The Party of personal responsibility?

[rightleft22]

Republicans had chosen new congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene for a spot on the House's labor and education committee.

Before she joined the House this month, Greene supported Facebook posts that advocated violence against Democrats and the FBI. One suggested shooting Pelosi in the head. In response to a post raising the prospect of hanging former president Barack Obama, Greene responded that the "stage is being set."

Greene once made a video that falsely suggested the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting that killed 58 people was staged to advance gun control legislation, and another video has come to light in which she accosted a Florida student who became an activist after a deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

"I'm tired of seeing weak-kneed Republicans play defence. I will go on the attack," she said in a Nov. 18 post.

"It's our 1776 moment!" she posted the day before the mob rioted at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Greene is now texting supporters, seeking to raise money for her attempt to "impeach Biden." The fine print of her solicitations, however, shows that any funds she takes in will instead be routed to her campaign account.

Great choice for the educational committee .
I wonder if the GOP intention isn't to dumb down the electorate. A electorate that can easily be convinced of conspiracy and such can be easily manipulated. What could go wrong? A mob getting out of control...

[Wayward Son]

This is the only reason I have not changed my official part registration with the voters office.  Is to try and help moderate candidates, if there are any, on future primaries.

Unfortunately, msquared, others have not.

More than 30,000 voters who had been registered members of the Republican Party have changed their voter registration in the weeks after a mob of pro-Trump supporters attacked the Capitol — an issue that led the House to impeach the former president for inciting the violence.

The massive wave of defections is a virtually unprecedented exodus that could spell trouble for a party that is trying to find its way after losing the presidential race and the Senate majority.

It could also represent the tip of a much larger iceberg: The 30,000 who have left the Republican Party reside in just a few states that report voter registration data, and information about voters switching between parties, on a weekly basis...

Nearly 10,000 Pennsylvania voters dropped out of the Republican Party in the first 25 days of the year, according to the secretary of state’s office. About a third of them, 3,476, have registered as Democrats; the remaining two-thirds opted to register with another party or without any party affiliation.

By contrast, about a third as many Pennsylvania Democrats opted to either join the Republican Party (2,093 through Monday) or to register with no party or a minor party (1,184).

Almost 6,000 North Carolina voters have dropped their affiliation with the GOP. Nearly 5,000 Arizona voters are no longer registered Republicans. The number of defectors in Colorado stands north of 4,500 in the last few weeks. And 2,300 Maryland Republicans are now either unaffiliated or registered with the Democratic Party...

Several local elections offices in Florida reported a surge in registration changes in the days after the assault on the Capitol. Two counties in the Miami area reported a combined 1,000 Republicans registering under other labels in just the two days after the Jan. 6 attack. In those same two days, only 96 Democrats switched parties.

Three counties in the Tampa Bay area reported more than 2,000 Republican voters registering under some other party’s banner. In those same three counties — Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas — just 306 Democrats switched their affiliations.

So many voters switching parties absent a pending deadline has piqued the interest of elections experts. Most people tend to stick with the party with which they initially register, and those who do change are usually motivated by a looming primary election.

“Usually, absent a primary election that would induce people to switch parties so that they could participate in that primary, you don’t see much activity in party registration,” said Michael McDonald, a voting and elections expert at the University of Florida.

Only a small handful of states report voter registration data on a weekly basis. Others report monthly activity, and many states do not report granular details about those who leave one party or the other. Once more states report party registration data, the true number of Republicans who have re-registered in recent weeks may prove to be much higher.

If the Republican Party doesn't get its act together, there will be tens of thousands more who will switch just before the next election.

[msquared]

Oh I know and I have debated what to do.  I am going to give it one more election cycle to see if I (one of our senators is not running 2022) and if no good moderate choices come forward or the Trump aligned idiots win, I will probably change to Independent.

[DonaldD]

Now that it seems like it is accepted orthodoxy in the Republican party that 9/11 was a hoax, will the party of personal responsibility be looking to charge members of the GW Bush administration for ware crimes for their involvement in commanding the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

[DJQuag]

Now that it seems like it is accepted orthodoxy in the Republican party that 9/11 was a hoax, will the party of personal responsibility be looking to charge members of the GW Bush administration for ware crimes for their involvement in commanding the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

No.

Come on, man. They've got their crazies, we've got ours. They're a pain in the ass all around.

That they have a crazy who said on Facebook a few years back 9/11 was an inside job, that's unfortunate but we do *not* get to label the entire opposition based upon one nutjob. This isn't Facebook and I'm not quite sure where you get off trying to label a whole political party with something as brutal as "They all believe 9/11 was a hoax," but I doubt it's going to work here.

