Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the cmn32480-approved dept.

More Than 200 Republicans in Congress Are Skipping February Town Halls with Constituents

VICE News reports on Feb 16:

Members of Congress are set to return to their districts this weekend for their first weeklong recess since Donald Trump's inauguration. Heading home during legislative breaks is nothing new, but this year most Republicans are foregoing a hallowed recess tradition: holding in-person town halls where lawmakers take questions from constituents in a high school gym, local restaurant, or college classroom.

After outpourings of rage at some early town halls--including crowds at an event near Salt Lake City yelling "Do your job!" at Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee--many Republicans are ducking in-person events altogether. Instead they're opting for more controlled Facebook Live or "tele-town halls," where questions can be screened by press secretaries and followups are limited--as are the chances of becoming the next viral meme of the Left.

For the first two months of the new Congress, the 292 Republicans have scheduled just 88 in-person town hall events--and 35 of those sessions are for Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, according to a tabulation conducted by Legistorm. In the first two months of the previous Congress in 2015, by contrast, Republicans held 222 in-person town hall events.

[...] "What happens in politics is that over time, you can get increasingly insulated from people that have a strongly held point of view that's different [from yours]", [said Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina]. Sessions like tele-town halls aren't a good substitute, he said, because "oftentimes they will screen their calls and those forums can be manipulated".

Republicans who get [verbally] roughed up at their town halls have taken to dismissing the attendees as professional organizers. [...] While there is no evidence of paid protesters attending town halls, it is true that Democratic activists have been organizing to manufacture viral moments of confrontation like the tea party movement did in the summer of 2009.

[...] One strategy for activists has been to host their own town halls and invite their representatives to attend. [...] Another method has been to confront senators and representative in public places and demand they hold a town hall.

Examples throughout the week at AlterNet and The Daily Hampshire Gazette of Northampton, Massachusetts.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:59AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:59AM (#471450)

    Since they were removed from the summary, these are the names so far:

    Sen. Mitch McConnell - Kentucky (also Senate Majority Leader)
    Sen. Chuck Grassley - Iowa
    Sen. Pat Toomey - Pennsylvania
    Sen. Joni Ernst - Iowa
    Rep. Dave Brat - Virginia
    Rep. Steve Womack - Arkansas

    Sen. Cory Gardner - Colorado
    Sen. Steve Daines - Montana
    Sen. Dean Hellerm, Rep. Mark Amodei - Nevada
    Rep. Don Bacon - Nebraska
    Rep. Louie Gohmert - Texas

    Add these as well:
    Rep. Patrick Tiberi - Ohio (Chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee)
    Rep. Steve Stivers - Ohio
    Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen - New Jersey

    As was mentioned in the stuff which actually made it into the summary, the Blues were pulling this same crap back in 2009-2010 when the Tea Partyers were in the crowds.
    This ducking out crap is NOT what representative government is supposed to look like.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +4  
       Informative=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday February 25 2017, @01:20PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 25 2017, @01:20PM (#471481) Journal

    This ducking out crap is NOT what representative government is supposed to look like.

    And there is you problem.
    If you elect you representatives again and again based on how they're supposed to look like, no wonder somebody who promises he'll do something (even if stupid) gets elected in spite of his ugly hairdo or any other matters of look.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Saturday February 25 2017, @02:50PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Saturday February 25 2017, @02:50PM (#471500)

    Also, one of my own senators, Rob Portman (R-OH), isn't avoiding all his constituents, he's just making sure the only people who can get in are Republican voters. It's really so much easier when politicians have to talk to a room full of people who already agree with them, eh?

    Say what you will about Bernie Sanders, but as a very left-wing guy he still found time to talk at Liberty University and go to town halls with die-hard Trump supporters. Or I can distinctly remember John McCain campaigning for president back in 2000 (in the primary against George W Bush) doing a lot of gladhanding and reaching out to independents and Democrats who were concerned about Bush.

    The other thing I think worth pointing out: Right now, there is not a single branch of the federal government operating with the approval of the majority of Americans, according to the polls. In order from bad to worst - the Supreme Court (45% approval), the President (43% approval), and Congress (19% approval).

