Marjorie Taylor Greene

Gee DGee D Shipmate
I've just discovered her -and she's magnificent! Not just a fruit loop, but a whole packet of them at once. How come no-one's given a reference to her, at least as far as I remember?
«1345

Comments

  • DardaDarda Shipmate
    Would have been nice if the OP had included more detail or a link or two - particular for those of us outside the US who, like me, had no idea what this thread is about!
  • We've been working hard to convince ourselves she's not real.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 31
    Gee D wrote: »
    How come no-one's given a reference to her, at least as far as I remember?

    Well, she's only been in office for a couple of weeks now, so apart from holding loopy views, she hasn't reallly done anything to warrant a lot of attention.

    I believe she WAS mentioned a bit in the media when she got elected, as one of a couple of openly pro-QAnon adherents who had won.

    It should be noted that while the House Of Representatives is a more prestigious employer than, say, your local 7-11, compared to the Administration or the Senate, it's definitely the more softball venue in terms of entry-requirements, so it's unsurprising if they get some real losers in now and then.

    I'm pretty sure if you asked around the Tory backbenches in Westminister, you'd find a few who used to take every Sun headline as gospel-truth. Granted, that stuff tends to be less conspiratorial than QAnon, but still requires about the same level of gullibility to believe.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Darda wrote: »
    Would have been nice if the OP had included more detail or a link or two - particular for those of us outside the US who, like me, had no idea what this thread is about!

    My apologies, but providing links is something I've found hard. Just Google her. I'm not in the US either, found her mentioned in the online Guardian.
  • Actually, she's been getting more and more attention. Some people are trying to censure her in Congress. (Basically, like having something bad go on Your Permanent Record (tm) at school or work, I think.) And some want her out altogether.

    She even thinks that the California wildfires were started by lasers from space! Unless she's talking about military satellites from Earth, then no. If she is, still no, but maybe not theoretically impossible.
    :confounded:

    Here's a summary article from the Bipartisan Report site.

    She's agreed with sentiments/threats of violence against Nancy Pelosi; thinks the Parkland and Sandyhook school shootings were fake; etc. She also claims she's had a phone call from T since he left.

    Perhaps she'd agree to a brain scan while telling doctors The Truth (tm) of what she believes...


  • This person, and her two co-religionists in the Reps are dangerous people. Not only have some or all of them issued death threats against Democrat politicians, but some or all of them are by-passing security to bring weapons onto the floor of the House. One of them bears the name Madison, and I think another has the name Babbitt or Bobbitt. They are a real and present danger to constitutional order in the United States.
  • And some Congress critters are afraid of other Congress critters--and still have to work with them.
    :votive:
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Perhaps she'd agree to a brain scan while telling doctors The Truth (tm) of what she believes...

    Does she have a brain to be scanned?

    I apologise for being flippant about her. She sounds a real danger.
  • Ah, but does she own a horse? 😉

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitatus
  • This may need to be a Hell thread.

    She is ridiculously, hilariously crazy. However, whilst I am a big fan of black humour, that should not distract us from the important facts:
    1. She is a real danger
    2. She got elected.

    In the meantime, this is her being truly disgusting:

    https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1354481302846763009?s=19

    (David Hogg became a campaigner for gun law reform after surviving the horror of the Parkland shooting).

    It is long past time to talk about political sides. As long as Republicans allow this in their party, they should not be taken seriously as a political party. Because they are not; they are harbouring domestic terrorism.

    AFZ
  • edited January 31
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    This person, and her two co-religionists in the Reps are dangerous people. Not only have some or all of them issued death threats against Democrat politicians, but some or all of them are by-passing security to bring weapons onto the floor of the House. One of them bears the name Madison, and I think another has the name Babbitt or Bobbitt. They are a real and present danger to constitutional order in the United States.

