For months, Democrats have forced Republicans to take vote after vote on President Donald Trump’s unpopular war on Iran. Now those votes could help Democrats retake Congress — and they will immediately have opportunities to follow through on their anti-war rhetoric.

Democratic leaders like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York have been cagey about their strategy on Iran for the lame-duck period before the next Congress is sworn in on January 3. So far, months of Capitol Hill maneuvering have produced few concrete results. And one path to potential progress for ending the war is laden with risk: threatening a government shutdown.

Opponents of the war say that, with Democrats pushing for support based on their efforts to end to the war, they owe it to voters to put government spending on the line.

“It will certainly demonstrate whether Democrats are willing to stretch themselves and put up a fight and get uncomfortable,” said Hannah Morris, the vice president of government affairs for the liberal, pro-Israel group J Street, which opposes the conflict. “So much of the rhetoric has been about the Iran war.”

[

Related

Congress Failed Again to Stop Trump’s Iran War. This Group Is Trying Through the Courts.](https://theintercept.com/2026/09/24/congress-trump-iran-war-lawsuit-constitution/)

In the months since the conflict began on February 28, Democrats and the handful of Republicans opposed to the war have poured most of their energy into votes based on the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which limits the president’s power to wage war without congressional approval. In June, they succeeded in securing House and Senate passage of a war powers resolution, but the Trump administration has ignored the vote, arguing the law is unconstitutional.

Advocates still believe the Trump administration should be bound by the June resolution, but they concede that other paths may have more teeth.

If they really want to stop the war, Democrats will have to confront questions of timing, divisions within their own caucus, and the risk of a government shutdown.

One prime opportunity could be the December 11 expiration of a spending bill called the continuing resolution that has been funding the government since the last shutdown. Democrats could attempt to attach a rider to the bill prohibiting the use of any of its funds for the Iran war. If that bill does not pass both chambers, the government shuts down.

The process will provide Democrats with rare leverage before the next Congress is sworn in.

[HANDOUT - 03 January 2020, Iraq, Bagdad: The remains of a vehicle hit by missiles outside Baghdad airport. (Best possible image quality) According to its own statements, the USA carried out the missile attack in Iraq in which one of the highest Iranian generals was killed. Photo by: picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Read Our Complete Coverage

Targeting Iran --------------](/collections/targeting-iran/)

Congressional Democratic leaders have not said whether they are willing to risk a shutdown, however. Jeffries did not tip his hand when he was asked during a recent interview with CNN.

“Listen, we’ll deal with the appropriations process when we deal with the appropriations process,” he said. “Right now, the mechanism that is in front of us will be to aggressively move war powers resolutions until we end this war in the best interest of the American people.”

Some Democratic candidates in hotly contested races have gone much further than Jeffries, zeroing in on the appropriations issue. Rep. Tom Barrett, of Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, was one of the few Republicans to vote for an Iran war powers resolution. But environmental activist Will Lawrence still attacked him at a recent debate on the issue of war funding.

Morris, who is part of a coalition of groups that have called on Congress to cut off funding for the war, said she is not sure how aggressively Democrats will be willing to pursue the issue during the lame-duck period.

“Will they be willing to shut down the government over this? I don’t have real answers. I think there are a lot of variables here,” she said.

[

Related

The Pentagon’s Secret Budget](https://theintercept.com/2026/10/01/trump-military-true-cost-budget-pentagon-trillions/)

Another option supported by many advocates is the pending debate over the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual Pentagon budget and policy bill. Critics of the war argue that Congress could attempt to insert a provision into the law cutting off authorization for the conflict.

Democrats should be willing to block the bill if it does not include “meaningful restrictions” on the administration’s ability to wage the war, said Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East Policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

“That’s the mandate we’re seeing from the American people,” he said. “They shouldn’t pass a massive defense bill while leaving the administration free to pursue yet another open-ended war in the Middle East.”

The defense bill is generally considered “must-pass” legislation on Capitol Hill, providing leverage for Senate Democrats who could block it with a filibuster. The office of Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who plays a key role in the process as the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, did not respond to a request for comment.

