R frustration re: Tuberville boils over

[pixy0stix]

GOP frustration with Tuberville’s military freeze erupts in Senate

www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/01/tuberville-military-promotion-hold/

[pixy0stix]

It's being reported elsewhere if you can't read the WaPo link.

[Deleted]

Eight months too late and millions of dollars short.

[pumpkin]

Now they’re frustrated? Come on! This whole thing has been ridiculous

[candreco]

Tuberville's little snit holding up military promotions and appointments over reproductive care was already straining a LOT of commands around the world, but it's obviously getting worse the longer it goes on and especially with conflict escalation in the Middle East. It's an unsustainable workload for these commanders, but also anyone acting does not have full authority so there are actions that just can't be taken.  I hope enough Rs are willing to see the risk this is to national security and vote in favor of the rules change to end this.  

WaPo gift link

[msmerymac]

And of course he won't change. God, this guy is dumb.

[windyseas]

Nov 2, 2023 12:10:48 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

And of course he won't change. God, this guy is dumb.

This is what you get when you elect a mediocre football coach to Congress (general you, obviously). 

[noodleoo]

This is bullshit. Why can one asshole hold the entire country hostage?

The amount of hate I have for Republicans is probably unhealthy.

[wawa]

Nov 2, 2023 12:48:53 GMT -5 noodleoo said:

This is bullshit. Why can one asshole hold the entire country hostage?

The amount of hate I have for Republicans is probably unhealthy.

I have this question, but like, not in a rhetorical sense.  What is happening procedurally that this one guy can hold all this up?  I don't understand enough of the prcess to follow.

[TR]

Nov 2, 2023 12:54:24 GMT -5 wawa said:

Nov 2, 2023 12:48:53 GMT -5 noodleoo said:

This is bullshit. Why can one asshole hold the entire country hostage?

The amount of hate I have for Republicans is probably unhealthy.

I have this question, but like, not in a rhetorical sense.  What is happening procedurally that this one guy can hold all this up?  I don't understand enough of the prcess to follow.

This link is, I think, just people like us discussing this so grain of salt and all, but they talk about some rules and it sounds like it has something to do with a rule that in order to vote on them as a batch in a voice vote, they have to have unanimity. They could do them one by one as a roll call vote which would take hours for each name. I did hear something like that on NPR and they said there are so many names it would take, like, a year or more to get through them all one by one. And that even if they do one by one, Tuberville could use his time and filibuster or something? They could change the rule, but then there needs to be a vote for that and Dems need 9 Republicans to vote with them on a rule change.

politics.stackexchange.com/questions/80596/how-is-senator-tuberville-able-to-block-all-military-promotions

[wawa]

Nov 2, 2023 13:28:18 GMT -5 TR said:

Nov 2, 2023 12:54:24 GMT -5 wawa said:

I have this question, but like, not in a rhetorical sense.  What is happening procedurally that this one guy can hold all this up?  I don't understand enough of the prcess to follow.

This link is, I think, just people like us discussing this so grain of salt and all, but they talk about some rules and it sounds like it has something to do with a rule that in order to vote on them as a batch in a voice vote, they have to have unanimity. They could do them one by one as a roll call vote which would take hours for each name. I did hear something like that on NPR and they said there are so many names it would take, like, a year or more to get through them all one by one. And that even if they do one by one, Tuberville could use his time and filibuster or something? They could change the rule, but then there needs to be a vote for that and Dems need 9 Republicans to vote with them on a rule change.

politics.stackexchange.com/questions/80596/how-is-senator-tuberville-able-to-block-all-military-promotions

but in the story I was reading since I let my WaPo lapse - apnews.com/article/tuberville-holds-military-schumer-nominations-99a156198d325a329a98208785ea80f9
it sounded like they literally did go to one by one calling for votes on at least a subset of the nominations that are in limbo and he was still able to block them.  I don't get it. 

Republican senators angrily challenged Sen. Tommy Tuberville on his blockade of almost 400 military officers Wednesday evening, taking over the Senate floor for more than four hours to call for individual confirmation votes after a monthslong stalemate.



Tuberville, R-Ala., stood and objected to each nominee — 61 times total, when the night was over — extending his holds on the military confirmations and promotions with no immediate resolution in sight.

I imagine it's something to do with weird procedural rules to calling a vote.  But if the workaround is indiviual votes - why was he still able to be a dick about it?

[Deleted]

I just saw on Instagram that Gen Allvin has been confirmed as the new Air Force Chief of Staff, so something must have happened today!

[basilosaurus]

He's still voting no in the one by one votes, the exact situation he said he'd support

[livinitup]

Nov 2, 2023 12:31:54 GMT -5 windyseas said:

Nov 2, 2023 12:10:48 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

And of course he won't change. God, this guy is dumb.

This is what you get when you elect a mediocre football coach to Congress (general you, obviously). 

And can we SCREAM from the back row that his objection is to TRAVEL.

Travel.

He doesn’t want women with uteruses the ability to TRAVEL for medical care.

