You would be wrong in stating they are not enforceable. Congressional punishment specifics are not in the Constitution. However, Article I, Section IV speaks to the punishment of members based on House rules. Unfortunately, she is not subject to impeachment, so expulsion is worst that can happen. 

https://rules.house.gov/resources

Sure. the only ones who can fix the problem you describe are other members of the House of Representatives.
You should try calling your representative and letting them know the you think Nancy is derelict in her duties. You should also try to call whichever political party you are a member of and let them know the same thing. Maybe encourage them to have their candidates in the next cycle pledged to hold Nancy accountable for this.
get some friends together and have meetings about it. serve food so a lot of people show up. invite the Press.
Write a lot of letters.
Get your friends to write a lot of letters.
Etc.

Well, you started in a good direction and then made a u-turn to stupid. That u-turn takes you to the 12th District where they also enjoy being masochists.

---

How so? I wasn't aware that refusing to push forward with unpopular legislation was somehow tantamount to dereliction of duty.

Have you heard of her negotiating in good faith or even showing to floor discussions? How about meeting with other members at the White House? Nope, she refuses. 

The executive branch is required to submit a record of appropriations. In turn, the Speaker is required to refer this record to committees to build legislation subject to a vote. They don’t have to approve it but it must go to the floor. Hence, she is derelict in her actions, well, lack of. She must also function in good faith on behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives which she refuses to show face on the floor. She is more than happy to be on TV or Facebook feeds while she has a chair fill-in. Having a member fill-in is not unusual but during this situation it is unacceptable.

Trump refuses to come off of his demand for a physical wall. Pelosi won't support that. Seems to me there isn't much "negotiation in good faith" to do until someone inevitably blinks.

Appropriations going to the floor is the sort of ridiculous complaint I'd expect from a lefty nutjob trying to impeach Trump. No one is going to remove Nancy Pelosi, and if you think you'd get someone less liberal to fill her seat, you're nuts. In fact, you'd get Steny Hoyer as Speaker, which would be even more fun for those of us who want to see the children stop throwing sand at each other and end the damn shutdown. And not being present on the floor...have you seen Marco Rubio's record?

What you're putting out here are partisan whines, not legitimate reasons to remove a Speaker from office. I'm no fan of Pelosi, but if you think that some kind of campaign to remove her--even if it did work--would get you someone willing to play ball with Trump, you must not have met the group of people that would be in line to replace her.

---

Have you heard of her negotiating in good faith or even showing to floor discussions? How about meeting with other members at the White House? Nope, she refuses. 

The executive branch is required to submit a record of appropriations. In turn, the Speaker is required to refer this record to committees to build legislation subject to a vote. They don’t have to approve it but it must go to the floor. Hence, she is derelict in her actions, well, lack of. She must also function in good faith on behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives which she refuses to show face on the floor. She is more than happy to be on TV or Facebook feeds while she has a chair fill-in. Having a member fill-in is not unusual but during this situation it is unacceptable.

Trump refuses to come off of his demand for a physical wall. Pelosi won't support that. Seems to me there isn't much "negotiation in good faith" to do until someone inevitably blinks.

Appropriations going to the floor is the sort of ridiculous complaint I'd expect from a lefty nutjob trying to impeach Trump. No one is going to remove Nancy Pelosi, and if you think you'd get someone less liberal to fill her seat, you're nuts. In fact, you'd get Steny Hoyer as Speaker, which would be even more fun for those of us who want to see the children stop throwing sand at each other and end the damn shutdown. And not being present on the floor...have you seen Marco Rubio's record?

What you're putting out here are partisan whines, not legitimate reasons to remove a Speaker from office. I'm no fan of Pelosi, but if you think that some kind of campaign to remove her--even if it did work--would get you someone willing to play ball with Trump, you must not have met the group of people that would be in line to replace her.

A lot of Democrats are starting to "blink". It is only a matter of time before the pressure gets to great for Pelosi. While poll numbers (which I don't really believe) point to most of the blame being on Trump for the shutdown, look for those to shift as the weeks go on.

---

Trump refuses to come off of his demand for a physical wall. Pelosi won't support that. Seems to me there isn't much "negotiation in good faith" to do until someone inevitably blinks.

