Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 06, 2022

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the conspiracy theory-peddling Georgia Republican, shouldn't be disqualified over her role in the January 6 insurrection, a judge said Friday in a significant legal blow to the voters and advocacy groups who tried to throw her off the ballot.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Good. I don't like her. I definitely don't like her politics. And honestly would have been fine with charging her with a crime and putting her in jail for the role she played (if her actions met the threshold to be charged). But I don't like the idea of people being disqualified from ballots over accusations of being "disloyal" or "unpatriotic".

Ultimately, if someone tries to rebel against this country and the voters choose to put them back in office, then either the country deserved the rebellion, or the country has bigger problems. Which, in this case I think we have bigger problems, but setting a precedent like this is not the way to fix them.

#1 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2022-05-06 10:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Problem is she and the insurrection leaders won't be held accountable, this hearing is just further evidence of that fact.

485 days and counting

#2 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 10:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Disagree. She's a domestic terrorist that helped other domestic terrorists try and overthrow a legally elected government. IMHO she should be thanking her lucky stars if she got life in prison for her heinous crimes.

#3 | Posted by a_monson at 2022-05-07 02:02 AM | Reply

I can't stand her but you can't prove any of that crap. Beat her at the ballot box or quit your crying.

#4 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-07 02:04 AM | Reply

Trespassing and minor vandalism is not a reason to criminalize an entire political party.

#5 | Posted by visitor_ at 2022-05-07 03:52 AM | Reply

Problem is she and the insurrection leaders won't be held accountable, this hearing is just further evidence of that fact.
485 days and counting

#2 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

My point is the fact she has not been charged with a crime is evidence of that fact. She needs to be put in front of a jury of her peers to be held accountable. Taking away the opportunity for her to be held accountable to the public at large at the ballot box (or for the public at large to choose not to hold her accountable) to me seems like the opposite of what you are saying should be done.

#6 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2022-05-07 08:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Both of you are right. I mean the evidence sure seems to be there to put her on trial but where is the trial? Honestly I am disappointed we are not able to put others in trial for it so far. But at the same time since she hasn't even been charged...

Let's see some charges against her and the other ring leaders and get them dealt with.

#7 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2022-05-07 10:53 AM | Reply

"can't stand her but you can't prove any of that crap."

Did you even watch the trial?

Just because she denies remembering what the videos and texts clearly show does not mean she is innocent. It just means she denied it. If a bank robber denied or does not remember he robbed the bank but the video shows he did and then the texts show him talking about it even admitting it then that is proof.

The videos and texts clearly show what she did and and what she said.

She should not be on the ballot. She is obviously an insurrectionist.

#8 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-05-07 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hey if the Coloradens want to elect a squirt who can't get on a commitee that's their right.

#9 | Posted by bruceaz at 2022-05-07 12:38 PM | Reply

Coloradans are voting in Georgia?

#10 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-05-07 02:43 PM | Reply

Coloradans are voting in Georgia?

He got Betty and Veronica mixed up. Honest mistake.

#11 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-05-07 02:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#1 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

Great post. And I completely agree. Should she be charged with a crime? Probably. If charged and found guilty she most definitely should not be able to run. But neither has happened. No matter how abhorrent I find M.T.Gazpacho's stances and rhetoric, establishing a precedent of cancelling candidates upon mere accusation could be applied very broadly to any candidate. I just hope the efforts to keep her off the ballot don't get her some sympathy votes.

#12 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-07 03:32 PM | Reply

I can't stand her but you can't prove any of that crap. Beat her at the ballot box or quit your crying.

#4 | Posted by BellRinger

"You can't prove the things she said in public on videotape! Beat her at the ballot box in a district so gerrymandered that it contains only fascist extremists!"

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-07 03:43 PM | Reply

Merrick garland and the old fool who chose him are the reason no fascist insurrectionists have been held accountable.

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-07 03:44 PM | Reply

#14. Clearly you hate Democracy.

