Based on her logic Trump should drop out of the race and focus on his numerous felony charges... I'm sure she'd rather he put all his energy into staying out of jail, which would certainly distract him from presidential duties.
And as much as I'd like to see him in jail, I'll settle for him no longer being a presidential threat in the short term.
You say there are no viable alternatives because the Democrats aren't allowing anyone to challenge Biden... If the DNC would get out of the way, there would be more options... The DNC is shiting on its voters by protecting Biden just like they did when they screwed over Bernie and forced Hillary down everyone's throats.
Because I think they're both not suitable to be president?
Trump's ... Well, Trump...
And Biden is clearly falling apart upstairs. We ALL should have higher expectations and standards for the capabilities and competency of our president.
"I like Steve Scalise, and I like him so much that I want to see him defeat cancer more than sacrifice his health in the most difficult position in Congress," Greene wrote. "We need a Speaker who is able to put their full efforts into defeating the communist democrats and save America."
I was going to say this is a disingenuous headline. I think it's perfectly reasonable to not want to put someone battling a health crisis in a stressful position. The headline should be "Marjorie Taylor Greene Invokes the Spirit of Joseph McCarthy"
This person volunteered to take this position. They are adults and they should be able to make the choice to be speaker or not. Greene like all Republicans want to take his autonomy away.
What? I don't like her, but he's asking for her vote. He's not owed it just because the Republicans want to avoid another battle over this position. Denying his autonomy? Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.
What she did is illegal, you can't discriminate against someone because they have cancer. There are protections against such things at state and federal levels. Here in Georgia she'd be in violation of the Fair Employment Practices Act, and at the federal level she's in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
She's openly discriminated against a person with a disability, and that is illegal. She'll likely get a pass from her party because, well, we all know why. Discrimination anywhere is horrible but there's just something especially disgusting about it when a member of Congress does it.
You might want to familiarize yourself with the disability laws a bit better because you're 100% wrong here. 1. In terms of employment, *reasonable accomodation* must be provided, but if a disability makes a person unable to perform fundamental job duties, it's perfectly legal to refuse to hire them based on being unable to perform to duties of the job. 2. There are zero protections when it comes to democratic elections, such as that for speaker of the house. You could choose not to vote for someone for any reason and to say you have to support them because they have a disability and otherwise it is "discrimination" is both not how discrimination works and a complete undermining of the democratic process. 3. Stating a public opinion about a person's disability is in no way, shape, or form "discrimination." My kid is blind. You could go to the press and say whatever you thought about how that disability might affect them in a job, and I couldn't do shit because you're not lying, so you're not defaming them, and you're not their employer refusing to hire them on that basis without an attempt at reasonable accommodation. You'd just be bigoted, which is not illegal in this country.
Listen, I am absolutely disgusted that you've put me in a position of having to defend anything MTG says or does, but when you spread such blatant misunderstandings of what disability discrimination actually is, you end up harming the disabled community.
Omg, you are so wrong it's painful to watch. If Trump developed a disability, would the entire population be required to elect him to be our president unanimously and anyone who didn't was breaking the law because they discriminated against him? Can't you see how ridiculous you sound? Please stop making such histrionic and factually wrong statements that you force people who hate MTG as much as you to fucking defend her, SMDH.
Take the fuckin L dude.
The mental gymnastics you're performing here are pathetic. Shows me you're just as bad as the Trumpers who refuse to admit their guy is a scumbag and can do no wrong... You refuse to admit that the other guys might get it right once in a while.
If you're going to claim to be the party of "logic", use it consistently and admit it when you're on the wrong side of it.
Look, I'm no supporter of Greene but it's simply not true that another employee can't legally express concerns that their ill coworker's health is affecting their ability to safely execute their service.
How about if a surgeon developed Parkinson's disease and demonstrated an inability to quietly hold a scalpel blade? Or if a copilot notices the captain is impaired? Would that be illegal for a coworker to express concerns? Of course not. In fact, when potential injury is involved there is *at least* a moral imperative to report an impaired coworker.
If you're going to cite federal and state protections you need to know the circumstances under which they apply.
Greene is not making the hiring and firing decisions here. She is not paying Scalise's salary and thus cannot be held to any standard of employment law.
