This post may contain Mildly Adult content.
Mildly Adult
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join Similar Worlds today »

Expel MGT, really?

I'm really having a hard time with this talk about expelling this neo-Nazi bitch from Congress for basically being the same Neo-Nazi bitch she was when she got elected.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love nothing more than to see her in handcuffs for committing a crime, like, well, possibly having a role in the Capitol Putsch, but I have issues with taking away voters' choices to elect seditious scum, if that's what they wanted to do.

And yeah, it doesnt really matter how many voters are seditious scum aiming to destroy the country in connection with Ms. Greene.

I think that's a problem too, but it's a different problem.
Oldest First | Newest First | Top
LvChris · 41-45, M
[@113373,TexChik] So how does that make him a tyrant if he's just a puppet? Is he Schrodinger's president; his state of being is just whatever you need it to be in the moment? Sad.
TexChik · F
[@479686,MistyCee] many of the socialists in the Biden camp have implied that any opposition to them will Be considered domestic terrorism . And created a scenario at the capital to bolster that narrative . So conservatives no longer have first amendment rights and protections ? Won’t that be a great midterm talking point?
[@113373,TexChik] [quote]Won’t that be a great midterm talking point?[/quote]

Might be, with Trumpists, for all I know. If you wanted to appeal beyond them a bit, I'd suggest at least scrapping the socialist bit, since its not accurate and doesn't even fit with the rest of the theme, really. Fascists probably would work better here, tbh, since at least Biden is in power.
DunningKruger · 56-60, M
I think that it's entirely appropriate for an organization like Congress to stand up to the states and tell them that some people are not acceptable as members.

I mean, this woman was advocating assassinating elected officials. If you can't be expelled for that, what can you be expelled for?
[quote]giving the actual voters any say whatsoever is a "new" or at least not an original thing.[/quote]

I think you mean "is NOT a 'new'...".

I am not claiming it is new.

The fact that a great electoral college vote can be used to pretend that there is "mandate" when the "winning" candidates lose the popular vote by MILLIONS is crazy, and manifestly unfair on the face.

Trump pretended he had a mandate when he had the position of a minority government, if you follow the analogy.

[quote]the faithless elector stuff is much less troubling than how they're apportioned.[/quote]

Oh, of course.

But that gets fixed by having a publicly-available apportionment program which is used for all redistricting (this is too valuable to be left to the states, sorry), a program which anyone can run, and which doesn't result in the huge flips when you change a legislature, etc.

But direct elections + instant runoff voting would provide a means for no longer masking the votes of third party candidates with the majority.
[@733785,SomeMichGuy] I really like that plan, especially if any bidding process for the software is regular and subject to review.

Are you going to adjust house and senate seats as well?
Continually bidding out the algorithm defeats the purpose. It has to be relatively fixed and an open algorithm, programmable by anyone of moderate skill, certainly not some bullshit like the credit scores.

No, it needs to be done in the open, with the claims of every side seen by all: the contractions of one side v. another, etc.

The basic notion should be able to be expressed in a paragraph which is easily understood by an average person whose education actually "took"... 😉😆

It might make sense to be open to a fluctuating House to have a fixed target for population per district.

The Senate is fixed, and expresses the equality of states...the way this is of course makes population per seat everything from "couldn't become a state now" to a very large number.
JeanAnna · F
She needs to be removed from the Congress, if not, her lies and conspiracies will grow and grow. She needs to go.
Carla · 61-69, F
Oh, I dont know. I think things like calling for assassinations and public executions should probably be exclusionary.

Does that mean I want to cancel her? Am I part of the cancel culture 😲
[@548295,Carla] Agreed.

They take a vow, those behaviors break the vow & demonstrate unfitness for office.

She can walk down the Mall to the National Archives' tourists' entrance, go past Perot's [i]Magna Carta[/i]--assuming it's still there--then go to the back, and check out some oldish documents in special cases.

She prob. has no idea what they say; they have been staunchly misquoted here by others of her ilk.
LvChris · 41-45, M
I think that Congress should bar her from any committee assignments and not provide her speaking time on the floor. She'll be allowed to vote to express the will of her consituents, but there is no--and I mean [b][u]no[/u][/b]--reason to give her a platform from which to spew her shit.
LvChris · 41-45, M
[@113373,TexChik] She's doing a job, not expressing her speech. Jobs can censor or fire people, and do so regularly, for particular forms of rhetoric or expression. The constituents will keep their representation, she will keep her seat, and Rs will keep whining about being victimized--though they do that no matter what is going on.
TexChik · F
[@335805,LvChris] you mean more whining than the Ds did the last 4 years? Ha ... her job is working for the American people not the corrupt socialist machine . She answers primarily to her constituents . If the Ds act to censor her or restrict her in anyway because they don’t like her politics , [b]that [/b]will start a shit storm .
LvChris · 41-45, M
[@113373,TexChik] Incorrect, the calls are for the Rs to do something about her. Those calls come from both Ds and Rs, but is ultimately up to the Rs. If she's silenced, blame your own party.
[@328832,OggggO] [@622788,SumKindaMunster] HMMM. I like doing this kind of thing

[quote]No person shall ... hold any office,... who, having [b]previously [/b]taken an oath, ... to support the Constitution ... shall have [b]engaged in insurrection or rebellion[/b] against the same, or [b]given aid or comfort to the enemies[/b] thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.[/quote]

So, basically, for the provision to apply, the person must have taken an oath [b]before[/b] they did the bad stuff, which is limited to "engaging in insurrection or rebellion" or "aiding and comforting" enemies of the Constitution.

Did she have a State office before she got into Congress? If not, she can't be dinged for anything on her facebook page or anything else before that.
OggggO · 31-35, M
[@479686,MistyCee] I wasn't actually talking about her specifically, I was addressing the more general concern you raised regarding who we can and cannot elect.
[@328832,OggggO] ...and why a specific finding of this is important.

I think a lot of ppl in Congress might get disqualified through this...
Northwest · M
The people of her district elected her.

But if she wants to be a member of Congress, she needs to abide by Congressional rules.

The GOP can expel her from the party, because she does not represent the party values, right? 🤣😂
[@479686,MistyCee] Comparing apples and oranges is what you did.

You don't have to like them, but derogatory terms doesn't help your rhetoric, and trying to say that they are the same as the *insurrectionists* is to turn a blind eye to conservative domestic terrorists.
[@479686,MistyCee] You were the one who used "the Squad".
I don't see a conflict. She was sworn in. From that point no member of congress is guaranteed to keep their job regardless of their actions. If she is removed that is a hole she dug herself.
LvChris · 41-45, M
Hey, neat a certain word used in this thread leads to a reply being hidden. Never noticed that word doing so until this thread. Seems an odd one to censor, SW admins.

Apparently it's as bad as the f.3.T.1.$.h people.
[@335805,LvChris] Now I'm really curious. I thought hidden replies were somehow related to thread focus or something, without any content based measures.
LvChris · 41-45, M
[@479686,MistyCee] Hidden replies are triggered by particular words being present in them. This one ends in -ious, it seems.

Ones that mention particular apps designed to eliminate website [i]clutter[/i] literally never even appear. You can't make a post about those, or a reply, they vanish into the ether without even a placeholder.
LvChris · 41-45, M
[@479686,MistyCee] Oooh, or it might be the one that ends in -um. It's annoying to parse through the hidden replies for the common word.

Post Comment
10145 people following
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Category Members