- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:23 am to ShortyRob
So you claim I don't want him to explain himself? You're entitled to your opinion.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:25 am to 4cubbies
quote:no. I'm merely observing that there's nothing he could say that you would consider justification. if I'm wrong tell me what it is that he could say that might alleviate your concern over his decision.
you claim I don't want him to explain himself? You're entitled to your opinion.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
why? typically Cabinet confirmations are a mere formality
Part of his job is vetting these nominations. He admitted that he didn't watch her confirmation hearing. So, he admitted to not doing his job. It looks like he didn't because she paid him so much money in donations. That presents a problem imo.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
who represent a specific district
Which specific district does Senator Cassidy represent?
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:28 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Senators represent the entire state, sweetheart.
First off, I didn't say senators, I said representatives, as in the House of Representatives. And only people from the district that elected the rep. should be attending that town hall.
But with that said, just like you said, the same thing applies to senators. For a senator, their "district" is the state that elected them. So if it is a senator that is having the town hall, then only people from that state should be at the town hall.
And to bring this back to my original post in this thread, "carding" people that attend these town halls seems to be an easy way to determine if the people are actually residents of the districts or states of the elected official. I bet if that happened, we'd find out that people from outside the districts/states (especially districts) are attending these town halls.
ETA: And my response that you replied to was a response to the notion that all house and senate reps are there to represent the entire nation. As you stated, that is not the case. They are there to represent the people that elected them, which when done properly, ends up serving the interests of the nation as a whole.
This post was edited on 2/23/17 at 8:33 am
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:28 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Part of his job is vetting these nominations
again, Cabinet nominations are typically a mere formality
quote:
It looks like he didn't because she paid him so much money in donations
or b/c the President is a Republican and so is Cassidy
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:29 am to TakingStock
Y'all did jackass. Remember the Tea Party at Democrat Town Halls? Nah, why would you? Hypocrites. Dbap
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:29 am to 4cubbies
quote:If he acted on no information, that would be true.
He admitted that he didn't watch her confirmation hearing. So, he admitted to not doing his job.
OTOH, if he reviewed testimony transcripts, was briefed by aides who did watch it, or had other information, it would not necessarily be true at all.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:29 am to TakingStock
quote:
There is no doubt town hall agitators are paid stooges
First, what does it matter? It is not as if the senators and representatives are volunteering for their positions, or would turn away a donation check at one of these events. Second, if they are so easily bought, then it seems like the easy solution would be to just offer them more to not show up?
I think these town halls are incredibly interesting. I thought they were interesting when the TP did it 7-8 years ago as well, just didn't agree with the message.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
again, Cabinet nominations are typically a mere formality
So why couldn't Cassidy say that? If it's such a non-issue, one would he think he'd have no problem saying the confirmation isn't as important as many of his constituents think.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:32 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
OTOH, if he reviewed testimony transcripts, was briefed by aides who did watch it, or had other information, it would not necessarily be true at all.
He said he didn't watch the whole thing and laughed as if it was ludicrous to expect he would actually take an interest in doing his job. It was very off-putting.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:33 am to 9th life
quote:As long as they are actually constituents and their intent is to engage in dialogue rather than disrupt dialogue, it doesn't matter.
First, what does it matter?
Unfortunately, in many instances they are not constituents, and they attend with disruption as their primary goal.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:34 am to AZTarheeel
quote:I agree. We just had elections in November, and we won. If you don't like it, get better candidates and show up to vote.
Why is anyone holding a town hall in February 2017?
But for now, sit down and STFU.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:35 am to Cromulent
quote:
Y'all did jackass.
You need an English class. That doesn't convey the meaning you intended.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:38 am to 4cubbies
quote:Depends on the question and means of asking it I guess. I didn't see the exchange you're referring to. If the question was politely voiced, and he responded the way you describe, it would be offputting for me as well.
It was very off-putting.
In general though, he was a hell of a lot more tolerant of the solely disruptive intent of many of those attendees than I would have been.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:40 am to TitleistProV1X
quote:Oh they are, no doubt.
the dems might even be dumber than I thought.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:42 am to 4cubbies
quote:
So why couldn't Cassidy say that?
because that kind of insults a Cabinet Secretary and his party. that would be bad optics on multiple levels
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:43 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Depends on the question and means of asking it I guess
The question was posed respectfully but Cassidy didn't take it seriously. He actually chuckled at the assumption that he watched the entire 2 hour hearing. I lost major respect for him after watching the meeting.
quote:I guess. He has a job to do and it's not always a cake walk. If I made his money and got his benefits, I wouldn't mind laughing in the faces of my constituents either.
In general though, he was a hell of a lot more tolerant of the solely disruptive intent of many of those attendees than I would have been.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 8:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
because that kind of insults a Cabinet Secretary and his party. that would be bad optics on multiple levels
So you're saying he represents his party, not his constituents and he doesn't owe his constituents explanations for his actions. We must read between the lines to assume the motivation for his actions and that's supposed to be reasonable?
This post was edited on 2/23/17 at 8:46 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News