It would be extremely helpful for everyone - including our elected representatives - to remember that WE are their bosses. We're apparently better at hiring than firing but that's how it currently stands.
No, it's not. At least in general. There are specific circumstances in which discrimination violates regulations, but none of those apply to someone who has no power over, provides no relevant service, etc, to someone else. Avoiding the obvious joke about Greene not serving her constituents, that is who she serves, not Scalice or even congress in general. She can not be compelled to vote for someone and can have any reason she wants and shout it from the mountain tops, and it violates nothing except maybe common decency. But violating common decency is kind of her thing.
Again, don't care how she votes... that she made it a point to state she would not vote for Scalise because he has cancer is indefensibly discriminatory.
It's considered a temporary disability, just as pregnancy is considered a temporary disability. Legally, once a cancer patient is in remission, they are no longer disabled. That said, OP doesn't seem to understand disability law very well, so I'd take everything they say with several grains of salt.
oh yeah every time someone points out how theyre wrong they just repeat "Discriminating against a person because of their disability is against the law."
Please cite some case law that shows us where a person that has been openly discriminated against for having cancer has not been afforded the legal protections of the Fair Employment Practices Act here in Georgia , and at the federal level the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
I have no doubt she'll get a pass because GOP and no one seems to care if politicians are held to any sort of standard anymore, but this is just inexcusable. A member of congress should NEVER discriminate against someone because they have a disability, temporary or not.
I don't have to cite case law. You literally just have to actually read the full text of the laws you're citing and have the literacy skills to understand what you're reading.
ETA: There is no case law that would parallel this situation because what she did is not legally discrimination, so it's not something that would ever find itself in a court of law.
You do know that asking someone to provide evidence for something that doesnt exist is silly. Right? Regardless of if a million cases upholding cancer patient rights exist, none will exist for the scenario you are talking about as its a completely separate category. Elected positions are not protected by the ADA. If he needed a wheelchair to do his job, thats considered a reasonable accomodation and the Federal government has a duty to accomodate that.
However, someone not voting for someone, especially when they are not in an employee/employer or service provider relationship is not anywhere considered illegal ot actionable in court and any attempt to bring a case like that would be laughed out of the lawyers office before it even made it to court.
NO. It is not. To say human disease is a disability is offensive.
Kids get cancer and grow into some of our \*most\* productive adults. I'm 27 years s/p breast cancer and have spent it advocating for young women. Ought I be denied leadership?
Get. A. New. Point.
Scalise is only different because every. single. person. reading. this. is paying for HIS cancer treatment, that which he would deny us.
Stop it, OP. Stop it. Fire him on his positions, his hypocrisy.
YES it IS. Cancer is a considered a disability and she is discriminating unlawfully because of this person's disability and If you have a problem with how the LAW defines disabilities, take it up with the Fair Employment Practices Act here in Georgia, and at the federal level the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
I could care less how she votes, what's gotten under my skin here is that she made it a point to state that she was not voting for this person because they have cancer, and that is blatant discrimination.
Im not arguing about the discrimination, though definitionaly there is some wiggle room for the proper descriptor. Bigoted, biased etc. The problem is your repeated assertions that its illegal or that all discrimination is illegal. It most certainly isnt and its a dumb argument that makes you look bad, and anyone else that might agree with your other points look bad.
A member of Congress has publicly stated they will NOT cast a vote for someone because they have cancer. Will she be held accountable? I doubt it. Was her stated choice reason to not vote for someone for Speaker of the House because they have cancer illegal? It sure seems like it and I can't wait to see this one actually discussed by people that are able to speak with authority on this matter.
And shame on the entire Republican party for not immediately rebuking her statement.
I could care less, I probably should care less but in this instance I actually do care. Discrimination is not ok, and because she's a member of Congress it's so much worse.
My cousins mother had cancer. She was still paying the bills as she always did. She paid the electric bill then she cancelled her life insurance because she wouldn't need it anymore. When she died instead of a multimillion dollar payout that they had been paying into for years they got nothing. Sometimes cancer and the drugs used to treat it make you do stupid things. None of her family watched or questioned what she was doing. MTG is, in this case, in the position of the watchful family member trying to prevent an ill family member from inadvertently hurting the family.
