web analytics

Democrats play politics with defense

By Patrick Van Roy On July 12th, 2019

Now this is nothing new. This is par for the course of both sides since Spending Bills are not just spending bills, but places to place either sides little pet topics and projects in things that must be passed.

Here is what the Dems stuck in the Defense budget.

Heading into the NDAA debate, progressives warned they thought the bill’s $733 billion price tag was too high.

An amendment to trim $16.8 billion from the bill failed, 115-307.

But progressives also said they could support the NDAA despite the funding concern if their other amendments passed. They were particularly concerned about amendments related to President Trump’s war powers.

Earlier Friday, the House passed an amendment to prevent Trump from launching a military strike on Iran without prior congressional approval.

Democrats also approved amendments to block emergency arms sales to Saudi Arabia, end U.S. military support to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen and repeal the 2002 authorization for the use of military force that authorized the Iraq War, among others.  Outside of war powers, amendments touched on a number of progressive priorities, including reversing Trump’s transgender military ban, giving federal employees 12 weeks of paid family leave, prohibiting military parades for political purposes and banning Pentagon funds from being used at Trump-owned properties.

No Republicans voted in support of the bill Friday. The White House threatened to veto the bill earlier this week.

38 Responses to “Democrats play politics with defense”

  1. “No Republicans voted in support of the bill Friday. The White House threatened to veto the bill earlier this week.”

    Is this not how your sainted system is supposed to work? You seem to support it in other aspects. Either it gets wider agreement than simply one party or it doesn’t pass. Why should defence not be subject to this?

  2. this is how my sainted system works. As I say in the beginning of the post.

    Now this is nothing new. This is par for the course of both sides since Spending Bills are not just spending bills, but places to place either sides little pet topics and projects in things that must be passed.

  3. So what is your problem with it? It is working the way you want it to work.

  4. Why should defence not be subject to this?

    Because certain things should not be political. Providing for the defense of my country I believe should be one of them.

  5. “Because certain things should not be political. Providing for the defense of my country I believe should be one of them.”

    Everything is political, including defence. If Republicans don’t want to play politics with it then they can pass the bill, and Trump can sign it. It takes two to tango. It will only be political if the Republicans oppose the amendments.

  6. Everything is political, including defence. If Republicans don’t want to play politics with it then they can pass the bill, and Trump can sign it.

    proving once again that you have no clue how my sainted system works…..

    Republicans can’t pass anything in the House while Democrats hold the majority.

  7. “Republicans can’t pass anything in the House while Democrats hold the majority.”

    They can pass things. They can pass the House’s bill. It will only be political if the House and Senate versions disagree or if the President vetoes the bill. So if the Senate passes the House bill and Trump signs it then there is no political fight over this.

  8. They can pass things.

    wrong

  9. Why can’t they pass the House bill?

  10. try learning how my sainted system works, then maybe and I do say maybe you’ll figure it out 😉

  11. I do know how your system works. I know how your system works better than you do. The Senate can pass the House’s bill. They won’t. But they could.

  12. Republicans can’t pass or block anything.

  13. “Republicans can’t pass or block anything.”

    They can pass the House bill. If Republicans in the Senate voted for the House’s bill then it would pass.

  14. now you’re talking Senate….. you really don’t know what you’re saying do you?

  15. “you really don’t know what you’re saying do you?”

    I really do.

    You are the one talking cryptic bollocks so why don’t you come right out and say what I’m getting wrong.

  16. I see your confusion….. you’re speaking of “Congress” NOT THE HOUSE….. please learn to read while you’re learning my sainted system.

  17. You are the one talking cryptic bollocks so why don’t you come right out and say what I’m getting wrong.

  18. I’m talking politics being played with the defense bill in the house…. all spending bills except the unconstitutional Obamacare originate in the HOUSE.

    Republicans in the house can’t pass or block anything they don’t control the house the Dems do.

    The democrats don’t care if our soldiers get paid, if our weapons can be serviced, if our country can be defended or not.

    Since taking control of the purse the Democrats have passed nothing that they are required to do as their job demands. The defense Bill is one of them. They don’t want to go home for the August break having passed NOTHING so the inserted poison pills into the defense bill purposefully so it couldn’t be get any further than the House.

    They cancel the War Powers act with a spending bill which can’t be done.

