Kansas Crimson

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:45 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:43 pm dangerous kook

Getting paid $174,000 a year by our Government.

thanks, Georgia


seriously though, contrast her with AOC...extremism and the fringe is not the same for both parties

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:54 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:45 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:43 pm dangerous kook

Getting paid $174,000 a year by our Government.

thanks, Georgia


seriously though, contrast her with AOC...extremism and the fringe is not the same for both parties

Bingo.

Expel the dangerous kook. Pretty much cannot hold a public trust office.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:36 pm

ProudBoy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:25 pm Q really has all you liberal pussies memorized.

Did they have a class to memorize me?

Typical liberal retort.

house member from cali (i think) is submitting formal proposal to have her removed from congress

bout time

I'm beginning to think the GOP can't control the Q cancer from spreading to the point as to render the GOP non-competitive in national elections for at least the 2024 cycle.

i don’t think it’s necessarily a matter of can’t as much as it is won’t

exhibit a: mccarthy heading to see trump, a boot-licking visit i’m sure

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 7:54 am house member from cali (i think) is submitting formal proposal to have her removed from congress

bout time

I agree with this specific instance and premise. But, assuming this is a legitimate, voter elected, member of congress it would aet an interesting and potentially volatile precedent.

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:50 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 7:54 am house member from cali (i think) is submitting formal proposal to have her removed from congress

bout time

I agree with this specific instance and premise. But, assuming this is a legitimate, voter elected, member of congress it would aet an interesting and potentially volatile precedent.

Yes. I just don't think the framework in place ever had a plan for how to deal with people who just constantly and unapologetically lie, believe lies, ignore facts, and argue from that standpoint.

And that's without even addressing the new tactic of inciting constituent violence.

All fair points. Im just saying that it would set a precedent for the same people(and to some extent all factions)to use it to their advantage in the future.

she has been openly in favor of executing other elected members of congress

what in the absolute fuck

While it may be a slippery precedent, there’s also the risk of not setting a precedent about taking a stand against her particular bullshit.

But next thing you know, gop lawmakers will be removing Dems cuz of the mustard they put on their burger, and crying BOTH SIDES DO IT if anyone questions

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:15 pm While it may be a slippery precedent, there’s also the risk of not setting a precedent about taking a stand against her particular bullshit.

But next thing you know, gop lawmakers will be removing Dems cuz of the mustard they put on their burger, and crying BOTH SIDES DO IT if anyone questions

This is already happening; take the false-equivalencies being drawn between MTG and AOC.

One of them has policy positions on the very fringe of her own party.

The other doesn't even really have policy positions, so much as she has religiously-fervent belief in a real-life cult.

That each is "extreme" is both true, and massively misleading.

And the former’s policy positions “on the fringe of her own party” here in Merica, would prob be considered a middle of the road platform in any other developed country.

But lobster’s never mentioned owning a dog...?

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:54 am All fair points. Im just saying that it would set a precedent for the same people(and to some extent all factions)to use it to their advantage in the future.

I am OK with a precedent of "if you have even publicly called for the execution of Congress members that you not be allowed to be a Congress member".

Shouldn't we all be OK with that?!?

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:13 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:54 am All fair points. Im just saying that it would set a precedent for the same people(and to some extent all factions)to use it to their advantage in the future.

I am OK with a precedent of "if you have even publicly called for the execution of Congress members that you not be allowed to be a Congress member".

Shouldn't we all be OK with that?!?

Yes. As stated such. It still sets a precendent unless you can include that specific language/action in the dismissal hearing.....i admittedly dont know how the process works for removing a congressman/woman but its been proven that anything that can be used/construed as a precedent for ones advantage will be used.

Would you agree that working with a President while attempting a coup should disqualify someone from serving in Congress?

Or, calling for the murder of an elected official?

I mean, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST...what exactly IS the tipping point?

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:57 pm Would you agree that working with a President while attempting a coup should disqualify someone from serving in Congress?

Or, calling for the murder of an elected official?

I mean, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST...what exactly IS the tipping point?

I dont suspect that the party that treated Trump as their King has a tipping point.