guarantee that there are 60 votes to replace her as the 11th Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which without her or another Democrat would stay 50-50 with the ability to block every Biden judicial nominee going forward.

Also, there’s an entire thread about Feinstein here https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/919823.page where you will find me and the many other Democrats who wish she could retire and know a lot more about this than you do. And talking about her in a thread about Mitch McConnell is whataboutism.

You’re misreading the article. If she leaves the senate, they get a new senator on the committee. They don’t get to appoint a proxy while she’s still in the senate. That’s not done.

How do “they get a new Senator on the committee” exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is utterly shocking.
She’s clearly suffering from dementia
and should be immediately dismissed.
Democrats must be appalled, no?
Poor woman.

This Democrat would love for her to resign, except the Republicans in the Senate have said they won’t replace her on the Judiciary Committee if she does.

Agree. Every Democrat and Progressive Independent that I know would love for her to resign, and think that she should have done so long ago. BUT, as the PP has said, we’re even more appalled at the way the Republicans would respond to her resignation.

This isn't true. You guys are really gullible and believe half truths. The Republicans have said they won't let her stay in the senate and have someone else temporarily serve on the judiciary committee. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-block-temporary-replacement-for-sen-feinstein-on-judiciary-committee#:~:text=Feinstein%20on%20Judiciary%20Committee,-Politics%20Updated%20on&text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Republicans%20blocked,Joe%20Biden%27s%20stalled%20judicial%20nominees.

Did you read that article? It clearly said that Republicans already did not allow Cardin to replace Feinstein while she was sidelined earlier this year, and also that “several Republican senators said on Monday that they wouldn’t support the Democratic plan — both because they don’t want to help Democrats confirm liberal judges and because they don’t think senators should try to push out one of their own.” So there’s clearly a bloc who wants the Democratic majority vote on the committee eliminated. Why should she resign in that scenario? Of course Newsom would appoint her replacement to vote in the full Senate, but there’s no guarantee that there are 60 votes to replace her as the 11th Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which without her or another Democrat would stay 50-50 with the ability to block every Biden judicial nominee going forward.

Also, there’s an entire thread about Feinstein here https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/919823.page where you will find me and the many other Democrats who wish she could retire and know a lot more about this than you do. And talking about her in a thread about Mitch McConnell is whataboutism.

You’re misreading the article. If she leaves the senate, they get a new senator on the committee. They don’t get to appoint a proxy while she’s still in the senate. That’s not done.

How do “they get a new Senator on the committee” exactly?

Can you point to an example of a proxy senator being appointed to a committee temporarily? Once she resigns from the senate, that’s a different matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is utterly shocking.
She’s clearly suffering from dementia
and should be immediately dismissed.
Democrats must be appalled, no?
Poor woman.

This Democrat would love for her to resign, except the Republicans in the Senate have said they won’t replace her on the Judiciary Committee if she does.

Agree. Every Democrat and Progressive Independent that I know would love for her to resign, and think that she should have done so long ago. BUT, as the PP has said, we’re even more appalled at the way the Republicans would respond to her resignation.

This isn't true. You guys are really gullible and believe half truths. The Republicans have said they won't let her stay in the senate and have someone else temporarily serve on the judiciary committee. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-block-temporary-replacement-for-sen-feinstein-on-judiciary-committee#:~:text=Feinstein%20on%20Judiciary%20Committee,-Politics%20Updated%20on&text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Republicans%20blocked,Joe%20Biden%27s%20stalled%20judicial%20nominees.

Did you read that article? It clearly said that Republicans already did not allow Cardin to replace Feinstein while she was sidelined earlier this year, and also that “several Republican senators said on Monday that they wouldn’t support the Democratic plan — both because they don’t want to help Democrats confirm liberal judges and because they don’t think senators should try to push out one of their own.” So there’s clearly a bloc who wants the Democratic majority vote on the committee eliminated. Why should she resign in that scenario? Of course Newsom would appoint her replacement to vote in the full Senate, but there’s no guarantee that there are 60 votes to replace her as the 11th Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which without her or another Democrat would stay 50-50 with the ability to block every Biden judicial nominee going forward.