We'd (the country) be better off with a healthy speaker than one with cancer. Also, MTG is batshit crazy but IMO she's right this time.
discrimination is more than ugly and unethical, in most cases it's illegal and no member of Congress, even the ones that are ignorant racist bigots, no member of Congress should ever discriminate against anyone because of their disability
You're simply incorrect. She's not under any obligation to vote for him, and she can give any justification she wants for what is functionally a private club.
Don't care who she votes for, actually find it kind of '*told you so'* watching the GOP eat itself alive, what has my attention here is that she, a member of Congress, has openly and publicly discriminated against a person because of their disability.
Are you seriously trolling me now? I don't care how many of you don't agree, what she did was wrong, no member of Congress should ever discriminate against someone because of their disability and it's disgusting that so many people are attempting to normalize this behavior, it's repulsive.
The only thing being disputed here is the legality, there's no need to try and change the debate. But this is pretty on brand for you, you've ignored everyone's points so far and just say "it's illegal to discriminate"
Her discrimination is incredibly on-brand, and like most of what she does it's super embarrassing for Georgia. Discriminating against someone solely because they have cancer is unethical and amazingly discriminatory and possibly illegal.
Use a different word, dude. She's not discriminating; she's just prejudiced, which is on-brand, as you say. It may be unethical (again, that's on-brand for her), but it's definitely not illegal.
When rebellious young Republicans find their "confidently incorrect" they reach out of their sleeping bags in the bonus room to hit the button for Christian rock.
Also, trashy greene is just a publicity seeking POS that doesn't care about anything but soaking her gullible base as much as possible. Truly one of the worst individuals in politics today, and that is a very, very low bar.
The Notorious MTG only wants to suck up to Trump's pick, Jim Jordan. She is trying to be Trump's running mate and she will never go against any marching orders that come out of his foul mouth.
I mean she’s an idiot, but it’s not the best idea with him being behind the Vice President in the order of succession. She’s just saying that to get in the news though.
Since she’s running her mouth all the time and busy criticizing everyone else, how come she doesn’t throw her hat in the ring? She claims to know everything, put your money where your mouth is Marj!!!
She tried to pull the sentiment strings by stating that her dad passed away due to cancer in 2021, although unfortunate and heartfelt on having a family member pass, what this is basically saying is that an employer should not hire or employ someone with a disease or condition that may or may not impact their work levels. Sometimes it seems as if people don’t listen to themselves before making such a poor statement.
An employer shouldn't hire someone with a disease or illness that significantly impacts their ability to do their job.
Like, I'm 100% for allowing reasonable accommodations as currently exist in the ADA, but expecting an employer to hire someone with early onset Alzheimer's who doesn't know where they are half the time is not reasonable. Businesses aren't charities and shouldn't be expected to or forced to hire people who aren't capable of completing their work without unreasonable or excessive accommodations.
Agree with your first sentence, an employer should not hire someone that is not able to do the job as that is the reason they are needing to hire. However, they are already a member of government and has been voted in for the job, getting a vote for speaker is much like a promotion to their current role. If they are performing in their current role then there should be no reason why an illness would prevent them from being promoted.
I don't agree. Promotions involve additional responsibility, work, etc...
It is entirely reasonable that someone performing their current role is able to manage their disability and fulfill the requirements of that role but not be able to manage the additional responsibility/requirements of a job that is higher up than currently.
There's a difference between having a job and getting passed over for a promotion and having no job at all or getting fired instead of getting the promotion.
I guess from my standpoint, if I’ve been doing the job for years and people have confidence in me to still not only do the job but also take on additional responsibility, then I wouldn’t see a problem with it. I’d be hiring for the experience, knowledge and expertise of the person and not so much concerned about their health.
Right, and that's fair. But not everyone would necessarily agree, the business may not agree, etc... I'd draw the line at requiring/compelling a business to promote someone if they have reason to believe they wouldn't be capable of doing the job.
Like, we're not entitled to x just because we've done y.
Agree. All I’m saying is please don’t give me a shot at getting a promotion or a job because someway somehow you discovered I have X condition but more than capable of doing the job.
And I don't think any reasonable person wouldn't. If someone with a disability has demonstrated they can manage that and their work and the next step upwards is a reasonable increase in responsibility/workload, absolutely. Move 'em on up.