    Not the Mrs (or indeed Mr) Bobbit? From Wikipedia:
    After this, Lorena left the apartment with the severed appendage and drove away in her car. After a while driving and struggling to steer with one hand, she threw it out the window into a roadside field. She eventually stopped and called 9-1-1, telling them what had happened and where the penis could be found. John Bobbitt's penis was found after an exhaustive search, and after being washed with antiseptic and packed in saline ice, it was re-attached in the hospital where he was treated. The operation took nine and a half hours.[3] John went on to star in two pornographic films in the 1990s,[4] and states that his penis is "back to normal".[5]
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    edited January 31
    Here is a report on her from. of all places, the Daily Mail, which as well as reporting on the office move of Cori Bush to get away from her, gives her account of events. And other things she has been responsible for saying.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9204665/Cori-Bush-moves-office-away-Marjorie-Taylor-Greene-racist-footage-surfaces.html

    My friend suggested we draw attention to her to our friend who has gone down the rabbit hole, but I dissuaded him. I think our deluded friend is so far gone she would approve of Greene - and not notice the Soros accusation.
  • m_in_m--

    IIRC, Lorena went to prison. I *think* she was released at some point. BTW, her husband was abusive and (IIRC) raped her repeatedly. Anyway, she's not likely a politician.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate

    This may need to be a Hell thread.

    She is ridiculously, hilariously crazy. However, whilst I am a big fan of black humour, that should not distract us from the important facts:
    1. She is a real danger
    2. She got elected.
    AFZ

    Yes, that's why I posted apologising for my flippancy. The comments with which I started this thread are easy enough at this distance, but the question goes more deeply: how did a candidate such as she get GOP approval as a candidate? I can understand a successful campaign in the local branch but does she not need approval at a higher level?
  • AFZ--

    It is long past time to talk about political sides. As long as Republicans allow this in their party, they should not be taken seriously as a political party. Because they are not; they are harbouring domestic terrorism.

    AFZ

    They seem not to even care about their own people, considering some of the rioters chanted "Hang Pence" (the then VP), some of the Congressional Republicans actually support the riot, and some are still saying that T didn't instigate the riot. The GOP itself is down so many rabbit holes, within snake holes, within stoat holes, within sulphurous gas-filled geothermal vents, within a waterslide to hell...I don't know if it can ever find its way out.

    BTW, members of the Proud Boys have publicly said T *did* instigate the riot, then abandoned them--no pardons for them. They're not happy campers.

    I've been keeping myself in a fairly mellow state since we got our new president, limiting what news and speculation I look at, and focusing on other things. I really, really need that, and I plan to stay in that state for as long as possible.

    I also know that things are still playing out. I can't do anything about them. So I'm trying to keep a mellow balance.

    NOTE to everyone: please don't try to purposely shake me out of it. Thx.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Perhaps an aside, but what was the status of the laws which the rioters are alleged to have broken - Federal or DC? I ask because AIUI any pardon which Trump gave himself and his supporters could only have covered breaches of Federal law.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Wow, just wow.

    The thing I can’t understand - and can’t find any explanation for - is why she (and her supporters, of which there must be many to get her elected) believe this stuff?

    I’m totally baffled.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    She's not the first politician in this position.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    edited January 31
    Is she actually a politician? In a historic and realistic sense of the word?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Perhaps an aside, but what was the status of the laws which the rioters are alleged to have broken - Federal or DC? I ask because AIUI any pardon which Trump gave himself and his supporters could only have covered breaches of Federal law.

    Most of the news reportage I've seen seem to indicate that these crimes are being investigated by the FBI, which I believe would mean most of the laws broken were federal.

    Not sure why Trump didn'i issue pardons: maybe because he thought it would be taken as proof that he supported the rioters.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited January 31
    Thanks. I'd assumed that any offences alleged to have been committed within the Capitol were covered by Federal law, and probably also the immediate surrounds. Not sure about those a block away.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Thanks. I'd assumed that any offences alleged to have been committed within the Capitol were covered by Federal law, and probably also the immediate surrounds. Not sure about those a block away.

    DC, not being a state, makes it all complicated.

    The most likely theory about the lack of pardon is that the impeachment and upcoming trial gave Trump pause. Many GOP lawmakers were furious.

    AFZ
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Our equivalent to DC can make laws generally applicable within the Territory - and @Orfeo used work in drafting those laws for consideration by the Territory legislature. That included criminal law, but if IIRC, the laws relating to the Federal Parliament House and its immediate surrounds were made by the Federal Parliament itself.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 31
    Gee D wrote: »
    Thanks. I'd assumed that any offences alleged to have been committed within the Capitol were covered by Federal law, and probably also the immediate surrounds. Not sure about those a block away.

    DC, not being a state, makes it all complicated.

    The most likely theory about the lack of pardon is that the impeachment and upcoming trial gave Trump pause. Many GOP lawmakers were furious.

    AFZ

    AFZ:

    Do you mean the GOP lawmakers were furious about the riot? (Pretty sure that's what you meant, but just to confirm.)

    If so, yeah, good point. I wasn't thinking precisely about the impeachment when I wrote my last post, but that would be one reason he would want to disassociate himself from the whole debacle.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Thanks. I'd assumed that any offences alleged to have been committed within the Capitol were covered by Federal law, and probably also the immediate surrounds. Not sure about those a block away.

    DC, not being a state, makes it all complicated.

    The most likely theory about the lack of pardon is that the impeachment and upcoming trial gave Trump pause. Many GOP lawmakers were furious.

    AFZ

    AFZ:

    Do you mean the GOP lawmakers were furious about the riot? (Pretty sure that's what you meant, but just to confirm.)

    If so, yeah, good point. I wasn't thinking precisely about the impeachment when I wrote my last post, but that would be one reason he would want to disassociate himself from the whole debacle.

    Yeah, it's been discussed at length in various Podcasts I listen to. For much of the GOP, Trump's gone too far and they wouldn't stomach mass pardons.

    Of course they're not yet ready to admit their own complicity or deal with Trumpism...

    AFZ
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Thanks. I'd assumed that any offences alleged to have been committed within the Capitol were covered by Federal law, and probably also the immediate surrounds. Not sure about those a block away.

    DC, not being a state, makes it all complicated.

    The most likely theory about the lack of pardon is that the impeachment and upcoming trial gave Trump pause. Many GOP lawmakers were furious.

    AFZ

    AFZ:

    Do you mean the GOP lawmakers were furious about the riot? (Pretty sure that's what you meant, but just to confirm.)

    If so, yeah, good point. I wasn't thinking precisely about the impeachment when I wrote my last post, but that would be one reason he would want to disassociate himself from the whole debacle.

    Yeah, it's been discussed at length in various Podcasts I listen to. For much of the GOP, Trump's gone too far and they wouldn't stomach mass pardons.

    Of course they're not yet ready to admit their own complicity or deal with Trumpism...

    AFZ

    At the very least, if you're a friend of Pence's, you're not gonna be too happy that at least some of the people who stormed the Capitol did so with the ostensible purpose of killing him.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    I'm ceasing to find fascists in power funny.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Thanks. I'd assumed that any offences alleged to have been committed within the Capitol were covered by Federal law, and probably also the immediate surrounds. Not sure about those a block away.

    DC, not being a state, makes it all complicated.

    The most likely theory about the lack of pardon is that the impeachment and upcoming trial gave Trump pause. Many GOP lawmakers were furious.

    AFZ

    AFZ:

    Do you mean the GOP lawmakers were furious about the riot? (Pretty sure that's what you meant, but just to confirm.)

    If so, yeah, good point. I wasn't thinking precisely about the impeachment when I wrote my last post, but that would be one reason he would want to disassociate himself from the whole debacle.

    Yeah, it's been discussed at length in various Podcasts I listen to. For much of the GOP, Trump's gone too far and they wouldn't stomach mass pardons.

    Of course they're not yet ready to admit their own complicity or deal with Trumpism...

    AFZ

    At the very least, if you're a friend of Pence's, you're not gonna be too happy that at least some of the people who stormed the Capitol did so with the ostensible purpose of killing him.

    aw shucks, they wuz juss funnin
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited January 31
    Boogie wrote: »
    Wow, just wow.

    The thing I can’t understand - and can’t find any explanation for - is why she (and her supporters, of which there must be many to get her elected) believe this stuff?

    I’m totally baffled.

    Some people were genuinely surprised by a lucid Joe Biden in the first presidential debate which says so much about them being drilled in the way that they should see the world.

    This is off-topic (and does go on a bit). https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon-580972548be5
  • The GOP has had genuine loonies in its ranks for a long time, and has a habit of nominating them. Usually, they ran in unwinnable seats, IIRC, which I probably don't. It is a step up though to elect people who have issued threats to kill members of congress.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Wow, just wow.

    The thing I can’t understand - and can’t find any explanation for - is why she (and her supporters, of which there must be many to get her elected) believe this stuff?

    I’m totally baffled.

    I imagine that God has a similar reaction about humanity in general.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited January 31
    tclune wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Wow, just wow.

    The thing I can’t understand - and can’t find any explanation for - is why she (and her supporters, of which there must be many to get her elected) believe this stuff?

    I’m totally baffled.

    I imagine that God has a similar reaction about humanity in general.

    Don’t lump me in with that piece of lacking-in-humanity!
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Wow, just wow.

    The thing I can’t understand - and can’t find any explanation for - is why she (and her supporters, of which there must be many to get her elected) believe this stuff?

    I’m totally baffled.

    Takes me back to Gramsci, "The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in the interregnum, a variety of morbid symptoms appear". Another version of this is that monsters appear. It doesn't really explain it, but I think rationality is abandoned in such a time, by some people.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 31
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    The GOP has had genuine loonies in its ranks for a long time, and has a habit of nominating them. Usually, they ran in unwinnable seats, IIRC, which I probably don't. It is a step up though to elect people who have issued threats to kill members of congress.

    They're not loonies. They are not mentally ill. They are entirely sane, and sanely, with full presence of mind, adopt extreme conservative positions which they maintain by ignoring arguments from anyone to the left of Goebels, with a strong dose of seeing such people as communists and therefore enemies of America and God, in one order or the other.

    Don't let them claim diminished responsibility, or indeed associate them with those who are mentally ill. Or loonies, if you prefer.
  • Yes, fascists are not loonies.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Not sure why Trump didn'i issue pardons: maybe because he thought it would be taken as proof that he supported the rioters.
    Trump lets down someone when it isn't in his immediate interests not to do so. What a surprise.
    Although really it's not Trump's fault. It's the fault of all the people who found it in their interests to help spread the impression that Trump has any kind of moral compass or sense of decency.
  • Yes, fascists are not loonies.

    I agree about precision of language being important but I think there is an issue with the English language here.

    The people we are talking about are not rational. If you don't believe me, have a look at Majorie's twitter feed. The fact that their separation from reality is by choice rather than pathology is important but doesn't stop her from being 'crazy.' I would argue that is an acceptable term as I would never use it for any form of psychiatric illness.

    More importantly, we have to tackle the issue of how we respond to people who are not interested in facts or logic or truth whilst simultaneously claiming to be 'true.'

    AFZ
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Yes, fascists are not loonies.

    I agree about precision of language being important but I think there is an issue with the English language here.

    The people we are talking about are not rational. If you don't believe me, have a look at Majorie's twitter feed. The fact that their separation from reality is by choice rather than pathology is important but doesn't stop her from being 'crazy.' I would argue that is an acceptable term as I would never use it for any form of psychiatric illness.

    More importantly, we have to tackle the issue of how we respond to people who are not interested in facts or logic or truth whilst simultaneously claiming to be 'true.'

    AFZ

    I've actually thought of starting a thread on the Ship soliciting suggestions for new phrasings to refer to irrational beliefs, not rooted in the old psychiatric metaphors. Because right now, almost everything, from "lunatic" to "crazy" to "off the wall" to "off his meds", has its origins in medical terminology.
  • Yes, fascists are not loonies.

    I agree about precision of language being important but I think there is an issue with the English language here.

    The people we are talking about are not rational. If you don't believe me, have a look at Majorie's twitter feed. The fact that their separation from reality is by choice rather than pathology is important but doesn't stop her from being 'crazy.' I would argue that is an acceptable term as I would never use it for any form of psychiatric illness.

    More importantly, we have to tackle the issue of how we respond to people who are not interested in facts or logic or truth whilst simultaneously claiming to be 'true.'

    AFZ

    Well, the Nazis were into all kinds of strange ideas, and you could call them irrational. I suppose the danger is to underestimate fascist ideas and groups.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Yes, fascists are not loonies.

    I agree about precision of language being important but I think there is an issue with the English language here.

    The people we are talking about are not rational. If you don't believe me, have a look at Majorie's twitter feed. The fact that their separation from reality is by choice rather than pathology is important but doesn't stop her from being 'crazy.' I would argue that is an acceptable term as I would never use it for any form of psychiatric illness.

    More importantly, we have to tackle the issue of how we respond to people who are not interested in facts or logic or truth whilst simultaneously claiming to be 'true.'

    AFZ

    How can anyone 'choose' to separate from reality? They can't be brought 'back', they were never here.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited January 31
    Yes, fascists are not loonies.

    I agree about precision of language being important but I think there is an issue with the English language here.

    The people we are talking about are not rational. If you don't believe me, have a look at Majorie's twitter feed. The fact that their separation from reality is by choice rather than pathology is important but doesn't stop her from being 'crazy.' I would argue that is an acceptable term as I would never use it for any form of psychiatric illness.

    More importantly, we have to tackle the issue of how we respond to people who are not interested in facts or logic or truth whilst simultaneously claiming to be 'true.'

    AFZ

    Well, the Nazis were into all kinds of strange ideas, and you could call them irrational. I suppose the danger is to underestimate fascist ideas and groups.

    I think there's a bit of a spectrum between:

    1. Believing (or not believing) things that decent human beings don't believe, but which can't be empirically proven - e.g. if you don't believe in equal rights, I can't actually refute you through logic and observation;

    2. Believing things that are wrong, but where you couldn't necessarily know any better; e.g. a Victorian labourer is brought up to believe Africans are all savages, never meets an African, and is therefore not prompted to suspect his education might have been wrong;

    3. Believing things that are wrong where you clearly do have the tools to show that they are wrong.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene, and anyone with the resources to get into Congress, definitely falls into (3). The Nazis fall into (3) because of their bizarre racial ideology (obviously both fall into (1) as well, but it's (3) that makes them blatantly irrational). Some Trumpian foot-soldiers may fall into (2). Other fascist regimes such as Franco, Mussolini or Pinochet seem closer to (1) - in that I never got the impression that their repression was based on anything that pretended to be factual, but rather on 'because we can and because this is how it ought to be'. Which is nasty but not irrational in the same way.

    I used to think Trump himself fell outside this scale, insofar as he said whatever seemed most advantageous to him, with belief in that statement being a sort of optional bonus. But now he genuinely does seem to believe what he's saying, which puts him in category (3) as well.
  • Boogie wrote: »

    Don’t lump me in with that piece of lacking-in-humanity!

    https://twitter.com/TheTweetOfGod
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited January 31
    The people we are talking about are not rational. If you don't believe me, have a look at Majorie's twitter feed. The fact that their separation from reality is by choice rather than pathology is important but doesn't stop her from being 'crazy.'

    The reason I'd be cautious about language in this would be that this doesn't mean that Greene et al are incapable of being completely rational in carrying out their own political agenda.
    As long as Republicans allow this in their party, they should not be taken seriously as a political party. Because they are not; they are harbouring domestic terrorism.

    I mean, there's a long history of this, isn't there?
  • The people we are talking about are not rational. If you don't believe me, have a look at Majorie's twitter feed. The fact that their separation from reality is by choice rather than pathology is important but doesn't stop her from being 'crazy.'

    The reason I'd be cautious about language in this would be that this doesn't mean that Greene et al are incapable of being completely rational in carrying out their own political agenda.

    Good point. It is true that psychopaths can be incredibly calculating and surprising coherent as well but yes, part of the danger lies in the ability of such people to plan.
  • I think they also tend to work with people who are rational and well organized. Some of those those around Hitler were like this, although I suppose you might dispute their rationality.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 31
    I think they also tend to work with people who are rational and well organized. Some of those those around Hitler were like this, although I suppose you might dispute their rationality.

    A Young Earth Creationist has views that are pretty much the scientific equivalent of QAnon, in the sense that you have to ignore or dismiss a lot of fairly credible evidence in order to hold them.

    But the YECs aren't in any meaningful way mentally ill: they're still capable of acting in their own rational self-interest(some of them even get wealthy publishing creationist books), and organizing collectively with like-minded people. They just happen to have latched onto an untenable theory at the outset.
  • Well, there were ardent German nationalists who were resentful about WWI, desperate for revenge, envious of England, hating French troops on their territory, and so on. Some of them saw Hitler as a via to renewed German power. It depends what you call irrational, arguably patriotism isn't in any case.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    I think they also tend to work with people who are rational and well organized. Some of those those around Hitler were like this, although I suppose you might dispute their rationality.

    A Young Earth Creationist has views that are pretty much the scientific equivalent of QAnon, in the sense that you have to ignore or dismiss a lot of fairly credible evidence in order to hold them.

    But the YECs aren't in any meaningful way mentally ill: they're still capable of acting in their own rational self-interest(some of them even get wealthy publishing creationist books), and organizing collectively with like-minded people. They just happen to have latched onto an untenable theory at the outset.

    Having in the past tussled with YECs, I wonder if there are some parallels.

    YECcies inhabit a world where all the people they respect - their family, their pastor - take YEC for granted. The mainstream science view is an exotic thing people outside that world believe. Moreover, it's a secular belief, promoted by scientists who aren't Christians (especially not in the narrow fundamentalist sense they understand the term) so who are totally at the mercy of Satanic deception. Moreover, they tend to believe that the existence of God is actually obvious to everyone (it's their interpretation Romans 1:20) and that non-believers are in conscious rebellion. So they're quite able to believe that scientists are purposely falsifying their work to support Godless evolutionary theories. They will tell you that scientists know it's false but they have to protect their funding so they tow the line. They hear that there are scientists who are creationists, but have no concept that even hundreds of scientists is a minuscule drop in the ocean (qv. Project Steve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve) and that's enough to give YEC credibility in their eyes. Because they want it to be true, because they've been told that Christianity itself is at stake. They very literally take the idea that Adam and Eve were created to be immortal but Death entered the world through Eve taking the fruit. If Death preceded humanity, their theology is screwed. So you've got a strong motivation to believe it, a worldview that tells you that those telling you otherwise are Diabolically inspired, and an environment where it's assumed to be true.

    I get the impression that many QAnoners exist in a world where Democrats are wicked Godless baby killers intent on destroying the American Way and instituting Communism. They are told this by their chosen media outlets. They are told it by their pastors. One has only to look at the otherwise inexplicable Latinx vote for Trump in Florida - how anyone can imagine that Biden == Castro from outside that milieu is unimaginable but clearly many did and do. In that situation, how hard is it to believe that Democrats are part of a secret cabal of evildoers with powerful friends in high (or low) places?

  • But it's ironic that Karl cites a certain view of Adam and Eve as irrational. Erm ...
Sign In or Register to comment.