Falling short of either of those paths, Democrats could continue to try to pass more war powers resolutions. With their party poised for a dramatic shift in its favor in the midterm elections, Democrats could even try to exert pressure on Republican legislators to vote in favor of the resolutions, some opponents of the war believe.

Democrats could also wait until January, when they are widely predicted to retake control of one or both chambers of Congress. Holding the gavel in the House or Senate will give them vastly expanded powers to set military spending and launch investigations into the conduct of the war.

One key Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, told The Intercept in a statement he was willing to pursue multiple paths to stopping the war, but all of them face obstacles until the next Congress.

[

Related

GOP Rep. Called Israeli–U.S. Defense Tech Integration “Dangerous.” The House Passed It Anyway.](https://theintercept.com/2026/07/22/ndaa-defense-bill-pentagon-israel-massie/)

“I am open to exploring options for using the NDAA or appropriations bills as a way to end the war,” said Smith, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. “That effort would most likely require bipartisan support. Unfortunately, I am not confident that there is sufficient Republican will or support for such legislative efforts or to override an inevitable veto.”

Whether in this Congress or the next, cutting off spending for the war appears to be the best way for Democrats to force the Trump administration to negotiate with Iran, according to Brian Finucane, a former State Department official who serves as a senior adviser at the nonprofit International Crisis Group.

“If they are serious,” he said, “they should be willing to play hardball, and that would require using the power of the purse.”

The post Dems Have an Opportunity to Force an End to the Iran War. Will They Take It? appeared first on The Intercept.


From The Intercept via This RSS Feed.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
69 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 52 points 3 weeks ago (31 children)

The problem with war, is that there isn't really an "off" switch. Which is why it's fucking stupid to start one.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago (22 children)

    Iran doesn't have the capacity to attack the US directly, you could simply withdraw troops from the middle east and cut off Israel. From there it's a matter of offered concessions or otherwise ignoring the region and hoping things restablize.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Iran has shown willingness to negotiate. I just think that at this point they just don't want to negotiate with Trump anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure what they have to lose by just ignoring the US and keeping the Oman side of the strait more or less closed.

    It sounds like shipping via their toll system is going fairly well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    It's more of a question of what they have to gain. They can instantly get a lot of money to stop the attacks. It also gives them the biggest tool they have back. If they continue to stop shipping, and require a toll, they don't have that as leverage to use later. It's just the standard. Think about if they were doing that before the invasion. The US would just leave and give them nothing, because it's the status quo.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Simple theorically but most of the congress will refuse to give any major concession to Iran necessary to end the war

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Which is why I included the option of just abandoning the region. Frankly the middle east is just a liability and has been since the 70s oil crisis. It's a statement on foolishness that not only has reliance on oil held steady but expanded. If a forceful material change is required then so be it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    You completely ignored my point. Leaving the region include stopping all aids to Israel and aiding all sanctions on Iran and for this to happen you need the majority of the congress to approve it which is not the case right now

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    But then we objectively, officially, lose the war. The presumption of American military superiority would be destroyed, which would spell the end of the American empire, and they cannot let that happen. Of course the perception of our superiority is already screwed because Iran made god bleed, but that only makes Trump and friends more desperate to win.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    The US has lost all but two of the wars it has committed itself to since WW2, with Korea and Desert Storm being seaming flukes at this point. What's another mark upon that record, better to cut losses than be further humiliated at this point.

    The empire is already burning let's not send further legions into Germania.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Korea and Desert Storm being seaming flukes at this point

    It's even less stellar than that. Korea was a stalemate. Desert Storm achieved its limited objectives but didn't resolve the underlying problems, so we got Gulf War 2 (which had poorly defined objectives and which failed on a far greater scale).

    There were far smaller skirmishes such as the Grenada invasion and the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia that were arguably more successful at their near-term, limited aims.

