Yep. :thumbsup:

If that's her yardstick for voting against a bill then there won't be very many she can vote for.

Does she have any need to vote for anything ?

Voting against any bill will reinforce her notoriety, and thus enhance her fundraising capability. The reason for voting against all bills will simply increase her electability.

Sounds like she's doing her "job" (advancing her career) pretty well. :(

No, not really.

But any time she might want to, she's gonna have to explain why it needs a "prevents the funding of aborted fetal tissue by taxpayers" rider attached to it before she does.

Yep, they are as dumb as a pair of breeze-blocks.

Why?

Will she suddenly develop an aversion to hypocrisy? Will her voters care?

Someone needs to keep a list of the things she's voted against, and then advertise the hell out of it with the most Puppies&Kittens, Widows&Orphans spin they possibly can.

For this one: Empty Green voted to let children die of cancer!

There's no trick so dirty it isn't justified to get her out of office.

You assume that such a revelation would damage her chances in the polls. :(

So you're saying that she's the political version of Godzilla?

If we get enough examples of them, and spin them in just the right sound-bite sized packages, they might get through to her voters, yes. These people won't understand complex analysis of real-world problems, but even they might get, "Why did she vote in favor of CANCER?!?"





Without the charm, yes.

Also, fortunately, without the atomic breath.

....because nothing in that bill prevented the funding of aborted fetal tissue by taxpayers - my opponent is in favour of using aborted foetal tissue.

...and that's why we need as many examples of this as possible, to drown out the stupid response. The only way to drown out stupidity is with louder stupidity.

Greene plans to introduce legislation to kick out Maxine Waters.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5...-maxine-waters

FFS these are utter scum.

Yes, they are. And I for one am tranquilly confident that they'll soon overreach themselves and be expelled from Congress, and then possibly convicted of various forms of criminality; involving money for sure and possibly sedition.

They can only fly off into wider and wilder extremes of behavior. Their chosen politics depends on outrageousness, and they can't possibly subside into rationality or even silence. That would, for them, be defeat.

So, in the words of Osama bin Loathsome, be patient. Another atrocity is always on the way.

And Kevin McCarthy is on the same page as her (The Hill via MSN):

I can see how Waters's comments could, in a perfect vacuum, be seen by some people as at least problematical (I personally don't see anything wrong in telling people who feel their lives are potentially at stake that they should be "more confrontational" about that). But, ffs- do these guys not remember how, just a few short months ago, they refused to hold accountable a President who followed a body of work of outright lies about "stolen election!" with a speech in front of a crowd of people he'd summoned on the basis of those lies and exhorted them to march on the Capitol and fight! (because they were outvoted)- which that crowd promptly did, violently? For McCarthy and Greene, and others invested in the lies, that was no incitement, and besides, free speech! Now they want to expel a member of Congress for doing or saying no more than what they would not expel a President for.

I'm not entirely convinced your example is all that dirty anyway. She did vote to let children die of cancer, in order to support her own outlandish views on fetal tissue. I don't think it's dirty at all to point out that she does indeed put her nutty religious biases above the rights, welfare, and even the lives, of real people.

Oh, they remember. The hypocrisy is the point.


Remember the rule is always: I am a Freedom Fighter, you are an irregular militia, they are terrorists.

You're operating under the assumption that it would be useful to get her out of office. It would be all but impossible to get her district to go Democrat, so the alternative would be a Republican who is less crazy and who would actually be allowed to participate in Congress beyond having the same vote on the floor as every other member. In other words, the only "we" who should want her gone are Republicans. Everyone else should be pleased that she makes the Republican party look like the garbage they are.

Frankly, I think the congress would be better off withour both MTG and Walters, whose uging protestors to be "More confrantational if Chauvian walks" statemen is incredibly irresponsible, but MTG is the last person to call out Walters.

I disagree about Walters. Her statement was incredibly irresponsible, and is going to be intereperted as a call to violence.
But that the GOP Is just as guilty is a good point.

Ah yes the proper response is to just give up and accept that police can murder with out consequence. Once they accept that it will be so much better.

Yeah and rioting will realy convince the American people of the rightness of your cause.
It plays right in the hands of the Right.

Like everything else, peaceful protest get caught up in the police rioting against being held accountable and shown to be the bad guy justifying the police killing people. Giving up and accepting the total immunity from responsibility of the police is the only way. They simply can not be held accountable and realizing that and giving up on trying is the only course of action.

And I think that kind of nihilistic thinking is crap. Like it or not, you're stuck with the Republican Party, the parties are far too embedded in the US system to change that with anything short of a war at this point. Giving up and letting half the government be controlled by utter whackjobs is an incredibly bad idea. Anything that moves the GOP back towards sanity, even a little bit, is a good thing.

I disagree, I think the collapse of the GOP is a realistic possiblity. It has happened before with the collapse of the Whigs in the 1850's. Which led to the founding of the Republican party, I think the two party system is imbedded, but that done mean one of the two major parties cannot be replaced.