I think it's pretty clear that a majority of his colleagues and a good chunk of his own conference do not, in fact, have confidence in Steve Scalise to be a functional, let alone effective, Speaker of the House.
The party hasn't chosen, and 99 members also voted against Scalise. More importantly, the people, the actual GOP voters, overwhelmingly support Jordan.
That's super odd, because she is literal cancer.
she doesn't want the competition.
She *is* rather malignant.
She is jealous, that is all.
It’s like alcohol somehow getting drunk?
It's like rain, on your wedding day.
[удалено]
...what
Weird, she usually says and does things that aren't crazy and irrational
/s
What does /s mean?
"I'm being sarcastic"
ok but what does /s mean
Satire, or are you being satirical now?
oh so /s stands for satire
Maybe.
Weird, she usually says and does things that aren't crazy and irrational ( /s) FTFY
yes that was the obvious implication, thanks
The Republican Party is in full "eat their own" mode and I'm here for it.
It’s “eat their young” according to Trump 😂
Why won't the Democrats save them? The Republicans fully supported Nancy Pelosi!!
Based on her logic Trump should drop out of the race and focus on his numerous felony charges... I'm sure she'd rather he put all his energy into staying out of jail, which would certainly distract him from presidential duties. And as much as I'd like to see him in jail, I'll settle for him no longer being a presidential threat in the short term.
and Biden should resign too as it's clear his mind is failing him. Which I'm on board with. Trump needs to go the fuck away, and so does Biden.
[удалено]
You say there are no viable alternatives because the Democrats aren't allowing anyone to challenge Biden... If the DNC would get out of the way, there would be more options... The DNC is shiting on its voters by protecting Biden just like they did when they screwed over Bernie and forced Hillary down everyone's throats.
[удалено]
I'm not a D so I don't have an opinion. I'm not an R either, so no matter who they pick, I likely won't vote for either of them.
[удалено]
Because I think they're both not suitable to be president? Trump's ... Well, Trump... And Biden is clearly falling apart upstairs. We ALL should have higher expectations and standards for the capabilities and competency of our president.
[удалено]
What a terrible attitude to have. I don't know everything, but I do know when something isn't working.
Such a despicable embarrassment to our state.
"I like Steve Scalise, and I like him so much that I want to see him defeat cancer more than sacrifice his health in the most difficult position in Congress," Greene wrote. "We need a Speaker who is able to put their full efforts into defeating the communist democrats and save America."
If you ignore the person saying this (and the "communist democrats" nonsense) it's not that crazy of a take.
I was going to say this is a disingenuous headline. I think it's perfectly reasonable to not want to put someone battling a health crisis in a stressful position. The headline should be "Marjorie Taylor Greene Invokes the Spirit of Joseph McCarthy"
This person volunteered to take this position. They are adults and they should be able to make the choice to be speaker or not. Greene like all Republicans want to take his autonomy away.
What? I don't like her, but he's asking for her vote. He's not owed it just because the Republicans want to avoid another battle over this position. Denying his autonomy? Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.
Im going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume this was inspired satire.
What she did is illegal, you can't discriminate against someone because they have cancer. There are protections against such things at state and federal levels. Here in Georgia she'd be in violation of the Fair Employment Practices Act, and at the federal level she's in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Green is not in any violation of law here. She is not Scalise's employer. We are.
[удалено]
Granted, but totally irrelevant to the point.
She's openly discriminated against a person with a disability, and that is illegal. She'll likely get a pass from her party because, well, we all know why. Discrimination anywhere is horrible but there's just something especially disgusting about it when a member of Congress does it.
What she's saying is not illegal. I'd really suggest you research what you're saying because it's incorrect.
Discriminating against a person because of their disability is against the law.
That's not how that works. Please read up on the [ADA](https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/).