Travel.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2023 23:45:16 GMT -5 livinitup said:

Nov 2, 2023 12:31:54 GMT -5 windyseas said:

This is what you get when you elect a mediocre football coach to Congress (general you, obviously). 

And can we SCREAM from the back row that his objection is to TRAVEL.

Travel.

He doesn’t want women with uteruses the ability to TRAVEL for medical care.

Travel.

He says his objection is to travel….but his real objection is to women serving in the military at all. Because if it weren’t for a policy allowing us to travel for healthcare, none of us would want to be stationed in his shitty ass state. But he knows the military won’t pull its bases from there because we’re too entrenched, so he’s holding the whole process hostage. I’m honestly surprised he was smart enough to figure out he could do this.

[basilosaurus]

Nov 5, 2023 2:14:29 GMT -5 @villainv said:

Nov 4, 2023 23:45:16 GMT -5 livinitup said:

And can we SCREAM from the back row that his objection is to TRAVEL.

Travel.

He doesn’t want women with uteruses the ability to TRAVEL for medical care.

Travel.

He says his objection is to travel….but his real objection is to women serving in the military at all. Because if it weren’t for a policy allowing us to travel for healthcare, none of us would want to be stationed in his shitty ass state. But he knows the military won’t pull its bases from there because we’re too entrenched, so he’s holding the whole process hostage. I’m honestly surprised he was smart enough to figure out he could do this.

100%. It's only fairly recently that single moms are allowed to serve. Or, even if married, moms were limited in their careers. And he wants it that way.

I will say, not in defence, but to add nuance, he objects not to travel specifically, but to the travel policy that applies *all* other medical travel which is administrative leave rather than using precious personal leave (and all the extra levels of approval that requires). Also, he objects to any reimbursment which, again applies to all other medical travel. And reimbursment in this case isn't even guaranteed. For a lot of medical travel they will also pay for a companion, but I don't know if they will for reproductive care. 

For those who may not know, except in limited circumstances, no military healthcare funds (or any government funds thanks to Hyde amendment which also applies to Medicaid and similar) go toward any abortion. So women still pay OOP for this. They're just not being charged vacation time. That's his primary objection, that they don't have to use personal leave. So when I say reimbursment it could mean as little as mileage driven, or a hotel room overnight.

So, yeah, that's a long way of saying he doesn't want women to have any autonomy.

[Deleted]

Nov 5, 2023 19:59:00 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Nov 5, 2023 2:14:29 GMT -5 @villainv said:

He says his objection is to travel….but his real objection is to women serving in the military at all. Because if it weren’t for a policy allowing us to travel for healthcare, none of us would want to be stationed in his shitty ass state. But he knows the military won’t pull its bases from there because we’re too entrenched, so he’s holding the whole process hostage. I’m honestly surprised he was smart enough to figure out he could do this.

100%. It's only fairly recently that single moms are allowed to serve. Or, even if married, moms were limited in their careers. And he wants it that way.

I will say, not in defence, but to add nuance, he objects not to travel specifically, but to the travel policy that applies *all* other medical travel which is administrative leave rather than using precious personal leave (and all the extra levels of approval that requires). Also, he objects to any reimbursment which, again applies to all other medical travel. And reimbursment in this case isn't even guaranteed. For a lot of medical travel they will also pay for a companion, but I don't know if they will for reproductive care. 

For those who may not know, except in limited circumstances, no military healthcare funds (or any government funds thanks to Hyde amendment which also applies to Medicaid and similar) go toward any abortion. So women still pay OOP for this. They're just not being charged vacation time. That's his primary objection, that they don't have to use personal leave. So when I say reimbursment it could mean as little as mileage driven, or a hotel room overnight.

So, yeah, that's a long way of saying he doesn't want women to have any autonomy.

Back after DADT was repealed but before DOMA was repealed, the military had a similar policy allowing gay service members uncharged leave (and I think paid travel) to travel to states where marriage was legal in order to get married. Nobody threw a fit about that, thankfully. There is definitely precedent for making sure that a servicemember still has access to all rights, regardless of where they are stationed.

[basilosaurus]

Nov 5, 2023 20:17:39 GMT -5 @villainv said:

Nov 5, 2023 19:59:00 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

100%. It's only fairly recently that single moms are allowed to serve. Or, even if married, moms were limited in their careers. And he wants it that way.

I will say, not in defence, but to add nuance, he objects not to travel specifically, but to the travel policy that applies *all* other medical travel which is administrative leave rather than using precious personal leave (and all the extra levels of approval that requires). Also, he objects to any reimbursment which, again applies to all other medical travel. And reimbursment in this case isn't even guaranteed. For a lot of medical travel they will also pay for a companion, but I don't know if they will for reproductive care. 

For those who may not know, except in limited circumstances, no military healthcare funds (or any government funds thanks to Hyde amendment which also applies to Medicaid and similar) go toward any abortion. So women still pay OOP for this. They're just not being charged vacation time. That's his primary objection, that they don't have to use personal leave. So when I say reimbursment it could mean as little as mileage driven, or a hotel room overnight.