[DonaldD]

Not the point - she has supported threats of assassination of political, she has supported conspiracy theories including the belief in a worldwide cabal of baby cannibals, yet the vast majority of Republicans are afraid to disavow her or her ideas. And unfortunately, she is not the only QAnon supporter among Republicans elected to Congress.

THAT is the issue.  Of course Republicans don't, as a party, believe that 9/11 is a hoax.  But that they close ranks around the crazies (and in this case, named her to an education committee) is part of the issue.  The broader issue being that a significant portion of their base is married to dangerous conspiracies and the Republicans, instead of leading, have become the modern "know nothings".

[DonaldD]

As for this:

They've got their crazies, we've got ours. They're a pain in the ass all around.

I think you've both-sides'ed yourself into a brain cramp.

The Republican crazies in Congress believe that mass killing events are hoaxes perpetrated by leftist actors meant to deprive real Americans of their rights.  They are coincidentally supported by the people who attacked Congress, who support confederate, nazi and holocaust symbols.

Leftist crazies in Congress believe that humans should have universal health coverage, and that society is still organized in ways that disadvantage Black people and other communities.

[DJQuag]

Nope. Not buying it.

When you say things like what you said you're attempting to smear the entire opposition with what their outliers said. You might as well have Cherry saying all liberals believe white people need to work as janitors for two generations to make things right.

"Now that it seems like it is accepted orthodoxy in the Republican party that 9/11 was a hoax, "

You wrote that. It's BS on the face of it and don't embarrass yourself by trying to defend it.

I wouldn't put up with that from him and I certainly won't be silent whilst one of my own attempts the same.

[DJQuag]

And on the subject of health care it's not that the right wing doesn't believe that poor people shouldn't have it, it's that they believe a free market will provide it.

Yeah, yeah, insane on the face of it to most of us but that's what they truly believe. We're gonna have to change hearts and minds here.

[DonaldD]

Don't be silly - the Republicans have been challenged to push back on the craziness. They refuse to do so.  They continue to refuse to do so.  And this is in the context of them making other choices concerning the attack on the Capitol.

And did you not really try to equate the belief in QAnon, mass shooter conspiracies, and 9/11 conspiracies with beliefs held by Dem members of Congress?  (not even getting into the supports for physical attacks against members of Congress)?

Who are these "crazy" Democratic members of Congress, and what are their espoused beliefs that are in any way equivalent to vocal support for QAnon or support for the murder of politicians belonging to the opposing party?

[DonaldD]

And on the subject of health care it's not that the right wing doesn't believe that poor people shouldn't have it, it's that they believe a free market will provide it.

You reversed the point being made.  You were the one positing the existence of Democrat crazies in Congress (the "in Congress" is implicit since I was pointing out Republicans' support for members of Congress).  I tried to come up with the craziest position the Congressional Democrats hold (excluding the murder of babies thing).  Observing that Republicans have beliefs concerning health care doesn't actually address the fact you were equating the crazies on both sides.

[DJQuag]

Christ. This isn't about the sacred congresspeople and their gold-enshrouded farts. This is how we talk to one another, and you decided to attack everyone else with a stupid claim.

Also is it you or TheDrake who's the Canadian? I think it's you but can't quite remember. Those D names.

*censored* if it is you you're pretty mouthy on American politics, I'm a dual citizen and I usually tend to shut up on stuff lol.

[DonaldD]

Yes, it is about congress people.  It is literally about a person, voted into Congress, who believes there is a conspiracy involving Democrats eating and sexually abusing babies in a world wide conspiracy and who also supported statements about murdering Democratic politicians, and who claimed that 9/11 was a hoax, among other things.  And my statement was specifically about the Republican party, as represented by their elected officials, refusing to censure this person, or, heck, even to be seen to disagree with her.

Again I ask - who are these Democrat crazies in Congress, and what are they saying that is in any way equivalent to supporting the killing of political opponents?

[DJQuag]

Look out everyone!

Four hundred and thirty five voting members of the House, *one* of them is certifiably insane, guess it's time for all of us to lose our *censored*.  The world is ending! Canada says our legislature is insane!

Lol.

[DonaldD]

You seem to forget - certifiably insane, yet supported by the former president, and supported by the vast majority of Republican Representative and Senators, either by omission or by commission.  You also seem to forget she was also named as a member to a committee.  As much as anything, she is a symptom of the illness in the Republican party.  The party needs, for its own good, to censure her.  If they continue to refuse to do so, the cancer definitely continue to spread.

