Really? Like the same thoughtful scrutiny you gave 0bamacare before you jammed it through the House without a single Republican vote? And took over 15% of the American economy? Remember this one, Nan?
This sort of "thoughtful scrutiny"?
Posted on 12/07/2016 12:10:11 PM PST by mdittmar
Well, since it was ok for George Washington, and Dwight Eisenhower to be President, I fail to see the problem.
We are at war with a radical enemy - seems appropriate to have effective people in charge who know this enemy and know what they are doing.
Really? Like the same thoughtful scrutiny you gave 0bamacare before you jammed it through the House without a single Republican vote? And took over 15% of the American economy? Remember this one, Nan?
This sort of "thoughtful scrutiny"?
How great does it feel to have a Trump who either orchestrated, or at the minimum inspired, the GOP congress to play the same no holds barred style that the Dems have been playing for years.
America would not have seen this if it was was another Marquis of Queensbury wimp like the Bushes or the #nevertrump gang.
As much as I agree with the necessity of the waiver, above all else, I abhor and detest earmarks.
How much effort does it take to move that waiver and pass it on its own?
Should the Dims decide and manage to vote it down, then they best be ready to accept the consequences.
Even Trump has a limit to taking one-sided "bipartisanship" so far.
Elections have consequences.
If the winners act like ignorant uninspired idiots, the Dims will be happy to accommodate them.
OMG!
I am Science dated!
I missed that one.
The arrogant Dems have validated the expression and oppression displayed by winners.
If Trump fails to organize a similar parade around the Capitol in Late December, 2017 he will have missed the Golden Opportunity to mock the arrogant behavior of the very people who created the huge problems that Trump is expected to fix..
If this law is even constitutional (I don’t know if it is), we don’t need it.
This is not some third world country where there are military coups. Who is more qualified to be SecDef than a recent former General?
The Senate can of course reject any nominee for any reason, why do we need anything more than that?
Geez...Washington was a General...then there's Grant, Eisenhower...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.