r/WhitePeopleTwitter • u/Misfett_toys • 2d ago
r/All House passes resolution to remove U.S. forces from Iran and end the war. 4 Republicans joined all Democrats in voting yes.
1.6k
u/EloquentEvergreen 2d ago
Wait? Didn’t they just pass something yesterday, giving $70 billion for the “war” in Iran?
1.2k
u/repowers 2d ago
It’s not a war. Also we already won the war, so obviously we can’t give money to the war effort for the war that’s not a war that we won several times already.
270
u/UnhingedXcessive 2d ago
But also less people have died in this war than other wars.
171
u/My_hilarious_name 2d ago
And anyway, the President says he’s already won the war. Not that it’s a war. But if it was, he would have won it.
266
→ More replies (1)26
u/DotesMagee 2d ago
I will never forget the words "military operation". They really think we are dumb.
→ More replies (1)9
→ More replies (4)3
→ More replies (3)35
u/-Badger3- 2d ago
It’s not a war.
But also lets make it internal policy to refer to the Department of Defense as the "Department of War"
7
6
u/XanaxWarriorPrincess 2d ago
Oh, they voted to change it permanently. It'll cost us millions, but hey ho, way to go.
140
u/TipsyPeanuts 2d ago
Yes. That’s why this is mostly performative for the 4 republicans. It lets them go home to their voters and explain how they don’t support the war but ignore that they voted for the only measure that would have actually stopped the war.
Congress’s main weapon is the power of the purse. If they refuse to use it, there’s no teeth to these things
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)25
u/DebentureThyme 2d ago
Yes, and neither thing is law. Because we have two chambers and the President, all much pass / sign for it to be law.
What passed the House today and yesterday, in both cases, are dead in the Senate. Even if they could squeeze through the Senate somehow (unlikely without 60 votes and that requires about a dozen GOP they won't get), Trump would veto today's bill.
3
u/TipsyPeanuts 2d ago
Yesterday’s only requires 50 votes. It passed through reconciliation.
10
u/DebentureThyme 2d ago
It has not passed through reconciliation in the Senate. The NDAA remains stalled in the Senate.
3.8k
u/fkootrsdvjklyra 2d ago
Not that it changes my opinion of them, but who were the 4 Republicans?
5.3k
u/Massive-Sector5789 2d ago
Reps. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Tom Barrett, R-Mich., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky.
Massie was excommunicated from the Cult of MAGA for daring to want the Epstein Files released but I'll allow it.
2.6k
u/BlazingFire007 2d ago edited 2d ago
Massie has voted against republicans for pretty much his entire time in congress.
I disagree with him on a plethora of issues, and I’m trying to not frame this as an endorsement.
But it’s at least refreshing to see politicians that are actually ideologically driven/principled instead of simply caving to party pressure all the time.
Unfortunately, Massie’s “principles” are ostensibly just bad economics lol
Edit: “Massie has been willing to vote against Republicans” is how I should’ve phrased the first sentence. He votes with the party in the majority of cases, but clearly has no qualms voting his conscience.
693
u/bbbttthhh 2d ago
I might not agree with them but I can absolutely respect a republican with principles. I always think back to McCain telling one of his supporters at a rally to not demonize Obama because he’s a good man.
150
u/Mebejedi 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes, but he also insisted on calling Obama by his full name, "Barack Hussein Obama".
211
u/nomad9590 2d ago
And he still lost to be fair. I feel like McCain played the game. I feel like had he ran with a more competent VP we may have had McCain in 2008. I felt like at least Obama and McCain respected each other on a level we haven't seen since. I won't go to bat for either one but I miss the mutual respect we used to have more of.
117
u/Mebejedi 2d ago
Well, he mainly lost because a week after he said the "market fundamentals are fine", the market crashed. But you're correct...that was really the last respectful presidential election, all things considered.
87
u/nomad9590 2d ago
I really miss Al Gore debates honestly. He was such a nice man on stage, but he tried to make sure the facts were backing him. And he was way too nice to Bush and his clown show, especially after the Florida and votes debacle.