#15 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-07 03:45 PM | Reply

#15 Clearly you're a dingledorfer

#16 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-07 03:50 PM | Reply

#14. Clearly you hate Democracy.

#15 | Posted by BellRinger

Democracy is where voters choose their representatives, not where representatives choose their voters.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-07 03:52 PM | Reply

Democracy is also not where leaders who got less votes than their opponents get to be in charge and make lifetime appointments to the supreme court.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-07 03:53 PM | Reply

You'd hate that system too if you cared about democracy or fairness. But you don't. You care about getting your way no matter what it takes or how anti democratic it is.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-07 03:54 PM | Reply

#9

Oops

#20 | Posted by bruceaz at 2022-05-07 06:36 PM | Reply

#18

Presidential elections have been decided by the electoral college since this country was founded. Presidents have had the privilege of nominating SCOTUS justices since this country was founded. You define Democracy as you getting what you want. Quit your crying and nut up on Civic101. This country is a Democracy even when your candidates lose.

#21 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-08 01:02 AM | Reply

"Presidents have had the privilege of nominating SCOTUS justices since this country was founded."

Mitch McConnell personally stated his precedent, then broke his precedent. Only a President with a same-party Senate gets to confirm justices anymore.

You rebuilt that!

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-08 01:12 AM | Reply

Presidents have had the privilege of nominating SCOTUS justices since this country was founded.

Yet you justify the Garland fiasco.

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-08 02:18 AM | Reply

This country is a Democracy even when your candidates lose.

#21 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Actually, it's a Constitutional Republic.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-08 02:19 AM | Reply

#24. Well played.

#22 #23. Please don't equate pointing out that if has been done before with justification. I believe Garland should have gone through the process. Drag that along and then vote him down - by the time that would have happened we would have been well into summer and at that point waiting until after the election would have been far more tenable.

But you're right, Danforth. In our times McConnell has set a really bad precedent.

#25 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-08 07:29 AM | Reply

Presidential elections have been decided by the electoral college since this country was founded. Presidents have had the privilege of nominating SCOTUS justices since this country was founded. You define Democracy as you getting what you want. Quit your crying and nut up on Civic101. This country is a Democracy even when your candidates lose.

#21 | Posted by BellRinger

translation: "blah blah blah there's nothing wrong with total unfairness since if benefits my side. I have no ethics so it doesn't bother me at all. I'm going brag about winning even though I start with a 10 point lead."

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-08 03:32 PM | Reply

"Presidential elections have been decided by the electoral college since this country was founded"

^
Here's what his dog whistle is saying:

Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians want to go back to an America where Electors and Senators are chosen by the State House, not by direct vote of the people.

The Federal Government has grown too big. The Constitution needs to be pared down to the original Bill of Rights, and no more. Especially no Fourteenth Amendment.

#MAGA

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 03:38 PM | Reply

This country is a Democracy even when your candidates lose.

LMAO did that come out of a Trumpers mouth?

cough cough Jan 6th cough.

#28 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2022-05-08 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#21 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You're a ------- clown. A talent-less troll. An ignoramus. A dolt. A douche-bag with delusions of red-neckery. In short, a fool.

#29 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-05-08 09:22 PM | Reply

Presidential elections have been decided by the electoral college since this country was founded.
#21 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Google it, dumbass.

#30 | Posted by JOE at 2022-05-08 11:02 PM | Reply

I don't need to Google it.

At the end of the day you take an ends justify the means attitude toward politics. If you don't get your way then the whole system is effed and needs to be burned down until it produces the results you desire.

That is the classic definition of fascism.

#31 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-08 11:23 PM | Reply

At the end of the day you take an ends justify the means attitude toward politics

Not really. I think the Senate and Electoral College are just as unfair to the millions of Trumpers in California and New York as they are to Dems in red states. I think everyone should have an equal say in our politics, which is a principled application across the board. You just happen to not like what the result of that would be, so you accuse me of being results-oriented because you can't imagine someone actually standing for anything other than just being a ---- to their party.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2022-05-08 11:33 PM | Reply

"I think the Senate and Electoral College are just as unfair..."