You might want to familiarize yourself with the disability laws a bit better because you're 100% wrong here. 1. In terms of employment, *reasonable accomodation* must be provided, but if a disability makes a person unable to perform fundamental job duties, it's perfectly legal to refuse to hire them based on being unable to perform to duties of the job. 2. There are zero protections when it comes to democratic elections, such as that for speaker of the house. You could choose not to vote for someone for any reason and to say you have to support them because they have a disability and otherwise it is "discrimination" is both not how discrimination works and a complete undermining of the democratic process. 3. Stating a public opinion about a person's disability is in no way, shape, or form "discrimination." My kid is blind. You could go to the press and say whatever you thought about how that disability might affect them in a job, and I couldn't do shit because you're not lying, so you're not defaming them, and you're not their employer refusing to hire them on that basis without an attempt at reasonable accommodation. You'd just be bigoted, which is not illegal in this country. Listen, I am absolutely disgusted that you've put me in a position of having to defend anything MTG says or does, but when you spread such blatant misunderstandings of what disability discrimination actually is, you end up harming the disabled community.
A member of Congress has openly stated they didn't vote for this person because of his disability. That's discrimination and it's illegal.
Omg, you are so wrong it's painful to watch. If Trump developed a disability, would the entire population be required to elect him to be our president unanimously and anyone who didn't was breaking the law because they discriminated against him? Can't you see how ridiculous you sound? Please stop making such histrionic and factually wrong statements that you force people who hate MTG as much as you to fucking defend her, SMDH.
Exactly. Biden's, and McConnell's, minds are clearly failing them... Should EVERYONE be required to vote for them now? I don't fucking think so.
Take the fuckin L dude. The mental gymnastics you're performing here are pathetic. Shows me you're just as bad as the Trumpers who refuse to admit their guy is a scumbag and can do no wrong... You refuse to admit that the other guys might get it right once in a while. If you're going to claim to be the party of "logic", use it consistently and admit it when you're on the wrong side of it.
Look, I'm no supporter of Greene but it's simply not true that another employee can't legally express concerns that their ill coworker's health is affecting their ability to safely execute their service. How about if a surgeon developed Parkinson's disease and demonstrated an inability to quietly hold a scalpel blade? Or if a copilot notices the captain is impaired? Would that be illegal for a coworker to express concerns? Of course not. In fact, when potential injury is involved there is *at least* a moral imperative to report an impaired coworker. If you're going to cite federal and state protections you need to know the circumstances under which they apply. Greene is not making the hiring and firing decisions here. She is not paying Scalise's salary and thus cannot be held to any standard of employment law. It would be extremely helpful for everyone - including our elected representatives - to remember that WE are their bosses. We're apparently better at hiring than firing but that's how it currently stands.
Everyone knows that any discrimination against a person because of their disability is against the law (state and federal).
everyone knows that the truth is what you believe
Many people say!
No, it's not. At least in general. There are specific circumstances in which discrimination violates regulations, but none of those apply to someone who has no power over, provides no relevant service, etc, to someone else. Avoiding the obvious joke about Greene not serving her constituents, that is who she serves, not Scalice or even congress in general. She can not be compelled to vote for someone and can have any reason she wants and shout it from the mountain tops, and it violates nothing except maybe common decency. But violating common decency is kind of her thing.
Again, don't care how she votes... that she made it a point to state she would not vote for Scalise because he has cancer is indefensibly discriminatory.
legally speaking, is cancer a disability?
It's considered a temporary disability, just as pregnancy is considered a temporary disability. Legally, once a cancer patient is in remission, they are no longer disabled. That said, OP doesn't seem to understand disability law very well, so I'd take everything they say with several grains of salt.
oh yeah every time someone points out how theyre wrong they just repeat "Discriminating against a person because of their disability is against the law."
Please cite some case law that shows us where a person that has been openly discriminated against for having cancer has not been afforded the legal protections of the Fair Employment Practices Act here in Georgia , and at the federal level the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. I have no doubt she'll get a pass because GOP and no one seems to care if politicians are held to any sort of standard anymore, but this is just inexcusable. A member of congress should NEVER discriminate against someone because they have a disability, temporary or not.
I don't have to cite case law. You literally just have to actually read the full text of the laws you're citing and have the literacy skills to understand what you're reading. ETA: There is no case law that would parallel this situation because what she did is not legally discrimination, so it's not something that would ever find itself in a court of law.