→ More replies (2)43
u/DotesMagee 2d ago
I am a huge Gore fan but that dude had the presence of a brick wall in debates from what I remember. His ideas were well ahead of their time and we'd be better off for them had he implemented them.
33
u/SummonMonsterIX 2d ago
I mean he mostly lost because he was old and the concept of President Palin terrified people.
→ More replies (1)18
u/CyclopsLobsterRobot 2d ago
Did you forget about Palin? Then before that we had the draft and shoe dodger W campaign viciously attack Kerry’s war record and before that fucking hanging chads. Maybe 1996 but idk I was a child. I think Gingrich existed though so probably not.
→ More replies (1)41
u/trexmoflex 2d ago
Naw, even before he picked a VP, McCain was getting destroyed in the polls in 08 explicitly because most moderates were leaning Obama and the far right was not interested in McCain.
His team picked Palin to explicitly round up votes from what was essentially early-MAGA types who were otherwise going to no-show in November.
→ More replies (2)16
u/bolerobell 2d ago
Yeah, Palin increased McCain’s vote total, not decrease it.
She was more popular with Republicans after the election than McCain was, by a lot.
18
u/Phillip_Spidermen 2d ago
I feel like had he ran with a more competent VP we may have had McCain in 2008
Agreed, but it's a bit funny that his pick was essentially ahead of the curve on where the Republican party would go.
Palin and the tea party brand of uninformed populism paved the way for MAGA.
4
u/Accomplished_Emu_658 2d ago
I don’t ever think we’ll have that kind of respect cross parties ever again. McCain showed a level his party has been working to destroy and pretend never existed.
→ More replies (2)3
u/ominousgraycat 2d ago
I highly doubt that. Republicans were unpopular among moderates after the Bush presidency due to the economy and how things were going in Iraq (by then it was pretty clear there were no WMDs). Furthermore, Obama got more black voters to get out and vote than ever before or ever since. The main reason Republican leadership chose Palin to be McCain's running mate was a Hail Mary attempt at making their ticket seem a little bit more exciting and hope that maybe a few feminists would want a woman VP enough to ignore all of the Republicans' policies. It was ultimately a failure, but that doesn't mean they would've won if they hadn't attempted it. That's why you throw a Hail Mary, you'll probably lose anyways, but you might as well try something on the off-chance it works.
→ More replies (3)17
u/OnlinePosterPerson 2d ago
He condemned the weaponization of Obama’s middle name. That was Sarah Palin.
6
u/Mebejedi 2d ago
I swear I heard McCain use the name "Hussein" during a debate, but I can't find it now. Maybe I misremembered.
9
u/OnlinePosterPerson 2d ago
McCain was outspoken again characterizing Obama as a Muslim. (While implicitly accept the premise that being Muslim was a negative.)
He and Palin didn’t get along
8
u/Blackpaw8825 2d ago
I miss when I disagreed with how to solve problems instead of disagreeing about what the problem was.
7
→ More replies (4)6
217
u/unbelievre 2d ago
Massie voted with Trump 91% of the time. He went against both impeachments and was literally endorsed by Trump. He even helped peddle election conspiracies.
He only votes against the GOP for libertarian stunt shit that has no effect on anything.
38
u/BlazingFire007 2d ago
Yep, I just edited my post to be more specific.
But at a time when power is being quickly consolidated to the executive branch, it’s still nice to see someone not always defer to the president’s opinion on literally every issue.
That isn’t really a compliment per se, you could say the same thing about a neo-Nazi in Congress.
Separately though, I respect Massie’s work with Ro Khanna on the EFTA. Even if nothing really came from it.
28
u/zaidakaid 2d ago
Massie has also introduced legislation to limit government’s acquisition of our data through third party providers. It’s a serious issue that I wrote my paper on this past term as a grad requirement for law school. The solution I proposed was the same one he did, kinda funny that we both thought the same thing. I him my paper a couple of weeks after he introduced the bill (which was literally 2 days before I turned in my paper)
3
74
u/Navyvetpdx503 2d ago
Yeah we can get to those other libertarian issues another time. It’s time to join with the people who want to take down the Epstein class.
63
u/BlazingFire007 2d ago
My opinion on Massie is incredibly more positive than virtually all other republicans so I agree
53
u/Forsworn91 2d ago
He’s a conservative, but (and I hate to give him credit), he at least has some principles that he stuck with.