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @03:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @03:53PM (#471512)

      > Also, one of my own senators, Rob Portman (R-OH), isn't avoiding all his constituents, he's just making sure the only people who can get in are Republican voters.

      Our Congressman Chris Collins is doing the same thing, meeting with supporters and holding Republican fund raisers. But no open town meetings.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:33PM (#471546)

      When you sore loser fruits are hiring a boatload of paid protesters specifically to ruin these events, what you do think the result is going to be?

      More theater by Team Drama now that the Russia thing didn't play out like they wanted.

      • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @07:15PM (#471571)

        Except they aren't paid! If there were hundreds or thousands of paid protesters showing up, I would think someone could flesh out at least a couple who would admit it. But nobody has! So I would say the only "paid" protesters are those writing that the paid protesters exist...

        The "paid protester" meme is a desperate attempt to divert attention from the fact that many of the policies our new government is considering are NOT wanted by the majority.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:16PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:16PM (#471592)

          So I would say the only "paid" protesters are those writing that the paid protesters exist...

          Trump literally hired actors to pump up his crowd sizes, [politicususa.com] so its no wonder he thinks other people are doing the same.
          Its really a confession of character more than anything else.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:14PM (#471618)

          Orly? George Soros much?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:13PM (#471588)

        A link to your (Alt-Reich) source of "information" would be interesting.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:10PM (#471587)

      Not only is he NOT **very** Left-Wing, Bernie Sanders is NOT anti-Capitalist at all.

      He's not even particularly Liberal in the sense that he has said that he rejects the *gov't* ownership of any of the means of production.
      That would appear to include natural monopolies like rail transport and communications networks.

      I haven't ever heard of his coming out with any SPECIFICS regarding worker-owned cooperative workplaces e.g. copying Italy's Marcora law [google.com].
      What he wants is healthy and well educated USAian wage slaves in order to make USA's existing industrialists competitive.
      Bernie Sanders is NOT of the "Left", much less "very".

      Only in the USA, where there has been a century-long effort to silence and crush Socialism (the Red Purge; McCarthyism), would someone say Sanders is anything other than Right-Center economically and straddling the Authoritarian/Civil Liberties line on the other axis.
      Sanders is a classic Moderate.
      Before USAians started trying to redefine words, that was called "A Conservative".

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by jmorris on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:24PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Saturday February 25 2017, @11:24PM (#471668)

        Nobody would say Bernie is a Socialist.... except Bernie Sanders. He honeymooned in Moscow during the Soviet era, it isn't like he can actually escape the label so he proudly wears it, so you might as well stop the games. Next you can look into the abyss and realize America was not and is not, in anything like its current makeup, going to elect a Socialist. Then realize Bernie also understood this reality. Now you may know the true meaning of despair as the implications of these Truths shatter your world.

        You were used, in exactly the same way the Republicans used Conservatives every cycle. We have had enough and thrown over the table, you are still acting like a nice useful idiot.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @03:01AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @03:01AM (#471711)

          He honeymooned in Moscow during the Soviet era,

          Not really: [politifact.com]

          When reached for comment, Sanders’ campaign said that the dates for the trip had already been set, and the couple "set their wedding date to coincide with that trip because they didn't want to take more time off."

          In a 2007 interview, Jane Sanders also recalled the peculiar timing: "The day after we got married, we marched in a Memorial Day parade, and then we took off in a plane to start the sister city project with Yaroslavl with 10 other people on my honeymoon."

          Bernie Sanders also refers to the trip sarcastically as "quiet and romantic" in his book.

