Clown Car III: Who's Laughing Now

[Gori the Grey]

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

 

[Takhisis]

I don't know why I continue to be gobsmacked when supposed disciples of Jesus Christ so openly and obviously contradict his teachings.

On this side of the world we have to put up with an idiot who says that the best way to fight this gender confusion thing is to abolish sex-ed in state-run schools, and he is backed by exported evangelical groups (see the LatAm news for more).

 

[Mouthwash]

Trump endorses the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - no, really!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

https://www.newsweek.com/evangelica...-may-be-immoral-jerry-falwell-jr-says-1276488


"God says support conservatives, no matter how much they ignore God's commandments!"

My what an insufferable pillock.

 

[Cutlass]

Trump says Soviets were 'right' to invade Afghanistan. His State Department very much disagrees.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/8153...e-afghanistan-state-department-much-disagrees
5:04 p.m.
President Trump has taken a controversial walk down memory lane.

In a broad attempt to justify withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan during a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, Trump ended up saying the Soviet Union was "right" to invade Afghanistan in 1979. According to the president's version of history, the Soviet Union turned into Russia because it "went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan." But the Soviets only invaded at all "because terrorists were going into Russia," Trump falsely said. ("He's confusing it with Chechnya," conservative critic Max Boot pointed out.) "They were right to be there," Trump said of the Soviet invaders, countering the views of the U.S. and its allies at the time.

Trump: "Russia used to be the Soviet Union. Afghanistan made it Russia because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan. Russia."

Trump then goes on to endorse the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Via Fox. pic.twitter.com/oE0fuDLXyz

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 2, 2019

As a whole lot of people on Twitter and in the administration said when Trump shared his interpretation of history, that's not exactly what happened. The 1979 invasion "began a brutal, decade-long attempt by Moscow to subdue the Afghan civil war and maintain a friendly and socialist government on its border," President Trump's State Department says. The State Department also credits the invasion for creating a "shattered country" that allowed Osama bin Laden "to launch terrorist operations worldwide." Kathryn Krawczyk

 

[Gori the Grey]

It was part of an hour-long ramble in which he also claimed to understand drones better than anyone, claimed to have fired Mattis, claimed that he's the only president that has ever worked hard in the job. And more. He does this now and again, I think when he feels out of control. 1) Blustering along makes him feel like he's more in control of the situation and 2) the media will pick up his crazy stuff and that often does take some heat off of him.

 

[Ajidica]

Trump says Soviets were 'right' to invade Afghanistan. His State Department very much disagrees.

Uh-oh, he might have made Putin angry.
After all, Soviet Union didn't invade Afghanistan. Rather, the previous government personally and willingly invited the Soviet troops to come in and kill them.

Though, in fairness, the Soviet's had a far stronger claim on entering Afghanistan than the United States had in, say, invading Grenada.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Romney slammed Trump's moral character but fell short of saying he'd vote to convict him in the Senate. Platitudes aren't enough anymore.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, Romney will be the next Flake.

 

[Ajidica]

Romney slammed Trump's moral character but fell short of saying he'd vote to convict him in the Senate. Platitudes aren't enough anymore.

It is indicative of how far we have sunk to that people are looking to Mitt Romney as some sort of centrist hero to stand up against the barbaric hordes of Attila the Trump.
You know, Romney, the owner of binders full of women and "47% of the country are moochers" Romney.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't think he made one single pledge to oppose Trump in any way. He shamed him but he'll always give him his vote.

 

[Traitorfish]

Uh-oh, he might have made Putin angry.
After all, Soviet Union didn't invade Afghanistan. Rather, the previous government personally and willingly invited the Soviet troops to come in and kill them.

That's why the Americans were smarter; in South Vietnam, they had the president assassinated, and then deployed troops. If you do it backwards, everyone will talk.

 

[cardgame]

Romney slammed Trump's moral character but fell short of saying he'd vote to convict him in the Senate. Platitudes aren't enough anymore.

Romney is just like the rest of the GOP: completely spineless

 

[Kyriakos]

Will the real mitt romney please stand up?

 

[Arakhor]

So, now that the Democrats will retake the House very shortly, what's the most likely bill to restart federal funding?

 

[Mouthwash]

It is indicative of how far we have sunk to that people are looking to Mitt Romney as some sort of centrist hero to stand up against the barbaric hordes of Attila the Trump.
You know, Romney, the owner of binders full of women

I'm not seeing the offense?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So, now that the Democrats will retake the House very shortly, what's the most likely bill to restart federal funding?

The House will pass a funding bill that includes border security but not the wall. It's identical to a bill that previously passed the Senate. McConnell will have to pass it again since it's a new Congress. I find it likely that he won't pass it since Trump won't sign it. Somehow it will be the Democrats fault.

 

[Arakhor]

So, does a bill need to have veto-proof votes in both houses to automatically go through or is just one sufficient, provided that it passes both houses?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So, does a bill need to have veto-proof votes in both houses to automatically go through or is just one sufficient, provided that it passes both houses?

Both need the votes to override a veto - and then you have to vote to override the veto. It's not automatic.

However I feel that we've long ago actually stopped forcing veto showdowns. What I mean is that I do not think our Congress has actually sent bills to be formally vetoed lately - a president just says he'll veto and Congress backs down. They should stop doing that and do their freaking job and force the President to veto things if he is going to threaten to do it. There have been a ton of small erosions of the duties of Congress like this over the years and it needs to stop. They should not just automatically cave to the bluster of the President - any President.

I could be wrong, maybe there's been a lot of vetoes but I am not aware of many in the last 2-4 years.

 

[Arakhor]

Fair enough. You got #7100, so would you like to start the fourth thread?