Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Mike Johnson opposes bipartisan war powers resolution to authorize Trump’s Iran strikes
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Monday came out against a bipartisan war powers resolution to prevent U.S. intervention in Iran
Is it just me, or is the title worded contradictory to the content?
It's not just you.
I thought the same thing. Maybe they mean his opposition is what's authorizing it, since not allowing a vote is the same as voting to allow the strikes. Poorly done if that IS what they meant, but incoherent otherwise lol
The real question is "was it chat gpt or some editor trying to keep the waters muddy?"
Yeah the title, and frankly the article, is shit. They couldn’t have made it much more confusing if they tried.
Johnson wants Trump to be able to bomb, this resolution would have told him he has to stop bombing. Johnson is against the resolution, so he’s okay with Trump bombing.
He also doesn’t think Congress needs to affirmatively act to give Trump war powers right now, which just exposes the fact that Johnson doesn’t understand his own role in government.
Yeah it's the media's unfailing ability to find the most ambiguous wording possible for every headline.
It could be syntactic ambiguity
To authorize Trump’s Iran strikes, Mike Johnson opposes bipartisan war powers resolution
I'd think more is needed to authorize the strike than to oppose the resolution.
Headline is badly written.
It's not a "war powers resolution to authorize Trump's Iran strikes" that Johnson is opposing.
It's a "war powers resolution [which would prevent US intervention in Iran]" that Johnson opposes, and his opposition is supporting authorization of Trump's Iran strikes.
Y'know, It might be cool if both parties fuckin stopped doing that.
Y’know, It might be cool if both parties fuckin stopped doing that.
Stop doing...? What, specifically, are you referring to here?
There is only one Speaker of the House, and he's a Republican.
I think they are referring to the line about both parties having presidents in the past who used noncongressionally-authorized strikes on foreign powers.