this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
237 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3994 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 congressman Ken Buck’s abrupt resignation has left the far-right member with two tough choices, upsetting her re-election plans

As well as further reducing US House speaker Mike Johnson’s already threadbare majority in his legislative chamber, last week’s abrupt departure of Colorado congressman Ken Buck has the potential to significantly damage another prominent Republican figure: Lauren Boebert.

The far-right firebrand seized on Buck’s declaration last year that he would not seek re-election by opting to switch from a district the congresswoman barely won in 2022 to run in Buck’s soon to be vacant seat.

The calculation was that it would offer safe harbor and a near-certain return to Congress later this year, while allowing her to complete her term in office in her current seat.

Buck’s 15 March decision to bring forward his exit from November to this Friday, however, stripped the floor from beneath her. It triggered a special election in his district that will take place on 25 June and left Boebert with two equally unappealing choices. She could resign her post to run in the special election, giving Democrats the chance to flip her current seat. Or she could stay where she is and gamble on trying to unseat an incumbent in the 5 November general election.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Woah woah! No shame on her for that! I fully support her transition to a post-political career in sex work!

[–] SarcasticMan@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh no, no hate here. It's smart thinking to have a secondary skill set.

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

Or in this case, a skillset.