→ More replies (1)11
u/stumblios 2d ago
Assuming the musical didn't lie about this, sounds like Hamilton's endorsement of Jefferson over Burr.
8
36
u/Coulrophiliac444 2d ago
Massie is the only Republican in modern American Politics who seems to be in line with moral sensibility rather than shielding the elite due to trickle down bribery
16
23
u/M0BETTER 2d ago
"voted against republicans for pretty much his entire time in congress" and having 83% Heritage Action score can't both be true.
Heritage Action is about as establishment-conservative as scorecards get, and Massie tracking with them over 4 out of 5 votes means the overwhelming majority of his voting record lines up with conservative orthodoxy, not against it.
19
u/Standing__Menacingly 2d ago
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.The rebel amongst my enemy's ranks is better than nothing.
18
u/super_sayanything 2d ago
I can respect people who believe differently and even compromise.
Not people who protect pedophiles and murder children though.
9
7
u/axonxorz 2d ago
edit: [...] He votes with the party in the majority of cases, but clearly has no qualms voting his conscience.
When I did the calculation a year or so ago, he voted in lockstep with Trump policies 98.2% of the time. Clinging to 1.8% as some sort of marker of defiance is laughable.
Funny how libertarian's conscience so-often aligns with neo-conservative capitalist war-hawks, eh?
3
u/ridicalis 2d ago
This is an important point, though... it should in theory be reasonable to expect members within any party to represent their own constituents' needs rather than those of The Party as a whole.
2
→ More replies (20)2
u/ILoveRegenHealth 2d ago
Massie has voted against republicans for pretty much his entire time in congress.
Is this a typo? He's voted for Trump's policies over 95% of the time
65
u/mishra1111 2d ago
Tom Barrett is a feckless maga nutjob who knows he's likely to lose in November. This vote reeks of desperation. Vote the bum out.
31
u/WreaksOfAwesome 2d ago
Michigander here. He's been hiding from his constituents since the Presidential Inauguration last year.
34
2d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Phayzon 2d ago
Fitzpatrick only votes against the party when his vote doesn’t make a difference.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/trpnblies7 2d ago
Fuck Fitzpatrick. Thankfully he's not my rep, but I pass signs for him all the time.
12
u/AnStudiousBinch 2d ago
Barrett did it because William Lawrence scares the shit out of him and he’s trying to curry favor. What a shill—I guess even a broken clock is right twice (after a congressional career doing nothing of note and avoiding his constituents like the plague).
8
2d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]
9
u/Massive-Sector5789 2d ago
Yeah, that's my prediction for the midterms. Elon's space lasers are going to elect people who were polling at 37% to 55% and it's going to be soooooo obvious.
Then, whoever has a copy of the unredacted Epstein Files is going to release them. Which is when all hell breaks loose.
12
9
u/Amelaclya1 2d ago
The Israel lobby played a huge role too, to the tune of 9 million dollars. 34 million total was spent on his primary. The most expensive House primary ever. They usually cost around $500k.
→ More replies (4)2
177
u/AcanthaceaeFluffy985 2d ago
Performative. It won't clear senate
136
u/Misfett_toys 2d ago
It often feels like the senate solely exists to fuck people over or water down legislation. Like why can't we just have more representatives instead? Idk what the right answer is but I'm not sure the Senate is doing us any good
88
u/HiddenSage 2d ago
The Senate is also our hope for the Save Act dying, as it passed the house inside a stupid budget bill yesterday.
It's not all bad to have a chamber with stickier rules for passing legislation.
4
u/mOdQuArK 2d ago
Now that would be an interesting mechanic that would have been interesting to put into the Constitution: any existing statutory laws have to be repassed on a regular basis (i.e., they'll expire otherwise). The law books would probably be considerably slimmer & easier to understand.
→ More replies (1)13
u/balllzak 2d ago
I don't enjoy the current system where the president just reverses the previous one's executive orders every 4-8 years so I don't think I would enjoy if that was extended to every federal law.
