Conservatives Quickly Turn Against “Idiot” Marjorie Taylor Greene
Conservatives Quickly Turn Against “Idiot” Marjorie Taylor Greene
The Georgia Republican is fast falling out of favor for her opposition to the Ukraine aid bill.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14604927
Conservatives Quickly Turn Against “Idiot” Marjorie Taylor Greene
The Georgia Republican is fast falling out of favor for her opposition to the Ukraine aid bill.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s failed fight to end aid to Ukraine, and her sort-of-serious crusade against House Speaker Mike Johnson, has cost her the support of right-wing media.
The Sunday front page of the New York Post, owned by the conservative Murdoch family, was the latest outlet to attack Greene, invoking the “Moscow Marjorie” nickname coined by former representative Ken Buck.
Fox News, another arm of the Murdoch media empire, had already taken aim at the Georgia Republican last week, with columnist Liz Peek calling her an “idiot” and saying she needs to “turn all that bombastic self-serving showmanship and drama queen energy on Democrats.” This follows an editorial last month from The Wall Street Journal, also in the Murdoch portfolio, that called Greene “Rep. Mayhem Taylor Greene” and accused her and her allies of being “most interested in TV hits and internet donors.”
Even a non-Murdoch outlet is on the attack, as conservative Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Debra Saunders demanded to know “who put Marjorie Taylor Greene in charge?”
So they knew she was a moron all along, but were perfectly content to let her do her thing as long as she only attacked democrats. Sounds about right.
Hey look, a positive scoring post in this shit hole of a community. Be proud boys, your garbage fire of a political party is turning on itself.
This is the most left leaning community on Lemmy. Day after day we get opportunities to upvote your asinine bullshit and day in and day out we vote it down. Get a clue you authoritarian asshats. You're not welcome here.
I wonder how much money she has accepted from Putin.
Over the weekend, a Russian state TV host described Greene as “a real beauty. She is a blond who wears white coats with a fur collar. She’s demonstrably heterosexual.”
Finally, someone is recognizing her fantastic looks. /s
She isn’t bad looking. The problem is she is nuts. She doesn’t represent the party and I think the party will be better when she leaves
There’s only two people I’ve seen who look like actual dogs given human form: Ron Perlman and Marjorie Taylor Green.
She looks terrible when she's screaming and acting like a lunatic. I associate her image with snapshots from her breaking decorum in shameful ways, which makes her appear quite ugly as a person and hence physically ugly in those moments. If I knew nothing about her and only saw a picture of her looking normal, I'd think there's nothing to comment upon.
LFG, that bitch is the only person in modernity I can safely say deserves a muzzle (the kind you put on dogs, idk if there are any other meanings for the word but if so then I'm gonna make myself painfully clear that I don't endorse violence, just putting contraptions over idiot politicians mouths to keep them from being a danger to society)
As a conservative myself, NYP and Fox News messaging doesn't represent the true values or positions of the GOP base.
While most Republican politicians support continuing to fund Ukraine with no end, most Republicans are at most cautious of that idea, if not opposed to it altogether. There's a big reason why the GOP presidential candidates were trying so hard to convince the audience that funding the war is a good idea.
I strongly suspect that most Democrats don't actually want to fund a bunch of forever wars either. I mean, that's what Obama was elected for, he just turned out to do the opposite of everything he was elected to do. "Help the poor, end the wars, shut down gitmo? I agree but let's tweak it to help the 0.1%, keep the wars going forever, keep gitmo going!"
I support Ukraine, but we have to limit what we send. We can't send things that most likely would be captured, or that would put the United States at risk by depleting our stockpiles. It isn't our war to fight.
And as we all know, the United States has never involved itself in other nations' wars
Eh. The US has twice proven that it can ramp up war production enough to go from essentially no war capacity to overwhelming force very quickly. Weapons manufacturers are salivating at the chance to satisfy wartime demand. And who are we holding back in fear of? China? If we get into a tangle with China, weapons reserves are going to be the least of our concerns. Russia? Ukraine - tiny little Ukraine - is showing that the mighty Russian war machine is mostly façade over rusting or entirely missing parts. The only threat Russia presents the US right now is nuclear - and weapon stockpiles aren't going to protect against that.
So who are we afraid of? Canada? Honestly, I think Canada is the real threat; I think they've been putting on a friendly face and biding their time, waiting until we've given all of our ordinance in support of another country, and then they'll sweep in and take back Old Fort Niagara, Youngstown, and Buffalo, and then they'll have all the tourists mwahahaha!
This "holding in reserve" is a cop-out. We're giving Ukraine stock that was due to be rotated out for newer stuff anyway; they aren't getting latest-gen anything, and if the US goes into any conflict and burns through enough latest-gen munitions and has to reach into old stockpiles, I think we're in for a rough ride no matter what.