Do Individual Congressmen of Either Party have an Obligation to Vote in a Speaker even if it Causes them to Lose the Next Election?

[postman]

A speakerless House and a "shutdown" would be played for all the drama that can be milked out of it on network news, but it would have little effect on average Americans.

If Iran, or some other country were to strike us, without a speaker, the US could not declare war against them. And the world knows this. We couldn't put the arsenal of democracy into action

 

[Seymour Flops]

Then you don't get it. Republicans still hold the majority. The only way those overspending bills can get passed is if republicans go along with it.

Yes, just like all but 90 did with the Pelosi CR. That's my point. Finally we have some Reps willing to stand firm. Let those who vote with Jeffries, Pelosi, and the other maniacs explain that to their voters.

Whatever the partisan politics, the country needs congressional leadership thst will say enough is enough and Put the brakes on the spending spree.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If Iran, or some other country were to strike us, without a speaker, the US could not declare war against them. And the world knows this. We couldn't put the arsenal of democracy into action

Haw!

I hope you're kidding. Nobody waited for a declaration of war after our own 9/11.

 

[postman]

Haw!

I hope you're kidding. Nobody waited for a declaration of war after our own 9/11.

Public Law 107–40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They should vote as they told their voters they would vote. If they ran a "spending hikes ain't so bad" campaign then they should hold out for a speaker who will work with Hakeem, Pelosi at al to spend, spend, spend.

If they ran on holding the line on spending then it would be a betrayal to vote for an enabler of Democrat mega spending.

So, you are saying that a member of Congress should never negotiate or compromise to get things done, they should only vote as their voters want them to vote and that is it?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Haw!

I hope you're kidding. Nobody waited for a declaration of war after our own 9/11.

That is because there was a AUMF passed 7 days after 9/11 giving the POTUS almost unlimited power to wage war.

I guess the good thing for the US is that AUMF is still in effect.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Haw!

I hope you're kidding. Nobody waited for a declaration of war after our own 9/11.

Do you think in 9/11 were to happen now instead of 20 plus years ago that Congress, or the nation even, could unite like it did back then?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Public Law 107–40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States

Let's say you're right. The U.S. military can do nothing without a Speaker of the House.

So, answer the question: Do individual Congess members of either party have an obligation to vote in a speaker even if it means losing their seat on election day?

So, you are saying that a member of Congress should never negotiate or compromise to get things done, they should only vote as their voters want them to vote and that is it?

Didn't say that.

I asked a question. Please answer it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, answer the question: Do individual Congess members of either party have an obligation to vote in a speaker even if it means losing their seat on election day?

Nobody has an obligation to do a damn fucking thing.

They can sit on their asses and do nothing and let the voters decide if that is what they voted for.

Do you think that what they are doing now is worth more than the 30 million dollars a day it takes to fund congress?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Didn't say that.

Yes, you did. If they negotiate or compromise to get things done, then they are not following the will of their voters who may not want that compromise.

If their voters do not want it, they should never do it, correct?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Nobody has an obligation to do a damn fucking thing.

They can sit on their asses and do nothing and let the voters decide if that is what they voted for.

Which many of them did. Again, the angst over a "shutdown" comes from the media and Democrat activists. Pardon my redundant phraseology. Most voters will be completely unaffected. Also unaffected by the lack of a Speaker.

Do you think that what they are doing now is worth more than the 30 million dollars a day it takes to fund congress?

He'll no!

Love to see Congress go back to the way the Fonders intended.

Yes, you did. If they negotiate or compromise to get things done, then they are not following the will of their voters who may not want that compromise.

If their voters do not want it, they should never do it, correct?

Never said that. I ssked specifically about voting for a speaker that would cause their constituents to turn against them.

But you addressed that, finally, so I'll address your point.

No, I never said no compromise is allowed. If a Congress person ran on "I'll get our way on all things every time." They'd clearly be lying.

But there are specific issues on which their voters will not tolerate compromise. Kevin McCarthy will learn that continuing the Pelosi insane spending spree is one of them. Or he will retire to avoid humiliation in the primary.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Again, the angst over a "shutdown" comes from the media and Democrat activists. Pardon my redundant phraseology. Most voters will be completely unaffected. Also unaffected by the lack of a Speaker.

Most voters know someone in the military, and them not getting paid will affect them. The military cannot get paid without a Speaker and a bill funding them.

Most voters know a veteran, and them not getting services promised them will affect them. This cannot happen without a Speaker and a bill funding it.

Most of us think it is good that incoming shipping containers are inspected, this cannot happen without a Speaker and a bill funding them.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Now Jordan is compromising.

Jordan cancels third speaker's vote, will back McHenry until January

The House of Representatives will not hold a third vote on Thursday for House Speaker after the Ohio Republican lost the first two votes. Jordan is expected to back a move to temporarily empower Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry as a stopgap measure.

www.foxnews.com

McHenry is McCarthy's man, so I have to think that he'll also Team up with Jeffries to continue the spending spree.

How will Jordan's voters react? That's up to them. I think they will express displeasure when the next Pelosi-plus CR passes. I think Jordan will keep his seat, though. Letting the other side win so you can use fiery rhetoric against them is a well work n method.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Most voters know someone in the military, and them not getting paid will affect them. The military cannot get paid without a Speaker and a bill funding them.

Most voters know a veteran, and them not getting services promised them will affect them.

Which has never happened because the shutdowns are fake. Fear not! The hormones and mastdectomies of healthy breasts will continue (for the sake of readiness).

This cannot happen without a Speaker and a bill funding it.

Most of us think it is good that incoming shipping containers are inspected, this cannot happen without a Speaker and a bill funding them.

That's why Congress and the Senate should be working on those single subject spending bills. They have about 30 days and they're already written.

Sorry but the options are not really to either continue the disastrous debt/deficit building, or a disastrous complete end of spending.

The single subject bills are a great compromise plan.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That's why Congress and the Senate should be working on those single subject spending bills. They have about 30 days and they're already written.

Sorry but the options are not really to either continue the disastrous debt/deficit building, or a disastrous complete end of spending.

The single subject bills are a great compromise plan.

The House cannot work on anything without a Speaker

 

[Seymour Flops]

The House cannot work on anything without a Speaker

That's absurd. If that were true we could never have a speaker again because the House could not work on electing a Speaker.

There is a Speaker Pro Temp and the representatives can vote to give them all powers other than to be second in the line of succession.

The apocalyptic prediction of shutdowns and starving soldiers are amusing for most of us, but unfortunately, too many weak-minded people believe them.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

We can no longer have MAGA running a branch of government.

Vote for Jeffries.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That's absurd. If that were true we could never have a speaker again because the House could not work on electing a Speaker.

There is a Speaker Pro Temp and the representatives can vote to give them all powers other than to be second in the line of succession.

The apocalyptic prediction of shutdowns and starving soldiers are amusing for most of us, but unfortunately, too many weak-minded people believe them.

Unless they change the rules, all the Acting Speaker can do is kick people out of office space and call for a vote for a new Speaker.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Unless they change the rules, all the Acting Speaker can do is kick people out of office space and call for a vote for a new Speaker.

They'll change the rules if they want to. That is what Jordan seems to be backing.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They'll change the rules if they want to. That is what Jordan seems to be backing.

Yes, he wants more time to try and bully people. Seems texting the wives of fellow congress members to threaten them did not work out that well!