Appropriations going to the floor is the sort of ridiculous complaint I'd expect from a lefty nutjob trying to impeach Trump. No one is going to remove Nancy Pelosi, and if you think you'd get someone less liberal to fill her seat, you're nuts. In fact, you'd get Steny Hoyer as Speaker, which would be even more fun for those of us who want to see the children stop throwing sand at each other and end the damn shutdown. And not being present on the floor...have you seen Marco Rubio's record?

What you're putting out here are partisan whines, not legitimate reasons to remove a Speaker from office. I'm no fan of Pelosi, but if you think that some kind of campaign to remove her--even if it did work--would get you someone willing to play ball with Trump, you must not have met the group of people that would be in line to replace her.

A lot of Democrats are starting to "blink". It is only a matter of time before the pressure gets to great for Pelosi. While poll numbers (which I don't really believe) point to most of the blame being on Trump for the shutdown, look for those to shift as the weeks go on.

Nancy Pelosi is 78 years old.  She's in an absolutely safe district.  She undoubtedly sees this as her chance to go down in history as the person most responsible (other than Trump himself) for bringing down Trump and ensuring that he does not get re-elected.  She is not going to back down and allow him to claim any level of success in fulfilling his number one campaign promise.  

Meanwhile, the shutdown is starting to have an effect on the economy.  It's 2019, and the election is in 2020.   If the economy even starts to tank, Trump will not get re-elected.   

There's no way she's backing down.

---

A lot of Democrats are starting to "blink". It is only a matter of time before the pressure gets to great for Pelosi. While poll numbers (which I don't really believe) point to most of the blame being on Trump for the shutdown, look for those to shift as the weeks go on.

Nancy Pelosi is 78 years old.  She's in an absolutely safe district.  She undoubtedly sees this as her chance to go down in history as the person most responsible (other than Trump himself) for bringing down Trump and ensuring that he does not get re-elected.  She is not going to back down and allow him to claim any level of success in fulfilling his number one campaign promise.  

Meanwhile, the shutdown is starting to have an effect on the economy.  It's 2019, and the election is in 2020.   If the economy even starts to tank, Trump will not get re-elected.   

There's no way she's backing down.

I'd suggest these federal employees begin looking for new jobs then.

---

Nancy Pelosi is 78 years old.  She's in an absolutely safe district.  She undoubtedly sees this as her chance to go down in history as the person most responsible (other than Trump himself) for bringing down Trump and ensuring that he does not get re-elected.  She is not going to back down and allow him to claim any level of success in fulfilling his number one campaign promise.  

Meanwhile, the shutdown is starting to have an effect on the economy.  It's 2019, and the election is in 2020.   If the economy even starts to tank, Trump will not get re-elected.   

There's no way she's backing down.

I'd suggest these federal employees begin looking for new jobs then.

If they get new jobs, at least they'll get paid. They won't have to work for free. What kind of crap is that?

---

Trump refuses to come off of his demand for a physical wall. Pelosi won't support that. Seems to me there isn't much "negotiation in good faith" to do until someone inevitably blinks.

Appropriations going to the floor is the sort of ridiculous complaint I'd expect from a lefty nutjob trying to impeach Trump. No one is going to remove Nancy Pelosi, and if you think you'd get someone less liberal to fill her seat, you're nuts. In fact, you'd get Steny Hoyer as Speaker, which would be even more fun for those of us who want to see the children stop throwing sand at each other and end the damn shutdown. And not being present on the floor...have you seen Marco Rubio's record?

What you're putting out here are partisan whines, not legitimate reasons to remove a Speaker from office. I'm no fan of Pelosi, but if you think that some kind of campaign to remove her--even if it did work--would get you someone willing to play ball with Trump, you must not have met the group of people that would be in line to replace her.

A lot of Democrats are starting to "blink". It is only a matter of time before the pressure gets to great for Pelosi. While poll numbers (which I don't really believe) point to most of the blame being on Trump for the shutdown, look for those to shift as the weeks go on.

