Matt Gaetz tapped for AG

[Anonymous]

To the apps claiming that abortion rights will be gone by next summer if MG becomes AG - How on earth could the AG enact such a federal ban? And why? Trump said to leave it to the states ..,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You will never go broke counting on Congressional Republicans to bend over for Trump:

Anyone who wouldn't at least publicly question this appointment is a spineless coward. Anyone who'd just instantly accept and believe Matt Gaetz's "reassurances" is a moron.

It’s still two months until Trump takes office. All the Senate needs to do now is authorize a thorough FBI background investigation of Gates.

lol the Dems have had control of the senate judiciary committee for over two years with clear evidence of corruption. What did they do? Nothing. The “moderates” Dems on the committee refused to do anything. Now they are going to jump through hoops to do their job? No way. This is the difference between Dems and republicans. The Republican base expects things to get done. The dems base is happy to get the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the apps claiming that abortion rights will be gone by next summer if MG becomes AG - How on earth could the AG enact such a federal ban? And why? Trump said to leave it to the states ..,

LOL. FAFO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the apps claiming that abortion rights will be gone by next summer if MG becomes AG - How on earth could the AG enact such a federal ban? And why? Trump said to leave it to the states ..,

Man, people keep revealing how naive and uninformed they are. How do you survive day to day without getting scammed and robbed?

Please - for the love of god - read this and share it with your friends:
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-comstock-act-implications-for-abortion-care-nationwide/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Republicans have no shred of decency or morality left. This seals it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You will never go broke counting on Congressional Republicans to bend over for Trump:

Anyone who wouldn't at least publicly question this appointment is a spineless coward. Anyone who'd just instantly accept and believe Matt Gaetz's "reassurances" is a moron.

It’s still two months until Trump takes office. All the Senate needs to do now is authorize a thorough FBI background investigation of Gates.

lol the Dems have had control of the senate judiciary committee for over two years with clear evidence of corruption. What did they do? Nothing. The “moderates” Dems on the committee refused to do anything. Now they are going to jump through hoops to do their job? No way. This is the difference between Dems and republicans. The Republican base expects things to get done. The dems base is happy to get the status quo.

GMAFB. You couldn't possibly know what either base knows or expects. You're just a rando internet jack@ss spouting nonsense from behind a computer screen.

[Anonymous]

10:08 PP: you say that "Republicans expect to get things done and the dems base is happy to get the status quo."

Let's see... how many bills did Trump get passed in his first term? And how many bills did Biden get passed?

"In the run-up to the 2016 election, Trump listed his top 10 legislative priorities as part of his “Contract with the American Voter,” which included repeal of the Affordable Care Act, infrastructure investment, harsher prison sentences for immigration violations, and full funding of a border wall to be reimbursed by Mexico. None of that reached his desk. The only wish list items that did were a military spending bill and a tax cut bill, the latter of which incorporated a part of a third item, an expanded child tax credit.

Biden fared much better with his core agenda. In July 2020, as he campaigned for the presidency, he laid out a vision for rebuilding the middle class through investments in infrastructure, manufacturing, and clean energy. In November 2021, he signed a $1 trillion infrastructure bill. Then, in August 2022, he signed the CHIPS bill, which invests $280 billion in semiconductor manufacturing. Days later, he signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which invests $370 billion in clean energy and related infrastructure, along with provisions designed to reduce health care costs." -- see https://washingtonmonthly.com/2024/04/07/trump-vs-biden-who-got-more-done-on-legislation/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of DOJ officials being quoted anonymously and being very critical of the MG nomination.

Ignoring the substance of their critiques this is simply highly unprofessional behavior. I don’t like the nomination either, but DOJ employees must be extremely apolitical and this kinda of thing pisses people off.

It is not and should not be political to say that a man who has barely practiced law and is currently under investigation for serious ethics violations by the House of Representatives and who until recently eas the subject of an investigation into sex trafficking and other crimes, and who has shown himself generally to be thoughtless, antagonistic, and straight up gross, should not be Attorney General of the United States.

