this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
79 points (89.9% liked)

politics

18828 readers
6042 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I think you're both right. He did a lot to support the Texas vs Pennsylvania lawsuit to remove valid ballots, but he didn't actually vote to do it. So he supported the overthrow of the election, he just didn't follow through. How the scales balance after those 2 events, I leave up to you!

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Tom Emmer, a leading Republican candidate to be speaker of the House, baselessly said there were “questionable” practices in the 2020 presidential election.

Later, Emmer signed an amicus brief in support of a last-ditch Texas lawsuit seeking to throw out the results in key swing states.

Though he would vote to certify the results on January 6, 2021, the comments and actions show Emmer flirted with some of the same election denial rhetoric as far-right members of the Republican caucus.

Full Article - CNN

[–] gravitas_deficiency 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ahhh. I didn’t realize he co-signed the amicus. That’s not good.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The devil is in the details! 👹

[–] gravitas_deficiency 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Pro: At least he is smart enough to have read the room and was one of the few people running for Speaker that could say they didn't vote for it.

Neutral: Seems to policy-wise be a split between a Bush and Trump era Republican, so he's slightly less bad than a full fledged MAGA, but still pretty bleh on most issues. But we all knew it was going to be a Republican, so we knew most of us wouldn't like whoever it was anyway, but it sadly could have been a number of worse choices.

Con: As a Pennsylvania introvert who loves mail in voting, screw this guy...