This take simply makes no sense at all. I have no loyalty to either party, as I'm a registered Independent who hates Trump and Pelosi. This blame lays squarely on the President though. The man even stated multiple times, that he would "own" this shutdown and that he would "shutdown the government if he didn't get funding for the wall." How can you blame this on anyone other than him? I swear, he could tell some of you followers that the sky was purple and the grass was plaid and you'd believe him.

---

Have you heard of her negotiating in good faith or even showing to floor discussions? How about meeting with other members at the White House? Nope, she refuses. 

The executive branch is required to submit a record of appropriations. In turn, the Speaker is required to refer this record to committees to build legislation subject to a vote. They don’t have to approve it but it must go to the floor. Hence, she is derelict in her actions, well, lack of. She must also function in good faith on behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives which she refuses to show face on the floor. She is more than happy to be on TV or Facebook feeds while she has a chair fill-in. Having a member fill-in is not unusual but during this situation it is unacceptable.

Trump refuses to come off of his demand for a physical wall. Pelosi won't support that. Seems to me there isn't much "negotiation in good faith" to do until someone inevitably blinks.

Appropriations going to the floor is the sort of ridiculous complaint I'd expect from a lefty nutjob trying to impeach Trump. No one is going to remove Nancy Pelosi, and if you think you'd get someone less liberal to fill her seat, you're nuts. In fact, you'd get Steny Hoyer as Speaker, which would be even more fun for those of us who want to see the children stop throwing sand at each other and end the damn shutdown. And not being present on the floor...have you seen Marco Rubio's record?

What you're putting out here are partisan whines, not legitimate reasons to remove a Speaker from office. I'm no fan of Pelosi, but if you think that some kind of campaign to remove her--even if it did work--would get you someone willing to play ball with Trump, you must not have met the group of people that would be in line to replace her.

Actually, he has. Do you not pay attention? Right now he has given into Dem wants no less than three times, has attempted several negotiation sessions, and now just agreed to postpone the STOU. This has gone beyond partisan to stubborn ignorance. 

I watched the House Committee meeting yesterday and all from both sides expressed on record that this is rediculous that they can’t get the House in general to negotiate in good faith. On record, they stated if it was solely up to them this shutdown would have never occurred. On record, they unanimously agree that “wall” funding is necessary to complete what was started several years ago and subsequently funded each administration. Why not this one? One answer...Pelosi.

If you see this as partisan whining, you are absolutely clueless and part of the bigger issue. Also, if you believe that her colleagues aren’t starting to break ranks, you should watch some of these hearings and turn off CNN. This latest move by the POTUS only puts more pressure on Pelosi and in my opinion puts complete ownership of this continued shutdown in her hands.

As far as who would fill her seat, I don’t care at this point as long as they show up and do their job! They need to put away the clowns and quit treating the House of Representatives like a damn circus! 

Rubio? What does he have to do with Pelosi and her circus? 

Look, do I think the House could get a 2/3rd vote to expell her, no. But introducing the resolution could stir the hornets nest, especially if on of her own introduced it. Bottom line is that she now owns this and she must make the next move to try and end this. Her ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.

---

I'd suggest these federal employees begin looking for new jobs then.

If they get new jobs, at least they'll get paid. They won't have to work for free. What kind of crap is that?

---

A lot of Democrats are starting to "blink". It is only a matter of time before the pressure gets to great for Pelosi. While poll numbers (which I don't really believe) point to most of the blame being on Trump for the shutdown, look for those to shift as the weeks go on.

This take simply makes no sense at all. I have no loyalty to either party, as I'm a registered Independent who hates Trump and Pelosi. This blame lays squarely on the President though. The man even stated multiple times, that he would "own" this shutdown and that he would "shutdown the government if he didn't get funding for the wall." How can you blame this on anyone other than him? I swear, he could tell some of you followers that the sky was purple and the grass was plaid and you'd believe him.

Please explain your blame theory because at this juncture it makes zero sense regardless of what words came out of either parties mouths. It’s actions that matter and that is where you may find the clue you need.

---

Nasty Nancy does NOT run the country

In light of Jeb Trump's postponement, apparently she does.

---

Trump refuses to come off of his demand for a physical wall. Pelosi won't support that. Seems to me there isn't much "negotiation in good faith" to do until someone inevitably blinks.

