this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
89 points (91.6% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4022 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
all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I honestly can't tell what happened here... The article is confusing as hell and I can't tell if its just too early in the morning for me, or if I'm dumb 😅

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Cameo is a website where you can pay famous people to send a recorded message to someone. People often use it to troll people (google the Zelensky controversy when a bunch of celebs unwittingly parroted Russian propaganda).

In this case, a GOP official used it to make it look like his opponent was pro-LGBTQ issues, which is a bad thing in Republican's eyes. They paid Mulvaney to say "thank you [insert candidate's name here] so much for helping our cause" on video, basically.

Weirdest part of the article imo is how they only call out the misgendering as an afterthought.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, but where's the "severe backfire"?

[–] SickofReddit@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

I think the author thinks that their articles carry more weight than they do and having the article written about it is the backfire?

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 19 points 5 months ago

Using Mulvaney as a tool is a shitty way to treat a person, but apparently Becker doesn’t count her as a real person, which tells you everything you need to know about him.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How exactly did it backfire? He got a bunch of people who Republicans hate to say he's the worst. If anything the scheme worked even better than expected.

[–] Skoobie@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think it's in the sense that he did this with the intent of being favored over his opponent due to his support of things like coal. It backfired because it was so cringe that even the coal groups don't want him now and endorsed his opponent.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 months ago

Coal lobbyists are literally the only Republican-allied group mentioned and they just kept lukewarm distance. From the wording it kind of sounds like they were already with his opponent. They were never going to care about a Dylan Mulvaney troll. The already know who's going to ask "how high" when they say "jump".