Corman lost his vote to evict Kane........and as soon as the last vote was announced he jumped up and asked for "reconsideration" of the vote
Holy Shit!!!!! F^cking Corman.......you ain't gonna' believe this!!!
- Thread starter StinkStankStunk
- Start date
WOW!!!! And now Teplitz (the douchebag D who Jake got to flip) has now said he wants to change his vote to "NO" .......flipping back.
LOL
This is crazier than LOI signing day
So Teplitz committed to Narduzzi and the 412?
Very bizarre and I have never understood the politics of this effort. Starting with the premise that every politician 100% of the time acts in his own self-interests. There was an article in the Hbg paper a few days ago where Corman said they have not counted the votes. If true, that may be the dumbest way to handle a vote I can recall. Second, they needed 3 Dems to vote to oust Kane so IMHO there was no way they could get those votes unless Wolf was on board. And what's in it for him?
Finally, Kane's terms ends in 10 months. In three months the primary will be over and she will be a lame duck (same as she is now). So why take the political risk of moving to oust her? And finally, why on earth would the R's want her out? She is a political goldmine for them.
Very, very bizarre.
Finally, Kane's terms ends in 10 months. In three months the primary will be over and she will be a lame duck (same as she is now). So why take the political risk of moving to oust her? And finally, why on earth would the R's want her out? She is a political goldmine for them.
Very, very bizarre.
Lots of times, politicians that are in a 50/50 situation, will change their vote once they see that their vote is immaterial. In other words, if the vote goes 110 for and 40 against, a person on the edge will change their vote so they aren't in trouble with their base. They can say they voted no, but it passes 109 to 41. Who cares?
the senate voting:
2/10/2016 SR 284 PN 1557
2/10/2016 SR 284 PN 1557, MOTION TO RECONSIDER
2/10/2016 SR 284 PN 1557, RECOMMIT TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
If the Dems were smart they'd vote to oust her so they could appoint a replacement who could run for election as 'the incumbent.'
Who is Corman trying to protect?
a little after vote humor:
Doug Smith is on his deathbed and knows the end is near. His nurse, his wife, his daughter and 2 sons, are with him. He asks for 2 witnesses to be present and a camcorder be in place to record his last wishes, and when all is ready he begins
to speak.
My son, "Bernie, I want you to take the Mayfair houses." My daughter, "Sybil, you take the apartments over in the east end." My son, "Jamie, I want you to take the
offices over in the City Centre." "Sarah, my dear wife, please take all the residential buildings on the banks of the river."
The nurse and witnesses are blown away as they did not realize his extensive holdings, and as Doug slips away, the nurse says, "Mrs. Smith, your husband must have been such a hard-working man to have accumulated all this property".
run your curser across the next line: text color is white
The wife replies, are you kidding? The SOB had a paper route.
Doug Smith is on his deathbed and knows the end is near. His nurse, his wife, his daughter and 2 sons, are with him. He asks for 2 witnesses to be present and a camcorder be in place to record his last wishes, and when all is ready he begins
to speak.
My son, "Bernie, I want you to take the Mayfair houses." My daughter, "Sybil, you take the apartments over in the east end." My son, "Jamie, I want you to take the
offices over in the City Centre." "Sarah, my dear wife, please take all the residential buildings on the banks of the river."
The nurse and witnesses are blown away as they did not realize his extensive holdings, and as Doug slips away, the nurse says, "Mrs. Smith, your husband must have been such a hard-working man to have accumulated all this property".
run your curser across the next line: text color is white
The wife replies, are you kidding? The SOB had a paper route.
Corman is bought and paid for.
Uh....yeah....right
LOL
Next time you have a thought.....just shoot it - and put it out of its misery. It would probably eventually die from loneliness anyway.
Last edited:
Just one man's opinion....but I doubt if Jake's motivation is "R" vs "D" driven.
I think the appropriate symbol is $.
As I mentioned earlier......Teplitz has the substance of a wet fart.
Corman has been a self-serving puke for his entire life.
It just so happens that sometimes, his interests align with Penn State's.
Uh........."common" parliamentary procedure?
I would think not
Bully tactics employed by the majority?
I would think so
Someone needs to tell Jake "there are no do-overs". Any guesses who could take on that job?
Jake caught his pecker in his own zipper.....and now he wants to get a do-over to pursue his (or , more accurately, his masters') vendetta. It's not like the Senate has any pressing issues they should be addressing.
