Donald Trump offers Jeff Sessions attorney general post

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DaveBj said:
Gotten a little off-topic, haven’t we?
Click to expand...
It is a tough problem. The answer of what we can believe is primary to what we can believe about Sessions reported past of racism. The accusations against him are significant. So whether they are true are worth considering. Personally, I do not find them substantial. Rather it is his policy on immigration which stand in contrast to what all our bishops have been teaching over the last few decades that give me more concern.

The problem I always have with that is that whenever that is discussed, the position of the bishops is always countered with the idea that this is an area where dissent is irrelevant because, you know, 'Murica. Support in the form of bloggers for this dissent is common. What no one has ever posted is where one of the bishops has said the USCCB is wrong.

So I guess something from pro-Trump supporters must be posted, regardless of relevancy. I was hoping in light of his ambiguous ideas he would have seen the wisdom of uniting the country with less divisive nominations. Maybe he will in the future. However, Obama never sought to unite the country, so I have little hope this year. Until we get a president with that uses tact and not a steamroller, we will remain much like we were prior to the first Civil War.
 
pnewton said:
It is a tough problem. The answer of what we can believe is primary to what we can believe about Sessions reported past of racism. The accusations against him are significant. So whether they are true are worth considering. Personally, I do not find them substantial. Rather it is his policy on immigration which stand in contrast to what all our bishops have been teaching over the last few decades that give me more concern.
Click to expand...
Individuals who have worked with Sessions thru the years (that I have seen interviewed) have all said that he is absolutely not a racist. IMO this is another slander that liberal operatives have put forth knowing that the majority of those reading or hearing it will not try to find out if these charges are true or not. And let’s face it, those on the other side of the aisle will be opposed to whomever Trump nominates. Just wish they would tell the truth about it.
 
mary_bobo said:
Individuals who have worked with Sessions thru the years (that I have seen interviewed) have all said that he is absolutely not a racist. IMO this is another slander that liberal operatives have put forth knowing that the majority of those reading or hearing it will not try to find out if these charges are true or not. And let’s face it, those on the other side of the aisle will be opposed to whomever Trump nominates. Just wish they would tell the truth about it.
Click to expand...
Well, when hillary labeled half of trump supporters as racist, mysogynist, sexist, islamoohobic, homophobe, deplorable and irredeemable, maybe she was speaking for all the democrats. Thing is, the election has proved this type of attack will not win, so why do they keep trying the same old trick?
 
pnewton said:
As to the latter, the hypocrisy of Republicans knows no bounds. They preach against Washington interfering int state’s rights until they are the one’s in power. Then they match Democrats stroke for stroke on federal mandates on what should be a state issue.
Click to expand...
You should do your homework before lashing out. Marijuana is a federally controlled substance and has been for decades. What we have now is a situation where state laws contradict federal law. Perhaps you would prefer that Republicans simply ignore the laws they don’t want to enforce like Obama did?
 
Ender said:
You should do your homework before lashing out. Marijuana is a federally controlled substance and has been for decades. What we have now is a situation where state laws contradict federal law. Perhaps you would prefer that Republicans simply ignore the laws they don’t want to enforce like Obama did?
Click to expand...
This does not actually argue against pnewton’s point. If the Republicans did not want to interfere with States’ Rights, they would repeal the federal laws against marijuana and let the states decide the matter for themselves. Then there would be no issue of state law contradicting federal law.
 
pnewton said:
It is a tough problem. The answer of what we can believe is primary to what we can believe about Sessions reported past of racism. The accusations against him are significant.
Click to expand...
No, the accusations are not significant. They are purely hearsay about comments alleged to have been made decades ago. We have insisted on real evidence of bias in regard to various media outlets. If our standards of proof were as high with regard to the racism claims we would have dismissed them when they were first raised.
Rather it is his policy on immigration which stand in contrast to what all our bishops have been teaching over the last few decades that give me more concern.
Click to expand...
Immigration is very likely the main reason the Democrats will oppose his nomination, but since they cannot properly oppose someone simply for supporting his president’s position on an issue, they will use the charge of racism as the tool to (attempt to) sink his nomination.
The problem I always have with that is that whenever that is discussed, the position of the bishops …
Click to expand...
The bishops are entitled to express their positions on the matter, just as we are entitled to treat them like the opinions they are.

Ender
 
mary_bobo said:
Individuals who have worked with Sessions thru the years (that I have seen interviewed) have all said that he is absolutely not a racist. IMO this is another slander that liberal operatives have put forth knowing that the majority of those reading or hearing it will not try to find out if these charges are true or not. And let’s face it, those on the other side of the aisle will be opposed to whomever Trump nominates. Just wish they would tell the truth about it.
Click to expand...
It’s gotten to a point where people are just :rolleyes: when liberals call someone racist.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This does not actually argue against pnewton’s point. If the Republicans did not want to interfere with States’ Rights, they would repeal the federal laws against marijuana and let the states decide the matter for themselves. Then there would be no issue of state law contradicting federal law.
Click to expand...
The point is silly. All federal law impacts the states. The assertion that this particular law somehow unfairly violates states rights - while other federal laws are apparently justified in doing so - is without any foundation whatever. I’m sure there will be any number of real issues where poking the Republicans for their policies is justified. This doesn’t happen to be one of them. If you must throw rocks at least choose a deserving target. Must we be aggrieved by everything?