[TheDrake]

*censored* if it is you you're pretty mouthy on American politics, I'm a dual citizen and I usually tend to shut up on stuff lol.

I happen to be native born American, that doesn't stop me from commenting on UK politics or any other nation for that matter. Canada is directly affected by nearly everything that the US does, that's how it is when you are the sole superpower. It's not hard to understand why a bordering nation with massive ties might be disturbed by US policy. The US acceptance of psychotic beliefs emboldens like minded people in Brazil, the UK, and across the globe.

[DJQuag]

Yeah, how about they don't.
How about they just let people vote for what they believe in, even if that *censored* is certifiably insane.

***Joking*** You Canadians trying to interfere with our election is just like the Russians.

[DonaldD]

You think anything posted here has any effect on people's ability to vote for their preferred candidate?   I think you vastly overestimate the power of the internet word.

[TheDrake]

Donald is totally changing the minds of the eight people here who can vote in the US.

[TheDeamon]

Not the point - she has supported threats of assassination of political, she has supported conspiracy theories including the belief in a worldwide cabal of baby cannibals, yet the vast majority of Republicans are afraid to disavow her or her ideas. And unfortunately, she is not the only QAnon supporter among Republicans elected to Congress.

THAT is the issue.  Of course Republicans don't, as a party, believe that 9/11 is a hoax.  But that they close ranks around the crazies (and in this case, named her to an education committee) is part of the issue.  The broader issue being that a significant portion of their base is married to dangerous conspiracies and the Republicans, instead of leading, have become the modern "know nothings".

So...If we're kicking wacky Republicans out of Congress, why are the Democratic whack-jobs being allowed to stay?

Granted, I'd happily see the conservative ones gone so they don't enable people doing what you're doing right now. People are entitled to their views, even if they're insane.

[DonaldD]

Be specific.  Which Democratic whack jobs?  And what are you accusing those whack jobs of doing? 

Granted, I'd happily see the conservative ones gone so they don't enable people doing what you're doing right now. People are entitled to their views, even if they're insane.

Shouldn't you want her gone because she has supported statements calling for the killing of members of Congress; for belonging to a group, and supporting a group, that believes that her political opponents belong to a world-wide cabal of baby-eating pederasts, and that those pederasts are running the world?  For promoting the idea that the worst mass shooting/killing events in the past couple of decades were the result of Democrat actors belonging to a conspiracy to take away her guns?

As opposed to simply because it is not politically expedient to continue associating with an insane person, nor to be seen to be supporting an insane person's presence in a leadership role in the government and one's party?

[TheDeamon]

Yes, it is about congress people.  It is literally about a person, voted into Congress, who believes there is a conspiracy involving Democrats eating and sexually abusing babies in a world wide conspiracy and who also supported statements about murdering Democratic politicians, and who claimed that 9/11 was a hoax, among other things.  And my statement was specifically about the Republican party, as represented by their elected officials, refusing to censure this person, or, heck, even to be seen to disagree with her.

Again I ask - who are these Democrat crazies in Congress, and what are they saying that is in any way equivalent to supporting the killing of political opponents?

Hank Johnson, D-GA has openly expressed concerns about Guam capsizing.
Maxine Waters D-CA has produced a number of gems over the years, although sadly I barely recall most of them. Her incitement against Trump Admin officials in 2018 earn a special mention.
Speaking of incitement.
Cory Booker Senator, D-NJ also deserves mention.

And they're just the low-lying fruit.

[DonaldD]

OK, so what are the specifics?

[DonaldD]

Hank Johnson, D-GA has openly expressed concerns about Guam capsizing.

You think an inartful metaphor is in any way equivalent to any of those issues raised concerning Taylor Greene?  Really?   Even if you think he meant the island would literally tip over, that would just mean he was stupid.  Is that really equivalent to having supported the killing of her current coworkers?

[TheDeamon]

Shouldn't you want her gone because she has supported statements calling for the killing of members of Congress; for belonging to a group, and supporting a group, that believes that her political opponents belong to a world-wide cabal of baby-eating pederasts, and that those pederasts are running the world?  For promoting the idea that the worst mass shooting/killing events in the past couple of decades were the result of Democrat actors belonging to a conspiracy to take away her guns?