Also, there’s an entire thread about Feinstein here https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/919823.page where you will find me and the many other Democrats who wish she could retire and know a lot more about this than you do. And talking about her in a thread about Mitch McConnell is whataboutism.

You’re misreading the article. If she leaves the senate, they get a new senator on the committee. They don’t get to appoint a proxy while she’s still in the senate. That’s not done.

How do “they get a new Senator on the committee” exactly?

Can you point to an example of a proxy senator being appointed to a committee temporarily? Once she resigns from the senate, that’s a different matter.

You didn’t answer the question. If she resigns, what is the process for assigning a new Senator on the committee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is utterly shocking.
She’s clearly suffering from dementia
and should be immediately dismissed.
Democrats must be appalled, no?
Poor woman.

This Democrat would love for her to resign, except the Republicans in the Senate have said they won’t replace her on the Judiciary Committee if she does.

Agree. Every Democrat and Progressive Independent that I know would love for her to resign, and think that she should have done so long ago. BUT, as the PP has said, we’re even more appalled at the way the Republicans would respond to her resignation.

This isn't true. You guys are really gullible and believe half truths. The Republicans have said they won't let her stay in the senate and have someone else temporarily serve on the judiciary committee. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-block-temporary-replacement-for-sen-feinstein-on-judiciary-committee#:~:text=Feinstein%20on%20Judiciary%20Committee,-Politics%20Updated%20on&text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Republicans%20blocked,Joe%20Biden%27s%20stalled%20judicial%20nominees.

Did you read that article? It clearly said that Republicans already did not allow Cardin to replace Feinstein while she was sidelined earlier this year, and also that “several Republican senators said on Monday that they wouldn’t support the Democratic plan — both because they don’t want to help Democrats confirm liberal judges and because they don’t think senators should try to push out one of their own.” So there’s clearly a bloc who wants the Democratic majority vote on the committee eliminated. Why should she resign in that scenario? Of course Newsom would appoint her replacement to vote in the full Senate, but there’s no guarantee that there are 60 votes to replace her as the 11th Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which without her or another Democrat would stay 50-50 with the ability to block every Biden judicial nominee going forward.

Also, there’s an entire thread about Feinstein here https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/919823.page where you will find me and the many other Democrats who wish she could retire and know a lot more about this than you do. And talking about her in a thread about Mitch McConnell is whataboutism.

You’re misreading the article. If she leaves the senate, they get a new senator on the committee. They don’t get to appoint a proxy while she’s still in the senate. That’s not done.

How do “they get a new Senator on the committee” exactly?

Can you point to an example of a proxy senator being appointed to a committee temporarily? Once she resigns from the senate, that’s a different matter.

You didn’t answer the question. If she resigns, what is the process for assigning a new Senator on the committee?

Sorry - didn’t realize you were curious! Here’s a pretty good summary of how it works https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/committee-system/committee-assignments.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is utterly shocking.
She’s clearly suffering from dementia
and should be immediately dismissed.
Democrats must be appalled, no?
Poor woman.

This Democrat would love for her to resign, except the Republicans in the Senate have said they won’t replace her on the Judiciary Committee if she does.

Agree. Every Democrat and Progressive Independent that I know would love for her to resign, and think that she should have done so long ago. BUT, as the PP has said, we’re even more appalled at the way the Republicans would respond to her resignation.

This isn't true. You guys are really gullible and believe half truths. The Republicans have said they won't let her stay in the senate and have someone else temporarily serve on the judiciary committee. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-block-temporary-replacement-for-sen-feinstein-on-judiciary-committee#:~:text=Feinstein%20on%20Judiciary%20Committee,-Politics%20Updated%20on&text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Republicans%20blocked,Joe%20Biden%27s%20stalled%20judicial%20nominees.

