Marjorie Taylor Greene

135

Comments

  • Yeah, it does.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Yes, and more please. I thought it was Tom Lehrer, sounds very much like him.
    Yes, it certainly does sound like Lehrer could have written it. The lyrics to the JBS can be found here.

    I grew up on the Chad Michell Trio; my father loved them.

    If mommy is a Commie then you gotta turn her in.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited February 2
    Thanks for the link. One of my mates had an LP with that and some others like it. Having LPs is probably a dating indicator.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Thanks for the link. One of my mates had an LP with that and some others like it. Having LPs is probably a dating indicator.
    I have quite a few Chad Mitchell Trio and Kingston Trip LPs. They were my dad’s.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    To return to more serious matters, this:

    “Somebody who’s suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr’s airplane is not living in reality,” McConnell said.

    from today's Guardian says it all. She's not going to have an easy time in Washington.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    There was some confusion, above, which a quick google would have dispelled, regarding another dangerous Congress creature, Lauren Boebert.

    Apparently Kevin McCarthy (GOP House Minority Leader) has scheduled a sit down with MTG to discuss how things will move forward.

    And yes, Gramps, there are a number of crackpots, but none is so vocally unhinged and publicly beloved by Trump .

    Also she's the one this thread is about. Nothing stops anyone from starting another thread about another person, or a thread about a group of people as a whole.

    The thread is about MTG. Simon Toad raised the question of Lauren Boebert. Keep up.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    To return to more serious matters, this:

    “Somebody who’s suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr’s airplane is not living in reality,” McConnell said.

    from today's Guardian says it all. She's not going to have an easy time in Washington.

    This quote doesn't say it all, I don't think. It's unusual for McConnell as a Senator to talk about a freshman House Rep like this, but the Republican House leader is on board with Greene, and Liz Cheney, the #3 Republican in the House may lose her spot in the House Republican leader for voting to impeach Trump. McConnell has had to weigh in because Greene is potentially the new fresh face of the Republican party.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    That song is a bit worrying - so long ago, so little change, and that in the wrong direction. (I have copied it to send to a friend - not the one down the rabbit hole.)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    To return to more serious matters, this:

    “Somebody who’s suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr’s airplane is not living in reality,” McConnell said.

    from today's Guardian says it all. She's not going to have an easy time in Washington.

    This quote doesn't say it all, I don't think. It's unusual for McConnell as a Senator to talk about a freshman House Rep like this, but the Republican House leader is on board with Greene, and Liz Cheney, the #3 Republican in the House may lose her spot in the House Republican leader for voting to impeach Trump. McConnell has had to weigh in because Greene is potentially the new fresh face of the Republican party.

    Thank you. I had read it as saying that she was disowned by senior Republicans in Washington. Do you think it likely that as a Representative fresh to Washington that she'll have any realistic show of getting Cheney's position?
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Likewise, I don't believe the top YECcies believe it themselves. It brings them money, tribal loyalty, influence. That's why they do it. It's a pattern that's repeated over and over again by not just lead proponents of fringe and conspiracy theories, but in any form of belief system. People who say X, but don't believe X, because they get something out of it.

    You know, I think I’ve been doing this church thing all wrong. I say X, and pray for the grace to believe it, and try to keep the building standing just in case someone else comes along who might get something out of it.

    It might be cold tonight. If I’m up there at midnight running the heating again (fecked boiler controller) to try to reduce the chance of a pipe burst, I may have time to ruminate further on your thesis :)

  • You know, I think I’ve been doing this church thing all wrong. I say X, and pray for the grace to believe it, and try to keep the building standing just in case someone else comes along who might get something out of it.

    It's different if someone else gets something out of it.

    Lord, I believe, help my unbelief...
  • mousethief wrote: »
    There was some confusion, above, which a quick google would have dispelled, regarding another dangerous Congress creature, Lauren Boebert.

    Apparently Kevin McCarthy (GOP House Minority Leader) has scheduled a sit down with MTG to discuss how things will move forward.

    And yes, Gramps, there are a number of crackpots, but none is so vocally unhinged and publicly beloved by Trump .

