Marco Rubio, unintentional hilarity

[Ulaven_Demorte]

After missing nearly one third of the votes in the Senate this year the Repubilican presidential candidate made a rare appearance on Tuesday.
<wait for it >
To vote in favor of a bill to crack down on federal employees that fail to do their jobs.

"This should actually be a rule in the entire government," the Florida Senator said. "If you're not doing your job, you should be fired."

His running excuse for missing votes is that no progress can be made in Washington until the Republicans retake the White House.

 

[Hypoxia]

A dog ate his homework.

I had an excuse like that.

It didn't work for me, either.

 

[kbate]

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton/?p=2#.VijLcn6rTiw


A few "did not votes" on this candidates resume as well. Your missing hilarity or outrage?

 

[hazbeen]

Obama making less than a quarter of Senate votes

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/02/obama.missed.votes/


Uncle Dummy intentionally debases himself

 

[hazbeen]

Ultimate Dummy disappears to writing a signing statement

Senator Present

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Not Normal]

What a douchbag that guy is!

 

[hazbeen]

^^^another fool shows up

 

[Colonel Hogan]

U. Dumfart shoots self in foot again; over 1,500 self-inflicted wounds in 2015

In the Senate, Republicans miss votes at a far higher rate than Democrats. In fact, of the top 10 lawmakers on the list, which include familiar names like Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), nine of them belong to the GOP. According to Betty Koed, a historian at the Senate Historical Office, this is in keeping with a general historical trend. “Those in the minority have less of an interest in getting bills passed,” she says, so they’re less likely to vote.

In the House, the No. 1 absentee was John Conyers (D-Mich.), who has been in office since 1965 and is both the longest and oldest serving member of the lower chamber. Of 27,202 opportunities, he has skipped out on voting about 16.3 percent of the time. That’s a fairly substantial gap compared with the House average 2.8 percent.

As with the Senate, Democrats, who have been in the minority since 2011, miss votes at a substantially higher rate than Republicans. Only two members of the GOP crack the top 10, though Don Young (R-Alaska) is in the upper half, with an abstain-rate of about 14.8 percent. Like Brian Schatz, he too comes from a faraway land—Alaska.

http://www.vocativ.com/usa/us-politics/congress-absenteeism/

Oh, how I long for the good old days when Ulaven was simply wrong in his opinions but was at least thorough in his representations of context and the scope of the issue on which he was taking a position.

But this blatant out of context partisan smear tactics is becoming embarrassing. He should run for office himself.

 

[Que]

What a douche bag that guy is!

That is not nice. Ulaven is more of a partisan hack than a douche bag.

 

[hazbeen]

U. Dumfart shoots self in foot again; over 1,500 self-inflicted wounds in 2015



Oh, how I long for the good old days when Ulaven was simply wrong in his opinions but was at least thorough in his representations of context and the scope of the issue on which he was taking a position.

But this blatant out of context partisan smear tactics is becoming embarrassing. He should run for office himself.

Col Hogan kicks U Dummy in the CUNT

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

After missing nearly one third of the votes in the Senate this year the Repubilican presidential candidate made a rare appearance on Tuesday.
<wait for it >
To vote in favor of a bill to crack down on federal employees that fail to do their jobs.

"This should actually be a rule in the entire government," the Florida Senator said. "If you're not doing your job, you should be fired."

His running excuse for missing votes is that no progress can be made in Washington until the Republicans retake the White House.

Maybe you should do a little research and post the voting records of all our senators and congressmen irrespective of party affiliation and then we'll decide if it is funny at all.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Maybe you should do a little research and post the voting records of all our senators and congressmen irrespective of party affiliation and then we'll decide if it is funny at all.

Why? He's already presented his idea of "research," and that didn't come close to qualifying.

 

[Oh_That_Guy]

You'd think the guy would come back to his own thread to defend himself.

Yes, I know this is the internet and most people just run away but sumbitch it sure would be nice once in a while.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You'd think the guy would come back to his own thread to defend himself.

Yes, I know this is the internet and most people just run away but sumbitch it sure would be nice once in a while.

What defense? UD's premise was obviously that Rubio was acting hypocritically by endorsing federal employee performance legislation in light of Rubio's voting record. But anyone who attacks Congressional voting records fails miserably in hitting the very target they think they are aiming at!! That's the most hilarious part of this thread.

The average non-voting percentage in both house of Congress is in single digits. The absolute WORST non-voters in either house, STILL cast votes over 80% of the time!! This is somebody's idea of malfeasance?

The non-performance issue in Congress isn't the votes they fail to cast on issues coming up for a vote. It's the votes they do not cast on issues they cannot manage to bring to the floor of either house at all.

