It now looks like there are now *two people* who aren’t attending the Senate GOP caucus anymore.

Word from the State Capitol building today is that Julie Frye-Mueller wasn’t the only person not attending the Senate Republican Caucus today.

I’m told that she has now been joined on the Senate floor during caucus time by Senator Tom Pischke, who announced at a press conference yesterday that he was asking for a criminal investigation against 27 of his fellow State Senators for suspending JFM while they investigated allegations of harassment against an LRC staff member.

There might be a moral to this story for Senator Pischke that if you don’t want to be asked not to attend (kicked out of?) the Senate Republican caucus, you probably shouldn’t ask that nearly everyone else in the caucus be brought up on criminal charges when there’s no chance of it happening.

14 thoughts on “It now looks like there are now *two people* who aren’t attending the Senate GOP caucus anymore.”

  1. Pischke should declare what he and just be a Libertarian true to what he is and quit being a RINO.

  2. Pischke should declare what he is and just be a nutcase true to what he is and quit being RINO. There, fixed it for you.

    1. Nah! Typical Libertarian. Selfish, not wanting to be held accountable, lacking work ethic to build own party, fundraise, intellectually lazy and advocates for deadbeat dads. Slams Republicans and is another RINO.

  3. Please stop calling these folks Libertarians. Libertarians don’t use the force of government to enforce their personal worldviews. You won’t catch Libertarians screeching about which bathroom somebody uses, or what they choose to put in their own body, or if they choose to crossdress. No, they are not Libertarians.

    1. Many Libertarians oppose using the force of government to coerce a female child into sharing a bathroom with a male adolescent.

  4. Ok, I’ll bite, even though I loathe debating anonymous figures.

    Coercion how, exactly? Last I checked, usage of public restrooms is not compulsory under the law. If you’re uncomfortable with sharing a bathroom with someone (anyone, not just transgender individuals), the government is not sitting there shoving you through the door.

    Now, if you’re talking about schools, I can sympathize in the limited cases of locker rooms and shower areas. Then again, I’ve always thought it was really weird to make same-gender kids change and shower in front of each other (or worse, the coach/teacher… yuck!). There really should be private options available. Maybe instead of spending tax money defending bathroom laws from discrimination lawsuits, we should use it on capital outlays for remodeling school gyms to ensure adequate privacy for students.

    Finally, if you’re really that worried about your kid coming into contact with one of “those” kids, Libertarians also stand firm for your homeschooling rights. Odds are, if you feel this strongly on this topic, you’re going to have other issues with public ed too.

    1. This was meant for Anonymous @ 4:08pm. Not sure why I’m so bad at hitting Reply. ūü§¶‚Äć‚ôāÔłŹ

      1. Coercion by forcing us to let a male adolescent use the same bathroom as a female child.

        Why doesn’t your homeschooling suggestion apply to your objection to same-gender locker rooms? You’ll spend my taxes on your capital outlays for remodeling school gyms, but if my 11-year-old daughter is uncomfortable sharing a middle-school bathroom with a 14-year-old male, I can also pay for her homeschooling? How about if I spend your taxes on a male bathroom and a female bathroom, and you homeschool? Would that be liberty?

        1. We do homeschool, funny enough. I can’t recommend it enough! Plus, our family pays property taxes in two different SD counties, and one in another state.

          We’re quite literally living out your hypothetical situation and paying multiple shares for bathrooms/locker rooms/showers our kids will likely never use. That’s our choice, made as a family. I’ll continue to stand for our right to do so, as well as yours, if you so choose.

          To your question of whether it’s liberty, I have to answer with a question of my own: Is it fair that anyone should have to subsidize or completely pay for others’ services via tax money? Look, we political wonks love to debate the “coulds, woulds and shoulds,” but ultimately we all have to live in the “is”. And that’s the system in which we currently live. So no, it’s pretty freaking far from liberty, my anonymous friend. But it’s what we’ve got to work with.

          As for me, I’ve chosen to put aside the ridiculous, manufactured divisiveness of this “culture war” nonsense and keep my nose to the grindstone trying to reduce government intrusion, be it into our wallets, our bedrooms, or, yes, even public bathrooms.

          1. Why does your philosophy apply to school bathrooms but not to school locker rooms? You’re not living out my hypothetical if you’ll spend my taxes on your remodeling of gyms but oppose spending your taxes on same-gender bathrooms.

            You suggest it’s wrong to make same-gender kids change clothes in a school locker room, so there should be other options available, paid for with my taxes. I believe it’s wrong to make an 11-year-old girl share a middle-school bathroom with a 14-year-old male, and you suggest that’s ridiculous, manufactured, divisive culture war nonsense and government intrusion.

            What’s the difference?

            You say Libertarians don’t use government to enforce their personal worldviews, but you obviously advocate using government to enforce your personal views about locker rooms. How is it that you’re trying to reduce government intrusion, but I’m not?

            1. You took something on which I was agreeing with you (mixed-bio-gender changing rooms are bad) and are now trying to use it to beat me up because I suggested same-bio-gender changing rooms are gross too.

              I’m not sure how you managed to drag me down this rabbit hole with you, but I’m stepping out of it now. Good day, sir/madam/whatever.

          2. This isn’t a rabbit hole, and I haven’t even stated an opinion on changing rooms. You raised that topic. I’m disagreeing with you because you suggest my opinion on bathrooms is screeching, intrusive, ridiculous, anti-liberty nonsense, but you still haven’t explained any relevant difference between my opinion on bathrooms and your opinion on locker rooms.

            When government forces us to let a male adolescent use the same bathroom as a female child, it effectively coerces a female child into sharing a bathroom with a male adolescent. That isn’t liberty. Many Libertarians oppose it, and their opposition isn’t screeching, or government intrusion, or ridiculous, manufactured, divisive culture-war nonsense.

Comments are closed.