I'm going to have to go with you're assuming a hyperbolic and overly literal interpretation of her statements. I agree they're of concern, and warrant many of her fellow members of Congress giving her a wide berth. I strongly suspect she'll be primaried in 2022, people simply didn't do enough homework on her. As to getting rid of her before then. Colorado's Governor is a Democrat, and their legislature is also under strong Democratic control. Republicans will take the right-wing nutjob over either a vacant seat or whatever the Dems might deign to put in there to fill the seat until a special election can be held(if one is even called).

As opposed to simply because it is not politically expedient to continue associating with an insane person, nor to be seen to be supporting an insane person's presence in a leadership role in the government and one's party?

Committee memberships don't mean what you think they mean. As it is, she's a very junior committee member for the minority party on a committee that really doesn't have much influence on education policy in the United States because most such policies originate at the state level in the first place.

Now if she'd been given a position in the Department of Education, there might be some real grounds for concern, but as the Education Committee cannot do anything directly and requires actions on the part of the entire House and the Senate, she's harmless in that position. Given the foot she's started off on, a GS13 in the federal Department of Education has more influence over education policy than she is likely to ever have... Beyond being able to ask really dumb questions people have to answer under oath. But for a body that has given us "The internet is a series of tubes" and the capsizing Guam... Dumb is par for the course.

[TheDeamon]

You think an inartful metaphor is in any way equivalent to any of those issues raised concerning Taylor Greene?  Really?   Even if you think he meant the island would literally tip over, that would just mean he was stupid.  Is that really equivalent to having supported the killing of her current coworkers?

Okay.

"The penalty for treason is death." (true)
"Nancy Pelosi is guilty of Treason." (open to interpretation, she hasn't been convicted by judge or jury though)
"Nancy Pelosi should be hung [for treason]." (opinion) (I don't think Hanging is allowed anymore due to SCotUS rulings, but anyhow...)

At what point do those three statements become "Somebody should abduct Nancy Pelosi and hang her" in your world? That is not what she's said.

Of but she also tweeted "A bullet would be faster" (in regards to Pelosi) where she is disputing that she was the one who posted that.

Even if she did type it out herself, you get into 1st Amendment issues, and the matter of that still falls short of her saying "Someone should go out and assassinate Nancy Pelosi."

That one can easily be explained away as "figurative speech" rather than instructive and inciting, and also a matter of opinion(which is also factually correct, rather gauche, but correct).

If holding an opinion about something which views an illegal action in a favorable way is a crime, everyone is likely to be in deep trouble. Now some opinions are better left unsaid, but that's obviously not the world she wants to live in, so let the consequences begin. But don't go running around requiring everyone else to virtue signal by becoming part of the lynch mob you want to create to go after her.

This is an issue between her and the other members of Congress, as well as between her, and the constituents of her district. Where honestly, the opinion of Congress takes a back seat to her constituents in Colorado. If they support her, then that is the representation they want in Congress, the rest of us will have to live with it.

[DJQuag]

You think anything posted here has any effect on people's ability to vote for their preferred candidate?   I think you vastly overestimate the power of the internet word.

Of course I don't. That's why I made it clear I was joking.

My friend, you and I agree on almost everything. Taylor Green is an offensive human being, thankfully her term is two years and she'll be booted via primary or general election if the Reps are stupid enough to give her continued support.

I'm a European socialist who spent twenty years growing up in the States. I've sèen the best and the worst of both systems. And I really do agree with you on things.

All I was objecting to was that stupid comment. It was something I'd expect Lambert or Cherry to say talking about us. We need to be better then that.

[DonaldD]

If holding an opinion about something which views an illegal action in a favorable way is a crime,

I don't think anybody is claiming that is a crime; that's more than a little bit of a straw man - what it is, is completely unacceptable behaviour.  Arguing that even just implying political opponents should be killed is somehow now acceptable (though that is the most generous interpretation of Taylor Greene's pattern of conduct) is evidence of just how far political discourse has fallen, but not just that - in the current context, I think we have all seen just where demonizing political opponents and normalizing threats and support for violence against one's opponents brings you.

It's truly sad that people now feel it necessary to support their own team even if it means trying to excuse their most rabid comrades calling for the death of one's opponents.

[msquared]

But Socialist?  Communist? Her e-mails? Benghazi?

[TheDeamon]

It's truly sad that people now feel it necessary to support their own team even if it means trying to excuse their most rabid comrades calling for the death of one's opponents.

No, in this case it's a very simple test.

Either you support freedom of speech, or you don't.

You obviously don't.

It's that simple.

The speech in this case may be odious, but it is just that, speech.

