this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
159 points (96.5% liked)

politics

30318 readers
2279 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The California governor described White House reporters as ‘sycophants’

California Governor Gavin Newsom criticized the media for what he described as overly deferential coverage of Donald Trump, characterizing reporters in Oval Office press briefings as “sycophants.”

The Democratic governor — widely seen as a potential contender for the 2028 presidential race — made the remarks during a Sunday interview with progressive commentator Jack Cocchiarella.

Cocchiarella pressed Newsom on what he framed as “hesitancy” within the White House press corps to scrutinize certain subjects: namely, the 80-year-old president’s health.

“You see these press conferences in the Oval Office,” the governor replied. “You maybe have one or two reasonable reporters. They ask a question; there's no chance for a follow-up. And then it’s seven sycophants from news outlets.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

When was that debunked? How? If you genuinely think misogyny and misogynoir weren't part of why Hillary and Kamala lost then I've got a bridge to sell you.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

What you're missing is that even racists and misogynists will vote for women or minorities if they say the right talking points. Just look at all the pick-mes on the fascist side. This argument is always trotted out by "centrists" against progressives, but the centrists love to run women and minorities, act like that makes them progressive, and blame racism/misogyny when they lose for being uninspiring empty suits. I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 1 points 33 minutes ago

That's not what I'm missing. That's not what I'm saying. You're also ignoring that racists and sexists who otherwise agree with the talking points will refuse to vote for women or minorities, but that's neither here nor there. Bro said definitively that racism and sexism had nothing whatsoever to do with Hillary and Kamala losing. Considering the wildly racist and sexist history and culture of the US, I'm saying that's fuckin nonsense. Is it the only or even the main reason they lost? No probably not. Did it have an influence? Abso-fuckin-lutely. Saying anything else is naive or disingenuous.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Go ahead and sell me that bridge because there is a complete and total lack of evidence to support the claim. Can't really prove a counterfactual. Others made the claim she lost because of this; when asked for evidence, they always come up short.

Counterpoints:

  • Biden polled worse than Harris at the end. (White Guy polling worse than Black Woman). Hence the switch in the first place, even Biden agreed!

  • Michelle Obama has always polled higher than anyone against Trump (Black Woman polling better than White Guy).

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Oh so you're just operating under the assumption that nobody who would otherwise vote for a democrat is sexist or racist in one of the most overtly provably sexist and racist countries on earth. But go ahead and claim that racism and misogyny aren't incredibly relevant factors in every election. There are more undecided/moderate/non voters that are racist and misogynistic than there are republicans. It's fucking stupid to pretend that wasn't a factor. Don't be fucking stupid.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Still no evidence, and an increased propensity for aggression and ad hominems substituting said total lack of evidence, I see. Lots of fingers-in-ear denial and deflection as well.

I win.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Like a pigeon playing chess you knock over the pieces, shit all over the board and think you won. Good job pigeon.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

hahah buddy, I checkmated you two comments ago; you just haven't realized it yet.

Pee-wee chess, though, I get it.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

You've got serious "racism was solved until Obama" energy. Par for the course with the likes of you.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

There you go with the fallacies again... What is this, Pokemon of fallacies? Trying to catch 'em all or something?

Well you've caught strawman.

[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

You're operating under the fallacy that every single racist and sexist in the US already and exclusively vote republican. That's fuckin stupid.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Not fallacy; seems pretty on-point. Bigots coalesce around far-right extremism, and thus MAGA. That logically tracks.

Or what, you think blue-haired hippies preaching solidarity are dyed-in-the-wool bigots or something, lol?

By all means, I'm waiting for your evidence of where all these bigots are at that aren't core maga!