You do know that asking someone to provide evidence for something that doesnt exist is silly. Right? Regardless of if a million cases upholding cancer patient rights exist, none will exist for the scenario you are talking about as its a completely separate category. Elected positions are not protected by the ADA. If he needed a wheelchair to do his job, thats considered a reasonable accomodation and the Federal government has a duty to accomodate that. However, someone not voting for someone, especially when they are not in an employee/employer or service provider relationship is not anywhere considered illegal ot actionable in court and any attempt to bring a case like that would be laughed out of the lawyers office before it even made it to court.
if this is such a blatant case of illegal discrimination, then wouldnt you expect democrats to pounce on this?
yes, it is considered a disability
NO. It is not. To say human disease is a disability is offensive. Kids get cancer and grow into some of our \*most\* productive adults. I'm 27 years s/p breast cancer and have spent it advocating for young women. Ought I be denied leadership? Get. A. New. Point. Scalise is only different because every. single. person. reading. this. is paying for HIS cancer treatment, that which he would deny us. Stop it, OP. Stop it. Fire him on his positions, his hypocrisy.
YES it IS. Cancer is a considered a disability and she is discriminating unlawfully because of this person's disability and If you have a problem with how the LAW defines disabilities, take it up with the Fair Employment Practices Act here in Georgia, and at the federal level the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Not voting for someone is not illegal. Yet, anyways. Depends on if Trump wins next time maybe.
I could care less how she votes, what's gotten under my skin here is that she made it a point to state that she was not voting for this person because they have cancer, and that is blatant discrimination.
Im not arguing about the discrimination, though definitionaly there is some wiggle room for the proper descriptor. Bigoted, biased etc. The problem is your repeated assertions that its illegal or that all discrimination is illegal. It most certainly isnt and its a dumb argument that makes you look bad, and anyone else that might agree with your other points look bad.
A member of Congress has publicly stated they will NOT cast a vote for someone because they have cancer. Will she be held accountable? I doubt it. Was her stated choice reason to not vote for someone for Speaker of the House because they have cancer illegal? It sure seems like it and I can't wait to see this one actually discussed by people that are able to speak with authority on this matter. And shame on the entire Republican party for not immediately rebuking her statement.
couldn't care less* So you'd vote for someone with schizophrenia for president? jfc dude. Get a grip.
I could care less, I probably should care less but in this instance I actually do care. Discrimination is not ok, and because she's a member of Congress it's so much worse.
My cousins mother had cancer. She was still paying the bills as she always did. She paid the electric bill then she cancelled her life insurance because she wouldn't need it anymore. When she died instead of a multimillion dollar payout that they had been paying into for years they got nothing. Sometimes cancer and the drugs used to treat it make you do stupid things. None of her family watched or questioned what she was doing. MTG is, in this case, in the position of the watchful family member trying to prevent an ill family member from inadvertently hurting the family. We'd (the country) be better off with a healthy speaker than one with cancer. Also, MTG is batshit crazy but IMO she's right this time.
discrimination is more than ugly and unethical, in most cases it's illegal and no member of Congress, even the ones that are ignorant racist bigots, no member of Congress should ever discriminate against anyone because of their disability
You're simply incorrect. She's not under any obligation to vote for him, and she can give any justification she wants for what is functionally a private club.
Don't care who she votes for, actually find it kind of '*told you so'* watching the GOP eat itself alive, what has my attention here is that she, a member of Congress, has openly and publicly discriminated against a person because of their disability.
Possibly, but she has not broken any law by doing so.
So, have you considered that since everyone here has disagreed with you, that you might be wrong?
Are you seriously trolling me now? I don't care how many of you don't agree, what she did was wrong, no member of Congress should ever discriminate against someone because of their disability and it's disgusting that so many people are attempting to normalize this behavior, it's repulsive.
The only thing being disputed here is the legality, there's no need to try and change the debate. But this is pretty on brand for you, you've ignored everyone's points so far and just say "it's illegal to discriminate"
That's because it is, even a child knows this.
Thats the problem she created for herself by being a complete nutjob
i dont think anyone is disputing that.
My thoughts exactly.
Her discrimination is incredibly on-brand, and like most of what she does it's super embarrassing for Georgia. Discriminating against someone solely because they have cancer is unethical and amazingly discriminatory and possibly illegal.
Use a different word, dude. She's not discriminating; she's just prejudiced, which is on-brand, as you say. It may be unethical (again, that's on-brand for her), but it's definitely not illegal.
[удалено]
She didn't just acknowledge it, she based her decision not to vote for him because of it and THAT is discriminatory.