[msquared]

Even Freedom of Speech has limits, as has been proven in the Courts for centuries.

[DonaldD]

The Daemon, you seem to be conflating freedom of speech with "freedom from consequences"... something that has become prevalent in the right over the past few years.

The Republican party will face the consequences of accepting crazy people into their fold.  Not using one's own "freedom of speech" to clarify that the Republican party does not support calling for the deaths of their political opponents is a choice, and one that has already led to mass defections from the party.  It is also a choice that allows other people to make judgments based on that decision, like "it is more important to avoid being primaried than to call out blatant evil" or "I choose to associate with evil because I am afraid that the base will target my family".

Again, this seems to be another example of the "party of personal responsibility" desperately hoping to avoid taking responsibility.

Also, please do show where I am urging that Taylor Greene be arrested for her likes, reposts, and statements about paying for freedom with the "price of blood". Especially since I just stated, in my immediately preceding post, that I don't think those statements and likes rise to the level of being a crime.

As an aside, Taylor Greene has no constituents in Colorado.

[TheDeamon]

As an aside, Taylor Greene has no constituents in Colorado.

I stand corrected, she represents Georgia. I've been largely ignoring the press and what coverage I saw had me associating her with Colorado.

[Fenring]

The Daemon, you seem to be conflating freedom of speech with "freedom from consequences"

I just got triggered reading this.

Carry on, citizens.

[Grant]

No, in this case it's a very simple test.

Either you support freedom of speech, or you don't.

If it was just about the Jews controlling space lasers or 9/11 or election bs, you might have an argument.  But advocating violence against any other member of Congress or the government, even if it is just tacit approval or a "should", is enough for an individual to be thrown out of government service.  This goes beyond just being a moron.  Sheila Jackson Lee is probably bigger than all your examples. 

[msquared]

So why is Greene scrubbing her social media posts now?  I mean, is she embarrassed by what she liked and posted?  Or is she proud of it? Was she just pandering to her base by those likes and now wants to rewrite history?  Is she so tech illiterate that she does not know that once something is on the internet, it is there for good?  It will not help to go back and try and erase the past?

She is behaving like some one who has something to hide.  I wonder why?

[Fenring]

So why is Greene scrubbing her social media posts now?  I mean, is she embarrassed by what she liked and posted?  Or is she proud of it? Was she just pandering to her base by those likes and now wants to rewrite history?  Is she so tech illiterate that she does not know that once something is on the internet, it is there for good?  It will not help to go back and try and erase the past?

She is behaving like some one who has something to hide.  I wonder why?

I have no idea what she said or why she is doing this. But out of context your questions are naive. It's probably good practice for anyone in a tenuous public position to scrub their social media, and from now on only post things curated by a team. The culture of necroing old tweets and posts to destroy someone makes it too easy to miss something in your post history from years ago that can come back to haunt you. Conspicuously burning all your records is just prudence.

[msquared]

Yeah but you do it before hand. When you win the election.

Why wait to burn the documents after they have been copied?  It is doing her no good and making her look even worse to her base, like she is sorry she posted it.  I mean take some personal responsibility for what you did in the past.

Oh yeah, that part of the party was cut out when Trump won in 2016.  Since Trump was not responsible for anything and he told you that time and time again.

[msquared]

And why are defending her if you have no idea of what she said/did?

[Fenring]

And why are defending her if you have no idea of what she said/did?

Because in this day and age there are too many reasons to scrub your twitter history to draw positive conclusions from it. Maybe she did it at a stupid time; it's not like everyone is so savvy about these things. I just think that right now it shouldn't surprise anyone that certain people are going to scrub their histories. And I also think it's naive to say just own what you've said in the past on these media. We've all seen what can be done to people based on social media history.

[DonaldD]

She didn't remove all her posts - just the troublesome ones.

Now, if she was removing these posts as part of a broader strategy to walk back those positions, apologize for unintended  insult, and just spur of the moment brain farts, that might make sense.  But surreptitiously removing them without taking ownership, after the totality of the posts have already been widely shared and panned?  She should fire her communications person.

As for this:

The culture of necroing old tweets and posts to destroy someone makes it too easy to miss something in your post history from years ago that can come back to haunt you.

It's not like these posts were subtle "gotcha" posts that nobody could have been expected to have been blamed for - she was supporting the killing of her political opponents.  Posting these things is a complete self-own, self-destroy.  Implying there is blame to the person digging them up is a bit rich.

[TheDrake]

I wonder if the apologists would be so forgiving if AOC had advocated the murder of Mitch McConnell and then deleted her posts.