Appropriations going to the floor is the sort of ridiculous complaint I'd expect from a lefty nutjob trying to impeach Trump. No one is going to remove Nancy Pelosi, and if you think you'd get someone less liberal to fill her seat, you're nuts. In fact, you'd get Steny Hoyer as Speaker, which would be even more fun for those of us who want to see the children stop throwing sand at each other and end the damn shutdown. And not being present on the floor...have you seen Marco Rubio's record?

What you're putting out here are partisan whines, not legitimate reasons to remove a Speaker from office. I'm no fan of Pelosi, but if you think that some kind of campaign to remove her--even if it did work--would get you someone willing to play ball with Trump, you must not have met the group of people that would be in line to replace her.

Actually, he has. Do you not pay attention? Right now he has given into Dem wants no less than three times, has attempted several negotiation sessions, and now just agreed to postpone the STOU. This has gone beyond partisan to stubborn ignorance. 

I watched the House Committee meeting yesterday and all from both sides expressed on record that this is rediculous that they can’t get the House in general to negotiate in good faith. On record, they stated if it was solely up to them this shutdown would have never occurred. On record, they unanimously agree that “wall” funding is necessary to complete what was started several years ago and subsequently funded each administration. Why not this one? One answer...Pelosi.

If you see this as partisan whining, you are absolutely clueless and part of the bigger issue. Also, if you believe that her colleagues aren’t starting to break ranks, you should watch some of these hearings and turn off CNN. This latest move by the POTUS only puts more pressure on Pelosi and in my opinion puts complete ownership of this continued shutdown in her hands.

As far as who would fill her seat, I don’t care at this point as long as they show up and do their job! They need to put away the clowns and quit treating the House of Representatives like a damn circus! 

Rubio? What does he have to do with Pelosi and her circus? 

Look, do I think the House could get a 2/3rd vote to expell her, no. But introducing the resolution could stir the hornets nest, especially if on of her own introduced it. Bottom line is that she now owns this and she must make the next move to try and end this. Her ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.

---

If they get new jobs, at least they'll get paid. They won't have to work for free. What kind of crap is that?

---

This take simply makes no sense at all. I have no loyalty to either party, as I'm a registered Independent who hates Trump and Pelosi. This blame lays squarely on the President though. The man even stated multiple times, that he would "own" this shutdown and that he would "shutdown the government if he didn't get funding for the wall." How can you blame this on anyone other than him? I swear, he could tell some of you followers that the sky was purple and the grass was plaid and you'd believe him.

Please explain your blame theory because at this juncture it makes zero sense regardless of what words came out of either parties mouths. It’s actions that matter and that is where you may find the clue you need.

I thought Trump was the best negotiator ever and he always gets what he wants? He's given in 3 times and postponed his SOTU? What a negotiator.

---

Actually, he has. Do you not pay attention? Right now he has given into Dem wants no less than three times, has attempted several negotiation sessions, and now just agreed to postpone the STOU. This has gone beyond partisan to stubborn ignorance. 

I watched the House Committee meeting yesterday and all from both sides expressed on record that this is rediculous that they can’t get the House in general to negotiate in good faith. On record, they stated if it was solely up to them this shutdown would have never occurred. On record, they unanimously agree that “wall” funding is necessary to complete what was started several years ago and subsequently funded each administration. Why not this one? One answer...Pelosi.

If you see this as partisan whining, you are absolutely clueless and part of the bigger issue. Also, if you believe that her colleagues aren’t starting to break ranks, you should watch some of these hearings and turn off CNN. This latest move by the POTUS only puts more pressure on Pelosi and in my opinion puts complete ownership of this continued shutdown in her hands.

As far as who would fill her seat, I don’t care at this point as long as they show up and do their job! They need to put away the clowns and quit treating the House of Representatives like a damn circus! 

Rubio? What does he have to do with Pelosi and her circus? 

Look, do I think the House could get a 2/3rd vote to expell her, no. But introducing the resolution could stir the hornets nest, especially if on of her own introduced it. Bottom line is that she now owns this and she must make the next move to try and end this. Her ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.

---

Please explain your blame theory because at this juncture it makes zero sense regardless of what words came out of either parties mouths. It’s actions that matter and that is where you may find the clue you need.

