it's the only thing that makes sense, really.

All nominees are getting confirmed no matter what Democrats do. Democrats have no way to stop these confirmations from happening. All they can do is slow them down a bit, which they have been doing.

It is time to start blocking the R any and every way they can

If you believe the Democrats can block a nominee, then please explain specifically how they do that? What specific process can they follow?

So much for symbolism being important to you, then. Talk about a contradiction....

as Secretary of the VA. As did Blumenthal who I believe had voted against everyone but Rubio to this point.

I love ya for pointing this out!



You are killing me here.

Our party doesn’t hold our best interests in mind.

We should all be well beyond that point now, it’s not about red or blue. It’s about money and power.

The sooner you accept that fact, the better.

Or they’ve already resigned to the idea that there won’t be any new elections

the bill to protect USAID. I don't care what the reasoning is for democrats voting with Republicans they vote for NOTHING democrats put forth. But we're better than them I guess.

with a simple majority vote. The Democrats, however, have blocked multiple pieces of legislation already which need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. Democrats have not allowed any legislation to pass the Senate since the Laken Riley Act (and yes they should have opposed that, but too many Democrats actually naively supported it)

When they were in the minority.

Name one cabinet nominee he blocked?

But more importantly, the reason that McConnell was able to block Garland is the Republicans had a majority in the Senate. Garland would have been confirmed if the Democrats had a Senate majority like the Republicans do now.

So this is not an example of the Republicans blocking a nominee while they were in the minority.

have gotten rid of it when we held the Senate last term. Man the R's really are slacking! That and that the filibuster was an undemocratic relic of slavery ......

Seems to be pretty useful now though .....

It's also significant that whether they for them or not, the nominees are going to be confirmed.

These votes are a great chance to check the 'work across the aisle' box without it really having an impact.

A cabinet secretary confirm with 51 votes holds the title as one confirmed with 99 votes

and view anything less as a betrayal, even though, unless at least 4 Republicans vote NO on a nominee, they will get confirmed anyway so these votes technically have no impact on the results.

Serious question.

Also, how many of Trump's nominees in 2017 received unanimous NO votes from Democrats?

We are not living in the same world anymore and anyone who still thinks we are is a fool.

and what democrats voted for them?

Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Durbin (D-IL)
Fetterman (D-PA)
Gallego (D-AZ)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kelly (D-AZ)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lujan (D-NM)
Ossoff (D-GA)
Peters (D-MI)
Rosen (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schiff (D-CA)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Slotkin (D-MI)
Warnock (D-GA)
Welch (D-VT)

By voting for nominees they're taking a "business as usual" stance and normalizing what we're seeing.

It's not just the gutting of the federal government, the cruel attempts to freeze federal funds, or the inhumane shipping off of migrants to Guantanamo Bay (allegedly): trump and his minions are blaming minorities and people of color for every single thing that goes wrong.

I'm really disappointed and frankly scared about what's to come. Maybe I should start looking into leaving the country. But how?

If these votes help them get reelected then good it means one less GOP congress critter

It was 20 Democrats and 2 independents that voted for confirmation.

Bernie Sanders
Angus King

both voted yes.

See list in #13