this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
713 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4573 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
 

Summary

Newt Gingrich blasted a Julia Roberts-led ad encouraging women to vote privately, calling it a sign of the sick values he attributes to Democrats. In a heated exchange with Sean Hannity, he accused the party of promoting dishonesty and moral decay in America, suggesting this reflects a broader erosion of societal integrity. Gingrich, who faced his own scandals, cited Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent split from the Democrats as further proof of disillusionment with what he sees as their corrupt influence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 47 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Throughout his congressional campaign in 1974, Gingrich was having an affair with a young volunteer. An aide who worked with Gingrich throughout the 1970s stated that "it was common knowledge that Newt was involved with other women during his marriage to Jackie."
...
In September 1980, according to friends who knew them both, Newt visited Jackie in the hospital the day after she had undergone surgery to treat her uterine cancer; once there, Newt began talking about the terms of their divorce, at which point Jackie threw him out of the room

In 1993, while still married to Marianne, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, more than two decades his junior.[278] Gingrich was having this affair even as he led the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury related to Clinton's own extramarital affair.[279][128] Gingrich filed for divorce from Marianne in 1999, a few months after she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

Sauce: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

My stepmother was doing her undergrad (and a few years later her law degree) from the University of West Georgia when he was a professor of history there and had started his first congressional campaign. She said literally every woman in school was aware of his affairs with students.

Moral decay in 2024? This is just yet another year of accusations fueled by projection from the right.

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 days ago

Let's not omit that he got fined $300k for ethics violations in 1997 and was found to have accepted 1.7M in bribes (calling them what they are) from Freddie Mac shortly before Freddie wrecked the economy.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee -5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Not to belabor the truism that Gingrich is pure scum, but he's a relevant point in the argument for an age-cap on voting rights.

Hit 70, you're done. Go find something else to do, the needs and wants of the Nation are no longer your purview.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I see what you're getting at, but we need to be careful here as we'll be 70 too at some point.

Under that precedent, gen-Alpha conservicans would likely unanimously vote to have us all thrown into the sea to save on healthcare costs or something. Lmao

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, and when I and you, and anyone else hits 70, then their time influencing the future is over. That's a ballgame, folks.

It's nothing but pure fucking hubris that keeps these antideluvian fossils in their power stations. Society does not benefit. In fact, progress is constrained as a result.

So yeah, we will all be old one day. But that doesn't mean we're all destined to be sad old narcissists.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

So yeah, we will all be old one day. But that doesn't mean we're all destined to be sad old narcissists.

Right! Of course not! My point is that in this case, age isn't the problem, it's still just narcissistic power hungry jerks voting. They just so happen to curse us with their longevity.

So taking voting rights away for all after a certain age wouldn't serve us, but if overall we keep voting in altruistic ways, we can still do a lot of good into our later years.

If you mean they shouldn't be in office calling the shots for us at that age though, I TOTALLY agree.

I think more people will trend against that with time, and we will kill the "you lean more right with age" myth once and for all. :)

Wishing you a long and prosperous life, BTW. <3

[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Would be nice if he put his money where his mouth is. He's 81 years old, but I bet he's still gonna show up Tuesday.