Aren't the House Democrats admittedly holding up his administration appointees?
Aiden Perez
If you're one of our adversaries it's a fucking GREAT thing.
Jaxson Stewart
No, because presidential appointments require confirmation by the Senate, not the House of Representatives. The Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate.
But ur mom has a majority in my shank bank Lmao gottem
Colton Gomez
Obstructionism is the name of the game for the minority party. The Republicans just spent 8 years blocking every single piece of legislation that they possibly could, now the Democrats are doing it. In terms of how they operate they Democrats and Republicans are practically identical, very different ideals for sure, but they're both using the same playbook.
Joseph Perez
I believe they can use the cloture and hold processes. Ultimately, the decision to honor a hold request is up to the majority leader. Leaders typically grant these requests because denying a hold creates alternative ways for the senator to spend scarce floor time, according to the Congressional Research Service.
James Moore
And there seems to be no significant difference in the day to day functionality of the government.
Makes you think ...
Ayden Butler
Why the fuck do we need any of these jobs anyway? We're doing just fine.
Henry Morgan
>Trump: “I’m generally not going to make a lot of the appointments that would normally be — because you don’t need them,” he says. “I mean, you look at some of these agencies, how massive they are, and it’s totally unnecessary. They have hundreds of thousands of people.”
In contrast to bureaucratic nominations, Trump has appointed more circuit court judges in his first year than any president in history, and ranked sixth overall in first-year federal judge appointments (trial court, appeals court and Supreme Court combined).
Experts attributed this to better coordination between the White House and Senate on judges than executive appointments. Some suggested Republicans have simply made judicial appointments a higher priority.
Jaxson Wright
Is there any evidence that Senate Democrats are using this process to block presidential appointments?
Alexander Thomas
No. The House has no say in federal appointments. Only the Senate can approve/disapprove. Since it only requires a simple majority and Republicans control a majority of seats it's really a Republican problem.
Joshua Sanders
Not really. No leadership just means the status quo prevails, and everyone just keeps doing things the way the last guy told them to.
Thomas Campbell
>The trump administration currently has; >>No Secretary of Defense >>No Secretary of the Air Force >>No FEMA Director >>No Secretary of the Interior
But you didn't post how much money this is saving taxpayers.
Andrew Davis
They don't need a majority as they can purposely filibuster or hold up debate as long as republicans don't have 60 seats which they dont. Most of these positions have nominees but democrats won't confirm. But you already know this as it's an obvious shill/shareblue thread trying to confuse those not actively engaged in politics.
Lucas Clark
Regardless of anyone's opinion on the current state of politics, this is the smart move. Democrats who didn't see this coming in 2016 were morons, but then judicial appointments have always been more of a Republican whistle anyway.
Joshua Jones
Probably because he knows that it doesn't matter because cutting essential leadership positions is a moronic way to save money.
Jason Williams
>Most of these positions have nominees but democrats won't confirm
I agree, and their positions are more valuable than say, the guy who can will get fired instantly by the next President.
Julian Lopez
It doesn't save any money because the acting director gets the directors salary and benefits
Juan Lopez
The individual salaries of even the highest ranking government officials is trivial compared to the size of the federal budget, were talking like 0.00000000000000000000001% of the budget. That's like scooping a cup full of water out of the Pacific and saying that you're draining the ocean.
Elijah Taylor
Well the confirmed zinke the first time around and the new nominee really couldn't be much worse
Andrew Richardson
Good. Draining the swamp.
Jordan Murphy
Not enough to make up for the massive tax cuts given to the rich
Evan Reyes
Complete fucking retards
Caleb Wright
Good, everything is working just fine without communists like you trying to ruin things.
Zachary Kelly
>worries about money a couple seats save.
>votes for a guy who got millions in tax breaks and going to give billions to friends.
Oh ok.
Jose Rogers
>Draining the swamp How? By giving agencies no oversite? What does that accomplish? Furthermore, you can't claim that a dude who puts Monsanto lawyers, oil billionaires and Goldman Sachs execs in his cabinet is draining the swamp in any way if anything he's slightly scummier than any president we've had in living memory besides probably W
It dries out and after a period of time essentially becomes dirt.
But I didnt have to say that.
Brandon Fisher
His supporters are too stupid to care or understand what that means, though.
Brody Walker
this
they don't even know what the positions actually are or that they even exist
Daniel Smith
>Explain to me how this is a good thing
There's fewer people to screw things up.
At this point, the safest thing for the country is for Trump to fire the entire cabinet, and then spend the next 2 years doing nothing but playing golf in Florida.
Aiden Parker
There's still a totem pole which he will give a thumbs up to. You act as though he fired off his own cabinet and refuses assistance in decision making.