    Also she's the one this thread is about. Nothing stops anyone from starting another thread about another person, or a thread about a group of people as a whole.

    The thread is about MTG. Simon Toad raised the question of Lauren Boebert. Keep up.

    Dropped a stitch there. I blame the yarn.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    To return to more serious matters, this:

    “Somebody who’s suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr’s airplane is not living in reality,” McConnell said.

    from today's Guardian says it all. She's not going to have an easy time in Washington.
    This quote doesn't say it all, I don't think. It's unusual for McConnell as a Senator to talk about a freshman House Rep like this, but the Republican House leader is on board with Greene, and Liz Cheney, the #3 Republican in the House may lose her spot in the House Republican leader for voting to impeach Trump. McConnell has had to weigh in because Greene is potentially the new fresh face of the Republican party.

    It is unusual, but McConnell is currently the highest ranking Republican holding elected office and Kevin McCarthy (the House Minority Leader) seems unwilling to exercise any form of discipline over the more conspiratorially-minded members of his caucus.

    In other Greene-related news:
    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer delivered an ultimatum to [ House Minority Leader Kevin ] McCarthy on Monday: Either Republicans move on their own to strip Greene (R-Ga.) of her committee assignments within 72 hours, or Democrats will bring the issue to the House floor.

    The Democrats’ move, while highly unusual, comes amid intense fury within the Democratic Caucus over Greene’s long record of incendiary rhetoric, including peddling conspiracy theories that the nation’s deadliest mass shootings were staged. Greene also endorsed violence against Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats before she was elected to Congress.

    Last week, Greene was officially awarded seats on the House Education and Labor Committee and the House Budget Committee.

    For those with long enough memories, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) was stripped of his committee assignments in January 2019 after openly endorsing white nationalism and white supremacy. Republicans didn't wait around for Democrats to force the issue back then. But now?
    Republicans, meanwhile, have been slow to act, with McCarthy saying only he’s planning to have a “conversation” with Greene about the mounting controversies sometime this week. The meeting between McCarthy and Greene has still not been scheduled, but could take place as early as Tuesday evening.

    And Greene has shown zero contrition for her past actions, tweeting over the weekend that she will “never apologize.” She also took a jab at Hoyer on Twitter Monday and revealed plans to travel to Florida "soon" to meet with former President Donald Trump, who she said supports her "100 percent."

    You'd think advocating the assassination of the Speaker of the House and being in favor of sedition would motivate House Republicans, but I guess not.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    I had read it as saying that she was disowned by senior Republicans in Washington. Do you think it likely that as a Representative fresh to Washington that she'll have any realistic show of getting Cheney's position?

    No, someone more senior will get it if Cheney is knocked out. But Greene's influence will have been strengthened.
  • They do have suspension/expulsion power over their own members.

    Moves have been made.

    I need to look up the details... I'll get back to you.

    This looks like a good summary:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress

    Detailed discussion here: https://openargs.com/transcript-of-oa456-insurrections-have-consequences/#more-2239

    AFZ
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    McConnell has said Greene is "looney tunes." He also wonders if the Republican party will now be the party of conspiracy theories. I am hearing thousands of Republican party members are resigning from the party. They are losing many big donors as well.

    I believe the Republicans in the House of Representatives will eventually move to expel her. They know if they keep such people in their ranks, they will stand to lose in the long run.
  • I wonder how many of them are resigning from the GOP because they're ashamed and disgusted by all the mess--and how many because the GOP didn't get the election overturned.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I believe the Republicans in the House of Representatives will eventually move to expel her. They know if they keep such people in their ranks, they will stand to lose in the long run.

    Unlikely. The House of Representatives has only ever expelled five of its members in its 232 year history. Three of those were expelled for supporting the Confederacy. Absent something definitely tying her to the storming of the Capitol, at most Greene will get censure, loss of committee assignments, and shunning.

    Unless you mean "expelled from the Republican caucus", which seems even less likely. If they weren't willing to do that to Steve King, they'll be comfortable with Marjorie Taylor Greene. A vote is a vote, after all.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    I wonder how many of them are resigning from the GOP because they're ashamed and disgusted by all the mess--and how many because the GOP didn't get the election overturned.

