• 420blazeit69 [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            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?

          • Teapot [he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            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