          The "honeymoon" was dotted with meetings, interviews and diplomatic functions. A June 2015 profile in The Guardian described the former mayor’s meeting with Yaroslavl city officials:

          "After receiving a rundown of central planning, Soviet-style, from Yaroslavl’s mayor, Alexander Riabkov, Sanders notes how the quality of both housing and health care in America appeared to be ‘significantly better’ than in the communist state. ‘However,’ he added, ‘the cost of both services is much, much, higher in the United States.’ "

          An education in central planning probably wasn’t the only item on Sanders’ itinerary. Yaroslavl is home to historic churches and buildings, and the Sanderses would have been in for some good sightseeing, said Ariel Cohen, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

          Will made it sound as if Sanders was visiting to condone Soviet torture practices, but the Burlington trip was more of a dialogue-building exchange program. The Vermont weekly newspaper Seven Days reported in 2009 that the sister-city relationship "helped local residents who sought to ease tensions between the United States and Soviet Union by initiating citizen-to-citizen exchanges with a Russian city."

          Also, the Soviet Union was barely intact at the time of the trip.

          you are still acting like a nice useful idiot.

          And you are still acting like a nice useful asshole.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @03:28AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @03:28AM (#471720)

          America was not and is not, in anything like its current makeup, going to elect a Socialist

          Actually, in June 2015, Gallup said that 47 percent of Americans would vote for a socialist president [google.com]

          Bernie had made the word popular--even though it didn't actually apply to him.

          Meanwhile, in November, Trump got 45.94 percent of the popular vote. [wikipedia.org]
          111,850 voted for Bernie even though he'd been blackballed by "his party".
          With the 2 populists running head to head, it would have been interesting.

          A significant number of folks will tell they didn't so much vote -for- Trump as they voted -against- Hillary.
          One also wonders what would have happened with Gary Johnson's 4,489,233 votes and Jill Stein's 1,457,222.

          You were used

          Not I. Every time I voted, my vote went to the individual I wanted to win that race:
          Bernie in the Primary.[1] (In my state, Blues allow you to cross party lines to vote for their guy/gal.) Can't stand the Clintons.
          Jill in the General. (The Greens don't allow that crossover stuff in the Primary and I'm registered non-partisan.)
          By the summer, Jill pretty much had things sewed up anyway and I really REALLY wanted Clinton to lose.

          [1] Bernie went into the convention carrying 22 states IIRC.
          The party elite then proceeded to treat him like a bastard stepchild.

          Since Hell is fiction and Jews don't believe in that nonsense anyway, cursing Debbie Wasserman Schultz to eternal hellfire just doesn't give any satisfaction.
          Maybe something really nasty will happen to her on this plane of existence.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday February 27 2017, @06:59PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday February 27 2017, @06:59PM (#472444)

        My point is, by USAian standards, Bernie is definitely left-wing (the big thing he favors that makes him left-wing: redistribution of income to poorer people).

        But you're definitely right that part of the problem in the US is that you have the supposedly left-wing party a bit to the right of where the right-wing party used to be, while the right-wing party has gone off the deep end into sheer idiocy. And no, I wouldn't be calling the entire party idiots if they weren't cheerfully following a proven idiot who managed to lose half of his daddy's fortune.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by charon on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:57PM

    by charon (5660) on Saturday February 25 2017, @05:57PM (#471551) Journal

    OO_, count yourself lucky that I published this at all. Politics is not part of our mission. This story has zero science/tech aspects, and you submitted it three times. As you may have noticed, it sat for a while because no one else wanted to publish it, even less so now that you have decided to start calling out specific editors in the submission itself.

    If the only complaint you can level at my editing is that I dropped some of your fragment identifiers, that does not really rise to any level of partisanship. Your first summary was represented in full; anyone interested in the story could click the links to the other source articles, without your clumsy, cherry-picked, ellipsis filled quotes. Partisan does not mean "didn't do exactly what I wanted him to."

    But hey, think of it this way: you may just have won another battle. Due to bullshit like this in the comments, I will think twice before I use one of your submissions again. Just a few more successful battles like this and you'll lose the war. Well done?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:24PM (#471600)

      The comment is currently at +4.
      Others have added other names to the (meta)thread.
      Clearly, there is interest in seeing the names here on this page.

      I dropped some of your fragment identifiers

      When I expend effort to make something more useful and someone clumsily/offhandedly destroys my efforts, I become agitated.
      Forgive the hell out of me for being human and taking pride in my work and not wanting it to be treated like crap.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 27 2017, @08:20AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 27 2017, @08:20AM (#472165) Journal

        When I expend effort to make something more useful and someone clumsily/offhandedly destroys my efforts, I become agitated.

