Marjorie Taylor Greene to resign in January

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Now Liz Cheney will have a friend.

Eventually, everyone that's doing Trump job. That break laws, will get into trouble. Better to do the right thing. Then to possibly go to prison.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There's two different strategic moves that can be played... Once I again, I see some the progressive wing of the Democratic party playing the wrong one (just like the did with Joe Manchin).

Mocking, laughing, and saying "good riddance". (while not having the foresight to see that given the demographics and political make-up for her region, she's certainly not going to be replaced by anyone left of center)

When the smart play now (just like it would've been the smart play with Joe Manchin) would be to say "hey, here's someone who we can actually work with on a few issues that could be a thorn in the side of some of Trump's agenda, even if we can get someone who's with us on 20% of the issues, that's outkicking our coverage compared to anything else we'll ever get from the GA-14 district, let's encourage her to stick around"

What do they think? She'll get replaced by an AOC-type progressive or a moderate republican who's less loyal to Trump? Fat chance...

Just like Manchin got replaced by Jim Justice (after the dems celebrated running him out of town), Marjorie will be most certainly be replaced an ever further right Trump loyalist who dems hate even worse, who will work with them 0% of the time instead of 20% of the time.


A prominent Democrat once said
"It's better to have a few big elephants inside our tent peeing out, than having all of the elephants outside the tent peeing in" (yes I know, it wasn't originally "peeing", I had to change it, the original sounds catchier lol)

 

[Desk trauma]

Mocking, laughing, and saying "good riddance". (while not having the foresight to see that given the demographics and political make-up for her region, she's certainly not going to be replaced by anyone left of center)

If they had sniveled and begged her not to go do you think that would make inroads with her replacement ? No matter how much of a door mat the democrats are they need to bend over even further make even more compromises with the people spitting at them…

 

[Desk trauma]

Not with the new rifts in the Republicans starting to show up. Fuentes and Carlson...par example.

The uncritical propping up of Israel is bipartisan.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If they had sniveled and begged her not to go do you think that would make inroads with her replacement ? No matter how much of a door mat the democrats are they need to bend over even further make even more compromises with the people spitting at them…

There's a concept that people need to understand when it comes to regional politics...

There are certain regions in the country where a party is never going to get their "gold standard" ideal of a candidate into office.

People need to be pragmatic about the reality of "as good as it gets" politics with regards to the regional component.

We have certain areas of the country that are deep red and others that are deep blue.

To get any amount of policy support or overlap, concessions will need to be made. In certain districts, democrats have to be "watered down" to get elected, and in other districts, republicans have to be "watered down" to get elected, that's just the way it is.

I cited the Joe Manchin example.

Remember how that went? "He's not a liberal, he's a DINO who sides with the republicans 70% of the time" (The part they weren't acknowledging? Getting a Senator from West Virginia who votes with them 30% of the time should be considered pleasant surprise)


"... now that he's out of the way, we're going to run Glenn Elliot so we can have a REAL democrat in that seat, this is going be awesome!!!"

Queue the Price is Right "fail" sound effect...



I'm not saying that they should've tried to make any inroads with any replacement, I'm saying they should have talked her out of quitting, and kept her around to be a thorn in Trump's side given that she's recently been showing willingness to reach across the aisle on a couple of different key issues (one big one being extending the ACA subsidies)

Here's the reality...

A republican of some sort will occupy that seat.

If anyone's thinking that a progressive democrat is going to take over that house seat, they should probably get over that fantasy quickly and come back to the real world.

Would you rather it be a republican who's been willing to critique US funding of Israel, doesn't take AIPAC money, and seems receptive to extending health care credits (but maybe isn't your cup of tea on the other issues)?

...or...

A republican who's a die-hard Trump loyalist who will literally side with you on nothing?

 

[Desk trauma]

There's a concept that people need to understand when it comes to regional politics...

There are certain regions in the country where a party is never going to get their "gold standard" ideal of a candidate into office.

People need to be pragmatic about the reality of "as good as it gets" politics with regards to the regional component.

We have certain areas of the country that are deep red and others that are deep blue.

To get any amount of policy support or overlap, concessions will need to be made.

I cited the Joe Manchin example.

Remember how that went? "He's not a liberal, he's a DINO who sides with the republicans 70% of the time" (The part they weren't acknowledging? Getting a Senator from West Virginia who votes with them 30% of the time should be considered pleasant surprise)


"... now that he's out of the way, we're going to run Glenn Elliot so we can have a REAL democrat in that seat, this is going be awesome!!!"
View attachment 373508

Queue the Price is Right "fail" jingle...



