Dumb things conservatives say:

[drauz]

I didn't say every thing he does has to be okay'd by her. I said she is his boss, and can direct him to do things. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

Because I've said what I said in my last post and haven't been arguing that she isn't his technical boss. I have been saying that she likely doesn't have much involvement in how security is handled.

For some reason you want to prove that she is technically his boss, which I haven't been discussing. So yes she can direct him to do things, we done with this?

[Gelston]

Because I've said what I said in my last post and haven't been arguing that she isn't his technical boss. I have been saying that she likely doesn't have much involvement in how security is handled.

For some reason you want to prove that she is technically his boss, which I haven't been discussing. So yes she can direct him to do things, we done with this?

No because

That is clearly talking about decorum during a session as it says if you continue reading or if you had provided the full quote.

You said she can only direct him about decorum during a session. I mean, if you want to change your stance now, that is super cool. We both know you just read to the first line you liked and cherrypicked it though.

I never said she micromanages him, although it would 100% be in her power if she so desired. She isn't just "technically" his boss. She has more power over him than the President has over his Cabinet Secretaries.

BTW, it is 100% codified too. § 15.12 Pursuant to clause 3(a) of rule II,(75) the Sergeant–at–Arms maintains order under the direction of the Speaker or other presiding officer and not individual Members.

[Neveragain]

Because I've said what I said in my last post and haven't been arguing that she isn't his technical boss. I have been saying that she likely doesn't have much involvement in how security is handled.

For some reason you want to prove that she is technically his boss, which I haven't been discussing. So yes she can direct him to do things, we done with this?

Trying to defend Nancy Pelosi was your first mistake.

[Parkbandit]

Because I've said what I said in my last post and haven't been arguing that she isn't his technical boss. I have been saying that she likely doesn't have much involvement in how security is handled.

For some reason you want to prove that she is technically his boss, which I haven't been discussing. So yes she can direct him to do things, we done with this?

Are you downplaying her role because she is a woman? I bet if the Speaker was a man, you wouldn't be arguing this much.

Fucking sexist.

[drauz]

No because



You said she can only direct him about decorum during a session. I mean, if you want to change your stance now, that is super cool. We both know you just read to the first line you liked and cherrypicked it though.

I never said she micromanages him, although it would 100% be in her power if she so desired. She isn't just "technically" his boss. She has more power over him than the President has over his Cabinet Secretaries.

BTW, it is 100% codified too. § 15.12 Pursuant to clause 3(a) of rule II,(75) the Sergeant–at–Arms maintains order under the direction of the Speaker or other presiding officer and not individual Members.

It said the sergeant-at-arms denied it. I just don't think she would have much of a say in how they prepare for events like that.

I guess if you don't want to read the whole conversation and then accuse me of changing my stance there's not much I can do about that.

[Gelston]

I guess if you don't want to read the whole conversation and then accuse me of changing my stance there's not much I can do about that.

Except she has total say, as she is his boss and he has to do what she tells him.

[drauz]

Except she has total say, as she is his boss and he has to do what she tells him.

And I've been arguing that I doubt she provides much say in how security is handled.

[Gelston]

And I've been arguing that I doubt she provides much say in how security is handled.

Well we just don't know that do we? We do know that she is having anyone, other than Congressmen and staffers directly accompanying said Congressmen, refusing to wear a mask on the House side arrested.

[drauz]

Well we just don't know that do we? We do know that she is having anyone, other than Congressmen and staffers directly accompanying said Congressmen, refusing to wear a mask on the House side arrested.

Correct, and that's why I've said "I doubt" and "I think". There's nothing proving one way or the other. I just don't think she gets very involved in most security plans except maybe to be briefed on them.

[Tgo01]

Well we just don't know that do we? We do know that she is having anyone, other than Congressmen and staffers directly accompanying said Congressmen, refusing to wear a mask on the House side arrested.

When people are walking around without masks:
Pelosi to sergeant-at-arms: Arrest them all!!!!

When there is talk of a riot taking place on the day all members of congress will be in the capitol to certify presidential election results and the Capitol police chief requests the National Guard to help keep everyone safe:
Naww! No need to bother the Speaker with such trivial bullshit!

This sounds completely legit.