        You still haven't said what the point of these URL fragments was supposed to be. As I noted earlier, I loaded the URL in question, with [vice.com] and without [vice.com] the fragment and saw no difference in the final webpage. It looks to have the same appearance, same browsing behavior, and roughly the same download time. Perhaps you'd get your wish, if you'd tell us what the advantages of the original URL were supposed to be? Editors can always fix links after the fact.

        I will add that I find your article contributions to be interesting. I definitely don't want to see them stop coming. But I just don't see what the problem is supposed to be here.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @09:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27 2017, @09:13PM (#472528)

          You're playing catch-up. [soylentnews.org]

          These are not included specifically for -you- nor for anyone else who is fully able-bodied. [soylentnews.org]
          (Try blocking CSS and see how the links work, with and without.)

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 27 2017, @11:36PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 27 2017, @11:36PM (#472576) Journal
            I'm still playing catch up. I still don't get what you are talking about. How do fragment identifiers help people with vision problems?
            • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:37PM

              by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:37PM (#472842) Journal

              Vision problems? Am I somehow the only person whose browser actually renders these pages differently with the URL fragments in place? Are you using some weird or ancient browser? 'Cause it works for me on Firefox 51, Chrome 50, and even IE 11 (I'm at work...). Or maybe you're using some massive resolution that fits the entire article in one screen?

              I mean sure it can help with screen readers and such knowing where to start -- but I've got perfect eyesight (well, with these contacts in...) and it still helps me in the exact same way by jumping past headers and ads all the other junk.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:01PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 28 2017, @05:01PM (#472864) Journal

                Am I somehow the only person whose browser actually renders these pages differently with the URL fragments in place?

                Using Firefox here. The URL fragment I looked at didn't look any different to me, with or without.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:28PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday February 28 2017, @04:28PM (#472838) Journal

      OO_, count yourself lucky that I published this at all. Politics is not part of our mission. This story has zero science/tech aspects

      Um...if you're going to be staff here, you should probably take a look at The FAQ [soylentnews.org], since it definitely does NOT agree with you about the purpose of this site. Your mission is NOT science and tech, your mission includes general interest, and politics is CERTAINLY a part of that. Your other complaints about the submission do seem valid, but reading that one -- and having it as the FIRST AND PRIMARY COMPLAINT -- is frankly rather frightening. Either recognize that your job as an editor might include some content that you personally aren't interested in, or get together with the other editors and update the About/FAQ/etc pages to make it clear that the original mission has in fact been abandoned as you claim it has.

      And for what it's worth, except the obvious fake one the URL fragments *do* cause a noticable visual difference in how the pages load for me on Firefox. The example you posed a couple comments down (to Vice) is the exact same one I used, although the difference is more noticeable with Alternet and others. But they do work as intended, and jump directly to the article. Might be your browser or screen size that appears to be breaking them (I suspect for the Vice one your screen might just be large enough to display the article at the top -- mine isn't. But if the others don't work either it must be your browser I guess)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragment_identifier#Examples [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 1) by charon on Tuesday February 28 2017, @10:44PM

        by charon (5660) on Tuesday February 28 2017, @10:44PM (#473086) Journal

        I appreciate the feedback.

        The FAQ says this:

        Do you only want tech news?

        We aim for around 70% technology and science stories with the remainder being a mix of content with general interest to our community.

        So, fair enough, it does say general interest. It does not, however, say politics, which is the sole topic of this article. You may think that's splitting hairs, but politics is a subject that a lot of folks do not wish to see here. The reason for the creation of the new Politics Nexus is so that people can turn it OFF and never see those stories. It is probably the most requested feature. We get enough political submissions that we could run 5-10 per day. They would drown the rest of the site if we editors were not choosy about which we publish, though we'd get tons of comments since political stories regularly hit 100+. But there are lots of places to discuss politics (read: shout past one another) on the internet. We aim for something different.

        See also the very first line of the FAQ:

        What is this site?

