Hexbear

15 points

2 years ago

well wouldn’t it make more sense to force biden to at least veto it then?

report

Teapot [he/him]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

10 points

2 years ago

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

report

[ - ]

10 points

2 years ago

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.

report

420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

8 points

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.

report

[ - ]

11 points

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.

report

420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

7 points

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.

report

[ - ]

4 points

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.

report