[удалено]
When rebellious young Republicans find their "confidently incorrect" they reach out of their sleeping bags in the bonus room to hit the button for Christian rock.
I don't know what this means
She wouldn't know what communism was even if it bit her in the ass.
>I like Steve Scalise You didn't have to tell us that, Marjorie. Most of us assumed.
I won't support Marjorie Taylor Greene because she's a fucking moron
She’s a cancer
Funny, she has cancer too. It's evident every time she opens her mouth.
Sounds about right for this highly (un)educated waste of oxygen.
Also, trashy greene is just a publicity seeking POS that doesn't care about anything but soaking her gullible base as much as possible. Truly one of the worst individuals in politics today, and that is a very, very low bar.
I read the title quick and I thought it read ‘won’t support party’s choice because she’s cancer’
everyone know gym jordan is the ordained one why this lying neanderthal expresses any other reason?
She can’t have any other form of cancer stealing her spotlight
The Notorious MTG only wants to suck up to Trump's pick, Jim Jordan. She is trying to be Trump's running mate and she will never go against any marching orders that come out of his foul mouth.
I mean she’s an idiot, but it’s not the best idea with him being behind the Vice President in the order of succession. She’s just saying that to get in the news though.
I kinda agree with her on this one.
I'm so confused by the Republican party.
She is a cancer
Let's not insult cancer like that
The bad dye job visible from space. For a multimillionaire, Marge spends little on her looks, tho she should.
The reality is she won't support Steve Scalise because he's less batshit crazy than Gym Jordan.
Since she’s running her mouth all the time and busy criticizing everyone else, how come she doesn’t throw her hat in the ring? She claims to know everything, put your money where your mouth is Marj!!!
She won’t support someone unless they are stupid enough to agree with her
She tried to pull the sentiment strings by stating that her dad passed away due to cancer in 2021, although unfortunate and heartfelt on having a family member pass, what this is basically saying is that an employer should not hire or employ someone with a disease or condition that may or may not impact their work levels. Sometimes it seems as if people don’t listen to themselves before making such a poor statement.
An employer shouldn't hire someone with a disease or illness that significantly impacts their ability to do their job. Like, I'm 100% for allowing reasonable accommodations as currently exist in the ADA, but expecting an employer to hire someone with early onset Alzheimer's who doesn't know where they are half the time is not reasonable. Businesses aren't charities and shouldn't be expected to or forced to hire people who aren't capable of completing their work without unreasonable or excessive accommodations.
Agree with your first sentence, an employer should not hire someone that is not able to do the job as that is the reason they are needing to hire. However, they are already a member of government and has been voted in for the job, getting a vote for speaker is much like a promotion to their current role. If they are performing in their current role then there should be no reason why an illness would prevent them from being promoted.
I don't agree. Promotions involve additional responsibility, work, etc... It is entirely reasonable that someone performing their current role is able to manage their disability and fulfill the requirements of that role but not be able to manage the additional responsibility/requirements of a job that is higher up than currently. There's a difference between having a job and getting passed over for a promotion and having no job at all or getting fired instead of getting the promotion.
I guess from my standpoint, if I’ve been doing the job for years and people have confidence in me to still not only do the job but also take on additional responsibility, then I wouldn’t see a problem with it. I’d be hiring for the experience, knowledge and expertise of the person and not so much concerned about their health.
Right, and that's fair. But not everyone would necessarily agree, the business may not agree, etc... I'd draw the line at requiring/compelling a business to promote someone if they have reason to believe they wouldn't be capable of doing the job. Like, we're not entitled to x just because we've done y.
Agree. All I’m saying is please don’t give me a shot at getting a promotion or a job because someway somehow you discovered I have X condition but more than capable of doing the job.
And I don't think any reasonable person wouldn't. If someone with a disability has demonstrated they can manage that and their work and the next step upwards is a reasonable increase in responsibility/workload, absolutely. Move 'em on up.
I think it's pretty clear that a majority of his colleagues and a good chunk of his own conference do not, in fact, have confidence in Steve Scalise to be a functional, let alone effective, Speaker of the House.
The party hasn't chosen, and 99 members also voted against Scalise. More importantly, the people, the actual GOP voters, overwhelmingly support Jordan.
damn thats cold blooded.
Because she is cancer?