Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
If so, which congressmen in particular should do that? Which one should stand up and say, "I'm going against the will of my voters, because voters be damned, we MUST have a Speaker!"
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The American people are demanding a Speaker.
Are two on the wrong thread?Republicans control the house. It's their responsibility to choose a speaker. If they can't, Hakeem Jeffries is perfectly capable of manning the post.
If so, which congressmen in particular should do that? Which one should stand up and say, "I'm going against the will of my voters, because voters be damned, we MUST have a Speaker!"
If so, which congressmen in particular should do that? Which one should stand up and say, "I'm going against the will of my voters, because voters be damned, we MUST have a Speaker!"
You love to invent things I said instead of responding to what I said.So, you think it is the will of their voters for the House to not have a Speaker and thus be unable to function?
LoL, nope!What leads you to this conclusion?
Also, are they not elected to Represent their entire district, and not just those that voted for them?
But since you asked, I think plenty of Americans would rather have no speaker at all than one like Kevin McCarthy, for example, who took Republican Party funding to run for Congress, made speeches about holding the line on spending against Dems to get Republican votes, and then - in order to avoid negative media stories - joined with Dems to pass a CR that not only continued the Pelosi budget, but added to it.
So . . . having failed in your attempt to change the subject, the question again is:
Do Individual Congressmen of Either Party have an Obligation to Vote in a Speaker even if it Causes them to Lose the Next Election?
LoL, nope!
When has that ever worked in the history of ever?
You think a fifty-one percent Democrat majority in any district says to itself, "Well, sure . . . I voted for Quanique X Washington because xe is a Democrat. But, by Mother Earth, xe better represent the Republican voters also, I won't be voting for xem again, you betcha!"
The 60% plus of Republicans who support Trump. Just like there are many Democrats who would rather no speaker at ALL than a Democrat who helps Republicans cut spending.How many is "plenty"? 20% 30% 50%?
So, who specifically should make this sacrifice? Must be Republicans? Should not Hakeem, AOC, Pelosi, at al set the example by voting for the next speaker nominee regardless of party?They have an obligation to do their job, winning the next election is not part of that job.
Examples of Democrats doing that?You are conflating what SHOULD happen with what DOES happen.
You do not know this, but it is indeed a fact that they are elected to Represent their entire district, and not just those that voted for them
None of this is about the will of the voters....It's about the will of the lobbyists and the military-industrial complex...Check out which committees that the people blocking Jordan are on.If so, which congressmen in particular should do that? Which one should stand up and say, "I'm going against the will of my voters, because voters be damned, we MUST have a Speaker!"
Just like there are many Democrats who would rather no speaker at ALL than a Democrat who helps Republicans cut spending.
So, who specifically should make this sacrifice? Must be Republicans? Should not Hakeem, AOC, Pelosi, at al set the example by voting for the next speaker nominee regardless of party?
Examples of Democrats doing that?
Good point!None of this is about the will of the voters....It's about the will of the lobbyists and the military-industrial complex...Check out which committees that the people blocking Jordan are on.
Spoiler alert: Armed Services and Appropriations.
Standing in the way could well be putting those seats at risk.Good point!
My point still stands, though. For better, worse, or complete disaster, no congressperson will sacrifice their seat so they we can have a speaker.
After a brief fake shutdown, they'll figure out a way to fund without a speaker. Or the RINOs will cut a secret deal with Dems to elect a weakling Rep who will be Jeffries' waterboy.
Dems will leak that deal and GG can say the GOP got punked and be right.
Good point!
My point still stands, though. For better, worse, or complete disaster, no congressperson will sacrifice their seat so they we can have a speaker.
After a brief fake shutdown, they'll figure out a way to fund without a speaker. Or the RINOs will cut a secret deal with Dems to elect a weakling Rep who will be Jeffries' waterboy.
Dems will leak that deal and GG can say the GOP got punked and be right.
I doubt it, to be honest. Standing in the way of what? Of more spending hikes? That's what those Rep birds run on in the first place.Standing in the way could well be putting those seats at risk.
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.What about those members of the GOP in the House that represent districts where Biden won, should the back someone like Jordan and risk their seats or should they stand their ground and never back someone like Jordan?
Actually if they just chose a moderate republican, like Scalise to get behind, their voters back home would agree with them.If so, which congressmen in particular should do that? Which one should stand up and say, "I'm going against the will of my voters, because voters be damned, we MUST have a Speaker!"
You don't understand the powers of the speaker of the house. Half their power has already been exercised, in setting committee assignments. The rest is in steering legislation, and as long as the speaker doesn't block legislation from coming to the floor for a vote, it doesn't make a difference who is speaker.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.
The Republicans who voted against Scalise stated plainly why they did. If the voters punish them for that, so let it be. I doubt it, though.Actually if they just chose a moderate republican, like Scalise to get behind, their voters back home would agree with them.
See my answer to golfing gator.Where the 18 republican congressmen from districts that Biden won in 2020 to support Jordan who is leading the impeachment against Biden, would certainly be against the will of the people they represent.
Yeah, I get that.You don't understand the powers of the speaker of the house. Half their power has already been exercised, in setting committee assignments. The rest is in steering legislation, and as long as the speaker doesn't block legislation from coming to the floor for a vote, it doesn't make a difference who is speaker.
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.Yeah, I get that.
We'll either have a speaker who goes along with Democrats to avoid media critism, a speaker who stands firm and doesn't bring overspending bills to the floor, an acting speaker given power to bring bills to the floor, or no speaker at all.