No, it makes more sense to end the suffering. Having Biden veto it does not do that. Either get a veto proof proposal, or end it through negotiation. Force him to veto if neither pans out
biden has shown no real signs of ending it though. it would be better for organizers to force him to say that in a clear way, that forces it to get covered in the news.
I just don't see how it could possibly be better for Bernie to get this loose promise than passing an actual resolution to end US military support in a genocide.
Forcing a veto maybe has a 2% chance of snowballing into something that moves the needle, and there's no guarantee of that much. Maybe the logic is this will keep the issue alive, where a veto would basically close it for the foreseeable future. Maybe the idea is that this has a 2.5% chance of snowballing into something meaningful. I have a hard time faulting the guy for picking one lottery ticket instead of another.
I guess that's fair, but it seems like they'd rather have had the vote from the recent citations needed news brief. I think it's almost certain that Biden uses the lull to not change anything and let it simmer for a bit longer down the road.
I can see a good argument for pushing the vote, too, but both options are long shots at the end of the day. If there's no clearly better path, what is there to criticize?
Was it a slam dunk? It passed last time, but wasn't veto proof.
well wouldn't it make more sense to force biden to at least veto it then?
No, it makes more sense to end the suffering. Having Biden veto it does not do that. Either get a veto proof proposal, or end it through negotiation. Force him to veto if neither pans out
biden has shown no real signs of ending it though. it would be better for organizers to force him to say that in a clear way, that forces it to get covered in the news.
Would it force news coverage? If this actually came to a vote, would we suddenly see a few Dems back off?
There isn't much leverage to work here.
I just don't see how it could possibly be better for Bernie to get this loose promise than passing an actual resolution to end US military support in a genocide.
Forcing a veto maybe has a 2% chance of snowballing into something that moves the needle, and there's no guarantee of that much. Maybe the logic is this will keep the issue alive, where a veto would basically close it for the foreseeable future. Maybe the idea is that this has a 2.5% chance of snowballing into something meaningful. I have a hard time faulting the guy for picking one lottery ticket instead of another.
I guess that's fair, but it seems like they'd rather have had the vote from the recent citations needed news brief. I think it's almost certain that Biden uses the lull to not change anything and let it simmer for a bit longer down the road.
I can see a good argument for pushing the vote, too, but both options are long shots at the end of the day. If there's no clearly better path, what is there to criticize?
If that's the case, he'll bring the vote in the "near future", with a republican house that would love to stick it to Biden