Did you read that article? It clearly said that Republicans already did not allow Cardin to replace Feinstein while she was sidelined earlier this year, and also that “several Republican senators said on Monday that they wouldn’t support the Democratic plan — both because they don’t want to help Democrats confirm liberal judges and because they don’t think senators should try to push out one of their own.” So there’s clearly a bloc who wants the Democratic majority vote on the committee eliminated. Why should she resign in that scenario? Of course Newsom would appoint her replacement to vote in the full Senate, but there’s no guarantee that there are 60 votes to replace her as the 11th Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which without her or another Democrat would stay 50-50 with the ability to block every Biden judicial nominee going forward.

Also, there’s an entire thread about Feinstein here https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/919823.page where you will find me and the many other Democrats who wish she could retire and know a lot more about this than you do. And talking about her in a thread about Mitch McConnell is whataboutism.

You’re misreading the article. If she leaves the senate, they get a new senator on the committee. They don’t get to appoint a proxy while she’s still in the senate. That’s not done.

How do “they get a new Senator on the committee” exactly?

Can you point to an example of a proxy senator being appointed to a committee temporarily? Once she resigns from the senate, that’s a different matter.

You didn’t answer the question. If she resigns, what is the process for assigning a new Senator on the committee?

Sorry - didn’t realize you were curious! Here’s a pretty good summary of how it works https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/committee-system/committee-assignments.htm

Now we’re getting somewhere. That link isn’t that relevant but contains a better link here: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL30743 - see pages 8 and 9 of the document.

Committee memberships need to be voted on by the full Chamber.

If she resigns, she’s replaced in the Senate by Newsom’s appointee, and Schumer and the other Democrats in Senate leadership name new members for her committees, including the Judiciary Committee (probably not Newsom’s appointee but instead someone with a lot of Senate experience.)

Then, any one Senator can object to unanimous consent to force a vote to put that Senator onto the Committee. And that vote would need to be at least 60 in favor.

So Democrats would need to find ten Republican Senators who would vote in favor of making it possible instead of impossible for Joe Biden to have his judicial nominees clear the Committee and be eligible for a floor vote.

Now think back to those quotes in the NPR article and see if you think that’s going to happen in a world in which a Republican-led Senate refused to even speak to a Supreme Court nominee from Democratic President to replace someone who died in February because there was an election coming in November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is utterly shocking.
She’s clearly suffering from dementia
and should be immediately dismissed.
Democrats must be appalled, no?
Poor woman.

This Democrat would love for her to resign, except the Republicans in the Senate have said they won’t replace her on the Judiciary Committee if she does.

Agree. Every Democrat and Progressive Independent that I know would love for her to resign, and think that she should have done so long ago. BUT, as the PP has said, we’re even more appalled at the way the Republicans would respond to her resignation.

This isn't true. You guys are really gullible and believe half truths. The Republicans have said they won't let her stay in the senate and have someone else temporarily serve on the judiciary committee. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republicans-block-temporary-replacement-for-sen-feinstein-on-judiciary-committee#:~:text=Feinstein%20on%20Judiciary%20Committee,-Politics%20Updated%20on&text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Republicans%20blocked,Joe%20Biden%27s%20stalled%20judicial%20nominees.

Yes Dems are gullible if they believe Republicans will play fairly and nicely. Fat chance. They will say one thing and do another. We all know it because we've seen it time after time. Never trust a Republican, ever.

Lovely.

Accurate.

Yeah: Merrick Garland. Amy Coney Barrett. It’s Lucy with the football— perennially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there should be no one in position of power over 65

everyone is old

Mitch is dying
Biden is dying
Pelosi is dying
Trump is dying

Once the boomers pass on, at least the younger generation will finally elect young individuals...god willing

These people are not Boomers. They were all born before 1946.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there's something wrong with Mitch McConnell. He outright stole SCOTUS nominees. He willfully sabotaged productive legislation that would have helped millions of Americans to score political points.

What's wrong with him is that he is a craven a-hole.

The Onion is brilliant! That’s hilarious.

[Anonymous]

I was honestly worried about him in that video. He should be allowed to drive or use power tools much less help lead the country. The problem with many of our political leaders is that they lose all power, influence and attention. They are terrified of being ignored and forgotten sitting in the po-dunk small city they are from.