I'm not saying that they should've tried to make any inroads with any replacement, I'm saying they should have talked her out of quitting, and kept her around to be a Thorn in Trump's side given that she's recently been showing willingness to reach across the aisle on a couple of different key issues (one big one being extending the ACA subsidies)

Here's the reality...

A republican will occupy that seat.

Would you rather it be a republican who's been willing to critique US funding of Israel, is in favor of, and seems receptive to extending health care credits (but maybe isn't your cup of tea on the other issues)?

...or...

A republican who's a die-hard Trump loyalist who will literally side with you on nothing?

She already rage quit. But yeah, they should have sniveled and begged her to stay on the off chance she was going to be reasonable or consistent. No amount of bending over backwards is enough.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

She already rage quit.

It's very possible that nothing could have changed her mind about quitting...

But after her recent appearances on The View and Real Time, and both host(s) suggesting being pleasantly surprised with certain positions, and recent shifts, that should've been the moment that crafty strategists on the democratic side reached out to come to some sort of "arrangement/alliance", even if it was a semi-begrudging one.

That's definitely one thing that the GOP is better at, bringing old rivals into the fold (even if they don't agree on everything).

Whereas, Democrats seem to have the stance of "If you've ever been aligned with Trump in the past, you're dead to me" (at least in a professional political context... Having Sean Spicer or Scaramucci go on Jimmy Kimmel to bash Trump doesn't count as "welcoming people back into the fold")

 

[seeking.IAM]

I have always found MTG too extreme for my tastes. However, I found it admirable that she, a Republican, found enough backbone to stand up to POTUS. Now I think perhaps she could be more helpful using that backbone as a Republican in Congress unwilling to kowtow to POTUS rather than resigning.

 

[iluvatar5150]

There's two different strategic moves that can be played... Once I again, I see some the progressive wing of the Democratic party playing the wrong one (just like the did with Joe Manchin).

Mocking, laughing, and saying "good riddance". (while not having the foresight to see that given the demographics and political make-up for her region, she's certainly not going to be replaced by anyone left of center)

When the smart play now (just like it would've been the smart play with Joe Manchin) would be to say "hey, here's someone who we can actually work with on a few issues that could be a thorn in the side of some of Trump's agenda, even if we can get someone who's with us on 20% of the issues, that's outkicking our coverage compared to anything else we'll ever get from the GA-14 district, let's encourage her to stick around"

What do they think? She'll get replaced by an AOC-type progressive or a moderate republican who's less loyal to Trump? Fat chance...

Just like Manchin got replaced by Jim Justice (after the dems celebrated running him out of town), Marjorie will be most certainly be replaced an ever further right Trump loyalist who dems hate even worse, who will work with them 0% of the time instead of 20% of the time.


A prominent Democrat once said
"It's better to have a few big elephants inside our tent peeing out, than having all of the elephants outside the tent peeing in" (yes I know, it wasn't originally "peeing", I had to change it, the original sounds catchier lol)

The chances of MTG getting replaced by somebody even crazier and less-aligned with Dems are slim.

I don’t understand this sudden turnaround, going from being a rabid attack dog, to saying “oh my bad”, to quitting altogether in the space of a week. That’s not what an intelligent, levelheaded, genuine person would do. If she really didn’t realize how toxic she was until it was turned back on her, then she’s a dimwitted and fundamentally broken person. If she knew what she was doing, then she’s just completely cynical and we’re still better off without her.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The chances of MTG getting replaced by somebody even crazier and less-aligned with Dems are slim.

I don’t understand this sudden turnaround, going from being a rabid attack dog, to saying “oh my bad”, to quitting altogether in the space of a week. That’s not what an intelligent, levelheaded, genuine person would do. If she really didn’t realize how toxic she was until it was turned back on her, then she’s a dimwitted and fundamentally broken person. If she knew what she was doing, then she’s just completely cynical and we’re still better off without her.

That's part of the problem that Democrats have, if anyone was "aligned with Trump" at any point, "you're dead to me...forever"

Trump's VP is a guy who called him "America's Hitler", and his cabinet includes former high profile Democrats.


For the record, I don't believe MTG is a rocket scientist, I've made fun of her before (numerous times)...so my commentary wasn't intended to pretend she's super smart. She's a Crossfitter who thinks Chiropractors are real doctors and said that UAPs could be demons... so clearly I don't agree with her on a lot of things.


But the reality is, she's in a solid red deep South district (where's she's won handily multiple times, by 75/25 margins). The notion that an unknown moderate, who's not explicitly "Trump-endorsed", is going to win that district is a pipe dream.