    Both? It's easier to put up with all sorts of shit if your team is winning. If you're not on the winning side any more, your reason to put up with it went away.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    McConnell has said Greene is "looney tunes." He also wonders if the Republican party will now be the party of conspiracy theories. I am hearing thousands of Republican party members are resigning from the party. They are losing many big donors as well.

    I don't think he'll expel her. On the other hand she said: “The real cancer for the Republican party is weak Republicans who only know how to lose gracefully,", which may have an impact on his standing.
  • Crœsos wrote: »

    You'd think advocating the assassination of the Speaker of the House and being in favor of sedition would motivate House Republicans, but I guess not.

    Oh, it motivates them alright. Just not in a good way.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I had read it as saying that she was disowned by senior Republicans in Washington. Do you think it likely that as a Representative fresh to Washington that she'll have any realistic show of getting Cheney's position?

    No, someone more senior will get it if Cheney is knocked out. But Greene's influence will have been strengthened.

    Thanks - I'd thought along those lines. Come 2022, who knows where she'll be.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Thanks - I'd thought along those lines. Come 2022, who knows where she'll be.

    Reminding one of the song "Tom Dooley". At this time tomorrow, reckon where I'll be, down in some lonesome valley...........
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    You'd hope that's where she'd be, but I'm more prepared to put some good money on her gaining than losing influence.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Thanks - I'd thought along those lines. Come 2022, who knows where she'll be.

    Reminding one of the song "Tom Dooley". At this time tomorrow, reckon where I'll be, down in some lonesome valley...........

    Ah, I thought for a hopeful moment you might mean someone met her on the mountain :smile:
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Since McConnell is the minority Republican leader of the Senate, he has no power to expel her from the House of Representatives, though he can give the Republican leadership in the House strong hints that she should be removed.

    The House will set up its own investigation of members' involvement in the insurrection. Like who allowed unauthorized tours of the capitol building. Are there indications any were involved in allowing access to the building? Did they promote the riot through comments, emails, or speeches?

    Moreover, the Justice Department will also do its own investigation. If any member of Congress is found guilty of any involvement in the attack on the Capitol, they will be expelled.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Moreover, the Justice Department will also do its own investigation. If any member of Congress is found guilty of any involvement in the attack on the Capitol, they will be expelled.


    A couple of quick questions:

    1. By "found guilty" do you mean by a court, and if so, which one would that be?

    2. Would the expulsion be automatic or would it need a vote by either the House of Representatives or Congress as a whole?

    Thanks.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    2. Would the expulsion be automatic or would it need a vote by either the House of Representatives or Congress as a whole?
    Only the House of Representatives can expel one of its members.

  • Is former VP Dick Cheney, Ms. Cheney's dad, still around? I wonder if he might have a Quiet Word (tm) about her with Congressional Republicans on her behalf?

    Not necessarily saying he should.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Thanks - I'd thought along those lines. Come 2022, who knows where she'll be.

    Reminding one of the song "Tom Dooley". At this time tomorrow, reckon where I'll be, down in some lonesome valley...........

    Ah, I thought for a hopeful moment you might mean someone met her on the mountain :smile:

    Ummm... :(

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    2. Would the expulsion be automatic or would it need a vote by either the House of Representatives or Congress as a whole?
    Only the House of Representatives can expel one of its members.

    Thanks - that's what I would have thought, but one of the pleasures of life is that small differences creep into similar systems.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Found guilty by court of law.
  • Just saw this. Can be interpreted more than one way, as someone in the article acknowledges.

    "A Parkland mother says Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene privately said she doesn't believe school shootings were faked, but refuses to say so in public" (Business Insider, via Yahoo).

    After reading: Is Rep. Greene down the rabbit hole, but lying about it? Or coldly saying things she knows aren't true, to gain political advantage? Or in such a muddled state that she doesn't really know anymore, and says what she thinks she needs to at the time? (Like her idol.)

    Whatever is going on with her, she needs to be out of gov't immediately.

