quote:
Yeah, its a political strategy. Keep your foot in both doors so people cant say you voted against him. She gets to appease "due process" without electing him to the court

What's the point in having a representative that doesn't vote either way? First off, they are supposed to be representing their constituents. Secondly, if they never vote on issues, what are they getting paid for?

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Homesick Tiger

Greenbrier, AR

Member since Nov 2006

56146 posts

Posted on 10/6/18 at 5:51 am to Revelator

quote:
what are they getting paid for?

The good life in Washington, DC plus a helluva retirement check on the taxpayer's dime.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by The Boat

Member since Oct 2008

177286 posts

Posted on 10/6/18 at 6:37 am to nctiger71

quote:
If Manchin votes Yes, but in that case he would be the deciding vote.
So, if Manchin votes No, it is 49 to 50, so the MT Senator would have to fly to DC to vote Y.

Manchin isn’t voting NO. He’s already publicly announced he’s voting YES. If he reneges on that he’ll get smoked in his election. So this whole voting present scenario is a pointless consideration since the votes are already there no matter what Murkowski does.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Centinel

Idaho

Member since Sep 2016

45921 posts

Posted on 10/6/18 at 6:40 am to dead money

quote:
Shes more of a Libertarian than Republican

No libertarian watched the political shite-show that was Kavanaugh's confirmation process and had even the tiniest desire to side with the democrats.

Liberal maybe, but definitely not libertarian.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by nctiger71

North Carolina

Member since Oct 2017

1422 posts

Posted on 10/6/18 at 6:59 am to The Boat

I hope & pray he does vote Yes.
But until until he does he can change his mind. Hence the use of the word ‘If’.

I explained the math & the logic of her “Present” vote. I’m not predicting how he will vote.

Page 1 2