    If there's any lesson to be learned, it's that the Powell Doctrine should be reinstated. Also, that imperialist interference is a loser's game, and initiatives by broad international coalitions are less likely to degenerate into clusterfucks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I broadly agree except with Korea. The Korea was successful in its initial aims, the original end goal was to restablize the border and push the Norks to a higher parallel. The problems can be largely laid down at the feet of general MacArthur who wanted to annihilate the Norks, basically everyone disagreed but was unwilling to override him. This resulted in the Chinese getting involved which is why actually wiping out the Norks was not on the table originally, they were supposed to be used as a buffer state. Eventually MacArthur gets fired by Truman and people who aren't stupid and don't want to nuke Manchuria take charge, the warfront stabilizes and the modern borders are established. Maybe the active war couldve gone on for longer but by that point basically everyone involved was done with the conflict and figured that nobody winning outright was acceptable, UN and US succeeded at the initial goal if a bit lower in latitude and the Soviet bloc keeps the Norks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    I think this is different given the context of this war. It’s not an insurgency or an unfamiliar jungle it’s just a super power losing against a “lesser” military. In the process also losing influence over 20% of the world’s oil supply, which is the oil that gives the American petrodollar its value. This stupid ass and unnecessary war could change the power structure of the entire world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    It's still effectively an asymmetric war something that basically favors home field advantage to the point of absurdity. Winning is basically impossible given that Iran has been preparing for this exact scenario for decades, any escalation will worsen the look of the US since the current dipshits in charge don't know how to do jack shit.

    Honestly pulling out before it turns into the US equivalent of the Soviet-Afghan war is basically the only way forward that doesn't lead towards federal collapse IMO. Those in Congress have an active incentive to prevent that from happening while also working as a great propaganda win for those who side against it. The damage is already done cutting losses is the best that can be done at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I agree they should pull out, but I don’t think they see that as an option anymore. Hubris will be our downfall.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago

    Our? Nah Americas. Personally I'm a Californian nationalist and recognized that the US has to collapse for my wants to come true. Problem is I'm also annoyed by incompetency and wish I could be wrong so as to not scorn my ancestors who actually had a grudging faith in the government. Regardless we'll have to wait and see how things pan out after the mid terms, my money is that something will happen either during the elections or before January which will shake things up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

    The US opened this conflict up by bombing a pre-teen girls school in Iran, and civilan infrastructure-- war crimes and terrorism. And the "west" has been supporting the Palestinian holocaust, war crimes and racism conducted by the zionists for 80 years. I could go on and on about all the crimes that we have seen, but its old news.

    I dont think many countries in the "west" get to unironically use that "terrorism" word anymore. Its especially meaningless when we pretend its a travesty then do it nonstop ourselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    I hear you, but in this case there is one.

    Just withdraw, and stop sending money to Israel. It’s literally that simple to stop this war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    The problem is that Trump tore up the agreement limiting uranium enrichment. So at this point he's more or less guaranteed that they get a nuclear weapon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    If iran want one they would already have one. The reality is that the religious decree that ban nukes is still active and believed by Iran. I don't see it getting overwrited by the new leader

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (3 children)

    Yeah. People in the west can't imagine ideology or religion seriously influencing politics any more. A sort of cynical post-democratic world view. But that's just false, the religious fatwa against mass destruction of human life is actually believed. Westeners simply can't imagine people thinking different any more.

    And if not that, Iran just showed their strongest weapon and that is cutting off oil flow. Having a nuclear weapon doesn't help them much - who could they realistically threaten with it? Like even in this current war they couldn't realistically threaten to use nukes against anybody. And it would lead to more states in the region also wanting nuclear weapons so overall it could be bad for them.

    PS: Just to add, I don't agree with Iran on questions of gender equality and LGB(T)Q rights. But even as an atheist I've started to prefer a theocracy to a neoliberal pseudo-democracy where they believe in nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    I was with you until the PS.

    That's like forcing someone to choose how they want to eat shit. Definitely would rather it be nicely seasoned but the entire objective is to avoid eating any shit at all. Both choices are loss conditions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago*

    It's not like I'm excited about it either. I'd much rather they believed in socialism. But this is about fundamental questions. Like: Should a politician serve the wellfare of the people and build a better future for them?

    If you could get the democratic or republican politicians to speak the truth, I'm convinced about 99% of them would say no. They don't really have any ideological framework backing them any more except the neoliberalism as an absence of any moral responsibility. Because they have been selected and filtered by a process for this. Voters don't even really expect them to either. So there is a fundamental quality missing.

