politics

18651 readers

3574 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.
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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

330

Lauren Boebert’s sketchy re-election plan is already blowing up in her face (www.lgbtqnation.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Even though anti-LGBTQ+ Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) recently decided to run for re-election in a different district to increase her chances of success, her plan is already backfiring. In fact, she might not even end up on the ballot.

Boebert switched her re-election campaign from Colorado’s Third District (where many expected her to lose) to the state’s Fourth District. But for her name to appear on the June 25 Republican primary ballot, she needs to collect 1,500 signatures of district residents and win at least 10% of support from the delegates at the Republican party’s biennial convention, according to the left-leaning political website Crooks and Liars.

Even if Boebert collects the 1,500 required signatures by the March 19 deadline, she’ll still need to win over delegates in a district where she has been a relative stranger. Collecting signatures can be a costly process, and the signatures can be tossed out if they’re successfully challenged under a fraud claim.

Furthermore, even if she makes the ballot in the heavily Republican district, Boebert will be joining an already crowded field of seven other candidates, including state House Minority Leader Mike Lynch (R) — and all of them will spend the primary trashing Boebert over her headline-grabbing misbehavior.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 103 points 7 months ago (11 children)

headline-grabbing misbehavior.

That article's author knew exactly what they were writing.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Seems they didn't want to jerk us around ..or did they?😏

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's incredible what can be done with the stroke of a pen.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

Oh come on

load more comments (9 replies)