4 ms·
Senate fails to block US involvement in Iran war
- rayiner 8mo agoWhat a weird formulation in the article. It makes it seem like the Senate wanted to block the Iran hostilities and failed to do so. But instead it voted against doing so.
- 6Az4Mj4D 8mo agoThe voting failed with a small number I think 53 / 47
- RevEng 8mo agoThere was a vote to block it and the vote failed to pass, hence they failed to block it.
- mbrumlow 8mo agoSomething about the wording seems dishonest though. Whoever sponsored the bill failed to get the senate to pass it. The wording here makes it seem like the senate wanted this but failed to get it. So again the senate failing to do something the senate said they did not want to do is weird. It comes down to some people in the senate wanted this, but they are not the senate. Politicians have been treating a minority position as the institution’s will for some time. It’s our job to look past that and not be fooled even if you share the same minority position.
- nairboon 8mo agoThe Senate could have failed only if they intended to do something, but then couldn't do it.
- jjk166 8mo ago> The Senate could have failed only if they intended to do something, but then couldn't do it. They, meaning a large number of senators, intended to do something, and then couldn't do it. This is the standard way every resolution which does not pass is described.
- mbrumlow 8mo agoThe they failed part is not the Senate. Some members of the Senate failed to get the votes to pass the bill. Whe. You say it like you have it implies the will of the senate was to block it and they failed. And that is weird because the senate clearly did not want to block it otherwise it would have been blocked. The senate rejected the bill. They did not fail to do anything. The bill failed to get the approval of the senate. But one thing we know. In the senate did not fail.
- erelong 8mo agoIt was gonna be vetoed anyway
- kgc 8mo agoDoesn't war have to be voted on before starting it? Otherwise, you're kind of in it already.
- krapp 8mo agoFor some stupid reason the US President has carte blanche power as Commander in Chief to just start shit wherever and whenever they like, and then it's up to Congress to call it a "war" or just a "special operation" or something.
- jjtwixman 8mo agoIt's funny really when you think about it, the Americans are so proud of their checks and balances, but then also gave the president the power to unilaterally start wars. Lol.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]