[TheDeamon]

I wonder if the apologists would be so forgiving if AOC had advocated the murder of Mitch McConnell and then deleted her posts.

Depends on how she phrased it. We seem to have very different interpretations of what constituted "advocating for murder" in this case it seems.

On the other hand, I guess we could go digging for all of those Democratic/Liberal pundits who want to put Trump voters in "re-education camps" given what the historical connotations of those are globally.

[TheDrake]

I wonder if the apologists would be so forgiving if AOC had advocated the murder of Mitch McConnell and then deleted her posts.

Depends on how she phrased it. We seem to have very different interpretations of what constituted "advocating for murder" in this case it seems.

On the other hand, I guess we could go digging for all of those Democratic/Liberal pundits who want to put Trump voters in "re-education camps" given what the historical connotations of those are globally.

#1, make it a hundred percent equivalent. AOC likes a post that says a "bullet to the head would be quicker".
#2, there is a wide gulf between a pundit, agitator, activist, malcontent, and an elected official

[DonaldD]

#2, there is a wide gulf between a pundit, agitator, activist, malcontent, and an elected official

My personal favourite is when certain people pull out Kathy Griffin as a counter example.  The internet is a big place, with lots of crazy in it, and you will find crazy on every side of every topic.  But Kathy Griffin isn't a member of the national legislature.  Oh, I almost forgot - she has also been unemployable since her Trump head stunt.

Re-education camps, huh?  Show me an elected official spewing that nonsense.  Now, if you meant this guy, TheDaemon, as some sort of equivalency... well, he was forced to resign.  Are you advocating the Republican party force Taylor Greene to resign, now?  And, not that i am defending this idiot, but spouting off to a girl you're trying to impress in a bar (where you have a certain expectation of having a private, at least, not a published conversation) is quite different from publicly making statements and promoting those posts as Taylor Greene did.

[DonaldD]

Well, it looks like at least one GOP Senator, Rob Portman, agrees that the Republican party should censure Taylor Greene; so maybe the idea isn't so crazy after all.

Of course, Portman has said he will not be running for reelection in 2022, so I guess that makes it a bit easier to take a principled stand.

[TheDeamon]

Well, it looks like at least one GOP Senator, Rob Portman, agrees that the Republican party should censure Taylor Greene; so maybe the idea isn't so crazy after all.

Of course, Portman has said he will not be running for reelection in 2022, so I guess that makes it a bit easier to take a principled stand.

I'd be 100% fine with censure. It's completely symbolic, but it makes the stand you guys so desperately crave.

[DJQuag]

"#2, there is a wide gulf between a pundit, agitator, activist, malcontent, and an elected official"

Could just me being real ignorant right about now, but I'm not seeing the gulf.

Yeah, she's elected. To you, that means she has unimaginable cosmic power, to others it means she has been chosen in a free and fair election to represent her constituency. You gonna remove their voice in the Congress because she said some crazy stuff? Seems a bold move to me, Cotton. Let's see how it works.

Maybe her constituency consists mostly of *censored*bags. Eh, it happens. As mentioned, she's one out of hundreds. Her term is two years. She'll be gone sooner rather then later and if it wasn't for the media amplifying her bull*censored* beyond any reasonable standard she'd barely be known and she'd have no power.

Only the Georgian crazies supported her before. Well done! She's a national figure now! Now she can get *all* the crazies!

[DonaldD]

If person 'A', employed by 'ACME co', makes public comments that put ACME in a bad situation, either PR wise, or in ways that conflict with their policy or direction, ACME will almost certainly take actions to protect their brand.  If they don't they will reap the benefits of that decision as well.  This is especially true if person 'A' has a publicly visible position, and especially if they are seen to have authority within the company.  It might even change the perception of their whole brand.

If person 'B', who is NOT employed by ACME, does the same, ACME won't be in the same position. If ACME does not act against person 'B', ACME is not going to have a problem. 

Taylor Greene is becoming the brand of the Republicans - the different levels of crazy, including the support for killing political opponents.  If other leaders don't actively push back on this person, offering tacit approval (and the approval seems to be more than just tacit at this point) that will become their brand.  The problem is, they seem to want that to be their brand for a specific subset of the population.

[DJQuag]

Nope.

Political parties are something entirely different from business corporations, that difference being a lot of people with different motivations come together in a political party for ultimate negotiated gains, and we call the a political party  and a lot of people with similar motivations came together in a corporation to be ridiculous. We call it socialism. Eh. Guess we'll find out.