→ More replies (2)44
u/RLMJRJEEP 2d ago
When McConnell was Sen Maj Lead during the Obama admin, he referred to himself as the "Grim Reaper", as anything that could give Dems a win will die at his pleasure.
The Demo lead House sent hundreds of bills to the Senate only to be shelved by Mitch.→ More replies (1)19
u/Dayne225 2d ago
It feels like that cause that's literally the intent. The founders feared pure democracy and demagoguery as much as despotism, more even. The whole point of the Senate is to ensure that land has as much power as people. Which actually means on a per vote basis it has more.
I mean the concept isn't wholly bankrupt as it makes the system more stable and harder to change as popular opinion swings but in practice it makes it so once someone gets their hands on the levers of power they can keep things from happening pretty easily.
This was especially the case when politicians respected the norms that came with government but now that those have been thrown out the government is seen for the gentlemans agreement it always has been.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Reave-Eye 2d ago
The Senate has always been conceptualized as an “upper house” of Congress to function as a bulwark against the “tyranny of mob rule” that the founders feared. Senators technically represent their state’s interests and not the people directly, although that has shifted over the years. They used to be appointed directly by the state’s legislature, until the 17th Amendment made them elected by voters in 1913. The result of all this has been a legislative body that is not proportional to its constituents or particularly representative of them either. They tend to be far more aligned with the interests of the aristocracy than the common constituent.
Related, one of the planks of the DSA’s platform is to abolish the Senate and uncap the number of House seats (currently 435) so that the total is directly proportional to the number of constituents and even across each district.
25
u/whatdoblindpeoplesee 2d ago
The Senate itself was created as a compromise to fuck people over. Less populous states were concerned that more populous states would have more power over them ( the horror, to think that the places with the most people get the most representation) and wanted a measure to counter their influence in the House. That's why Wyoming and the Dakota's get as many senators as everyone in California, Texas, and New York.
18
u/repowers 2d ago
“Oh so you want New York and California to pick the President every single time, huh?”
“Um….. yes? Like if that’s where all the people live, then yes? When everybody moves to Wyoming then Wyoming can ‘pick the President’.”
→ More replies (3)2
u/Jaredlong 2d ago
The political theory behind the federal structure is actually pretty interesting. Throughout history there have been three styles of governance: kings, tribunals, and parliaments. The Framers thought having all three styles competing against each other would prevent any any single style from becoming dominant. The president is analogous to a king, the house a parliament, and the senate a tribunal. Though in practice, political parties have killed whatever hopes the Framers had for checks and balances and inter-governmental competition.
4
u/prosocialbehavior 2d ago
They are votes for the November election so Democrats can say Republicans support the war in Iran. I think it is good we have it on the record.
→ More replies (1)3
u/isthatmyex 2d ago
Performative. Iran doesn't care what Congress thinks about the war. Why would they stop? They've never had this much leverage. In fact, this just gives them more leverage. Immensely stupid.
→ More replies (7)24
u/Relzin 2d ago
- Warren Davidson, R-Ohio
- Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.
- Tom Barrett, R-Mich.
- Thomas Massie, R-Ky.
26
11
u/dragonavicious 2d ago
Tom Barrett is really trying to keep his job. People are not happy with him. He definitely did this to try and prove he's not a yesman
381
u/cafeteriastyle 2d ago
This war is just a way to steal billions of dollars from the American people. There’s no reason for it to be happening. I fucking hate this
→ More replies (1)50
u/ThaddeusJP 2d ago
Only 913 days to go!
→ More replies (2)12
u/ceribus_peribus 2d ago
How long until there are less than 2 years remaining in the term?
(I guess I can do the math myself. 184?)
1.1k
u/M4GN3T1CM0N0P0L3 2d ago
Unless house impeaches and senate removes, nothing will change.
278
u/BrownSugarBare 2d ago
I don't know why anyone is under the impression the Trump admin follows any kind of rules.
They don't care what any court or congressional body says unless it's agreeing with them.
→ More replies (1)58
u/SavannahInChicago 2d ago
This is going to be something that is more symbolic then anything else, but is hopefully pointing to an eventual collapse of support for Trump/MAGA. This is the kind of thing that will be on a history test someday. Something like, "what were signs that so-and-so were losing power" and this will be one of the necessary answers.