    Religion might force me to eat some shit but actually lived religion that is not performative or corrupted profit scheme like evangelism does force some politicians to have a minimum of humanity. Like rejecting nuclear weapons on the basis that they are morally wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    Ehhh, nuance.

    He does bring up a point that religious frameworks tend to influence behavior much more powerfully than material incentives do. Outside the context of theocracy being the alternative; living in a post-democracy neoliberal technocracy is miserable. Our politicians don't believe in anything and the people come to expect this and then they don't believe in anything. No one has any shared values or morals outside of "whatever I have to do to get ahead".

    As of yet we have not come up with a way to get socialism to have the same influence that religion does, if we can't come up with an answer to " how do we get people to believe in things" then we're well in truely screwed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    If the headline asks a question, the answer is no.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 3 weeks ago

    Trump won't care.

    The tool proposed is government shutdown. And I'll say it again, Trump won't care. He thinks this is his Magnum Opus and he won't stop.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    lol. Lmao even.

    We do have a chance of Schumer writing a strongly worded letter slamming trump though

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    Schumer? Shut down a war the Israelis wanted and coerced out of Trump? This Schumer?:

    “I have many jobs as [Senate] leader... and one is to fight for aid to Israel — all the aid that Israel needs,” Schumer said

    I doubt there will even be a letter.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children)

    While we should never underestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, there may be some legs to this one.

    The politics of these shutdowns is always to try and get the public to pin the blame on one side or the other. If Democrats take over the House, they control its agenda, and can simply make sure that no bill that includes funding for the Iran war gets passed. But, at some point a bill to fund the military will need to be passed, as an overwhelming majority of military spending is subject to appropriations. Thus means that the House is certain to pass a bill, with no funding for the Iran war, and Republicans have three choices:

    • filibuster it in the Senate (in which case Senate Republicans will be blamed, whether or not they are in the majority)

    • veto it (in which case Trump directly will be blamed)

    • sign it but still bomb Iran anyway (in which case Democrats now have an open-and-shut case for impeachment that might actually work)

    This war is extremely unpopular, and is a key part of the reason why Republicans are doing as poorly as they are. As vile as the Venezuela thing was, if Trump had stopped thereand not gone to Iran, then the Senate would likely not be in play. I think Republican Senators might finally be realizing that. If an impeachment resolution were to make it to the Senate right now, I think it would pass today, and that means it has even better chances of passing in the new Congress if Democrats take the Senate.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    If an impeachment resolution were to make it to the Senate right now, I think it would pass today

    Not a fucking chance. Republicans have had every opportunity to ditch Trump with very little political fallout. All they needed was to have Susan Collins or one of the other supposedly not crazy Republicans vote with Democrats. They have categorically refused to do so on multiple occasions. They are on the Trump train until it fully goes off the rails.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    The key difference this time, though, is that Trump is stepping directly on their power. The sanctions bill was passed, with bipartisan support, and he is just ignoring it. If an impeachment were to go the Senate over this, how can the Senate basically say "Yeah, we passed this law and he signed it, but it's OK that he's ignoring it now"?

    I mean, they named the bil after Graham. I bet they all take it personally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Congress holds the power of the purse and the ability to declare war. Why is this different than Trump stealing those powers? He's done both on multiple occasions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago

    Yes, but when he has done both before, it has always been in line with what the majority party wants, even if it is illegal. For instance, ever since Grover Nordquist stated out loud that he wanted to "make government so small you could drown it in rhe bathtub", Conservatives fantasized about just firing them all, but all those pesky laws got in the way. Their solution was to elect someone who didn't give a damn about what was legal, and then let him do all the dirty DOGE work without actually having to vote on it. The Republican majority is simply letting him do all the illegal shit, in the hopes that it deflects any future blame from themselves.

    But this is different. This is Congress specifically voting for the President to do something, and the President agreeing to do it, then saying "Sike!" And not doing it. If allowed to stand, it makes Congress irrelevant. The Senate, in particular, takes their job seriously. If an impeachment resolution makes it there over this key point, voting against it is basically voting to dissolve their own power.

