this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
387 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5277 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Democrats are testing whether a moment when Republicans shouted down a reporter for asking about Mike Johnson’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election will have a political impact.

When House Republicans held an impromptu press conference late Tuesday night to celebrate coalescing around their new speaker nominee, they were in no mood to answer tough questions—or even the obvious one.

So when ABC reporter Rachel Scott asked Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA)—the speaker nominee who has now been elevated to the speakership—about his leading efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Republicans were having none of it.

They drowned out the reporter with boos. Johnson said “next question.” And Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) told the reporter to “shut up!”

Now, a D.C.-based advocacy group, Courage For America, is seizing on the moment to attack Republicans and quickly define the new speaker.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you watch the ad linked in the article, at the end it says, "Tell Congressman Santos, Don't Support Speaker Johnson's Extreme Agenda."

...Congressman Santos? As in George Santos? The guy who claimed that he was a "star player" on the Baruch volleyball team? As in the guy who was indicted on three additional felonies this month, in addition to the charges from earlier this year?

And the article says:

The non-profit group is launching an ad series Wednesday night targeting New York Republicans with the viral moment. The ad will run against New York Republican Reps. Nick LaLota, Andrew Garbarino, George Santos, Anthony D’Esposito, Nicole Malliotakis, Mike Lawler, Marc Molinaro, Elise Stefanik, Brandon Williams, Nick Langworthy, and Claudia Tenney.

So, yes, they are hilariously targeting the constituents of George Santos, who I think is already very unpopular with his constituents (since he lied to them), and who might have to campaign for reelection from jail.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's absolutely insane. I mean, the idea of telling constituents to call or write their Republican congressman is laughable to begin with (they are absolutely incapable of actually listening to their constituents), but Santos in particular only lies. He has no other gear.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It's not unreasonable to tell constituents to call their congressman. The one time politicians have to believe in math is when they're next running for office, and if they catch wind that an organized group of people are paying attention to them, and might vote against them in a block, and might actively work to convince others not to vote for them, that will be a concern.

Of course we've got gerrymandering, which makes that less of a concern, but still, even "safe" districts can flip unexpectedly.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 2 points 1 year ago

I think you're missing the sarcasm, they're playing off the methods of the White House media team, and running in fringe areas. The intent is to remind those in NY that Santos won the vote, so, you know, vote better. (My guess, anyway)