186

“The idea that some of these officers are supposedly woke or desk jockeys, it’s ridiculous,” Sen. Dan Sullivan said.

Republican senators pushed to confirm more than 100 military nominees Wednesday evening in a direct challenge to fellow GOP member Tommy Tuberville and his blockade on promotions — but the Alabama senator is refusing to budge.

The move led by Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska marks the most significant confrontation to Tuberville so far within the GOP as more Republicans turn against the former college football coach and show they’re ready to resist him publicly.

Tuberville has opposed swiftly confirming hundreds of officers in a bid to force the Pentagon to overturn its policy of covering the costs for troops to travel to seek an abortion.

Sullivan, joined by Republican Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Todd Young of Indiana and Mitt Romney of Utah, requested votes on each senior officer by unanimous consent, over several hours. The requests were still being made as of late Wednesday night.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Lophostemon@aussie.zone 46 points 1 year ago

When does political showboating become treason?

For instance, if you were to sabotage someone’s car brakes “as a prank” or perhaps even “to make a point” (about some stupid shit, who knows?) and that car failed to stop and killed somebody… you be charged with murder or at least manslaughter.

TFG is sabotaging the genuine security readiness and functioning of the military of the ENTIRE USA because he has some retarded “culture war” excuses.

Being a blockage for a couple of weeks…? Maybe valid political theatre.

Doing this shit for months and months?!?! That’s beyond criminal. That’s straight up treason.

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

He's hoping to hold out until after the 2024 elections, I feel it. They're hoping to stuff these positions (which include very high command positions) with GOP yes-men. The "culture war" nonsense is just a smokescreen that plays well with his voting base.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

People who will send the military into situations where it traditionally has not? And defend those overturning an election in the "right" direction?

This tracks for me.

[-] Lophostemon@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

I feel that you are correct, unfortunately. They own the SCOTUS, next they need top military and voilà, coup in action.

this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
186 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3069 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS