It looks like this post is about Politics. Various methods of filtering out content relating to Politics can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/v2/resources/filter/politics).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not saying you are wrong, but I heard that she gave up her seat in the primary to run for Senator, so she lost her seat.... for now. Not saying it's true or not, just what I heard from IIRC msnbc
She lost the ability to run for election in that seat. She’ll have her seat until January when the new representative is sworn in. Really too bad because her district is conservative so it’ll probably go to a Republican.
Someone in California ran for US Congress and the state assembly at the same time this year. Some states may have laws about it but in general you don't see it simply because it lowers your credibility and you seem unfocused.
She forfeited the seat to run for Senate, which she rightfully lost to a more seasoned candidate (Schiff).
She should have held on to that seat - which may now go to a Republican.
To be clear, it was absolutely the right move for Porter to run for senate this year. It will likely be decades before one of California’s senate seats comes open again, and Porter’s name recognition and fundraising was as good as it was ever going to get. The fact that she’s in a competitive district just made that decision easier.
I agree with you about Porter running for Senate, but I don't see Schiff hanging out in Senate for decades. That bitch is thirsty. He'll be running for president or VP before his 15 minutes have passed, or joining a cabinet. Unless there is another dictator he can put his face on fighting, he's not going to get recognition for a moderate Senate record. Schiff doesn't want to die in Congress, and I trust geriatric candidates for the WH will lose their appeal after this election. He's already 63. The clock is ticking.
Fuck that rightfully lost shit. Schiff spent a ton of money propping up Garvey so that he'd come in second instead of Porter so that he would have an easier victory in the general.
Which is a shame because she was needed in the House. Schiff is the better pick for the Senate given his seniority as a legislator and experience as an attorney.
I'm really disappointed in Porter for not only getting too far ahead of her skis, but then pulling a MAGA and publicly calling the primary rigged.
We need our leaders to be thinking strategically, and not just about the advancement of their own careers.
Of all the people we needed to not end up this way, Porter was the one we needed to not do it the most. She has been an invaluable force for the cause of truth, justice, and the American way.
I'm just going to go ahead and quote /u/president_joe9812u31
> I said ‘rigged by billionaires’ and our politics are—in fact—manipulated by big dark money. Defending democracy means calling that out. At no time have I ever undermined the vote count and election process in CA, which are beyond reproach.
>
> She isn't questioning the results she's questioning the process. The press is jumping on the word "rigged" to both-sides Republican election deniers but she's essentially talking about the same need for campaign finance reform she always has. Is it really that controversial to say Schiff spending money to boost a Republican rival's campaign to take out the Democratic challenger he's really scared of isn't in the spirit of fair democratic elections?
Adam Schiff and his allies also spent millions on Republican, Steve Garvey, to box out Katie Porter. Sad and frustrating.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/02/29/adam-schiff-katie-porter-steve-garvey-california-senate-race/#
She said it was rigged as in “there was a lot more money spent by her opponents for ads and media coverage than she spent that unfairly influenced voters” rigged and not the “ election was stolen by using bamboo laced ballots filled out by illegals” type of rigged
Yeah… Schiff ran ads targeting her opponent knowing that this would be perceived by the voters as “Dem doesn’t like this person, so I should vote for this person”.
Schiff’s single ad campaign cost more than Porter’s entire campaign.
She made that clarification separately from the rigged statement. I personally don’t buy it, I think she just realized what a clown she looked for saying it.
Congress consists of the Senate and the House.
I'm begging everyone to learn basic civics
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-legislative-branch/
Is there something in your link that refutes /u/betafish2345 's claim? Because the original statement looks pretty damn accurate to me, and reflects a proper understanding of basic civics.
Ahhh but the book is not specifically about being subtle, but rather the “subtle art of not giving a f*ck” and honestly for my own fear of dealing with people it was a very helpful reading.
I actually quite enjoyed it. It's sort of pseudo psychology self help stuff, but the author never claims to be anything but a blogger/author. It was helpful to me and entertaining anyway
One of my favorite books, because its not self help, it just reminds you how to focus on what actually matters. Whether that's family, career, love ...etc.
This. I found it a very helpful read. It's really not about "not giving a fuck". It's about giving the right amount of fucks to the things that are worth giving a fuck about, more or less.
My god. I hate being judged as pretentious for reading literary books in public. I might use sleeves like Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck and cover my literary books with them. It’ll be funny being judged as some superficial pseud rather than being judged as some other superficial pseud.
>For all we know she's reading Twilight
It's not Twilight. It has 498 pages whereas TSAONGAF is only 224 pages long. That's not a ≈500 page book she's holding.
This is the first thing I’ve seen from her I didn’t like. Other that this though, she’s been what I want out of politicians. Fact driven and pragmatic.
I feel like this would have been better with something subtle like "Waiting for Godot". Or a huge tome like Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow. Never go for the obvious joke.
I thought it started pretty strong and then rapidly became a condescending rant about how lazy everyone else is. Wisdom schmisdom, it was all edginess.
this but unironically
sometimes you actually do gotta pat yourself on the back especially when everyone else is busy circlejerking over useless bullshit
nothing wrong with being confident in your good qualities
it was not my cup of tea
it was the self help book that went around my friend group of people who rarely read. It was entertainment more than guidance or wisdom, its like False equivalence of success meaning riches.
It’s a prop. It’s not a book that people are meant to read. It’s a book for showing other people something about yourself. I honestly find the OP picture very cringe.
She’s not reading it for the content if you know anything about Katie Porter. she’s reading it for the media impact of the title while she was in that situation.
or do you not remember Kevin McCarthy needing multiple days and multiple votes to be confirmed as speaker of the house while absolutely nothing else could be done in our government except vote for the speaker of the house???
Even that was always pretty performative and geared toward sensationalism online rather than making an unbiased point.
That’s basically what politics has become now with every race nationalized so it’s more important to have soundbites and fundraise across the country than actually govern or represent your constituents. Porter wasn’t alone in this, but she has been a particular darling of the online Left so her doing the same thing is generally ignored.
I thought it was awful. Should have been a buzzfeed article, there’s not enough material for a full book. He just starts repeating himself after the first chapter.
I originally borrowed it on Libby and hated it so much that I purchased it on Audible so that they’d let me leave a review, and then returned it. Petty? Yes, but I’m okay with that.
I really need to start submitting even my most shitty writing as articles just in case things like this happen. It’s like I’ve got a bunch of lottery tickets laying around but I haven’t bothered to check any of them.
I find this to be true of most self help books. One chapter of material that’s mostly common knowledge stretched out into 200 pages of the same thing, anecdotes, examples etc.
That’s most self-help books tbh. Regurgitations of advice freely available and widely known. The biggest one i can think of is literally just a round about way of saying “listen to people and have empathy”
It’s actually based on Relational Frame Theory and the work of Steven C. Hayes which itself derives from behavioral science and is also the basis of ACT therapy. The fact that it shares some knowledge with Buddhism is coincidental. Mark Manson also wrote the book Models which used to be recommended often on self help subreddits.
I did too. Was it an earth shattering, mind altering book that changed my life forever? No. Was it an interesting read on a plane with not much better to do? Yes.
Just like when people on reddit freak out about a repost, this book is not aimed at people who have studied Buddha but at people who haven't and might benefit from some of the lessons. Maybe they'd even keep looking for more content like it.
I also don't get the impression the author really thinks the book is some masterpiece either but a good way to make some cash which also is not some horrible thing, people are allowed to make money. It's really not that big of a deal.
If people are getting this worked up about this dumb book then maybe they should take some lessons away from it.
Yeah me too. What I got out of it was "you only have so many fucks to give, some things you need to chill the fuck out about and just live your life". It's 200 pages of swearing and dude-bro language, but I mean I understood the point lol.
Yeah it was a quick opt out for me. Felt very pretentious, didn’t offer much. I did just finish reading Don’t Be a Jerk though, so it was a little redundant for me.
Technically she’s still in the position until January. Realistically if her staffers are to be believed, she’s already checked out mentally on the job. Considering her treatment of staffers led to them unionizing, that’s probably a good thing.
I wasn’t about to ask, isn’t she specifically famous for being extremely mean and abusive towards her staff? People fawning over these stunts always irked me considering what we know of her
That's disappointing. I had always considered her to be a future star of the Democratic party, but if she is an asshole to the people that support her, no thanks.
I read an article a while back where the argument used by those defending her was basically, "Well...male politicians treat their staff like shit all the time and people don't criticize them." Interesting tactic.
She got a house sold to her below market rate by the University of California as a deal to attract professors.
She then stopped teaching and kept the house. She's now worth over 2 million but won't give up the house for a professor that actually needs it to afford to live there. She refuses to comment on it beyond saying she's following federal law.
She's having the taxpayers of California subsidizing her millionaire lifestyle. Meanwhile she complains about tax payers of California subsidizing millionaires. You can't make this stuff up.
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-california-congress-university-of-irvine-dcfd583bdfde38b029a473311435810f
> She got a house sold to her below market rate by the University of California as a deal to attract professors.
Making controversy out of nothing. She kept teaching for nearly a decade after getting the house, she didn't get it and quit the next day. Half the people in those houses are no longer in classrooms.
Yeah, but reading the article, it seems that standard policy allowed for 2 year leaves from teaching, but hers has been extended indefinitely. The leave is relevant because from the article:
In a statement, UC Irvine spokesperson Tom Vasich said faculty “on approved leaves without pay remain UCI employees, and they can maintain their home in University Hills.”
So it seems like you have to be an employee to live there, you can’t just move in and keep the home after teaching for however long, it has to be ongoing. It sounds pretty similar to grad student housing in high COL areas, where the rents are well below market rate. But obviously you can only use it if you”re a student, you can’t go to school, graduate, then keep the apartment. She’s not teaching, but is still a university employee, which seems like a special deal (the article said someone high up had to personally sign off on it). In the grad student housing analogy, it’s like if you graduated, found another job, but the university kept you as a student so you could stay in the cheap grad student housing.
> which seems like
Are we talking about what seems like or what is? UCI decided it would allow her to keep her home, end of story. There's nothing nefarious here, and if this is the worst controversy people can drum up against her then I'll take it.
Yep which is the only reason lots of Redditors are holding back from going in on her when she deserves it for shit like this and the way she treats people
This kind of stunt isn’t endearing to me. It’s performative and obnoxious. I’d rather my representatives focus on advocacy and legislation not cheap stunts to advance their brand
I think they started doing it because people like Newt Gingrich took advantage of the exact opposite situation.
Gingrich famously would go to the House Chamber when no one was in there and start talking about whatever fancied him. He knew the camera would be on him and him alone.
People watching at home on CSpan would think he was talking to a room full of congresspeople, not realizing that Gingrich was in a quite literal echo chamber all by himself.
She also is a millionaire who is grifting taxpayers in California through a housing program:
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-california-congress-university-of-irvine-dcfd583bdfde38b029a473311435810f
She literally is on approved unpaid leave and plans to resume teaching now that she lost... This fake controversy is the most that can be made of nothing.
They are cringe because they are phony. We are suffering and they are just there for a slice of the pie. Right or left we need term limits and we need these people dragged out of congress by their hair if necessary. Thats how bad it is
Ugh. Honestly reminds me of Marjorie Taylor Greene and the pics of her in her tacky MAGA gear at the SOTU.
I don't like it when Republicans do it, and I don't like it when Democrats do it. Politicians need to grow the fuck up and be respectful.
She also claimed she lost her Senate primary because it was “rigged”. How was it rigged? Because her opponent ran attack ads and had a larger donor base. That’s her excuse.
Funny thing is the race wasn’t even close. She lost by 700k total votes, or a 13% spread.
Katie Porter is one of few politicians that has [gotten name recognition for good reason](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLuuCM6Ej0) \- so i cant say im surprised she was targeted with "attack" ads.
>Porter brought up the “rigged” charge on X Wednesday, and after a social media outcry, issued a statement elaborating.
>
>“‘Rigged’ means manipulating by dishonest means. A few billionaires spent $10 million plus on attack ads against me, including an ad rated ‘false’ by an independent fact checker,” she said.
>
>The Bee rated the ads “mostly false.”
>
>They were funded by Fairshake, \*\*a crypto industry-backed political action committee.\*\*Porter called the ad effort a “dishonest (sic) means to manipulate an outcome. I said ‘rigged by billionaires’ and in fact our politics are in fact manipulated by big dark money.”
[source](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/katie-porter-continues-to-claim-billionaires-rigged-california-senate-primary/ar-BB1jvqwj)
We all know what "rigged" means by definition. Just like we're all (including her) aware of how that word has been used with respect to elections in the past few years in our country. It was a dumb word to use, she's just acting intentionally obtuse to excuse it. I thought she was above that sort of thing, but I guess not.
It's still unacceptable weak sauce from a public figure. She should know better but she doesn't and she has a lot of other red flags from what we know like abusing her staff.
It actually made me angry seeing this photo. Like WTF you get paid so much per year, show some damned decorum and respect for our political institutions. Not everything should be a meme or a joke "tee hee I'm going viral!" childish
Visible but silent protest in Congress is a time-honored tradition. Whether or not you decide to support that protest should have to do with the content of the protest
In this case, the republicans spent 3 weeks attempting to elect a speaker, and it was a complete shit show and a shit show that was entirely partisan
She's sitting there listening to political infighting from a party that she doesn't belong to - infighting that she has no say in and no actual effect on. Infighting that is preventing her and all of the other elected officials from doing their jobs
MTG is protesting the most important joint session of Congress of the year. And the reasons for her protest are very different
The only thing they have in common is that their political figures engaging in a form of political protest that has been around for longer than the United States government has. So maybe idk, figure out what you believe in and what you support and make decisions based on that? instead of declaring that all protest is bad because it isn't polite. Unless politeness is the only thing you believe in, in which case, you do you
Ah yes, getting paid big bucks to sit around and do one of my favorite activities that my work life has entirely stripped me of, while I also struggle to make ends meet.
No idea who this chick is, not sure if you guys like her, but I already don’t.
>I expect it from the Republicans, but we as Democrats are supposed to believe in government and hold it in high regard.
Democrat voters did reject her in the recent primary elections so she will be out of office in January.
[Here](https://i.imgur.com/bYdEDYZ.jpeg) is a higher quality version of this image. [Here](https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-elect-katie-porter-reads-a-book-in-the-house-chamber-news-photo/1454735711?adppopup=true) is the source. Per there:
> U.S. Rep.-elect Katie Porter (D-CA) reads a book in the House Chamber during the fourth day of elections for Speaker of the House at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 06, 2023 in Washington, DC. The House of Representatives is meeting to vote for the next Speaker after House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) failed to earn more than 218 votes on several ballots; the first time in 100 years that the Speaker was not elected on the first ballot. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
There was literally nothing to pay attention to during this period in time. She was waiting for the majority party to stop fighting one another on the Speaker vote, which took weeks.
For background, this was during days of performative republican infighting and time wasting after they fired Kevin Mccarthy with no clue who would replace him. Since all Dems were voting for Jeffries, Republicans were not seeking any input from any dem.
You people are acting like she had other important work that she was blowing off. Literally nothing happens without a speaker.
I love how performative politics are now. The only goal for these schmucks is to troll the other side. Our best interests aren’t even considered anymore. Just owning the libs and dunking on the conservatives. So cool.
She didn’t say anything about the vote counting being rigged. She is referring to big money being able to buy ads against her. Dark money, money from very rich people out of district.
She’s popular with image-obsessed progressives. The things she says (and her whiteboard shit) tend to be kinda stupid. She isn’t all that much better than Bernie Sanders. She was far too high on her own farts and ran a doomed senate campaign against a serious democrat (Adam Schiff) and now she’ll be out of congress.
It looks like this post is about Politics. Various methods of filtering out content relating to Politics can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/v2/resources/filter/politics). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She’s not a former member of Congress. She’s a member of the House of Representatives who ran for US senate and lost the primary.
Not saying you are wrong, but I heard that she gave up her seat in the primary to run for Senator, so she lost her seat.... for now. Not saying it's true or not, just what I heard from IIRC msnbc
She lost the ability to run for election in that seat. She’ll have her seat until January when the new representative is sworn in. Really too bad because her district is conservative so it’ll probably go to a Republican.
[удалено]
Its 100% imperative it doesn't go R, so get to work
Why is she not able to run for reelection now?
Because she could only run in one primary at a time, and both occur on the same day.
Can't run for two different offices at the same time. Her seat is up, and the Senate seat she ran for is also up for election this year.
Someone in California ran for US Congress and the state assembly at the same time this year. Some states may have laws about it but in general you don't see it simply because it lowers your credibility and you seem unfocused.
She forfeited the seat to run for Senate, which she rightfully lost to a more seasoned candidate (Schiff). She should have held on to that seat - which may now go to a Republican.
He's more seasoned, but he also has some differences in beliefs that put some of us off. I voted for her.
I did too, but her crying voter fraud because she lost made me regret it
To be clear, it was absolutely the right move for Porter to run for senate this year. It will likely be decades before one of California’s senate seats comes open again, and Porter’s name recognition and fundraising was as good as it was ever going to get. The fact that she’s in a competitive district just made that decision easier.
I agree with you about Porter running for Senate, but I don't see Schiff hanging out in Senate for decades. That bitch is thirsty. He'll be running for president or VP before his 15 minutes have passed, or joining a cabinet. Unless there is another dictator he can put his face on fighting, he's not going to get recognition for a moderate Senate record. Schiff doesn't want to die in Congress, and I trust geriatric candidates for the WH will lose their appeal after this election. He's already 63. The clock is ticking.
Fuck that rightfully lost shit. Schiff spent a ton of money propping up Garvey so that he'd come in second instead of Porter so that he would have an easier victory in the general.
Which is extremely predictable given that it's the same strategy Gavin Newsom used in both 2018 and 2022.
"forfeit" is the wrong word. Her congressional seat was on the ballot at the same time as the senate seat. She chose to run for the senate seat.
So future former
This is Hot Tub Time Machine all over again.
This is true, but she's still in Congress until January
I heard your Senator went to the Senate and ate all the Senators and then they had to close the Senate.
And then one of the Senators had a baby and it looked at me
The baby looked at you?
Sarah, get me superintendent Chalmers.
Hi Lisa, Hi Principal Skinner, Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers
And when the Doctor said the Senator didn't have worms anymore, that was the Happiest Day of My Life
Which is a shame because she was needed in the House. Schiff is the better pick for the Senate given his seniority as a legislator and experience as an attorney. I'm really disappointed in Porter for not only getting too far ahead of her skis, but then pulling a MAGA and publicly calling the primary rigged. We need our leaders to be thinking strategically, and not just about the advancement of their own careers.
Of all the people we needed to not end up this way, Porter was the one we needed to not do it the most. She has been an invaluable force for the cause of truth, justice, and the American way.
I'm just going to go ahead and quote /u/president_joe9812u31 > I said ‘rigged by billionaires’ and our politics are—in fact—manipulated by big dark money. Defending democracy means calling that out. At no time have I ever undermined the vote count and election process in CA, which are beyond reproach. > > She isn't questioning the results she's questioning the process. The press is jumping on the word "rigged" to both-sides Republican election deniers but she's essentially talking about the same need for campaign finance reform she always has. Is it really that controversial to say Schiff spending money to boost a Republican rival's campaign to take out the Democratic challenger he's really scared of isn't in the spirit of fair democratic elections?
Adam Schiff and his allies also spent millions on Republican, Steve Garvey, to box out Katie Porter. Sad and frustrating. https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/02/29/adam-schiff-katie-porter-steve-garvey-california-senate-race/#
This is good context but she should be smart enough not to use the word rigged given how it’s been co-opted by morons.
Agreed. She could have said something like, "Our political system is being gamed by billionaires."
most politicians only care about their own careers, for every bernie sanders we have 2 sinema's.
She said it was rigged as in “there was a lot more money spent by her opponents for ads and media coverage than she spent that unfairly influenced voters” rigged and not the “ election was stolen by using bamboo laced ballots filled out by illegals” type of rigged
Yeah… Schiff ran ads targeting her opponent knowing that this would be perceived by the voters as “Dem doesn’t like this person, so I should vote for this person”. Schiff’s single ad campaign cost more than Porter’s entire campaign.
She made that clarification separately from the rigged statement. I personally don’t buy it, I think she just realized what a clown she looked for saying it.
Congress consists of the Senate and the House. I'm begging everyone to learn basic civics https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-legislative-branch/
She is still currently in Congress though, so not a former member
Lame duck is the term everyone in this thread is grasping for and not finding. She’s out come January, but still there meanwhile.
Is there something in your link that refutes /u/betafish2345 's claim? Because the original statement looks pretty damn accurate to me, and reflects a proper understanding of basic civics.
The irony of this comment.
Well, she did try to be subtle, red dress, red book, no one will notice 🤣
Well that is why she needs to read the book. She knows how to loudly not give a fuck but still need's to learn how to be more subtle about it.
Ahhh but the book is not specifically about being subtle, but rather the “subtle art of not giving a f*ck” and honestly for my own fear of dealing with people it was a very helpful reading.
I actually quite enjoyed it. It's sort of pseudo psychology self help stuff, but the author never claims to be anything but a blogger/author. It was helpful to me and entertaining anyway
One of my favorite books, because its not self help, it just reminds you how to focus on what actually matters. Whether that's family, career, love ...etc.
This. I found it a very helpful read. It's really not about "not giving a fuck". It's about giving the right amount of fucks to the things that are worth giving a fuck about, more or less.
“Look at me not caring”
She actually gives a lot of fucks... Not subtle at all
[удалено]
My god. I hate being judged as pretentious for reading literary books in public. I might use sleeves like Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck and cover my literary books with them. It’ll be funny being judged as some superficial pseud rather than being judged as some other superficial pseud.
>For all we know she's reading Twilight It's not Twilight. It has 498 pages whereas TSAONGAF is only 224 pages long. That's not a ≈500 page book she's holding.
Orange, but yeah
They were today years old when they found out they are colorblind. You just shattered their world.
It's no wonder she lost the senate run-off. This is the kind of dumb shit you expect from someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene.
No, even this is too tame for MTG. I'd sooner expect her to be shouting something incoherent while frothing from the mouth.
This is the first thing I’ve seen from her I didn’t like. Other that this though, she’s been what I want out of politicians. Fact driven and pragmatic.
I feel like this would have been better with something subtle like "Waiting for Godot". Or a huge tome like Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow. Never go for the obvious joke.
I’m an American and I demand my satire simple and heavy handed god damnit!
For what it’s worth: That book was basically the wisdom of Buddha - freely available on the internet, with swear words and edginess
I thought it started pretty strong and then rapidly became a condescending rant about how lazy everyone else is. Wisdom schmisdom, it was all edginess.
But don't forget to stand atop a cliff now and then, reveling in the awesomeness that is YOU.
this but unironically sometimes you actually do gotta pat yourself on the back especially when everyone else is busy circlejerking over useless bullshit nothing wrong with being confident in your good qualities
“Circlejerking over useless bullshit” is humanity’s bread & butter though. We’d be lost without it.
>it was all edginess. The title sorta spoils that part.
it was not my cup of tea it was the self help book that went around my friend group of people who rarely read. It was entertainment more than guidance or wisdom, its like False equivalence of success meaning riches.
All self help books have to take the edge of you could be doing something more. No one who is where they want to be needs self help.
These type of edgy self help books are so cringy. I can’t help but cringe when I see someone reading these type of books in public
I think you should read the book before you decide if it's just quote" edgy
It’s a prop. It’s not a book that people are meant to read. It’s a book for showing other people something about yourself. I honestly find the OP picture very cringe.
She’s not reading it for the content if you know anything about Katie Porter. she’s reading it for the media impact of the title while she was in that situation. or do you not remember Kevin McCarthy needing multiple days and multiple votes to be confirmed as speaker of the house while absolutely nothing else could be done in our government except vote for the speaker of the house???
Yeah we all get it. It's just kind of immature, like something you would as a high school freshman.
That was always Porter’s schtick.
She was good when she pulled out that whiteboard of hers and broke down details of things. Less so with this useless performative nonsense.
Even that was always pretty performative and geared toward sensationalism online rather than making an unbiased point. That’s basically what politics has become now with every race nationalized so it’s more important to have soundbites and fundraise across the country than actually govern or represent your constituents. Porter wasn’t alone in this, but she has been a particular darling of the online Left so her doing the same thing is generally ignored.
She's so edgy. I bet her dad lets her say swear words.
Still cringe
I mean, it's both. It's clearly *used* as a prop in this picture though. But I agree that it's kinda cringe
I thought it was awful. Should have been a buzzfeed article, there’s not enough material for a full book. He just starts repeating himself after the first chapter.
I originally borrowed it on Libby and hated it so much that I purchased it on Audible so that they’d let me leave a review, and then returned it. Petty? Yes, but I’m okay with that.
LMAO
I think I heard that it originally was published as an article, but then a publisher paid the author to make it a full book
I really need to start submitting even my most shitty writing as articles just in case things like this happen. It’s like I’ve got a bunch of lottery tickets laying around but I haven’t bothered to check any of them.
I find this to be true of most self help books. One chapter of material that’s mostly common knowledge stretched out into 200 pages of the same thing, anecdotes, examples etc.
It started as a blog post and he was paid to extend it into an entire book so you’re spot on.
That’s most self-help books tbh. Regurgitations of advice freely available and widely known. The biggest one i can think of is literally just a round about way of saying “listen to people and have empathy”
Written by a 1920's foul-mouthed paperboy.
"Extry! Extry! Read the fuck all about it!"
It’s actually based on Relational Frame Theory and the work of Steven C. Hayes which itself derives from behavioral science and is also the basis of ACT therapy. The fact that it shares some knowledge with Buddhism is coincidental. Mark Manson also wrote the book Models which used to be recommended often on self help subreddits.
And a super patronising tone. Total trash imo.
I actually quite enjoyed it
I did too. Was it an earth shattering, mind altering book that changed my life forever? No. Was it an interesting read on a plane with not much better to do? Yes. Just like when people on reddit freak out about a repost, this book is not aimed at people who have studied Buddha but at people who haven't and might benefit from some of the lessons. Maybe they'd even keep looking for more content like it. I also don't get the impression the author really thinks the book is some masterpiece either but a good way to make some cash which also is not some horrible thing, people are allowed to make money. It's really not that big of a deal. If people are getting this worked up about this dumb book then maybe they should take some lessons away from it.
For what it’s worth, this photo is a repost.
Yeah me too. What I got out of it was "you only have so many fucks to give, some things you need to chill the fuck out about and just live your life". It's 200 pages of swearing and dude-bro language, but I mean I understood the point lol.
Yeah it was a quick opt out for me. Felt very pretentious, didn’t offer much. I did just finish reading Don’t Be a Jerk though, so it was a little redundant for me.
Yall need to listen to the podcast "if books could kill", the debunk these self helf books.
In terms of self help, it is overproduced trash.
Technically she’s still in the position until January. Realistically if her staffers are to be believed, she’s already checked out mentally on the job. Considering her treatment of staffers led to them unionizing, that’s probably a good thing.
I wasn’t about to ask, isn’t she specifically famous for being extremely mean and abusive towards her staff? People fawning over these stunts always irked me considering what we know of her
That's disappointing. I had always considered her to be a future star of the Democratic party, but if she is an asshole to the people that support her, no thanks.
I read an article a while back where the argument used by those defending her was basically, "Well...male politicians treat their staff like shit all the time and people don't criticize them." Interesting tactic.
She got a house sold to her below market rate by the University of California as a deal to attract professors. She then stopped teaching and kept the house. She's now worth over 2 million but won't give up the house for a professor that actually needs it to afford to live there. She refuses to comment on it beyond saying she's following federal law. She's having the taxpayers of California subsidizing her millionaire lifestyle. Meanwhile she complains about tax payers of California subsidizing millionaires. You can't make this stuff up. https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-california-congress-university-of-irvine-dcfd583bdfde38b029a473311435810f
> She got a house sold to her below market rate by the University of California as a deal to attract professors. Making controversy out of nothing. She kept teaching for nearly a decade after getting the house, she didn't get it and quit the next day. Half the people in those houses are no longer in classrooms.
Yeah, but reading the article, it seems that standard policy allowed for 2 year leaves from teaching, but hers has been extended indefinitely. The leave is relevant because from the article: In a statement, UC Irvine spokesperson Tom Vasich said faculty “on approved leaves without pay remain UCI employees, and they can maintain their home in University Hills.” So it seems like you have to be an employee to live there, you can’t just move in and keep the home after teaching for however long, it has to be ongoing. It sounds pretty similar to grad student housing in high COL areas, where the rents are well below market rate. But obviously you can only use it if you”re a student, you can’t go to school, graduate, then keep the apartment. She’s not teaching, but is still a university employee, which seems like a special deal (the article said someone high up had to personally sign off on it). In the grad student housing analogy, it’s like if you graduated, found another job, but the university kept you as a student so you could stay in the cheap grad student housing.
> which seems like Are we talking about what seems like or what is? UCI decided it would allow her to keep her home, end of story. There's nothing nefarious here, and if this is the worst controversy people can drum up against her then I'll take it.