Ender
 
Ender said:
The point is silly. All federal law impacts the states.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the Republican position has always been to reduce this impact to the absolute minimum required to fulfill the constitutional mandates of the federal government. How does banning marijuana fit into that plan, while things like setting minimum standards for education or environmental protection is a bridge too far?
The assertion that this particular law somehow unfairly violates states rights - while other federal laws are apparently justified in doing so - is without any foundation whatever.
Click to expand...
Gee, I like that argument. But I would use it the other way around to ask why laws on education and the environment are somehow violating states rights - while laws banning marijuana are apparently justified in doing so.
 
dixieagle said:
I don’t know if you saw my previous post about Sen. Sessions. In a nutshell: he is known as a man of great integrity, walked, arms linked, with John Lewis at the 50th anniversary of the march to Selma, is spoken of well by the current Democratic, African American U.S. Attorney here in Mobile (where Sessions and I both live), was instrumental in bankrupting the United Klans of America as a result of lawsuits after the hanging of a young black man years ago, filed desegregation lawsuits in Alabama, voted in favor of the 30 year extension of the Civil Rights Act, and voted to confirm Eric Holder.

He is very conservative, and I don’t agree with his hardline immigration position; however, he is as incorruptible a man as you will find, and has been, in my opinion, unfairly painted as a racist.
Click to expand...
I undoubtedly need to read more about his asserted racism, but what I have seen so far (some of Biden’s challenges years ago) really doesn’t impress me. But probably no Repub is going to escape the accusations of racism, Islamophobia and misogyny for the next four years, and it will get worse and worse. And it won’t matter the race, religion or gender of the officeholder, either.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Gee, I like that argument. But I would use it the other way around to ask why laws on education and the environment are somehow violating states rights - while laws banning marijuana are apparently justified in doing so.
Click to expand...
If you want to make an argument against nationwide environmental laws, go ahead, but let’s not pretend the subject has anything whatsoever to do with the nomination of Jeff Sessions for AG. The original comment was nothing more than a gratuitous insult to Republicans.

Ender
 
Ender said:
If you want to make an argument against nationwide environmental laws, go ahead, but let’s not pretend the subject has anything whatsoever to do with the nomination of Jeff Sessions for AG. The original comment was nothing more than a gratuitous insult to Republicans.

Ender
Click to expand...
It was a direct response to Paganus’ post 73, which first went off the Sessions topic by bringing in marijuana. pnewton’s response was an accurate description of what most Republicans hold as marijuana policy. It is not too different from many comments I’ve seen that characterize Democrats as a lot worse than hypocrites when the topic was about one particular person who happened to be a Democrat.
 
meltzerboy said:
But they are informed opinions. Has Sessions said or done racist things as a Senator since his racist remarks 30 years ago? People can change, but has he? (Honest question.)
Click to expand...
I hope he hasn’t changed. What he did to the KKK back in the 80’s was admirable. He is respectable, honorable. I’m not convinced that the hearsay remarks even happened, just like with Bannon. And the pot smoking KKKers thing is just ridiculous. Does anyone really think he seriously meant that the was okay except for the pot smokers?

Jon
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This does not actually argue against pnewton’s point. If the Republicans did not want to interfere with States’ Rights, they would repeal the federal laws against marijuana and let the states decide the matter for themselves. Then there would be no issue of state law contradicting federal law.
Click to expand...
No doubt. We’ve always done it this way is a terrible argument. Then, there is the history of the last administration allowing state’s rights to prevail on this issue. The idea that I did not know marijuana laws and needed to get my facts right is laughable, and an ad hominem.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This does not actually argue against pnewton’s point. If the Republicans did not want to interfere with States’ Rights, they would repeal the federal laws against marijuana and let the states decide the matter for themselves. Then there would be no issue of state law contradicting federal law.
Click to expand...
This, and abortion, and numerous other things the federal government has usurped without constitutionally enumerated powers.
 
JonNC said:
I hope he hasn’t changed. What he did to the KKK back in the 80’s was admirable. He is respectable, honorable. I’m not convinced that the hearsay remarks even happened, just like with Bannon. And the pot smoking KKKers thing is just ridiculous. Does anyone really think he seriously meant that the was okay except for the pot smokers?
Click to expand...
Well this kerfuffle is likely to be purely academic as the Democrats really have no way to block his nomination, or the nomination of any of Trump’s other appointments (excepting to the Supreme Court?) In the past, nominations could be blocked (filibustered) by a minority of 40 senators, but that rule was blown up three years ago by none other than Harry Reid, who was upset because this is what the Republicans were doing. So, that rule no longer exists and nominations can be passed with a simple majority. As they say, what goes around, comes around. Nice move Harry.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Well this kerfuffle is likely to be purely academic as the Democrats really have no way to block his nomination, or the nomination of any of Trump’s other appointments (excepting to the Supreme Court?) In the past, nominations could be blocked (filibustered) by a minority of 40 senators, but that rule was blown up three years ago by none other than Harry Reid, who was upset because this is what the Republicans were doing. So, that rule no longer exists and nominations can be passed with a simple majority. As they say, what goes around, comes around. Nice move Harry.

Ender
Click to expand...
I actually expect McConnell to apply the “Reid Rule” to SC nominees. After all the whining about the Electoral College and “democracy”, how could Schumer refuse.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
I actually expect McConnell to apply the “Reid Rule” to SC nominees. After all the whining about the Electoral College and “democracy”, how could Schumer refuse.

Jon
Click to expand...
SCOTUS nominees still require 60 yeas in the Senate. Cabinet nominees – only a simple majority, under the Reid Rule.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top