  19. Obamacare originated in the House. HR 3590.

    “Republicans in the house can’t pass or block anything they don’t control the house the Dems do.”

    They can in the Senate. Spending bills originate in the House, but that doesn’t mean the Senate can’t do anything. Which is why the Senate version of the NDAA has already been voted on.

    The House has passed a bill. The Senate can pass the same bill. It will then go to Trump who can sign it or veto it.

    Thus the Republicans can decide to pass or block this. It has passed the House. It is now up to the Republicans.

    “The democrats don’t care if our soldiers get paid, if our weapons can be serviced, if our country can be defended or not.”

    So if Republicans want soldiers to get paid, weapons to be serviced, the country to be defended, then the Republicans in the Senate should pass an identical version of the House NDAA and then Trump should sign it.

  20. “They cancel the War Powers act with a spending bill which can’t be done.”

    Actually it doesn’t. It in no way shape or form repeals or amends the War Powers Act. It simply says that any unauthorised (by Congress) military action against Iran will not be funded. Nothing to do with the War Powers Act.

  21. “They don’t want to go home for the August break having passed NOTHING so the inserted poison pills into the defense bill purposefully so it couldn’t be get any further than the House.”

    They will get further if the Republicans back them.

  22. Preventing a long and bloody war with Iran that no one wants except you and dirtbag Bibi Is the people’s business

    Three cheers for the Congress

  23. Preventing a long and bloody war with Iran that no one wants except you and dirtbag Bibi Is the people’s business

    Not the only war Bibi wants it seems:

    https://www.jpost.com/printarticle.aspx?id=595382

  24. Bibi does not want that war

    Hamas Wants that war

    They want that war far more than they want a decent life for the people there

  25. The dems need to pass a clean bill on Defense and leave out the Progressive stuff. However, as Seamus knows, legislative gridlock is one of the main weaknesses of the presidential system. This is a good example.

  26. Yeah, Israel doesn’t do overkill at all.

  27. Actually it doesn’t. It in no way shape or form repeals or amends the War Powers Act. It simply says that any unauthorised (by Congress) military action against Iran will not be funded. Nothing to do with the War Powers Act.

    wrong

    Earlier Friday, the House passed an amendment to prevent Trump from launching a military strike on Iran without prior congressional approval.

    That is an undoing of the Wars Powers Act…… but hey you know our system better then me.

  28. Seamus does know your system better than you Patrick. Seamus knows the minutae and details of politics , political systems, elections and individuals better than ANYONE here !

  29. If your president wants to start a war with Iran for no reason, let Mexico pay for

  30. If your president wants to start a war with Iran for no reason, let Mexico pay for

  31. complete thoughts antifa boy…… if you can.

  32. Paul there is no such thing as overkill 😉

  33. The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

    I agree with Patrick that this bill would go beyond the War Powers Act and therefore ties the hands of the Commander in Chief vis-a-vis Iran.

  34. This commander-in-chief came very close to starting a war very recently for no good reason

  35. Phantom

    Was that when he wanted to bomb Buckingham Palace because Meghan Markle said something unkind about him? 😉

  36. thank you Charles…. another voice of sanity.

  37. Patrick Van Roy, on July 12th, 2019 at 9:07 PM Said:

    Why should defence not be subject to this?

    Because certain things should not be political. Providing for the defense of my country I believe should be one of them.

    Patrick – your country has been invaded and is now practically conquered…….

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-protestors-rip-down-american-flag-at-ice-facility-raise-mexico-flag-vandalize-blue-lives-matter-flag

    Anti-ICE protesters pull down American flag, raise Mexico flag, vandalize ‘Blue Lives Matter’ flag

    https://dailystormer.name/colorado-wetback-filth-storms-ice-facility-pulls-down-american-flag-and-raises-mexican-one/

    DS – I don’t know if you know this, but it is a custom during war that when you conquer the base of an enemy, you take down their flag and raise your own. This has been a tradition of war since the invention of flags.

    The logical thing to do would be for the US military to start shooting the invading army. Furthermore, we should be bombing Mexican cities and conquering territory from them.

    Instead, we are being told that the invading army is actually made up of our good friends, and that it is our moral duty to help them invade our country.

    Meanwhile, we are being told that it is also our moral duty to invade Iran, a country that did nothing.

    This situation is inexplicable, and all evidence points to the Jews being behind it.

  38. nah…. we gonna round em up….

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.