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

based on what?
Do you really believe that were the US attacked by a foreign entity that the Congress on both sides wouldn’t just vote for someone to be speaker? Really? That they would allow he country to be just over run vs vote in a speaker of the house?
 
Do you really believe that were the US attacked by a foreign entity that the Congress on both sides wouldn’t just vote for someone to be speaker? Really? That they would allow he country to be just over run vs vote in a speaker of the house?
He believes that because Congress is not quick voting for any speaker in order to pass another massive continuing resolution.

In the mind of a Dim, allowing spending to not be fully funded is every bit as disastrous as being over-run by a foreign army.
 
Do you really believe that were the US attacked by a foreign entity that the Congress on both sides wouldn’t just vote for someone to be speaker?

I really believe that if the US were attacked by a foreign entity that both sides would blame it on the other one and try to figure out how to use it to their political advantage.

I have no good reason to think that even another 9/11 type event would bring about the type of unity we saw 21 years ago
 
I really believe that if the US were attacked by a foreign entity that both sides would blame it on the other one and try to figure out how to use it to their political advantage.

I have no good reason to think that even another 9/11 type event would bring about the type of unity we saw 21 years ago
And what did that unity lead to? What were our successes in that period of hyper-patriotism and bi-partisan action?

Are the Taliban out of Afghanistan, yet?

Are we safe from terrorists yet?

Out of a thousand known gotaways crossing our border per day, do we even have an educated guess how many are terrorists sworn to wipe the U.S. off the map?

I blame Bush for letting himself be guided by Halliburton Dick Cheney. He should have done what the Israelis should do now. Having blamed Afghanistan for what bin Laden did, he should have bombed them enough to even up the score and then left them to rebuild, promising worse reprisals for any future acts. A twenty year, trillion dollars boondoggle for the MIC helped nobody but those already making out like fat rats.
 
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!"

Your post assumes that all of the voters in each district voted for the winning candidate. They did not. The voters refused to give the Republican Party a strong majority and told them they wanted cooperation between the parties. But SOME Republicans are refusing to compromise and THAT goes against the will of the voters.
 
Your post assumes that all of the voters in each district voted for the winning candidate. They did not. The voters refused to give the Republican Party a strong majority and told them they wanted cooperation between the parties. But SOME Republicans are refusing to compromise and THAT goes against the will of the voters.
What is your evidence that GOP voters want their representatives to compromise with Democrats?

How is continuing the Pelosi budget a "compromise?"
 
What is your evidence that GOP voters want their representatives to compromise with Democrats?

How is continuing the Pelosi budget a "compromise?"

The Republican representatives take an oath to the Constitution, not the Party. You would do well to remember that, and they represent ALL of the people in their districts, not just the ones who voted for them.

Their first obligation is to do right by the voters, and they can't do that if they don't have a Speaker.
 
The Republican representatives take an oath to the Constitution, not the Party. You would do well to remember that, and they represent ALL of the people in their districts, not just the ones who voted for them.

Their first obligation is to do right by the voters, and they can't do that if they don't have a Speaker.
How does not having a Speaker stop them from doing right by their voters?

What if their voters think that there are enough laws and that enough money has been spent, already?
 
And what did that unity lead to? What were our successes in that period of hyper-patriotism and bi-partisan action?

Are the Taliban out of Afghanistan, yet?

Are we safe from terrorists yet?

Out of a thousand known gotaways crossing our border per day, do we even have an educated guess how many are terrorists sworn to wipe the U.S. off the map?

I blame Bush for letting himself be guided by Halliburton Dick Cheney. He should have done what the Israelis should do now. Having blamed Afghanistan for what bin Laden did, he should have bombed them enough to even up the score and then left them to rebuild, promising worse reprisals for any future acts. A twenty year, trillion dollars boondoggle for the MIC helped nobody but those already making out like fat rats.

Do you think that Trump got you out of these wars???? The Ukrainian War, and the attack by Hamas both happened precisely because Hamas and Putin saw the USA as weak and divided because of Donald Trump's ongoing disruptions to the US government - telling the GOP House who should and should not be Speaker.

Who'a side is Donald Trump on???? Looks to me he continues to weaken the US government in every way he possibly can - from giving the names of CIA agents to foreign governments, to the release of 10,000 ISIS fighters when Trump abandoned the Kurds, these wars are a direct result of Donald Trump's destruction of your defence alliances and treaties.
 
Do you think that Trump got you out of these wars???? The Ukrainian War, and the attack by Hamas both happened precisely because Hamas and Putin saw the USA as weak and divided because of Donald Trump's ongoing disruptions to the US government - telling the GOP House who should and should not be Speaker.
Wait, this thread is about Trump? Let me look at the OP again.

Nope. Not about Trump.
Who'a side is Donald Trump on???? Looks to me he continues to weaken the US government in every way he possibly can - from giving the names of CIA agents to foreign governments, to the release of 10,000 ISIS fighters when Trump abandoned the Kurds, these wars are a direct result of Donald Trump's destruction of your defence alliances and treaties.
Still not about Trump.

:dunno:

When Trump dies, I hope you'll seek counseling.
 
Wait, this thread is about Trump? Let me look at the OP again.

Nope. Not about Trump.

Still not about Trump.

:dunno:

When Trump dies, I hope you'll seek counseling.

Just because you don't live in the real world, doesn't mean others are as stupid or gullible as you are. You think that Trump tore up your alliances and arms limitation agreements for the good of the nation??? Think again.
 
I really believe that if the US were attacked by a foreign entity that both sides would blame it on the other one and try to figure out how to use it to their political advantage.

I have no good reason to think that even another 9/11 type event would bring about the type of unity we saw 21 years ago
Well it only took 3 weeks and there was no eminent threat against the country. I imagine they would pull it off in less time if such a threat existed.
 
Well it only took 3 weeks and there was no eminent threat against the country. I imagine they would pull it off in less time if such a threat existed.

So wow, if we were attacked they might be able to get it down to 2 weeks! What a success!
 
Let's not minimize the great harm that was done to the country in three weeks without a Speaker.

You know . . . like . . . um . . .

Dems?
 

Forum List

Back
Top