        This is a community-driven news and discussion site, where you can submit interesting stories, our editors accept and post those stories they find appropriate, and everyone can comment on them. [Ed. Note: Emphasis added.]

        We make these decisions of appropriateness all the time, and if there is doubt we discuss it. Everyone has their own tolerance for where a story lies on that spectrum. No one lightly rejects a story, and I've seen many published by other editors that I would not have accepted. I've also published plenty of stories that I personally do not agree with; I am capable of objectivity.

        As far as the fragment identifiers, I usually don't delete the ones that are links to anchors further down the document (#content, etc.). I know what they do. I may not agree with skipping the site header and author's byline, but, (remember, objectivity) it's not worth making a fuss over. The type of fragments I delete are these, from the original submission of this very article: https://www.legistorm.com/pro.html?ExtremelyPoorUseOfAccessibilityFeatures#NoFragmentIdentifiers. [legistorm.com] Do you see the part beginning with a question mark? It does nothing to change where the link points. I can only guess it was written by OO_ in an effort to have that fragment show up in the target site's visit logs as a protest that the site does not have a below-the-header-anchor he can link to. If OO_ wishes to complain to that site, he is welcome to do so, but not welcome to drag every user of our site with him.

        Another link sent with a different submission [soylentnews.org] is: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7UcVPgwMJ_MJ:usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/05/29/3-lies-about-jobs-and-the-unemployment-rat+Lp+Lp+Lp+Lp+Lpe+the.economy.needs.to.add.about.180000.jobs.a.month.just.to.keep.up.with.population.growth+Lp+subtract-180000-*-*-*-*-*-*+*-*-*-employed-people-*.*-*-*.*-*-*-*-*-*+*-*-the-decline-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*&strip=1#rectangleA. [googleusercontent.com] This highlighting and cherry-picking is more than a bit disruptive to reading the article; it was removed. As a result of this kind of behavior, we editors have all learned to take a long look at anything added to the end of any link in any story.

        Again, I do appreciate feedback. In no way is this sarcasm. I'm trying to write this with my shiny editor's hat only half-way on. On enough to give you a look at what's behind the curtain, and off enough to not be some kind of Authority. I don't speak for anyone but myself; I'm just a guy who volunteers to do copy-editing. I happen to think I did the correct thing for good and valid reasons, but I'll talk with my colleagues and ask if I overstepped.

        Cheers and good evening.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @08:13PM (#471589)

    The difference there is that by that time the GOP had already decided that their top priority was making Obama a failure and one term President.

    Claiming that this is at all the same thing is laughable. The current protestors aren't being bused in by PACs, this is a real movement and not one that's based upon ignorance like the Tea Party was. Get the government's hands off my medicare, indeed. It was an appropriate name though, the original Tea Party was full of racist morons as well.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @09:35PM (#471625)

    Make 0 mistake about what you see. It is a game to them. They are gaslighting you. The very thing they accuse the republicans of doing? Hilary Clinton did for nearly a year during her presidential campaign. She refused to have a press conference for nearly a year. The only people she would let in when she was a senator? They had to donate to her foundation to see her. Now that they have sandbagged the 'town halls' she accuses them of not showing up.

    Don't think so? Go watch the project veritas videos from last year. They are proud of what they do.

    They 'lost' so now they want you to feel bad or angry. It is 100% narcissist tools as set out by saul alinksi. Do not fall for the silly junk they are doing. It is an illusion, to gaslight you into thinking only they can save you.

    Projection, lying, and making themselves the center of the world is what narcissist do. They cant help it. It is their fuel. It is how they control you.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:02PM (#471633)
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:55PM (#471653)

        Dirty Energy guy Philip Anschutz bought up a bunch of small-time publications with the intent of turning them into Reactionary propaganda organs.
        From that point on, they have not been useful sources of information.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 25 2017, @10:41PM (#471649)

      You forgot the /sarc tag.

      What's that? You're serious.
      That's just pathetic.
      Those are the folks who dummy-up videos via dishonest editing then pass them on to Breitbart. [google.com]
      (Breitbart has been successfully sued over this junk.)

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]