237
Comments (53)
sorted by:
54
StaryHickory 54 points ago +54 / -0

The GOP picked one hell of a time to backstab the American people. They by and large know full well that these elections were fraudulent and are using the chaos to try and do shit like this.

Sickening

30
Anaconda [S] 30 points ago +33 / -3

these republicans are treasonous cowardly cucks aren't they? i bet if the SCOTUS rules for us and the POTUS and says the legislature/congress must decide who is the POTUS due to the 4 states fucking the process up by using courts and not the legislatures to change voting laws these shittyass GOP legislatures will just vote for biden anyway and even if it is a contested election these cucked house members will vote for biden and cucked senators will vote for harris.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
29
deleted 29 points ago +29 / -0
25
aqua27 25 points ago +25 / -0

Its not that they haven't learned anything they want the old corrupt ways back.

24
MysteriousCheese 24 points ago +24 / -0

ohhhhh this will not go over well

13
Anaconda [S] 13 points ago +16 / -3

yeah...it's happening. and right in time for those two GA senate runoff elections next month. fort benning and fort gordon are in GA and will be renamed.

15
deleted 15 points ago +15 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
19
JEgon 19 points ago +19 / -0

"I just want the world to stop killing itself." ..me too.

12
Scumbag-reddit 12 points ago +13 / -1

Well, since SCOTUS ruled that executive orders are laws, Trump can simply sign an EO and negate that.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
12
thesas 12 points ago +12 / -0

Purdue and Loffler?

6
Anaconda [S] 6 points ago +8 / -2

don't count on them. loeffler claims to be against the NDAA but perdue is MIA and not reachable for comment.

6
thesas 6 points ago +6 / -0

Did they vote for it?

6
Anaconda [S] 6 points ago +7 / -1

we will find out in about one hour. final vote happens soon.

those tweets this morning by the POTUS talking about he loves peace and doesn't want war is a direct reaction to the upcoming passage of this garbageass NDAA and then veto override by congress against him.

12
HumasTaint 12 points ago +12 / -0

What are the new names proposed? It's fucking bs.

9
Anaconda [S] 9 points ago +13 / -4

diversity quota crap. have to be black or hispanic or female or LGBT members. what a fucking joke our military is. our new modern woke military is the one pushing this hard. why do you think so many GOP congressmembers are rolling over on renaming the military bases? we got so many cucks in the military. i guesstimate 80% of our military today are cucks and BLM loving and communist-leaning. our veterans OTOH are fucking patriots and love our country.

22
MegoThor 22 points ago +22 / -0

Fort Faggot

5
sixfingerdildo 5 points ago +5 / -0

pillow fort

4
Clandestiny 4 points ago +4 / -0

kek

Short and to the point.

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
11
Clandestiny 11 points ago +11 / -0

Still VETOable at this point or no?

17
alpha_omega 17 points ago +17 / -0

Yes and if the RINOs override, Trump can hit them politically with their betrayal.

1
stagolee 1 point ago +1 / -0

How soon does he have to do it? Would be nice if he sits on it, vetoes it after the election is settled and the tells the RINOs to get in line or be destroyed.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
10
SouthernFriedFreedom 10 points ago +10 / -0

Rand Paul is really one of the few good ones.

6
attorneyriffic 6 points ago +6 / -0

Question. How long can Trump wait to Veto? Can't he bring the troops back and then Veto?

1
stagolee 1 point ago +1 / -0

They're talking about major military installations. Not enough time for that, but he might be able to hold on until the election is settled so that the RINOs can pretend to have a spine when it goes back to Congress.

5
dukedoom 5 points ago +5 / -0

Fucking Rinos

4
Sugar4Brains 4 points ago +5 / -1

What happens Jan 5th when the Military does not support the CIA anymore? Do the troops just sit there? Since they are there FOR the CIA

-2
Anaconda [S] -2 points ago +4 / -6

LMAO. the military is the one who supports the renaming of the bases and also the banning of the pulling out of our soldiers from europe and the mideast.

you for some reason place a lot of faith in our military who today is overwhelmingly filled with woke, communist, BLM cucks.

4
Sugar4Brains 4 points ago +4 / -0

It hasn't been taken over completely like the other orgs. This final fight will see what stands or falls.

3
JSullz59 3 points ago +3 / -0

President is Commander in Chief shouldnt he be able to override that?

2
HuggableBear 2 points ago +2 / -0

Commander in chief isn't the same as administrator in chief. Congress holds the purse strings and can pass administrative things along with it.

1
JSullz59 1 point ago +1 / -0

Agreed but isnt troop movement executive privilege? Vietnam and Iraq arent actual declared wars they are police actions we went there without Congressional approval we should be able to leave without it too.

Technically Congress needs to meet every 60 days to extend the Presidents right to keep troops deployed without a declaration of war.

1
HuggableBear 1 point ago +1 / -0

Troop movements where force will be used are under the purview of the CIC. Staffing plans, base locations, base administration, etc. are all up to the legislature in most cases.

It's very esoteric and the two branches argue about it constantly, but I think of it like this:

Legislature says "Accomplish this. Here's the money to do it."

Executive says "You got it, I will use this money to accomplish your stated goal, but how I go about it is up to me."

We can all understand that.

In this case, the Legislature's stated goal is "Staff these military installations that are not involved in any current engagements to this level. Here's the money to do it."

The executive then gets to choose how to get the staff there and whom to send, but they don't get to choose what positions are filled or in what quantity, they just get to manage the logistics. If that base were supplying troops for an active engagement, it would be different, and what constitutes "supplying troops for an active engagement" is where shit gets really muddy.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
yanksali 2 points ago +2 / -0

How does Congress have the authority to ban removal of troops when the president is commander in chief?

2
Rubicon_Don 2 points ago +2 / -0

I wish the President had line-item veto power so he could keep the good stuff and veto the communist, anti-American stuff. Until then, Veto the whole fucking thing GEOTUS.

2
Crlsniper 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hopefully it will be a closer thing in the actual vote, correct me if I’m wrong this vote was just to agree to vote on this and not necessarily an indicator on what they will vote. Hopefully we got enough reps that voted to vote just so they could end talking about this and we get enough that a veto will stop it, but might just be being hopeful

2
yanksali 2 points ago +2 / -0

Congress can declare war and cut off funds but where is their authority to compel removal of troops?

1
yanksali 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m down with the GOP. Always caving in to the lefts demands.

1
uniformist 1 point ago +1 / -0

VETO

1
yanksali 1 point ago +1 / -0

Isn’t the power of Congress in a defense authorization Bill limited to how much funds are given?

1
HuggableBear 1 point ago +1 / -0

Also quite a bit of administrative details, like naming of bases and whether or not bases should be fully staffed.

1
philnmdg 1 point ago +1 / -0

Trump will veto

1
ItsAFreeCountry 1 point ago +1 / -0

Primaries can't get here fast enough