3/5/2026 at 12:22:13 AM
What a weird formulation in the article. It makes it seem like the Senate wanted to block the Iran hostilities and failed to do so. But instead it voted against doing so.by rayiner
3/5/2026 at 1:54:52 AM
There was a vote to block it and the vote failed to pass, hence they failed to block it.by RevEng
3/5/2026 at 8:24:56 AM
The they failed part is not the Senate. Some members of the Senate failed to get the votes to pass the bill. Whe. You say it like you have it implies the will of the senate was to block it and they failed. And that is weird because the senate clearly did not want to block it otherwise it would have been blocked.The senate rejected the bill. They did not fail to do anything. The bill failed to get the approval of the senate.
But one thing we know. In the senate did not fail.
by mbrumlow
3/5/2026 at 6:06:41 AM
The Senate could have failed only if they intended to do something, but then couldn't do it.by nairboon
3/5/2026 at 4:35:19 PM
> The Senate could have failed only if they intended to do something, but then couldn't do it.They, meaning a large number of senators, intended to do something, and then couldn't do it. This is the standard way every resolution which does not pass is described.
by jjk166
3/5/2026 at 2:51:16 AM
Something about the wording seems dishonest though. Whoever sponsored the bill failed to get the senate to pass it.The wording here makes it seem like the senate wanted this but failed to get it.
So again the senate failing to do something the senate said they did not want to do is weird.
It comes down to some people in the senate wanted this, but they are not the senate.
Politicians have been treating a minority position as the institution’s will for some time. It’s our job to look past that and not be fooled even if you share the same minority position.
by mbrumlow
3/5/2026 at 1:44:43 AM
The voting failed with a small number I think 53 / 47by 6Az4Mj4D