Her advantage as an incumbent (who already has name recognition as is well-liked in her district) would give her an advantage that a newcomer wouldn't have.

So I'll stand by my original statement... the Democrats would've been better off extending an olive branch (even if she only sides with them 20% of the time moving forward), vs. what they're going to get as her replacement.

You can bank on the fact that Trump will be watching that house election closely, and making sure to meddle in any way he can to make sure it's a loyalist far-right person who takes that seat... I'll send you $20 on venmo if I'm wrong lol

 

[Hans Blaster]

There's two different strategic moves that can be played... Once I again, I see some the progressive wing of the Democratic party playing the wrong one (just like the did with Joe Manchin).

Mocking, laughing, and saying "good riddance". (while not having the foresight to see that given the demographics and political make-up for her region, she's certainly not going to be replaced by anyone left of center)

When the smart play now (just like it would've been the smart play with Joe Manchin) would be to say "hey, here's someone who we can actually work with on a few issues that could be a thorn in the side of some of Trump's agenda, even if we can get someone who's with us on 20% of the issues, that's outkicking our coverage compared to anything else we'll ever get from the GA-14 district, let's encourage her to stick around"

What do they think? She'll get replaced by an AOC-type progressive or a moderate republican who's less loyal to Trump? Fat chance...

Just like Manchin got replaced by Jim Justice (after the dems celebrated running him out of town), Marjorie will be most certainly be replaced an ever further right Trump loyalist who dems hate even worse, who will work with them 0% of the time instead of 20% of the time.


A prominent Democrat once said
"It's better to have a few big elephants inside our tent peeing out, than having all of the elephants outside the tent peeing in" (yes I know, it wasn't originally "peeing", I had to change it, the original sounds catchier lol)

Good grief, Rob.

The Dems didn't shove her out. They didn't try to primary her, etc. The Dems had nothing to do with this.

No one (and I mean no one) had any idea she would do this. There was talk of her running for higher office next year instead of for reelection next year, and she may yet do that, but there was no hit of this.

As for MTG, good riddance.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's part of the problem that Democrats have, if anyone was "aligned with Trump" at any point, "you're dead to me...forever"

What are you talking about?

For one thing, when have I ever been that sort of purist?

But more to my point, she’s not some generic Trump-aligned Republican. She’s consistently been one of the craziest, most strident people in American politics.

But the reality is, she's in a solid red deep South district (where's she's won handily multiple times, by 75/25 margins). The notion that an unknown moderate, who's not explicitly "Trump-endorsed", is going to win that district is a pipe dream.

Her advantage as an incumbent (who already has name recognition as is well-liked in her district) would give her an advantage that a newcomer wouldn't have.

So I'll stand by my original statement... the Democrats would've been better off extending an olive branch (even if she only sides with them 20% of the time moving forward), vs. what they're going to get as her replacement.

You can bank on the fact that Trump will be watching that house election closely, and making sure to meddle in any way he can to make sure it's a loyalist far-right person who takes that seat... I'll send you $20 on venmo if I'm wrong lol

I would take a generic conservative over a loony hatemonger like her any day. The fact that she’s on the right side of the Epstein case doesn’t change that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What are you talking about?

For one thing, when have I ever been that sort of purist?

But more to my point, she’s not some generic Trump-aligned Republican. She’s consistently been one of the craziest, most strident people in American politics.


I would take a generic conservative over a loony hatemonger like her any day. The fact that she’s on the right side of the Epstein case doesn’t change that.

They're not going to get a non-loony, generic conservative in that seat.

You'll be lucky if the person that takes that seat doesn't have a MAGA neck tattoo lol.


Like I said before, you're going to get some degree of loony in that seat.

Do you want one who at least does take the correct side on Israel funding, the Epstein stuff, and seems to be responsive to preserving ACA credits?

Or do you want one who still has all the looniness, but sides with you on none of those 3 things?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Good grief, Rob.

The Dems didn't shove her out. They didn't try to primary her, etc. The Dems had nothing to do with this.

No one (and I mean no one) had any idea she would do this. There was talk of her running for higher office next year instead of for reelection next year, and she may yet do that, but there was no hit of this.

As for MTG, good riddance.

I didn't say they shoved her out, I said they should've made an effort to get her to stay (instead of laughing about the fact that she's leaving)

 

[durangodawood]

There's two different strategic moves that can be played... Once I again, I see some the progressive wing of the Democratic party playing the wrong one (just like the did with Joe Manchin).

