The Republican-led Senate on Wednesday rejected the latest Democratic attempt to halt Donald Trump’s war in Iran, turning aside a resolution that would require the U.S. to withdraw forces from the conflict until Congress authorizes further action.

The 47-52 vote was the fourth time this year that the Senate has voted to cede its war powers to the president in a conflict that Democrats say is illegal and unjustified.

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman was the only Democrat to vote against it. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted with Democrats.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You mean the party bought and paid for by billionaires and lead by Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies? That party?

      Don’t hold your fucking breath.

  • turtlesareneat@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Wouldn’t the more a accurate headline be “Fetterman is the only pro-Iran-War senator to claim to be a democrat?”

    • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      All it takes to be a Democratic elected official is to run as a party member and get elected. He did those things. He’s a Democrat. The Democratic party is just a lot more right wing at its extremes (and overall) than folks like to admit.

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    There’s no need for congress to pass this. The constitution already requires it. But of course the courts are captured so they won’t enforce it.

  • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Why not just draft a bill that is a formal declaration of war or immediate cease and desist of war activities of it doesn’t pass? Force the Republicans to formally stain themselves with war.

    • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      or immediate cease and desist of war activities of it doesn’t pass

      That’s not a thing, you can’t make a law that has effects if it doesn’t pass.

      • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Well they ought to be able to. Make it like a vote of confidence in the war. Either we’re at war or the process to continue trumps aggression fails.

        • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          So there is the War Powers Resolution act, which requires the president get congressional approval within 60 days of hostilities. Obama’s admin made up some bullshit why it didn’t apply to his wars, and Trump will probably ignore it all together.

          • 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Obama’s admin made up some bullshit why it didn’t apply to his wars, and Trump will probably ignore it all together.

            How bloody convenient, eh?

            • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              A law asking the president to do a thing is unenforceable anyway, since the president would be the one enforcing it.

              All congress can do is impeach presidents until they come up with one that does the thing they want or stop funding the military.

  • rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Fetterman is not a democrat.

    He is at best impaired mentally and at worst a GOP plant

  • Absurdly Stupid @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    There’s always at least one.

    … and THIS is how Ds show their compliance when the minority.

    … and THIS is how Rs show their compliance when the minority.

    BoTh PaRtIeS can stop this “supermajority” nonsense at ANY TIME. But, from their point of view, that makes popular legislation too easy to pass, and they don’t want that, do they?

    Instead, they ¯\(ツ)

    If memory serves this “supermajority filibuster” circus started in the 1970s. This is a parliamentary rule ONLY. It’s not law. It’s not in the constitution. It requires only a simple majority vote to erase. They pass legislation they really want without it all of the time, by making it an “exception” to the parliamentary rule (also done through simple majority vote). There are hundreds of “exceptions” to the super majority rule. This is what they want to pass.

    So, this is a fucking circus that they can stop at any time. For example, Democrats could have decided “enough is enough” when Biden was in office after the monstrosity that was Trump, and used the “nuclear option” (that’s what they call it) to revert to simple majority vote to pass laws. Then, they could have passed lots of very popular legislation, a new New Deal, so to speak; 70% of American voters want universal healthcare, for example… 90% of Democrats want this.

    What did the Democrats do for their own voters?

    ¯\(ツ)

    Couldn’t even pass higher minimum wage.

  • redbrick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t understand this dude…he’s all over the place…in otherwords…Loose cannon…nope!