5mo ago

US congress to vote on prohibiting funds for the Armed Forces from invading or seizing territory in Canada/Panama/Greenland

www.quiverquant.com

HR.1936: To prohibit funds for the Armed Forces to engage in operations to invade or seize territor… (119th Congress) Bill Summary | Quiver Quantitative

29 comments

No way those bloodthirsty backstabbers vote for this.
- That's the point. Opposition bills in the US are often put forth to force members of the majority party to publicly vote against it, so that there is public record of their position on things.
  It's an easy system to game, too, since it's trivially easy to include a poisoned pill in the bill that will push the members to reject it.
  
  It's like how up here in BC we got 3 conservative MPs to vote against opposing tariffs. Sometimes you just float a clear "no-brainer" bill to make the assholes clearly proclaim their assholeitude.
Last I looked, any vote in Congress was foreordained unless a few Republicans were suddenly to come down with the measles, and even then, they'd probably drag themselves through DC, infecting everyone they passed, to prove their loyalty to their God Emperor.
- It's bread and circus friend. Forcing congressmen to go public with their stance on the issue.
  
  While I would agree with you and Voroxpete under the old rules of US politics, they no longer apply. Seems to me the average Representative either lies through his/her teeth (assuming they have any), or votes performatively, and then does something completely different, or nothing at all. I have come to really, really dislike this kind of performative vote, seeing my fellow Canadians mislead into believing it actually means that there are folks in the House, outside of two or three, who would actually do diddly-squat to prevent their country from overrunning its neighbours to achieve hegemony. Please don't tell me how your system works, because it stopped working somewhere around Mission Accomplished.
- It's not about winning, it's about making them clearly state their intentions.
christ why not just spend that energy on the 25th and be done with this hellscape
- 25th has to be voluntary or enacted by a majority of the cabinet.
  
  Aww bummer
It sucks that your country doesn't have a rule of law ngl.
- and take that money from its rightful owners (the rich)?
  nah, it's deficit spending all the way down (including for a lot of those tax breaks the rich are getting)
  
  Wars are fought and paid by the poor for the rich.
Congress worried about special military operations?
Does the constitution say that only congress can declare war?
- Only congress can declare "war", but as far as I know, that hasn't happened since WW2. The president just does what they want.
  
  well maybe like congress could get a back bone?
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001
- Declaring war is not the same as committing an act of war. There are not any checks in place to prevent Trump from just invading any country. It is just not formally a 'war' in whatever meaningless definition Congress has.
It’s a nice gesture but I don’t even think all democrats would vote for this.
- Then we know who gets helicopter rides when the rides turn. Never forget!
  
  Haha yes, let’s execute politicians who vote for things we disagree with.
- I think point is to put on record for the history books who the turncoats are that supported this fascist takeover.
- Then they need to be voted out. No one voted to start wars with our own allies, especially not a fucking Democrat.

29 comments