    In particular, if Democrats do very well in the midterms, you may find Trump chickening out of this one, too. Because would the Senate still impeach if the President backs off on the infringing behavior? Even a month or two of lifting sanctions might give Russia enough cash to make a difference, after all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
  • [+] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    ...After a fair and impartial trial of course! They cant get a fair one in the Us so I suggest we did it at the Hague, where these sorts of trials belong. We'll need some judicial contributions from outside the US justice system too which is a complete joke.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

    A few sternly worded letters, a Tik Tok video, and a marathon floor speech should do it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    Ha, thanks for the laugh to start my day. Reporter is confused... only the vast majority of voters want the Iran War to end, nobody wants us fighting in Iran, Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters all agree.

    Not the representatives.

    Like Medicaid for all, higher minimum wage, billionaire taxation, weed legalization, term limits, age limits, and so forth, only voters want those things.

    Not "Dems" in office, nor "Reps". Their job is to continue to make excuses to voters as to why they can't have what the want.

    If you want to know what Ds and Rs in office find important, it's imperative that you don't listen to what they say. That's silly.

    Look at what they do. Look at what the results of their actions are.

    What do they find important? Union membership should drop. Wages should stay low. Healthcare should be as expensive as possible. Corporate profits should go up. Taxes on the wealthy should be laughably low.

    These are the things our reps want... the things that are as they are are that way because the reps have decided that it should be so.

    They could fix any of these issues that are popular with voters virtually overnight. All they need is a simple majority vote (not a super majority; that's a joke and not the law, parliamentary rules are not law and can be changed at will).

    They choose not to give the voters what they want.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago

    Jeffries sucks, we all know it.

    Congressional Democratic leaders have not said whether they are willing to risk a shutdown, however. Jeffries did not tip his hand when he was asked during a recent interview with CNN.

    “Listen, we’ll deal with the appropriations process when we deal with the appropriations process,” he said. “Right now, the mechanism that is in front of us will be to aggressively move war powers resolutions until we end this war in the best interest of the American people.”

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 3 weeks ago

    If you WANT them to End it you MUST vote in the MIDTERMS Presidential ELECTION! NEXT Midterms! NEXT Presidential Election!

    -People who wonder why the DSA is SURGING!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    u mean Israel Party light?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    Most, if not all, of the Dems in Congress are AIPAC shills, so no. At best they'll pretend to try and then act like they're stymied by some asshole doing a filibuster, or some excuse like the "parliamentarian says no" horse shit.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago*

    Dems do whatever Israel wants. Israel wants Americans fighting their war on Iran. So theres not a chance in frozen hell the Dems will end it. It will be interesting to see the theatre they pull to make it look like they tried. I've got 5 bucks on "parliamentarian" again. A classic.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Don't pass funding bills, up to and including a government shutdown, to halt the war financially.

    People are calling them chicken already, buy few seem to recall the last shutdown - longest ever - didn't materially stop anything, either, as everything else is deprived of money to the priority of defense.

    Yet another mastabatory dogpile on dems. Not that it's undeserved, but I fail to understand what this achieves other than perpetuating animosity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago

    Establishment zionist dems support the Iran war and like that they can criticize how it is carried out from the sidelines. Look for several establishment dems running on finishing the war "the right way" in 2028. Or just lying that they will end it and then carrying on with the same policies, maybe even a "surge", like Obama did with Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago
    [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago

    They will not. When the mou was first announced top leaders did not like t

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    “How can we keep blaming brown people for the massive dumpster fire that the Republicans created?”

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago

    Dems are only upset with the Iran war for 2 reasons.

    1. Trump is losing
    2. Didn't let them give him permission to do what generations of politicians on both sides have wanted to do since the 70s revolution
  • source
  • Long answer:

    spoilerNooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    Not likely this is very much a bipartisan war even if democrats are upset we are losing.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/politics@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago

    Betteridges law of headlines

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    They will for sure try to partisan, let bygones be bygones, and olive branch the fuck outta everything. You know, exactly how we fucking don't want them to act toward the party of traitors, pedophiles, and sycophants.

    But I'd rather have that than the Orange Plague running roughshod over the Constitution without any pushback.

  • source