So, yeah, that's a long way of saying he doesn't want women to have any autonomy.

Back after DADT was repealed but before DOMA was repealed, the military had a similar policy allowing gay service members uncharged leave (and I think paid travel) to travel to states where marriage was legal in order to get married. Nobody threw a fit about that, thankfully. There is definitely precedent for making sure that a servicemember still has access to all rights, regardless of where they are stationed.

I wouldn't go so far as accessing all rights as same sex couples were still prevented from any dependent benefits, but I'll agree that it met with zero uproar. The minor hoops we jumped through were pretends it wasn't a "cousin" visiting for months in a nowhere isolated overseas town!

I'm sure equally supportive or myob obvious explanations have sprung up for this, too, but it's still all so awful

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2023 14:29:56 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Nov 5, 2023 20:17:39 GMT -5 @villainv said:

Back after DADT was repealed but before DOMA was repealed, the military had a similar policy allowing gay service members uncharged leave (and I think paid travel) to travel to states where marriage was legal in order to get married. Nobody threw a fit about that, thankfully. There is definitely precedent for making sure that a servicemember still has access to all rights, regardless of where they are stationed.

I wouldn't go so far as accessing all rights as same sex couples were still prevented from any dependent benefits, but I'll agree that it met with zero uproar. The minor hoops we jumped through were pretends it wasn't a "cousin" visiting for months in a nowhere isolated overseas town!

I'm sure equally supportive or myob obvious explanations have sprung up for this, too, but it's still all so awful

Thank you for correcting me about the lack of benefits for same-sex couples back then. I’m so glad those days are over, but I worry that we might be headed back that direction. A gay coworker had moved up his wedding significantly because he’s afraid that gay marriage may go the way of abortion rights, and it’s an understandable fear.

[basilosaurus]

Nov 6, 2023 16:01:43 GMT -5 @villainv said:

Nov 6, 2023 14:29:56 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

I wouldn't go so far as accessing all rights as same sex couples were still prevented from any dependent benefits, but I'll agree that it met with zero uproar. The minor hoops we jumped through were pretends it wasn't a "cousin" visiting for months in a nowhere isolated overseas town!

I'm sure equally supportive or myob obvious explanations have sprung up for this, too, but it's still all so awful

Thank you for correcting me about the lack of benefits for same-sex couples back then. I’m so glad those days are over, but I worry that we might be headed back that direction. A gay coworker had moved up his wedding significantly because he’s afraid that gay marriage may go the way of abortion rights, and it’s an understandable fear.

I didn't mean it as a correction. You and I both lived through those years, and thankfully don't think about how profound the change was, but I think many don't realize just how important federal recognition is. So I'm more elaborating for just how important all this can be because I think a lot of it can be dismissed as "well as long as you can get to a correct state" when there's so much more at stake.

A lot of it is financial starting with irs which applies to everyone. But with military you don't get with dependents rates for oha/bah, no extra cola, no healthcare, no base privileges, and certainly no sponsorship for overseas visas.

And while this is a sidebar from the current tuberous chancre, I could see the exact same situation playing out based on the same court and their horrid reasoning affecting same sex marriages in the not too distant future.

Even after repeal of dadt and later doma, I new many gay servicemembers who were afraid to trust there wouldn't be a later reversal. And we saw that exact thing play out with trans members.

I'd previously, perhaps naively, thought that once granted, rights were harder to take away. Like are you really going to get rid of all these voluntarily serving gay forces? Take away benefits to their spouses and families? But they're willing to basically say they're ok with getting rid of all women. Fuck these assholes.

Clearly I have some thoughts

[mrsd2006]

Let's not forget what a fucking idiot Tuberville really is. Candidates should have to pass a basics test before running.

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/13/alabama-senator-elect-tommy-tuberville-botches-historical-facts/6283806002/


“Our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three branches of government — wasn’t set up that way,” Tuberville continued, saying incorrectly: “You know, the House, the Senate, and the executive.”

[gretchenindisguise]

Nov 7, 2023 10:43:02 GMT -5 mrsd2006 said:

Let's not forget what a fucking idiot Tuberville really is. Candidates should have to pass a basics test before running.

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/13/alabama-senator-elect-tommy-tuberville-botches-historical-facts/6283806002/


“Our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three branches of government — wasn’t set up that way,” Tuberville continued, saying incorrectly: “You know, the House, the Senate, and the executive.”

If they can't pass the basic citizenship test my husband had to pass, they shouldn't be elected. 

[penguingrrl]

Nov 7, 2023 10:43:02 GMT -5 mrsd2006 said:

Let's not forget what a fucking idiot Tuberville really is. Candidates should have to pass a basics test before running.

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/13/alabama-senator-elect-tommy-tuberville-botches-historical-facts/6283806002/


“Our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three branches of government — wasn’t set up that way,” Tuberville continued, saying incorrectly: “You know, the House, the Senate, and the executive.”

It’s really embarrassing to me that we allow someone who wouldn’t pass a basic civics test to serve in office. There should be a required understanding of the basics of how our government works as well as certain financial disclosures to serve.