Like if he were an actual lawyer without all of these ethics issues and the criminal investigation and the truly obnoxious public behavior, I would agree with you -- regardless of your opinion on his politics, rack and file at the DOJ should keep it to themselves. It's a political appointment and the President is entitled to his pick.

But this is an offensive, grossly unqualified, deeply compromised candidate. I have zero issues with people within DOJ expressing their dismay. This is a ridiculous pick.

The president nominates and the senate confirms or rejects. The civil service is supposed to be apolitical and in exchange the civil service is supposed to be in a privileged position insulated from politics.

There is simply no constitutional requirement that a nominee be “good”. So, yes, commenting on POTUS-elect’s picks is a political move, no matter how common sense the substance of the criticism may seem.

Think of it this way, if through some miracle MG is confined, he now has all the cover he needs to fire everyone at DOJ and/or every single official who commented should resign. There is a reason while all this criticism has been done anonymously.

This is the fundamental paradox of the Trump presidency: everyone in the “resistance” breaks political norms in their criticism of him and then they can’t understand why Republican voters elected a guy who shreds every norm that we’ve ever applied to the Presidency.

The standard for the civil service must be: “is it legal” not “do I agree with it.”

No. The standard for civil service is competence, ethics and, above all, LOYALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION.

That’s the problem with Trump selecting people who are loyal to him. You may not be aware, but civil servants swear an oath to the Constitution.

If you are American you should at the very least defend that standard.

I would not pick MG. But that isn’t the issue. Is there anything unconstitutional about the MG nomination? No, of course not. So they need to STFU and carry on their duties or resign.

But anonymously sniping in the press like scared, insecure little teenagers is precisely the kind of thing that makes people lose trust in our institutions. It is also the same exact mistake that the left keeps making with Trump. It has been happening for almost ten years now starting most prominently with the NYT declaring that institutional norms did not apply to Donald Trump because of the threat he posed. By ignoring institutional norms, the resistance exposes that it didn’t believe in them in the first place. It also makes them look small and petty. The net effect is to take some of the spotlight away from Trump’s bad acts thereby vindicating Trump and generating sympathy for Trump among his supporters.

Trump really is some kind of kryptonite to the left that leads them to make unforced, dumb errors that the left will later regret. “Gee, how come the right won’t vote to protect the institutional norms we ignore?”

Of course civil servants should refuse unlawful orders. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue is the nomination of MG.

The ethical issues are for the senate to consider at the nomination process or subsequently as part of an impeachment process. Each DOJ member is always free to resign.

The substance of the criticism is correct, but a group that wants to be insulated from politics shouldn’t be out there engaging in politics. Simple as that.

The left ignored institutional norms? I recall Trump’s being impeached twice and indicted on many felony charges. It was the left that let him off Scott free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of DOJ officials being quoted anonymously and being very critical of the MG nomination.

Ignoring the substance of their critiques this is simply highly unprofessional behavior. I don’t like the nomination either, but DOJ employees must be extremely apolitical and this kinda of thing pisses people off.

It is not and should not be political to say that a man who has barely practiced law and is currently under investigation for serious ethics violations by the House of Representatives and who until recently eas the subject of an investigation into sex trafficking and other crimes, and who has shown himself generally to be thoughtless, antagonistic, and straight up gross, should not be Attorney General of the United States.

Like if he were an actual lawyer without all of these ethics issues and the criminal investigation and the truly obnoxious public behavior, I would agree with you -- regardless of your opinion on his politics, rack and file at the DOJ should keep it to themselves. It's a political appointment and the President is entitled to his pick.

But this is an offensive, grossly unqualified, deeply compromised candidate. I have zero issues with people within DOJ expressing their dismay. This is a ridiculous pick.

The president nominates and the senate confirms or rejects. The civil service is supposed to be apolitical and in exchange the civil service is supposed to be in a privileged position insulated from politics.

There is simply no constitutional requirement that a nominee be “good”. So, yes, commenting on POTUS-elect’s picks is a political move, no matter how common sense the substance of the criticism may seem.