I thought Trump was the best negotiator ever and he always gets what he wants? He's given in 3 times and postponed his SOTU? What a negotiator.

He just understands people and how to read a room.

---

I thought Trump was the best negotiator ever and he always gets what he wants? He's given in 3 times and postponed his SOTU? What a negotiator.

He just understands people and how to read a room.

When you've fired or chased away everyone whose opinion differs from yours, that's not hard to do.

When you're forced to deal with people who have you in a corner and you don't have a clue how to handle the situation you created, you end up postponing your own stump speech.

---

Actually, he has. Do you not pay attention? Right now he has given into Dem wants no less than three times, has attempted several negotiation sessions, and now just agreed to postpone the STOU. This has gone beyond partisan to stubborn ignorance. 

I watched the House Committee meeting yesterday and all from both sides expressed on record that this is rediculous that they can’t get the House in general to negotiate in good faith. On record, they stated if it was solely up to them this shutdown would have never occurred. On record, they unanimously agree that “wall” funding is necessary to complete what was started several years ago and subsequently funded each administration. Why not this one? One answer...Pelosi.

If you see this as partisan whining, you are absolutely clueless and part of the bigger issue. Also, if you believe that her colleagues aren’t starting to break ranks, you should watch some of these hearings and turn off CNN. This latest move by the POTUS only puts more pressure on Pelosi and in my opinion puts complete ownership of this continued shutdown in her hands.

As far as who would fill her seat, I don’t care at this point as long as they show up and do their job! They need to put away the clowns and quit treating the House of Representatives like a damn circus! 

Rubio? What does he have to do with Pelosi and her circus? 

Look, do I think the House could get a 2/3rd vote to expell her, no. But introducing the resolution could stir the hornets nest, especially if on of her own introduced it. Bottom line is that she now owns this and she must make the next move to try and end this. Her ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.

---

Please explain your blame theory because at this juncture it makes zero sense regardless of what words came out of either parties mouths. It’s actions that matter and that is where you may find the clue you need.

I thought Trump was the best negotiator ever and he always gets what he wants? He's given in 3 times and postponed his SOTU? What a negotiator.

I take it you've never negotiated anything beyond paper or plastic at Publix?

---

I thought Trump was the best negotiator ever and he always gets what he wants? He's given in 3 times and postponed his SOTU? What a negotiator.

I take it you've never negotiated anything beyond paper or plastic at Publix?

Ah yes. Insult time! My favorite part of the day.

For the record, I don't have to negotiate paper or plastic because they give me both.

---

I take it you've never negotiated anything beyond paper or plastic at Publix?

Ah yes. Insult time! My favorite part of the day.

For the record, I don't have to negotiate paper or plastic because they give me both.

You dish and then whine when someone fires back? Come on. It ain't that serious.

Paper and plastic? Sounds confusing like you want to feel environmentally responsible but hate when frozen [BLEEP] falls out the bottom!

---

Ah yes. Insult time! My favorite part of the day.

For the record, I don't have to negotiate paper or plastic because they give me both.

You dish and then whine when someone fires back? Come on. It ain't that serious.

Paper and plastic? Sounds confusing like you want to feel environmentally responsible but hate when frozen [BLEEP] falls out the bottom!

Who did I insult? Trump? lol

---

---

If they get new jobs, at least they'll get paid. They won't have to work for free. What kind of crap is that?

---

This take simply makes no sense at all. I have no loyalty to either party, as I'm a registered Independent who hates Trump and Pelosi. This blame lays squarely on the President though. The man even stated multiple times, that he would "own" this shutdown and that he would "shutdown the government if he didn't get funding for the wall." How can you blame this on anyone other than him? I swear, he could tell some of you followers that the sky was purple and the grass was plaid and you'd believe him.

Please explain your blame theory because at this juncture it makes zero sense regardless of what words came out of either parties mouths. It’s actions that matter and that is where you may find the clue you need.