Mocking, laughing, and saying "good riddance". (while not having the foresight to see that given the demographics and political make-up for her region, she's certainly not going to be replaced by anyone left of center)

When the smart play now (just like it would've been the smart play with Joe Manchin) would be to say "hey, here's someone who we can actually work with on a few issues that could be a thorn in the side of some of Trump's agenda, even if we can get someone who's with us on 20% of the issues, that's outkicking our coverage compared to anything else we'll ever get from the GA-14 district, let's encourage her to stick around"

What do they think? She'll get replaced by an AOC-type progressive or a moderate republican who's less loyal to Trump? Fat chance...

Just like Manchin got replaced by Jim Justice (after the dems celebrated running him out of town), Marjorie will be most certainly be replaced an ever further right Trump loyalist who dems hate even worse, who will work with them 0% of the time instead of 20% of the time.


A prominent Democrat once said
"It's better to have a few big elephants inside our tent peeing out, than having all of the elephants outside the tent peeing in" (yes I know, it wasn't originally "peeing", I had to change it, the original sounds catchier lol)

Not enough the same. Manchin was at least living in reality land. MTG is just too much of a nut. And shes nowhere near Ds on most issues aside from the Epstein stuff. If she votes with Ds once in a while, fine. But dont bring her, of all people, "in the tent".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not enough the same. Manchin was at least living in reality land. MTG is just too much of a nut. And shes nowhere near Ds on most issues aside from the Epstein stuff. If she votes with Ds once in a while, fine. But dont bring her, of all people, "in the tent".

The level of "looniness" is irrelevant. You think whatever Trump-endorsed and approved candidate that runs to fill that seat is going to be less looney?

It's not just the Epstein stuff, she's also been against unconditional funding of Israel, and has been on the side of preserving ACA subsidies. (those are two issues that seem pretty important to some of the democrats, and it's unlikely they'll get another deep red district republican who agrees with them on that)

As far as "not bringing her into the tent"... that sounds like the approach of people who'd rather "lose with their principles" than actually score some political/legislative victories.

The GOP welcomed plenty of high profile Democratic types into their tent despite policy disagreements.

RFK Jr and Tulsi Gabbard would be examples of that...

Two pro-choice former Democrats-turned-independents.

Keeping in mind, whatever looniness you perceive in MTG, the pro-life perception is that abortion is literally murdering babies.

And they still brought them into their tent anyway.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

There's two different strategic moves that can be played... Once I again, I see some the progressive wing of the Democratic party playing the wrong one (just like the did with Joe Manchin).

Mocking, laughing, and saying "good riddance". (while not having the foresight to see that given the demographics and political make-up for her region, she's certainly not going to be replaced by anyone left of center)

When the smart play now (just like it would've been the smart play with Joe Manchin) would be to say "hey, here's someone who we can actually work with on a few issues that could be a thorn in the side of some of Trump's agenda, even if we can get someone who's with us on 20% of the issues, that's outkicking our coverage compared to anything else we'll ever get from the GA-14 district, let's encourage her to stick around"

Some people are always going to take the opportunity to gloat when a person they dislike falls from grace. That said, the majority of the response that I've seen - including from people who despise Greene - has been grudging respect for sticking to her principles. Once again, you're presenting a false choice just so you can claim that your preferred answer is the only correct one - there's zero chance that Democrats would be able to convince her to stick around, and they know it. She won her seat thanks to Trump; had she tried to run again with the current state of affairs, he would have backed a primary challenger and she almost certainly would have lost. Couple that with the death threats and a general disillusionment as her party abandoned the issues that she cared about, and I can understand why she decided to resign.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I didn't say they shoved her out, I said they should've made an effort to get her to stay (instead of laughing about the fact that she's leaving)

Nah. I’m just gonna laugh and be glad she’s gone. They did this to themselves. All those years of loyalty to Trump have amounted to absolutely nothing. I think Republicans need to see what their loyalty to this man gets them. Nothing.

Personally, I think an even bigger even more MAGA candidate, more obsequious to Trump, would be easier to beat than someone who’s shown at least a tiny bit of independent thought on the right. People are starting to tire of this slavish mindset that everything has to go through him before anyone can do anything for themselves. It’s going to tear the GOP apart. It’s already starting to.

 

[Lukaris]

MT Green was thrown under the bus as was Schumer by the far radical left on the left side. Things like honor & respect are dead in today’s American politics. This isn’t new but I think it’s almost total now. Before it was at least haphazard.

I can’t stand Schumer ( politically) but if I was a lib, he would have been a hero to me. Instead, he failed on the shutdown ( his failure wasn’t stupid) & all his past efforts are yesterday’s sawdust.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I didn't say they shoved her out, I said they should've made an effort to get her to stay (instead of laughing about the fact that she's leaving)

And how do you make such an effort when you have no idea she is going to do it?