You just don't get it. The point of protests is to convince people who are undecided that you are in the right. I submit burning down buisnesses is not the way to do this.
This is the problem with the militant left:they seem more intents on having fun playing being revolutionaris then in actualy convincing middle of the roaders they are right.

Seems to me scenes of military occupation and cops brutalizing CNN reporters on the streets of America does a lot to persuade undecided people about the nature of the police, but perhaps I'm out of touch.

But they are far to confrontational, you are all about avoiding all confrontation as seen by your calls against Waters call for being confrontational.

The answer is clear do nothing and give up, as any actual action would be far to confrontational and just give the police an excuse to riot. The only way to convince people is to not try to. Actually trying to convince them is far to confrontational and likely to cause the police to riot.

But protests involve confrontation and that only leads to riots, frequently by the police at the start. That clearly is counter productive at least according to dudalb, so the clear answer is to do nothing. Just accept that the cops are vicious violent thugs above all laws of god and man and everything gets to be much easier.

If Chauvin is acquitted and there are riots because of that acquittal, then that acquittal will be the reason for the riots- you can argue that they're not justified, and certainly not "good optics," but that doesn't make them the result of what Waters said, her "call to violence" would be a whisper to a hurricane. Can you (or MTG or McCarthy) say the same about the Capitol riots? That they would have happened if Trump hadn't spent two months beforehand stirring the pot with lies and then the morning exhorting his faithful to fight and march? "Just as guilty" is misleading- there's no equivalence here, between what Waters said and what the GOP did in reaction to the respective situations, but a forced one.

I think somebody needs to take their political blinders off.

If only the other party would try to woo another demographic than "monster", it'd be nice.

To the highlighted: nice accent, there! ;)

1. I'm having a sale on Brooklyn Bridges, if you're interested.
2. I don't think you're using the word "nihilistic" correctly.

The Republican party spent the last 4+ years exulting in cruelty and insanity, and there's little now to indicate regret. In fact, at the state level, they appear inclined to continue their attempt to absolutely destroy democracy. The Republican party is irredeemable. Anything that hastens its destruction is, therefore, a good thing.

In a country that's less than 250 years old, you have to go back about 170 years to find an example of a political party being destroyed and replaced.

Also recall I added the caveat "...with anything short of a war..." What was the context of the Whigs falling apart? Oh, Yeah, it was the lead-up to the US Civil War.

So, yeah, I think it's safe to say the Republicans will be around for a while yet. So either figure out how to fix them, or just get used to the **** show.

Or maybe we need another leadup to another Civil War.

I think you may be out of touch with the not insignificant portion of the U.S. electorate who believe that the protesters deserve the treatment they get from rioting cops.

Unless it's them. In which case they turn into Karens.

And that's why you need to swallow your pride, get a Disqus account and join us over at the OANN comment section. We're taking the fight to them-and we're winning ... *


*You'll never forget your first "Cry harder, snowflake!" It feels so good just to let it out ...

If Chauvin is acquitted it will be a vivid demonstration that blacks are second-class citizens in the USA, whose lives are of lesser value to other races.

The US Civil Rights movement would have utterly failed without confrontation.

Perhaps violence is needed?

If Chauvin is acquitted then I expect there will be more cases of "pre-emptive self-defense" against police by blacks who will (rightly) believe their lives are in danger.

You are dealing with people who took kneeling at a football game to be too confrontational. There simply is no such thing as non-confrontational protests not matter what you seem to think.

But I get it property is always more important that the lives of mere blacks.

Please.

When Watters says "march" or "confront" she means exactly that. Not "riot", "beat", "kill", or the like. She's entirely correct that this is about confronting those in the wrong.

Compare to Dolt 45's long record asking his stans to "knock the crap out of" protestors, directing police to "be rough" when arresting suspects, and so forth - once going so far to claim he'd pay for bail and defense for anyone who physically attacked a protestor (he didn't, of course).

I'm unconcerned with bad faith arguments from GOP leaders or hangers-on in this, and I see no reason for her to be either.

I agree. She said nothing in support of violence or lawlessness or unreason, except perhaps to disagree with curfews, and even that was equivocal. Her comments were immediately spun, and it was, I think, shameful for the judge in the Chauvin case to suggest that her comments would form a basis for an overturning of the verdict on appeal.

The kind of biased spin that's applied to statements like this is exactly what makes hers apt and on point.

Wait. Are you implying that the criticisms of Maxine Waters may have been based on racism? How is that possible if her critics didn't repeatedly call her the n-word?

I know, it's pretty far fetched, isn't it? I suspect, though, that some of those critics are singing solemn hymns in autumn.

The only other person in recent memory I can recall being misinterpreted in this way recently is Eric Holder. This is outside of the usual social media nonsense, of course.

I won't accuse dudalb of being racist or anything, but when it's Waters on one side, and the Jewish Orbital Laser conspiracy theory woman on the other...this isn't a "both sides" issue.

I am a litle scared that the US is starting to resemble Spain right before it's civil war.

I still want to know what non confrontational protests are. Holding a sign up inside your own house maybe?