The Seante never actually passed a bill funding the government.  McConnell brought a bill that Trump liked to the floor but it failed.  McConnell's stance has been he won't bring a bill unless the President supports that bill.  If you want to call someone useless or derelict in their duty, I think that's your guy right there, McConnell.  Pelosi and Ryan before her were both able to pass spending bills.
The founders would have just let the President be the only person to bring bills to the Senate if they wanted the Senate to behave the way McConnell's running it now.
Then again, if Trump was making realistic demands in the first place, maybe it would be OK for McConnell to follow him this way, like a dog on a leash

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

---

Please explain your blame theory because at this juncture it makes zero sense regardless of what words came out of either parties mouths. It’s actions that matter and that is where you may find the clue you need.

The Seante never actually passed a bill funding the government.  McConnell brought a bill that Trump liked to the floor but it failed.  McConnell's stance has been he won't bring a bill unless the President supports that bill.  If you want to call someone useless or derelict in their duty, I think that's your guy right there, McConnell.  Pelosi and Ryan before her were both able to pass spending bills.  
The founders would have just let the President be the only person to bring bills to the Senate if they wanted the Senate to behave the way McConnell's running it now.
Then again, if Trump was making realistic demands in the first place, maybe it would be OK for McConnell to follow him this way, like a dog on a leash

You sure about that? I bet I can find a Bill sitting in Differences right now that passed both Chambers.

In any case, the House can politically posture and pass as many partial bills as it wants but when it doesn't include full appropriations or even a CR, then what is the point? Funding the DHS is an unrealistic demand?

---

The Seante never actually passed a bill funding the government.  McConnell brought a bill that Trump liked to the floor but it failed.  McConnell's stance has been he won't bring a bill unless the President supports that bill.  If you want to call someone useless or derelict in their duty, I think that's your guy right there, McConnell.  Pelosi and Ryan before her were both able to pass spending bills.  
The founders would have just let the President be the only person to bring bills to the Senate if they wanted the Senate to behave the way McConnell's running it now.
Then again, if Trump was making realistic demands in the first place, maybe it would be OK for McConnell to follow him this way, like a dog on a leash

You sure about that? I bet I can find a Bill sitting in Differences right now that passed both Chambers.

In any case, the House can politically posture and pass as many partial bills as it wants but when it doesn't include full appropriations or even a CR, then what is the point? Funding the DHS is an unrealistic demand?

It goes both ways, dude. The House won't consider bills it doesn't like, and the Senate won't consider bills it doesn't like. Trump's commerce secretary has suggested that government employees should get a loan--a loan that charges interest--to hold them over while their boss of bosses refuses to take any steps that would result in paying them. The man responsible for the commercial/retail side of banking in the United States just told federal workers to go get payday loans.

---

Trump won’t give SOTU until shutdown ends.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...ump-blinks


Safe to say this thread is not aging well.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

You sure about that? I bet I can find a Bill sitting in Differences right now that passed both Chambers.

In any case, the House can politically posture and pass as many partial bills as it wants but when it doesn't include full appropriations or even a CR, then what is the point? Funding the DHS is an unrealistic demand?

It goes both ways, dude. The House won't consider bills it doesn't like, and the Senate won't consider bills it doesn't like. Trump's commerce secretary has suggested that government employees should get a loan--a loan that charges interest--to hold them over while their boss of bosses refuses to take any steps that would result in paying them. The man responsible for the commercial/retail side of banking in the United States just told federal workers to go get payday loans.

There is disconnect everywhere, even within the seperate chambers. The House tried to pass a spending bill that included DHS and it failed with only 6 Dems voting for it. A separate but identical bill minus DHS passed with all Dems except AOC and nearly zero Rep support. It's partisan stupidity. It asinine to believe that one side is so against a bill that would end the shutdown because it includes an installment on what they had previously and unanimously approved. It is also asinine to expect one side to concede everything when you have not negotiated in good faith or even made an attempt to do so. 

As far as loans, Federal workers can get interest free loans now if needed. They can get government secured loans. There is a lot of emotional hersay in the media that needs to stop.

You are also taking the Secretary's words out of context. It was a long response to someone saying federal workers were using food banks and he didn't understand why it had come to that with so many programs available. There was absolutely nothing about illegitimate payday loans.

---

Trump won’t give SOTU until shutdown ends.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...ump-blinks


Safe to say this thread is not aging well.

Better late than never huh?

---