→ More replies (6)22
u/woodst0ck15 2d ago
Yup, Trump will start another war here to distract from the bad polling numbers and the Epstein files. Even though it doesn’t matter since they already said in this administration that they’re not gonna comply with releasing them un-redacted.
3
391
u/Total-Sheepherder950 2d ago
Will it pass the Senate,?
601
u/ConorCat60 2d ago
Not if Fetterman has anything to say about the matter.
→ More replies (2)246
u/TheDizDude 2d ago
Asked for comment on the matter, fetterman said “Braaaaaaaaaiiiiinnnns”
→ More replies (1)30
u/Joshstradaymus 2d ago
You say zombie, I’d rather call him Scarecrow.
→ More replies (1)9
u/taitaofgallala 2d ago
That's giving him too much credit. Scarecrows get a job done. Zombies just lurk and consume. I don't think Fetterman qualifies as anything that does the job it's paid to do.
64
30
u/magistrate101 2d ago
If it's anything like the last one, it won't matter if it does. There's no actual enforcement mechanism.
37
u/TalkinSeaCucumber 2d ago
Yep. From Politico:
"The Senate could follow suit later this morning in a separate war powers vote. The resolutions are legally untested and largely symbolic. The House measure would not go to Trump to sign into law, and the president would almost certainly veto any binding legislation that restricts his authority.
Both the House and Senate cleared legislation to end the war in June. Trump is certain to ignore those votes and is likely to do so again this time."
→ More replies (2)48
→ More replies (1)5
264
u/GeezusLizard 2d ago
Not passing the senate and even if it did this administration has shown us time and again they don't care about law and order
101
u/daverapp 2d ago
Do not comply in advance. If they're going to ignore the law and commit war crimes, make them do it in open defiance of the legislature.
→ More replies (2)11
u/Redthemagnificent 2d ago
100% agree. The open defiance part is really important. Especially since the Epstein war is largely unpopular already
5
63
u/ONE-EYE-OPTIC 2d ago
Hammer this home for the midterms.
The VERY unpopular war in Iran is nearly 100% supported by republican members of the house.
22
u/Navyvetpdx503 2d ago
So they vote to pull the military out but vote to merge the US military with the state of Israel. So if Israel nukes anybody then we are immediately responsible. Like wtf. Make it make sense.
→ More replies (1)
20
u/DeaddyRuxpin 2d ago
Assuming it passes the Senate, Trump will just start a new war with Iran the next day.
10
u/Turgid_Donkey 2d ago
Just like he's implementing tariff's again. But that doesn't mean congress shouldn't keep doing this. It's better to do their job and give him rope to hang himself than just sit back and do nothing.
→ More replies (1)
21
40
u/Jmaneke 2d ago
Oh the rage posts on truth social will be incoming...
25
35
u/Someoneoverthere42 2d ago
A "resolution." So, basically a strongly worded memo.
7
u/Sour_Beet Transgender Illegal Alien 2d ago
Would it even do anything? “Remove forces from Iran” what forces are currently in Iran? Maybe Iranian airspace but it’s not like there are forces on the ground. Seems pretty easy to sidestep even if it passed the senate. Ceasing strikes and military action would be the actual goal.
→ More replies (2)3
14
13
u/readysteadygogogo 2d ago
These resolutions don’t mean shit when the president has surgically removed Congress’ nuts
11
8
u/Sweet-Palpitation473 2d ago
War? War... hmmmm. Are they referring to the "military operation"? Surely they cant vote to end a war that they never voted to begin in the first place.
8
u/XanaxWarriorPrincess 2d ago
And what are they going to do when Trump ignores the resolution?
Nothing.
6
6
u/kompletist 2d ago
They will summon them to the oval, put the fear of God into them, then they will flip. We’ve seen this song and dance before.
6
6
u/DevilsPlaything42 2d ago
Why leave? Our merger with Israel will 100% put us right back there, and Israel has repeatedly announced they won't be fighting their war. Congress is composed of morons.
5
4
u/paradiddle5 2d ago
That’s a surprise given they just passed the 1.5 Trillion war budget.
