I have no doubt the Republicans will act in spite, and not with cause. That doesn't make this one without cause. It just makes theirs without cause. If they find a QAnon supporting, 9/11 denying, school shooting denier, objectionist, who cannot take credit for their own beliefs, in someone on the Democratic party, I hope they remove them from committees as well. And from the entirety of the Congress.
I did consider the source. The guy who up until deaths inside the Capital thought it was just the same. And will no doubt think any other Republican action is the same, until, hell, maybe they actually succeed at revolution.
Do you mean the guy that calls balls and strikes as he sees them regardless of party. The guy who believes that if what Trump did was not impeachable then nothing is. Verses the guy who has his lips firmly planted around every Democrats Penis or Vagina?
I mean the guy who argued with me for about two pages about how I should enjoy the "moral high ground" or some tripe, for thinking that the number of objections was way out of proportion to the one done against Bush. I mean the guy who today, this very day, said, "Of course you were allowed to be stupid and ignorant; the choice was yours and yours alone." and is still arguing with those who believe that saying things like 9/11 is a hoax, school shootings are a hoax and was part of the objectionist group that led to the Capital being stormed, for the first time, in any of our life times, shouldn't even be in Congress, let alone Congressional committees. Yes, I mean that guy. And again, if there is a 9/11 denier, school shooting denier, objectionist, QAnon conspiracy loving Democrat, I hope the Republicans kick that person out of Congress. Can you say the same? Oh, wait, no, you've said the opposite. Anyone who can't see the ball coming... shouldn't be calling balls or strikes. They should sit the [uck fay] down.
I said Marianne williamson doesn't belong in high office because, even though she will sound imminently reasonable for 30 second increments she will then go straight crystal energy "woo", saying dangerously ignorant things about vaccines, health etc... my line is well identified. don't whole cloth invent things. Don't think universal healthcare is a good idea? Want minimal government? let's debate. Think Sandy Hook was a hoax or crystal pyramids emit healing positive energy? seek treatment, you are unwell and unfit for office.
It's not a high bar. It's not. We can't complain about how crappy politicians are, when we allow crappy politicians to remain.
For a party that claims to value the sanctity of every vote. I guess every vote should count as long as it is not used to elect someone who offends your sensibilities. In addition if we are going to hold politicians accountable for the lies and tales they say prior to being elected then there would be no office holders (something I could get behind if applied to all). IMO Democrats removing her for insulting their Queen prior to her election comes across as shallow and petty; like George Bush's vendetta against Sadam Hussain because, "He tried to kill my daddy." I hope that when the balance of power swings they rise above the pettiness.
What votes aren't counting? She's still able to legislate. What votes aren't being counted? What lie? What tale? We're holding people accountable for their BELIEFS. If she is lying about believing that school shootings are hoaxes, that's one thing. If she's telling a tale about school shootings being hoaxes, that's another thing. But this is about BELIEVING school shootings are hoaxes, and that is a whole other thing. Democrat or Republican. If you have beliefs like these, you should not be in Congress. But they haven't gone that far. This is not pettiness, this is simple objectiveness. It's not even on the level of subjective, such as racism. It's objective: you have this belief, that makes you unfit to serve. But because of voting, we're allowing you to continue to be a legislature, to do your legislative ability. But you still have to follow the rules of congress.
There is a very very simple test, here. Is believing school shootings are hoaxes only a Republican thing, or does it transcend party? Is believing 9/11 are hoaxes only a Republican thing, or does it transcend party? Is talking about Jewish lasers, or whatever, a Republican thing, or does it transcend party? Is believing members of government are involved in some massive conspiracy a Republican thing, or does it transcend party? If these transcend party, I'm not sure how holding people who hold these beliefs accountable is a party thing.
She was elected by her constituents. She was placed on committees that it was felt she could best serve her constituents. Now they are being underserved. They are being marginalized. (another thing that Democrats like to decry unless they are the ones doing it)
But they aren't. How many Congressional powers still remain to her? Explain how being on a committee serves constituents? It's an illogical conclusion. There are over 200 committees. She'd be on 2. Are you saying that her constituents are under represented because she isn't on the other 198? Of course not. It's a position that isn't backed by anything tangible.
She didn't "insult her", she said she should put a bullet in her head. That's called a threat, not an insult. And, the argument about voters is nonsensical. They don't put her on committees. You are simply making up arguments, at this point, which are minimalizing the uniqueness of Greene's consistent aberrant and dangerous behavior over a matter of years.
I hope the same fate does not befall Talib, Omar, or whomever they want to target. At some point the adults need to take over.
Why is it more "adult" to allow people asinine beliefs? Because you seem to be saying that it's more adult to let adults believe in Santa Claus, than to tell adults that Santa is fake, and for as long as they believe Santa Claus is real, that they won't be treated like other adults.
Just putting this here. In years past, there have also been problems with Mexican fishing vessels illegally working in US waters. Seems now coming in to the US by boat is gaining in popularity. Going to be hard to address this, because these at-sea immigration problems tend to be riskier for the people trying to get in, and you can't just "turn them away" when they're dying of thirst or their boat is compromised. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/...-pacific-ocean.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