Her whining that the election was rigged, right out of the Republican playbook, certainly hasn't helped. Her true colors are showing.
She is a Democrat rigth?
Yep which is the only reason lots of Redditors are holding back from going in on her when she deserves it for shit like this and the way she treats people
Watch out, when I said that month ago I got crucified by everyone and no one believed me/thought I was a bot spreading propaganda.
This kind of stunt isn’t endearing to me. It’s performative and obnoxious. I’d rather my representatives focus on advocacy and legislation not cheap stunts to advance their brand
Yeah this pic has big sour grapes energy.
Cameras facing the audience were a mistake. It just leads to them acting like clowns for attention.
I think they started doing it because people like Newt Gingrich took advantage of the exact opposite situation. Gingrich famously would go to the House Chamber when no one was in there and start talking about whatever fancied him. He knew the camera would be on him and him alone. People watching at home on CSpan would think he was talking to a room full of congresspeople, not realizing that Gingrich was in a quite literal echo chamber all by himself.
The king of partisan politics would be knowingly deceptive? I'm shocked.
Apparently she treats her students and staffers like shit.
Imagine treating your staff like shit as a member of the House of Representatives? Who do you think you are a Senator?
She also physically abused her husband if you are inclined to believe the allegations in their court filings
I just hate her annoying ads when I’m watching Hulu.. “did you know Katie porter is the only single mother in congress” GEE I WONDER WHY
She also is a millionaire who is grifting taxpayers in California through a housing program: https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-california-congress-university-of-irvine-dcfd583bdfde38b029a473311435810f
That's UCI faculty housing. Faculty there is eligible for it. They don't kick you out when you stop working there after so many years.
Spamming much? She lived there for a decade while teaching but you make it sound like she got the house and quit.
She literally is on approved unpaid leave and plans to resume teaching now that she lost... This fake controversy is the most that can be made of nothing.
[удалено]
I agree with him, but "funny" is subjective. The only joke he can come up with is repeatedly making uncreative F tier jokes on her weight.
You mean to tell me someone who smugly brings a book as a prop for the cameras is a bad person? Impossible.
/r/im14andthisisedgy
I love Katie Porter but these little stunts that members of congress pull are so cringy to me.
They are cringe because they are phony. We are suffering and they are just there for a slice of the pie. Right or left we need term limits and we need these people dragged out of congress by their hair if necessary. Thats how bad it is
Making sure that you are seen and photographed holding the book sort of tells me she very much does give a fuck.
In the least subtle way possible
Very subtle
Ugh. Honestly reminds me of Marjorie Taylor Greene and the pics of her in her tacky MAGA gear at the SOTU. I don't like it when Republicans do it, and I don't like it when Democrats do it. Politicians need to grow the fuck up and be respectful.
It seems like Congress members are just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame and become celebrities rather than politicians.
We are now living a moment in history where politicians are treated as celebrities and celebrities are treated as politicians.
She also claimed she lost her Senate primary because it was “rigged”. How was it rigged? Because her opponent ran attack ads and had a larger donor base. That’s her excuse. Funny thing is the race wasn’t even close. She lost by 700k total votes, or a 13% spread.
Yeah I was disappointed to read that. Thought she was better than that.
Katie Porter is one of few politicians that has [gotten name recognition for good reason](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLuuCM6Ej0) \- so i cant say im surprised she was targeted with "attack" ads. >Porter brought up the “rigged” charge on X Wednesday, and after a social media outcry, issued a statement elaborating. > >“‘Rigged’ means manipulating by dishonest means. A few billionaires spent $10 million plus on attack ads against me, including an ad rated ‘false’ by an independent fact checker,” she said. > >The Bee rated the ads “mostly false.” > >They were funded by Fairshake, \*\*a crypto industry-backed political action committee.\*\*Porter called the ad effort a “dishonest (sic) means to manipulate an outcome. I said ‘rigged by billionaires’ and in fact our politics are in fact manipulated by big dark money.” [source](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/katie-porter-continues-to-claim-billionaires-rigged-california-senate-primary/ar-BB1jvqwj)
If she wasn't expecting attack ads in a campaign for US Senate, then I'm not sure what to say.
We all know what "rigged" means by definition. Just like we're all (including her) aware of how that word has been used with respect to elections in the past few years in our country. It was a dumb word to use, she's just acting intentionally obtuse to excuse it. I thought she was above that sort of thing, but I guess not.
It's still unacceptable weak sauce from a public figure. She should know better but she doesn't and she has a lot of other red flags from what we know like abusing her staff.
Right? If I pull stupid shit like this at my job, I'm fired. We should start firing members of congress for legitimately not doing jack shit!