    Yikes.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 3
    @Golden Key

    It's not clear to me if "No, I do not" was intended by Schulman as a direct quote. She say it was Greene's "unequivocal[ly]" answer, but that's not the same thing as saying it was her literal answer.

    I obviously don't know Greene personally, so I don't know if she's just cynically claiming to believe these false-flag theories in order to get votes, or if she really does hold to them. My understanding(open to correction) is that she's from a solid Republican district, so she probably doesn't need to adopt esoteric weirdness in order to win as a Republican. So possibly she is saying it because that's what she really thinks.

    That said, there are more possibilities between "Truly believes this crap" and "Is knowingly lying about believing it". My guess is she probably believed it at one time, and acted on that belief, but might now be having second thoughts, after exposure to the(relative) sanity of the mainstream GOP. She probably now has politicians she respects calling her up and saying "Look, you know that's all garbage, right? I've seen the FBI reports, it happened, even the NRA doesn't say it was a false-flag."

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 3
    Interesting also that McConnell attributes to Greene the belief that no planes hit the Pentagon on 9/11. That's a theory more commonly associated with the loopier sections of the "anti-imperialist" left. (A French guy who wrote a book arguing that now runs a dubious website called voltaire.net).

    While those theories also have some currency with the anti-Israel, isolationist Right, they clearly do not jibe with the current mainstream consensus on US foreign-policy. So Greene is clearly getting her opinions from sources pretty inamicable to establishment Republicanism, and I don't know how long she'll be able to stand by them publically.
  • Re 9/11:

    Weird. I don't think I ever heard the "no planes hit the towers" theory. Lots of others, like the planes weren't what caused the towers to collapse.

    Re "establishment Republicanism":

    I'm not sure that it exists in the way you think. A whole lot of Congressional Republicans and Republican hierarchy kept standing with T, and actively supporting him--including the claims of a fraudulent election. Some of them supported the rioters' coup attempt at the time, and some said after that it wasn't a big deal.

    I wouldn't count on those particular Republicans' sense of reality to be helpful in deterring Rep. Greene and other Q-Anon sympathizers in Congress.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 3
    @Golden Key

    The theory I'm referencing is that no planes hit the Pentagon. I believe most Truthers acknowledge planes hit the WTC, but claim that the towers ultimately fell because of explosives planted inside.

    As for "establishment Republicanism" no longer existing...

    It's one thing to stand by Trump over the Capitol Siege, knowing that a lot of your base might have been cheering that on, and that the swing-voters might forget about it in a few months. It's another thing to say that 9/11 was a hoax and therefore it was a huge mistake for a Republican president to send troops to die in Afghanistan. For my purposes here, "establishment Republican" can be defined as Republicans who recogonize the drawbacks of publically espousing such a view.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    For the record, the book that claims no planes hit the Pentagon is called 9/11: The Big Lie, by Thierry Meyssan.
  • There was a Guardian Comment is Free column (link) a few days ago discussing Marjorie Taylor Greene and opining that the Republican Party will not disavow her. The article concludes:
    ... Greene isn’t actually the real problem here: she’s a symptom of a much deeper rot in American politics. The Republicans knew exactly who Greene was when she decided to run for election and did nothing to sanction or stop her. Republicans used to at least try to hide their racism and hypocrisy under a facade of respectability but their embrace of Trump has caused the mask to well and truly slip. Greene isn’t an outlier in the GOP: she’s the new face of the post-Trump Republican party.

    (This comes from a weekly newsletter on sexism, this week with this main story.)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited February 3
    stetson wrote: »
    As for "establishment Republicanism" no longer existing...

    It's one thing to stand by Trump over the Capitol Siege, knowing that a lot of your base might have been cheering that on, and that the swing-voters might forget about it in a few months. It's another thing to say that 9/11 was a hoax and therefore it was a huge mistake for a Republican president to send troops to die in Afghanistan. For my purposes here, "establishment Republican" can be defined as Republicans who recognize the drawbacks of publicly espousing such a view.