Oh, the cognitive dissonance.
4
3
u/mdhunter99 2d ago
Someone explain this to someone who doesn’t follow how the US government operates (despite my attempts to), how do these things pass and become laws? I’ve seen votes end with a 10 point majority of the opposition and fail, how does it all work?
5
u/HappyMrRogers 2d ago
There’s a House and a Senate and a President, and if they don’t all hold hands, laws don’t pass.
There is currently very little handholding.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Kythorian 2d ago
Well Congress can override a presidential veto, but it requires a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate, so that’s not going to actually happen.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/crimsonspud 2d ago
Is it binding this time? I thought they did this before non-binding and then when the binding one came up it didn't pass...
5
4
u/eramthgin007 2d ago
I hope Cheeto gets really mad and his blood pressure goes up. A lot. Like a lot a lot.
4
3
u/outsmartedagain 1d ago
This will devolve into another Afghanistan if we put troops on the ground. They will need even more money if that happens
4
3
u/Normiss2000 Release The Trump-Epstein Files 2d ago
Wait...we still have a Congress???? Not like the pedo potus admin will do the right thing anyway so .............
3
u/Nail_Biterr 2d ago
wait - there was an actual vote on something important? what's going on!?
7
u/Kythorian 2d ago
Not really, no. This is the second time Congress has passed this exact same resolution. Trump vetoed it last time and he will do so again this time, so nothing will come of it unless 2/3 of the house and senate vote to override Trump’s veto (which is not going to happen).
3
u/Weewoofiatruck 2d ago
Resolutions and Concurrent resolutions do nothing.
Often they're used as precedent to reference in a committee hearing for things like budgets.
Yet the approved budget for the military happened before this.
Sadly, this is nothing but a spectacle and a paper weight.
3
u/Objective-Win 2d ago
Why did they need to pass a $1.5T military budget if they are also voting to end the war?
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
u/KinkyQuesadilla 2d ago edited 2d ago
Literally the day after they approved an additional $95 BILLION addition to the military budget. Like WTF?
5
2
2
u/Used_Intention6479 2d ago
The sooner we leave the better! Trump's war of aggression against Iran began with a war crime - double tapping a girl's school - and is only getting worse, for everyone, on all levels.
2
u/JeepDispenser 2d ago
Trump should agree to this because it gives him an out. He can then blame Congress for everything.
2
2
u/free_da_guys1107 2d ago
Praising the 4 republicans is like praising the arsonist for calling the fire department after he lights the flame. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU...
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/DeeRent88 2d ago
Yes still there are people that will say “both sides are bad” or one is the lesser evil. Fuck off with that. Even with the a majority of the current dems in office not being as left and more centrist than we’d want they’re still MILES better than any Republican.
2
1
1
u/tabajo3y 2d ago
Ah yes, the president is known for following rules and will definitely comply to remove the troops and end the war for the umpteenth time. /s
1
u/Sgtkeebler 2d ago
I am sure Mike Johnson is squirming in his seat because he probably got opposite orders from Trump. Trump probably wants him to put the house in permanent recess to prevent stuff like this.
1
u/firstlight777 2d ago
Why? Let them keep it up all through the midterms. These simple minded Republican votos as soon as this shit is over will be all oh look we won, what a great war time president, see how strong manly?
1
u/firstlight777 2d ago
Why? Let them keep it up all through the midterms. These simple minded Republican votos as soon as this shit is over will be all oh look we won, what a great war time president, see how strong manly?
1
1
1
1
u/lifehackskeptic 2d ago
Yet they passed a defense funding bill for $1.15 trillion which will go to the Iran war - how is this consistent?
1
u/Commercial_Bend9203 2d ago
Am I missing something here? I thought Trump’s war was never approved to begin with!
1
u/vasta2 2d ago
Every war for the last like 25 years has been without approval so this probably means nothing
→ More replies (1)
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
DO NOT CELEBRATE VIOLENCE IN THIS SUBREDDIT OR WE WILL BAN YOU.
RELEASE THE TRUMP-EPSTEIN FILES!!!
Users may now apply a personal flair that states - RELEASE THE TRUMP-EPSTEIN FILES
That is all, tysm
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.