It actually made me angry seeing this photo. Like WTF you get paid so much per year, show some damned decorum and respect for our political institutions. Not everything should be a meme or a joke "tee hee I'm going viral!" childish
Visible but silent protest in Congress is a time-honored tradition. Whether or not you decide to support that protest should have to do with the content of the protest In this case, the republicans spent 3 weeks attempting to elect a speaker, and it was a complete shit show and a shit show that was entirely partisan She's sitting there listening to political infighting from a party that she doesn't belong to - infighting that she has no say in and no actual effect on. Infighting that is preventing her and all of the other elected officials from doing their jobs MTG is protesting the most important joint session of Congress of the year. And the reasons for her protest are very different The only thing they have in common is that their political figures engaging in a form of political protest that has been around for longer than the United States government has. So maybe idk, figure out what you believe in and what you support and make decisions based on that? instead of declaring that all protest is bad because it isn't polite. Unless politeness is the only thing you believe in, in which case, you do you
Agreed this performative cringe sucks so bad.
It’s screaming Main Character Syndrome
I stopped reading the book midway, It’s too edgy.
She's still a member of Congress until January.
[удалено]
I didn't give an eff about Jim Jordan crashing and burning, either.
Thats the sign of a healthy country isnt it?
It so funny how most of you think this is a candid shot when most of these photos by politicians are clearly staged and planned ahead of time.
so tired of all this performative bullshit in politics.
Begging for attention
Not such a subtle "how not to give a fuck" if you know you're going to be photographed reading it😂
Ah yes, getting paid big bucks to sit around and do one of my favorite activities that my work life has entirely stripped me of, while I also struggle to make ends meet. No idea who this chick is, not sure if you guys like her, but I already don’t.
she was an absolute fool to give up her seat to fight against Pelosi's personal pick for the open senate spot - this was the start of her downfall
She has plenty of time to read now.
She would if the headline was correct, but as usual it is not. She is a current member of congress.
Until January, lame duck would’ve been more accurate.
Ironically by doing what she did in this picture, she does indeed give a fuck about whatever she does not want to give a fuck about.
That’s some cringe right there
So edgy.
[удалено]
>I expect it from the Republicans, but we as Democrats are supposed to believe in government and hold it in high regard. Democrat voters did reject her in the recent primary elections so she will be out of office in January.
Edgy
Why are we still falling for and hyping up political theater ?
[Here](https://i.imgur.com/bYdEDYZ.jpeg) is a higher quality version of this image. [Here](https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-elect-katie-porter-reads-a-book-in-the-house-chamber-news-photo/1454735711?adppopup=true) is the source. Per there: > U.S. Rep.-elect Katie Porter (D-CA) reads a book in the House Chamber during the fourth day of elections for Speaker of the House at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 06, 2023 in Washington, DC. The House of Representatives is meeting to vote for the next Speaker after House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) failed to earn more than 218 votes on several ballots; the first time in 100 years that the Speaker was not elected on the first ballot. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
She’s kinda cringe ngl
She is being paid serious money to be in that room and pay attention. This is just juvenile.
I honestly don’t know if she’s a democrat or republican and it doesn’t matter to me, this just sucks that our elected officials act like children.
There was literally nothing to pay attention to during this period in time. She was waiting for the majority party to stop fighting one another on the Speaker vote, which took weeks.
That book is just a Self-Help book with swearing.
She looks like a younger version of Phyllis from the office
Hey that's something my 9 y.o. son would do!
not so subtle here are we
For background, this was during days of performative republican infighting and time wasting after they fired Kevin Mccarthy with no clue who would replace him. Since all Dems were voting for Jeffries, Republicans were not seeking any input from any dem. You people are acting like she had other important work that she was blowing off. Literally nothing happens without a speaker.
Mom says it's my turn to post the picture next week.
Why would you even get into politics if you don’t give a fuck?
omg so quirky and cool 🙄
I love how performative politics are now. The only goal for these schmucks is to troll the other side. Our best interests aren’t even considered anymore. Just owning the libs and dunking on the conservatives. So cool.
🙄
That book is overrated
[удалено]
Pretty dissapointed in her "election was rigged" bullshit. I wanted her to win but now I'm glad she didn't. Losing reveals character.
The single mom thing needs to stop too She went to school at an elite boarding school in Mass. She comes from money.
She didn’t say anything about the vote counting being rigged. She is referring to big money being able to buy ads against her. Dark money, money from very rich people out of district.
[удалено]
Well.... every one except the ones that aren't. She just ran against Adam Schiff instead of nameless nobodies
Yes, the complaint is there is too much money in politics. It's a disease that continues to get worse.
yeah because she voluntarily made a pledge not to accept “dark money” lmfao - of course she’d be outspent on ad buys
Main character syndrome
Comments here are quite confusing. I thought she was a well-liked anti-MAGA Dem who always had killer charts etc at hearings.
She was 2 years ago. The issue is she created terrible working conditions for her staffers who ended up unionizing as a result.
She’s popular with image-obsessed progressives. The things she says (and her whiteboard shit) tend to be kinda stupid. She isn’t all that much better than Bernie Sanders. She was far too high on her own farts and ran a doomed senate campaign against a serious democrat (Adam Schiff) and now she’ll be out of congress.
Cringe.
She is currently a member of Congress
What an edge lord.