The Senate was created as a check on the 50%+1 impulses of the House. It was designed to be a deliberative body. We are the United StateS of America. States "s" as in plural. What you are pining for is the United State of America, where states effectively don't exist. In a country as large and diverse as this one a completely centralized government would be an abject disaster. There is nothing principled about your stance. It's authoritarian as hell.

#33 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-08 11:39 PM | Reply

The Senate was created as a check on the 50%+1 impulses of the House.

Argumentum ad antiquatetum, again.

It was designed to be a deliberative body.

To that end, it has failed miserably.

What you are pining for is the United State of America, where states effectively don't exist

Not true at all. There is nothing about "give every voter an equal say" that necessarily results in a more centralized federal government. I support rolling back federal powers in some areas and accelerating them in others. But at the end of the day, if giving everyone an equal say does result in a more powerful federal government, then at least it would be because that's what the most people wanted. Like you always say, get a better platform and appeal to more people and you won't have that problem :)

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2022-05-08 11:46 PM | Reply

"To that end, it has failed miserably."

I disagree completely. I think it's been overwhelmingly successful at blunting the extreme partisan nature of the House.

Running rampant over the minority with no checks is not "fair". The Senate blunts that.

#35 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-09 12:43 AM | Reply

Which laws being blocked by the Senate would run rampant, and over which minority?

You're just making word salad. You're not actually bringing any new content to the conversation.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 12:48 AM | Reply

@#35 ... Running rampant over the minority with no checks is not "fair" ...

Oh, that is so funny.

Running rampant? No checks?

Really?

That's what you are basing your assertion upon?

That inanity?

It looks more to me as if your alias does not like anything that the House passes that you disagree with.

So why not just admit that?


#37 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-09 01:03 AM | Reply

#37 You are more passive-aggressive than a 19-year old sorority chick.

#38 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-09 01:20 AM | Reply

I like the fact that the Senate blunts the excesses of the House PERIOD. Doesn't matter whether the House passes something I support or oppose - gridlock is a feature, not a bug to our Republican system of government.

#39 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-09 01:21 AM | Reply

"I like the fact that the Senate blunts the excesses of the House PERIOD."

You say that, but you don't have any examples of it happenign.

So, what exactly are you saying?

Nothing.

You're saying you like a theory, with no examples of this theory relating to practice.

So what you're doing right now is refusing to have a conversation. You just keep asserting the same thing over again, and you never have any evidence.

You don't seem to realize you're stuck in a loop.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 01:24 AM | Reply

@#37 ... You are more passive-aggressive than a 19-year old sorority chick. ...

Again, with the ad hominem attack.

That's all you have to substantiate what your current alias posts here?


#41 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-09 01:31 AM | Reply

@#40 ... So what you're doing right now is refusing to have a conversation. You just keep asserting the same thing over again, and you never have any evidence. ...

So, I'm not the only one noticing the unsubstantiated assertions of that alias.

Whew.

But then I gotta ask, why is that alias here? What is its purpose?

To disrupt?

It certainly does not appear to be to discuss.

#42 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-09 01:34 AM | Reply

At the end of the day you take an ends justify the means attitude toward politics. If you don't get your way then the whole system is effed and needs to be burned down until it produces the results you desire.

That is the classic definition of fascism.

#31 | Posted by BellRinger

Does the definition include arranging an electoral system where you win no matter what?

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 12:47 PM | Reply

I like the fact that the Senate blunts the excesses of the House PERIOD. Doesn't matter whether the House passes something I support or oppose - gridlock is a feature, not a bug to our Republican system of government.

#39 | Posted by BellRinger

Of course you do. WHy wouldnt you like an anti democratic system designed to give a massive advantage to your side? When your policies are hated by most people its the only way you can be in charge.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-09 12:49 PM | Reply

"At the end of the day you take an ends justify the means attitude toward politics."

What a riot, coming from someone who'll vote for every enabler of The Big Lie he can.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 12:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort