quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
I read that most Democrats do *not* want her booted from her seat. Yes, removed from committees which renders her mostly impotent. But not removed from Congress. Let her continue to rant and rave and Democrats can point to her and say that this is what the republican party has become.

The unfortunate part is that there is a significant number of republicans who support her completely. She is their surrogate for I-1....

quote:

The House voted Thursday to strip Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., of her committee assignments as punishment for a laundry list of extreme views and conspiracy theories she promoted before taking office.

The vote passed by a margin of 230-199, with a handful of Republicans siding with the Democratic majority. No Democrats voted against the resolution.

quote:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., had hoped to avoid the vote, which forced Republicans to take an on-the-record stance on the resolution aimed at condemning Greene’s conduct.

While few if any GOP members had openly defended Greene’s most controversial remarks — such as reportedly indicating support for executing top Democrats — some Republicans had argued against the process, warning that Democrats’ efforts to censure Greene would set a dangerous precedent. Other Republicans opted to attack Democrats for refusing to censure their own members who have made incendiary statements in the past.

But Democrats maintain that Greene’s conduct puts her in a category of her own, requiring her removal from the Budget Committee and the Committee on Education and Labor.

“When a person encourages talk about shooting a member in the head, they should lose the right to serve on any committee,” Rules Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said Wednesday before his committee approved the resolution to kick Greene off the committees.

“If this isn’t the bottom line, I don’t know where the hell the bottom line is,” McGovern said.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
This lady has broken no laws and was duly elected to a two year term.

We need to learn to ignore and move on.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
WTG, why do you think this a lose lose for Democrats?

She wasn’t removed for holding Conservative views, she was removed because she’s crazy. The job had to be done and they did it.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
WTG, why do you think this a lose lose for Democrats?

She wasn’t removed for holding Conservative views, she was removed because she’s crazy. The job had to be done and they did it.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
This lady has broken no laws and was duly elected to a two year term.

We need to learn to ignore and move on.

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
I read that most Democrats do *not* want her booted from her seat. Yes, removed from committees which renders her mostly impotent. But not removed from Congress. Let her continue to rant and rave and Democrats can point to her and say that this is what the republican party has become.

The unfortunate part is that there is a significant number of republicans who support her completely. She is their surrogate for I-1.

After all, she did win her election handily in bright red northern Georgia.

quote:

Originally posted by rontuner:
You know that there was cause for her removal by the majority.

You also know that the Republicans are likely to use this as precedence to remove a Democrat for no cause when they are the majority....

You heard it here first.

quote:

Originally posted by Amanda:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
WTG, why do you think this a lose lose for Democrats?

She wasn’t removed for holding Conservative views, she was removed because she’s crazy. The job had to be done and they did it.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
WTG, why do you think this a lose lose for Democrats?

She wasn’t removed for holding Conservative views, she was removed because she’s crazy. The job had to be done and they did it.

"Crazy" maybe - depends on how you define it. I was always fascinated studying clinical psych by the emphasis on "insanity" (using fancy terms) only being properly defined as mental illness when the "sufferer "(as it were) was alone in his/her aberrant belief systems.

Maybe in the case of "Folie à Deux" it could be shared by two, but after that it starts to become literally "normal" within a consonant group. I was so interested, I went on to focus on abnormality and deviance in terms of social context. In fact, I was on my way to writing my PhD dissertation on one such phenomenon when I dropped out of the program.

I remember class discussions on how psychotic phenomena were not considered aberrant in societies where persons exhibiting such symptoms [sic] were not only viewed as sane but visionary or prophetic. (As a single example.) Some time I may describe my proposed dissertation topic - for now, I'll just say it wouldn't have made me popular in Israel (in fact, it might have made me infamous...)

Meanwhile, I'll just repeat my agreement with PJ - how disconcerting it is that she's part of a very large population group who share her beliefs.