Think of it this way, if through some miracle MG is confined, he now has all the cover he needs to fire everyone at DOJ and/or every single official who commented should resign. There is a reason while all this criticism has been done anonymously.

This is the fundamental paradox of the Trump presidency: everyone in the “resistance” breaks political norms in their criticism of him and then they can’t understand why Republican voters elected a guy who shreds every norm that we’ve ever applied to the Presidency.

The standard for the civil service must be: “is it legal” not “do I agree with it.”

No. The standard for civil service is competence, ethics and, above all, LOYALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION.

That’s the problem with Trump selecting people who are loyal to him. You may not be aware, but civil servants swear an oath to the Constitution.

If you are American you should at the very least defend that standard.

I would not pick MG. But that isn’t the issue. Is there anything unconstitutional about the MG nomination? No, of course not. So they need to STFU and carry on their duties or resign.

But anonymously sniping in the press like scared, insecure little teenagers is precisely the kind of thing that makes people lose trust in our institutions. It is also the same exact mistake that the left keeps making with Trump. It has been happening for almost ten years now starting most prominently with the NYT declaring that institutional norms did not apply to Donald Trump because of the threat he posed. By ignoring institutional norms, the resistance exposes that it didn’t believe in them in the first place. It also makes them look small and petty. The net effect is to take some of the spotlight away from Trump’s bad acts thereby vindicating Trump and generating sympathy for Trump among his supporters.

Trump really is some kind of kryptonite to the left that leads them to make unforced, dumb errors that the left will later regret. “Gee, how come the right won’t vote to protect the institutional norms we ignore?”

Of course civil servants should refuse unlawful orders. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue is the nomination of MG.

The ethical issues are for the senate to consider at the nomination process or subsequently as part of an impeachment process. Each DOJ member is always free to resign.

The substance of the criticism is correct, but a group that wants to be insulated from politics shouldn’t be out there engaging in politics. Simple as that.

The left ignored institutional norms? I recall Trump’s being impeached twice and indicted on many felony charges. It was the left that let him off Scott free.

*Should say it was NOT the left that let him off Scott free.

[Anonymous]

The problem with leaving things up to the states is a lot of states do not have the ability of voters to get things on the ballots... Iowa For example their voters have no voice.
Another thing is a lot of Republican voters don't actually even follow the news. My parents don't watch tick tock or mainstream media or the news are really anything. They will occasionally read a newspaper article.... They do not know a single one of Trump's pics for anything. So to them they're just names that mean nothing. They don't realize Matt Gates is a sex offender. And they will never take the time to realize that

[Anonymous]

Best thing I've seen out there about all these idiotic nominations.

"This year's cast of The Apprentice is really disappointing."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My family voted red. Checks out til the next election.. they don't care or know anything about his incompetence.

+1 this is exactly what happens in both parties. Look at how few voters come out for local elections. People bank on the public not paying attention. My coworker didn’t know who Matt Gaetz is until yesterday.

Half the population checks out after the election. Many people can’t name the senators from their state and probably couldn’t pass a citizenship test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After a two year investigation, the FBI finds no evidence against Gaetz... silence

Lawfare by the DOJ is well documented against 47... silence

Gaetz nomination causes dcum meltdown... UGGHHH!

Lawfare is only kosher when WE do it!!!

- libs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with leaving things up to the states is a lot of states do not have the ability of voters to get things on the ballots... Iowa For example their voters have no voice.
Another thing is a lot of Republican voters don't actually even follow the news. My parents don't watch tick tock or mainstream media or the news are really anything. They will occasionally read a newspaper article.... They do not know a single one of Trump's pics for anything. So to them they're just names that mean nothing. They don't realize Matt Gates is a sex offender. And they will never take the time to realize that

That's your news source?

This country is over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the apps claiming that abortion rights will be gone by next summer if MG becomes AG - How on earth could the AG enact such a federal ban? And why? Trump said to leave it to the states ..,

Comstock Act. Was never repealed.

Can take abortion away overnight.