6 ms·

House Votes to Halt Aid for Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen

23 points by longerthoughts 8y ago

Overtonwindow 8y ago
All this excitement when it still takes the Senate and the president to make a law
- rhizome 8y ago
  At the very least it's a nice, public gesture and acknowledgement.
- iscrewyou 8y ago
  This makes it a real deal. This puts the politicians one one side or the other. Are they yay or nay? This will guide people’s decision when it’s time for voting. Especially those who work with Yemeni population. This has an intangible effect even if it doesn’t pass the senate. Edit: My comment about Yemeni population means that it allows those people to see a outcome and notice it “first” hand the consequences of our voting decisions without actually participating in war. Hope that clears it.
  - kevin_b_er 8y ago
    It does not. With how the US senate works, the senate leader can just prevent a vote unless a large number of senators force it. If the other party than the one that put the House to the vote just never forces the issue, they will not have to declare a side. The exact tactic was done repeatedly during the US's partial government shutdown. The senate leader blocked bills from a vote. A sufficient number of senators could've called for said vote, but the leader's party actually did not want to be found voting against the government reopening, so the bills to fully reopen the government were stalled for a long time.
    - ianai 8y ago
      They’re operating on a mixture of rules and mutual understanding. The mutual understanding could change through political outrage, I think.
- kelnos 8y ago
  This actually could potentially pass the Senate, since the Senate voted in favor of a similar (albeit non-binding) resolution in December. Of course, Trump is nearly certain to veto it if it gets to his desk. Veto override is pretty unlikely; 67 Senate votes is a bit much to expect, and the current bill passed the House with only a simple majority of 58%. Still, it's good to see Congress actually opposing Trump for a change, as a majority. It's only symbolic, yes, but sending a message does have some value.
  - ianai 8y ago
    Blows my mind that a president has that sort of power. Congress has the ability to make war, not the executive.
    - Fjolsvith 8y ago
      I believe the appropriate term is "declare", not "make".
raincom 8y ago
Hope this momentum stays forever beyond being anti-Trump.
pvaldes 8y ago
I wonder if this is a sign that the new sexy war is being translated to Venezuela. Managing two wars in different continents at the same time is too costly probably.
- masonic 8y ago
  No, it's politics: the House changed party control.

Overtonwindow 8y ago

All this excitement when it still takes the Senate and the president to make a law

rhizome 8y ago
At the very least it's a nice, public gesture and acknowledgement.
iscrewyou 8y ago
This makes it a real deal. This puts the politicians one one side or the other. Are they yay or nay? This will guide people’s decision when it’s time for voting. Especially those who work with Yemeni population. This has an intangible effect even if it doesn’t pass the senate. Edit: My comment about Yemeni population means that it allows those people to see a outcome and notice it “first” hand the consequences of our voting decisions without actually participating in war. Hope that clears it.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  It does not. With how the US senate works, the senate leader can just prevent a vote unless a large number of senators force it. If the other party than the one that put the House to the vote just never forces the issue, they will not have to declare a side. The exact tactic was done repeatedly during the US's partial government shutdown. The senate leader blocked bills from a vote. A sufficient number of senators could've called for said vote, but the leader's party actually did not want to be found voting against the government reopening, so the bills to fully reopen the government were stalled for a long time.
  - ianai 8y ago
    They’re operating on a mixture of rules and mutual understanding. The mutual understanding could change through political outrage, I think.
kelnos 8y ago
This actually could potentially pass the Senate, since the Senate voted in favor of a similar (albeit non-binding) resolution in December. Of course, Trump is nearly certain to veto it if it gets to his desk. Veto override is pretty unlikely; 67 Senate votes is a bit much to expect, and the current bill passed the House with only a simple majority of 58%. Still, it's good to see Congress actually opposing Trump for a change, as a majority. It's only symbolic, yes, but sending a message does have some value.
- ianai 8y ago
  Blows my mind that a president has that sort of power. Congress has the ability to make war, not the executive.
  - Fjolsvith 8y ago
    I believe the appropriate term is "declare", not "make".

raincom 8y ago

Hope this momentum stays forever beyond being anti-Trump.

pvaldes 8y ago

I wonder if this is a sign that the new sexy war is being translated to Venezuela. Managing two wars in different continents at the same time is too costly probably.

masonic 8y ago
No, it's politics: the House changed party control.