    Look, Donald Trump was the presidential nominee of the Republican party twice. He had the backing of both the party elite and the party's loyal footsoldiers (a term that's taken on a double meaning in recent weeks), and most of the Republican party still backs Donald Trump and his policies. That's what it means to be an "establishment Republican" these days: hostility to democracy, contempt for expertise, barely concealed (or unconcealed) racism, and funneling as much of the public fisc into the pockets of the already wealthy as possible. And you'll note that when put in those very plain terms, that's what "establishment Republicans" have been for a very long time, decades before Trump descended that gilded escalator.

    The question isn't "Why do establishment Republicans (Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, etc.) support Donald Trump?" The real question is "Why would you expect any different?"

    As for Congresswoman Greene, it seems like she's the person not named "Trump" who's most skilled at channeling the mix of resentment and conspiracism that characterizes the modern Republican party. If Trump doesn't run for the party's 2024 presidential nomination I think Greene has a reasonable chance of being the nominee.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 3
    @Crœsos

    My argument that McConnell et al are unlikely to endorse 9-11 Trutherism is not meant to suggest that they are in any way moderates. FWIW, I agree with your general characterization of "establishment Republicans". And as you say, it goes back a long way before Trump.

    In fact, I've been one of the people chortling for a long time whenever someone says how Trump is "a betrayal of the party of Ronald Reagan". Apart from the lack of folksiness, Trump is pretty much the unadorned embodiment of everything the Republican party has stood for since Goldwater.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    There's a sense of "betrayal" in which one's face betrays one's thoughts i.e. inadvertently reveals them.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    There's a sense of "betrayal" in which one's face betrays one's thoughts i.e. inadvertently reveals them.

    It's one of the more confusing words in the English language, because of that secondary meaning. I've had to explain to my students why a sentence like "His shady business practices betray his lust for money" isn't a contradiction, because "betray" means "confirm" there.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited February 3
    I do get the impression that the Republican establishment, including Trump, are/were quite good at balancing the desires of their reality-based and non-reality-based supporters, whereas MTG focuses almost exclusively on the latter.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    I do get the impression that the Republican establishment, including Trump, are/were quite good at balancing the desires of their reality-based and non-reality-based supporters, whereas MTG focuses almost exclusively on the latter.

    Oh I'm sure she'll quite happily vote for tax cuts for billionaires, against increasing the minimum wage and in favour of more bankruptcies from healthcare costs. And to take rights away from LGBTQ folk, people of colour and women.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    There's a sense of "betrayal" in which one's face betrays one's thoughts i.e. inadvertently reveals them.

    It's one of the more confusing words in the English language, because of that secondary meaning. I've had to explain to my students why a sentence like "His shady business practices betray his lust for money" isn't a contradiction, because "betray" means "confirm" there.

    I would say rather that it means "gives the game away" or "sneakily shows the world what he's trying to hide" (mutatis mutandis).
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    I do get the impression that the Republican establishment, including Trump, are/were quite good at balancing the desires of their reality-based and non-reality-based supporters, whereas MTG focuses almost exclusively on the latter.

    Well, it could be argued that MTG is one of the latter, rather than someone above the binary but pandering heavily to one side of it.
    mousethief wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    There's a sense of "betrayal" in which one's face betrays one's thoughts i.e. inadvertently reveals them.

    It's one of the more confusing words in the English language, because of that secondary meaning. I've had to explain to my students why a sentence like "His shady business practices betray his lust for money" isn't a contradiction, because "betray" means "confirm" there.

    I would say rather that it means "gives the game away" or "sneakily shows the world what he's trying to hide" (mutatis mutandis).

    Yeah, I thought after my post that "reveal" would have been better than "confirm".

    I'm not sure if I've only seen it used when someone is trying to conceal the trait or quality in question.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Yeah, I thought after my post that "reveal" would have been better than "confirm".

    I'm not sure if I've only seen it used when someone is trying to conceal the trait or quality in question.

    Reveal generally tends to mean show something that is hidden, does it not? As in the book of the Revelation, a calque of Apocalypsis, to reveal that which is hidden.
  • Her Twitter feed is mostly about the fundraiser for her defence and random swipes at opponents:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mtgreenee

    Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Every single house Republican just voted to keep her on the committees she was serving on.
Sign In or Register to comment.