I may live in a crappy state, but it isn't Pennsylvania. Keystone Cesspool comes to mind.
I know you are correct about the commonality of motions to reconsider. I think it is symptomatic of the fact that there are too many lawyers in legislatures.
That is not a hit on attorneys. Votes in legislatures should be treated as votes, not subject to constant revisitation.
If they want to lawyer, go lawyer. If they want to be legislators, legislate.
Precisely. The outcome was well known in advance. Greenleaf (R) Montgomery County (where Kane awaits trial) Chairs the Judiciary Committee. He made clear he did not support this action. Teplitz (D) Dauphin County caved to political pressures.
The vote today, though an unnecessary waste of taxpayers money, was pure politics. The R's intend to use this vote against the D's in the upcoming election though how I'm not sure.
FYI, I corresponded with Senator Corman and urged him not to move forward with the vote today. Obviously, I failed to convince him.
No wonder we're all frustrated with the state of politics in America today.
Time to make State College my primary residence...
Seriously Anthony ? The Rs plan to use this against the D's!
That's their plan ?!
They need a new plan - they really, really can't read the mood of the electorate can they ?
They try to unethically remove the one office holder who's trying to attack the status quo and they think they are on the right side of this issue?
Someone needs to tell them that it is THEY who we are mad at! THEY represent the status quo! THEY represent the worst face of "politics" ! THEY represent those who have something to hide ! THEY represent EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE!
THEY need some new strategists !
Huh? The procedural rules expressly allow for reconsideration. He is merely taking advantage of that fact.
I'm reminded that Corman knows an important part of his base $$ is old guard and friends in Centre County. When he helped broker the deal that resulted in Joe's 409 wins being restored, it also kept the case from going to trial. No doubt some were relieved to avoid the witness stand.
Does that make it right?
Now, I know that as a rule Lawyers - and Politicians - DO NOT follow that credo (which, IIRC, is a quote from Norman S....the Iraq War General)....it's just not in their professional DNA.
But, I do think (hope) that most of us still consider that to be the "right" way to operate.
LOL. Nothing that I said was in disagreement with that fact. It is the fact that is the issue.
Oh, ok, thanks. Way to paint with a broad brush. All lawyers are devious and underhanded, whereas non-lawyers (especially you) are paragons of virtue. No offense, but I think I will keep my own counsel on doing the right thing.Does that make it right?
Now, I know that as a rule Lawyers - and Politicians - DO NOT follow that credo (which, IIRC, is a quote from Norman S....the Iraq War General)....it's just not in their professional DNA.
But, I do think (hope) that most of us still consider that to be the "right" way to operate.
Before pontificating further, you and the others spouting off here might want to spend some time studying the legislative process. You might be shocked to find that other politicians (including politicians you support) have had the audacity to seek reconsideration, call for revotes or recounts, etc. There are way too many armchair experts on way too many subjects on this board.
Yep....you're certainly correct...it is a VERY broad brush - and just as certainly it would not apply to all - - - - and, maybe, it does not apply to you (assuming by your response that you are a lawyer).
I have no way of knowing anything about your character, since to the best of my recollection I have never met anyone by the name of psu7113 in my travels
However, the fact that you felt the need to be offended may be telling
. The words I used were "as a rule"......ie, "a broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation".I thought most lawyers were big on parsing of words?
But if you don't see the very distinct professional differences - as a demographic - between politicians and paid advocates (typically lawyers paid to petition on behalf of a particular cause or client), and "other" professions - both from a structural and from a practical standpoint......then I can't help you - you are either too conflicted, too obtuse, or too ignorant to recognize the differences.
But whether you and I have "differences of opinion" on that matter is utterly inconsequential.
It is what it is.
Unfortunately, I do not think many people are "shocked to find that other politicians have had the audacity to seek reconsideration" etc. After all that we have seen, I doubt that many of us are "shocked" by even the most depraved behavior.
I think in this particular situation - given how outlandish the entire fiasco was from the start - I do find the behavior shocking - - - If only because it takes a despicable situation to a level lower than even I (and maybe I am just a naïve Pollyanna
) would have expected a politician (even a well known scumbag like Jake) to sink to.You are more than welcome to adopt a different outlook......I really couldn't care less one way or the other.
Blah. Blah. Blah.
You are totally missing the point.
It is you who are pontificating, knucklehead.