Pick your favorite topic: Immigration "reform," global warming, securing our borders, passing a federal budget, fixing Medicaid and Social Security, Wall Street reform. The list is endless. And NOT among them is how you stood on the resolution of whether to declare Elvis Presley Day in the state of fucking Nevada.

But this is exactly what small minded people try to focus on when they engage in small minded personal "character attacks."

 

[Sean Renaud]

So UD's apparently made up number of 1/3 aside what purpose is this law even for? I have no reason at all to doubt Hogan and when the worst people are performing 80% of the time I fail to see the probem. Especially when you factor in that a lot of that 20% are almost definitely cases where their vote wouldn't have changed things and/or they could have voted they just decided not to mostly to keep their names off shit they don't want it on. Which is annoying mind you but not the earth shattering end of the world.

 

[phrodeau]

When Kim Davis refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, Marco Rubio supported her decision to stop doing her job.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...government-should-respect-kim-daviss-beliefs/

 

[Oh_That_Guy]

When Kim Davis refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, Marco Rubio supported her decision to stop doing her job.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...government-should-respect-kim-daviss-beliefs/

She's not a federal employee.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

When Kim Davis refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, Marco Rubio supported her decision to stop doing her job.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...government-should-respect-kim-daviss-beliefs/

I was almost going to give you credit for finding an assery-issue of substance, and then I noticed you forgot to read your own link. This is what Rubio is quoted as having said:

“While the clerk’s office has a governmental duty to carry out the law,” he added, “there should be a way to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals working in the office.”

That's hardly a blanket endorsement for someone not doing their job when there is presumably a whole shit-load of governmental duties that would not present a conflict with one's religious beliefs.

I don't happen to agree that his analysis of religious "protection" of government employees is a critical public agenda item, but it is far from the substantive position of supporting negligent defiance you implied.

 

[phrodeau]

I was almost going to give you credit for finding an assery-issue of substance, and then I noticed you forgot to read your own link. This is what Rubio is quoted as having said:



That's hardly a blanket endorsement for someone not doing their job when there is presumably a whole shit-load of governmental duties that would not present a conflict with one's religious beliefs.

I don't happen to agree that his analysis of religious "protection" of government employees is a critical public agenda item, but it is far from the substantive position of supporting negligent defiance you implied.

His recent quote was about individuals, not offices.

"This should actually be a rule in the entire government," the Florida Senator said. "If you're not doing your job, you should be fired."

 

[Colonel Hogan]

His recent quote was about individuals, not offices.

"This should actually be a rule in the entire government," the Florida Senator said. "If you're not doing your job, you should be fired."

But his ideological position is that it should be legally possible to satisfactorily perform your government job while having your religious rights and freedoms as an individual protected. That's not an inherent conflict with his most recent quote.

It's not a position I happen to agree with because I don't believe that the religious freedom protection of the First Amendment necessarily extends to any and all government workers in the specific performance of their public duties. But it is hard to deny the desirability of such protection if and where it could be achieved with reasonable cost and effort.

 

[hazbeen]

Davis is publically elected, btw,

Not an employee

 

[Colonel Hogan]

This message is hidden because hazbeen is on your ignore list.

If you didn't know that, you should.

 

[hazbeen]

Don't care

Tell it to whoever does

PSA

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Yeah, that one came through.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Good evening, my name is RobDownSouth and I used to post here quite a bit.

Nostalgia got the best of me tonight so I popped in to see what everyone was talking about lately.

Anyway, to the matter of this thread:

Ulaven claimed Rubio missed "nearly one third of the votes in the Senate this year". (Emphasis added)

Hogan countered with some statistics showing Rubio's voting from 2011 onward.

In Hogan's linked article there is a link to a site called www.govtrack.us (in the second paragraph, busybody), which compiles voting records of roll call votes for every member of Congress. Roll call votes are the votes on the nuts-and-bolts business of Congress (as opposed to "unanimous consent" agenda for naming post office buildings and declaring National Succotash Day).

In the link provided by Hogan's article, there is a drill down to Rubio's record.
Here is the drill down link: RUBIO It sums up roll call vote participation by quarter.

Year-to-date for 2015, we see that there have been 280 roll call votes. Of these 280 votes, Rubio has missed 88 of 280 votes. My reality-based calculator says 88/280 is 31.4%....very very close to Ulaven's stated claim of one third missed. Feel free to check my math. I know that at a minimum, Queerbait will. Poor guy can't help himself.

Now I recognize what Hogan is saying, if you look at Rubio's voting rate since he's been in the Senate, it's not bad at all.

To me, though, that's like saying "Joe's worked here since 2011, and until this year he's been an exemplary employee. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Joe's missed every third day of work since the beginning of the year."

I am of the opinion that you will have a hard time running a successful business with an employee absentee rate that high.

In any event, good discussion. Have fun guys.