this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
711 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4208 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
 

Colorado congressional candidate and sitting State Rep. Richard Holtorf (R) received a tough grilling this week at the hands of local 9News anchor Kyle Clark over his apparent hypocrisy when it comes to abortion rights.

Holtorf made headlines back in January when he defended paying for his girlfriend’s abortion, despite being an adamant pro-life lawmaker and abortion critic. “Anti-abortion GOP lawmaker praises the impact of the abortion he paid for,” read the headline of a local report by Clark from the beginning of the year.

To his credit, Holtorf sat down with Clark to discuss the issue.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not even a "gotcha" question. He seems to be clear that his girlfriend's abortion allowed her to live her best life, and he supported it. So it stands to reason that if he's voting to restrict abortion, that there must be some line between his girlfriend's situation, which he supported, and what he votes to restrict. And asking that question is key to understanding his position (if giving him a whole HEAP of benefit-of-the-doubt he doesn't deserve).

If he wanted to maintain any kind of consistency, he could have simply said "it's legal right now, so it was her decision and she was able to get one, and if there is a financial burden in that I should take equal responsibility. I don't think it should be an option, but I can't make her choose not to when it isn't illegal." And that would be that. Even the "best life" thing could be squared away: "It's never good when a life that should come into this world never sees daylight, but there are, of course, some options that are available that wouldn't exist with a child, and she has those options. Many women have children unexpectedly and have rich, fulfilling lives, even if they weren't what they planned. What I meant by her best life is to say she could continue on the path she found to be best, before she found out she was pregnant."

I'm about as pro-choice as it gets and even I can come up with some shitty justifications for his bullshit hypocrisy. So it's not just that this guy is a hypocrite, he's also an idiot. If you're incapable of explaining your actions and voting, you have no business running for any political position.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Repubs have difficulty with consistency and integrity because they value truth less than they value white supremacist hierarchy. It's a tricky question for them because they all implicitly understand that the laws are only requirements for poors at the bottom of the hierarchy. They also know they aren't supposed to say that out loud.

[–] obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Nah, it's more than that. Conservativism is about the in group obtaining and excercising power over the out group.

Blatant hypocrisy is just another demonstration of power. "Look at what I can do and you can't do anything about it.".