Monuments

Igor Bobic
@igorbobic
·
5h
86-14, Senate passes defense bill including Warren provision requiring

that military bases named after Confederate generals change their name.

Veto proof majority.
 
57Brave said:
Igor Bobic
@igorbobic
·
5h
86-14, Senate passes defense bill including Warren provision requiring

that military bases named after Confederate generals change their name.

Veto proof majority.
Click to expand...

What 14 republican losers voted against this?
 
Most likely not a bad guess of folks that think like their dear leader that it’s sad to get rid of traitor monuments
 
57Brave said:
Igor Bobic
@igorbobic
·
5h
86-14, Senate passes defense bill including Warren provision requiring

that military bases named after Confederate generals change their name.

Veto proof majority.
Click to expand...



Trump at the debates "I got the forts named after confederates changed, I wanted it long before anyone else, they used to tell me you cant so that, but we did, and its beautiful"




So pretty much the same reaction to the Russia sanctions that were approved by a veto proof majority of congress. Yet he takes credit for the sanctions.
 
sturg33 said:
Big fan of the NDAA these days?
Click to expand...

Interestingly this NDAA had more Nays than the previous. by my count the last 2 had 4 Rs against it. This one seems to be holding similar. And I think has less to do with the number of Nays and more to do with less people not voting.

Personally I think it's a stroke of legislative brilliance to sneak something like this into the NDAA, because it basically forces the republicans to vote for it. By my quick reading it seems like the same core people who vote against it keep voting against it, a few fringe ones pop in and out.
 
zitothebrave said:
Interestingly this NDAA had more Nays than the previous. by my count the last 2 had 4 Rs against it. This one seems to be holding similar. And I think has less to do with the number of Nays and more to do with less people not voting.

Personally I think it's a stroke of legislative brilliance to sneak something like this into the NDAA, because it basically forces the republicans to vote for it. By my quick reading it seems like the same core people who vote against it keep voting against it, a few fringe ones pop in and out.
Click to expand...

We gotta get to a point where we stop trying to sneak pet policies through large bills.

Its why police reform failed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top