When are people going to understand it’s not about being right. She is teeing up soundbites for right wing media to clip and talk about “how brave she is for tackling the corrupt EPA.”
We are just enjoying stupidity being laughed at publicly instead of having to hide it for ‘decorum’. The reason she is being stupid is not relevant.
We all know.
Apparently this article doesn’t
The journalist does, probably. But this isn’t an opinion piece where they get to characterize what they assume her corrupt intentions to be. They’re reporting on the exchange, which all happened as described. They threw in his response, where he pointed out that she’s doing it for sound bites while praising and working with the EPA behind closed doors. What more can the journalist say? This isn’t a twitter post…but it is the independent. Which isn’t exactly much better. But it still needs to have the appearance of journalistic standards
The entire reason this headline exists is because it gets clicks and it makes people feel better than Boebert (which doesn’t take much admittedly). It makes us feel like we accomplished something and that she will be laughed out of the room, yet despite all the mockery and laughing she is still here after years.
I don’t know if you have worked in a newsroom or as a journalist, but no, it is not as prescriptive as you’re making it out to be. Especially not the independent
It does matter to highlight her idiocy to the parts of the country not in the cult.
Fair
So lmk when you plan to stand against Biden, he literally has crossed all his morals so clearly has none left, and/or how do you plan to defend him?
Removed by mod
Their comments get a lot of downvotes.
Removed by mod
You are a bot so waste your chatgpt credits on being useful
No u
I would like you to tell me how to “stand against Biden.”
“Vote Trump or don’t vote at all!” Obviously
/LostLemmings
Well nobody was even talking about him for starters, and most successful president in the last 20 years?
deleted by creator
She won against the last Democrat by less percentage than my current BAC in a solid red district. Her being the candidate is the best hope for Dems to take that seat.
She’s not campaigning for a seat in the same district. She moved to a district in Eastern Colorado because she knew she couldn’t get elected in the same district she ran in last time.
Honestly, I’d rather Bobo get the seat than a Republican who may actually be able to legislate their awful beliefs. Boebert is a clown, but in the grand scheme of things, she’s a pretty ineffective member of Congress. Only 3 of her introduced bills have passed the House.
She may generate sound clips for the right wing media machine, but they seem to be able to generate endless hate porn without much want or worry. I don’t think Lauren is their golden goose, laying gilded shits.
So on balance, Bobo taking up a deep R seat isn’t the worst outcome.
.17 - pretty good for a Thursday.
Plot twist: your name is Bender Bending Rodriguez and your current BAC is 70.00
A real fan would know he always uses 40%.
I’m 40% drunk
That dude is my hero.
Republican voters neither have shame nor self respect. That’s why they keep voting for carpetbaggers like Bobert, Majorie, Chickenshit Hawley etc.
Is there nothing we can do to prevent her re-election?
deleted by creator
Yeah, I didn’t word that well. I know it’s not re-election to the same seat, but it’s elected again to congress. What would it take to defeat her in the general election? Money?
deleted by creator
Geography wise, where is that? I wanna make sure I don’t go there
deleted by creator
yes. it’s really simple. somebody just needs to do it. make an example out of her.
By the end of the back-and-forth, Regan stared at Boebert shaking his head with his mouth a gap.
“It’s just shocking you spent so much time with our regional staff and regional administration and region aid and have such productive conversations about how we’re doing things for your district and your state and then you take this microphone and you pretend that we should not exist,” Regan said.
Oh it’s all a big show for the idiots? Of course. She’s so dumb she can’t even make up an imaginary question.
That’s not the kind of head she good with
Hey, good thing our Supreme Court just ruled that people like her (and ultimately, them) will be the ones deciding ALL OF OUR REGULATIONS.
And stupid fucks like Boebert are actually desirable in that situation. Moreso than the more clever folks that will just get corporate lobbiests to literally write the regulations themselves for an $18k “donation” to their “campaign,” and a promise of a job after they’re voted out in two years or whatever.
If Congress does not codify Chevron deference before Trump (or any other conservative) takes office, then kiss “the administrative state” goodbye. And if you think you’re ok with that, or have some clever retort about “bureaucracy bad,” then you’re gonna find out real quick…
$18k “donation”
This is the part I hate the most about this. It’s one thing that we have this “squint a little and you’ll see it” kind of graft and corruption. It’s another entirely that the going rate for sending us all down the river is appallingly low. Especially since the kind of money a corporation can make for a favorable legal change could be a thousand times that, or more.
The reason corporations buy politicians is because they’re cheap.
Don’t be so pessimistic! It really adds up if you do it enough!
Plus, the cushy job after leaving office is the real prize. Why don’t you just go ask John Boehner? Motherfucker spent a several decade career demonizing cannabis, blocking its decriminalization and putting hundreds of thousands of people in prison for it. He was the
thirdsecond(? do you count the president?) person in line of presidential succession for at least a decade (think about that). Now he works at a pro-cannabis legalization lobby group (at least as of the last time I looked. Not going to google that piece of shit right now).Republicans have no morals or ethics. They have no values to stand by.
The fact that they concede that they can’t stop themselves from raping and murdering folks without some kind of threat of cosmic torture is a pretty big self-report.
“Elected idiot doesn’t know their ass from a hole in the ground” could be a permanent headline these days.
Did she change something? Is it the hair? She seems way more plastic and somewhat more doglike than usual.
I get her and the other one mixed up. Is she the bleach blonde removed body or the Beetlejuice handy?
Y’all are lazy. Attack them for their idiotic choices and malice.
Both of these do fall under the idiotic and malicious choices category, in my opinion.
The “beach blonde bad built butch body” thing exists because MTG is a malicious idiot, and decided to attack Jasmine Crockett about her eyelashes during a House Committee meeting.
The “beetlejuice handjob” thing is because Boebert is an idiot and decided to commit lewd acts in public.
These are lazy, misogynistic takes.
They’re both horrible people. I labeled them by their recent news. You’re defending them because they’re women?
Don’t attach hate to their sex. Attach hate to their actions.
Is “Beetlejuice handy” a sex now‽ I can’t keep up!
Yes because their crime isn’t being women. When you attack women for being women you should expect some pushback. If you don’t want that, go be a Republican and talk about Michelle Obama’s arms.
One of these people was in the news for attacking a member of Congress on her looks and then being called out for it. The other one was in the news for giving a handjob in a theater. You think that is what it means to be a woman?!?! As a person, as a woman, I am horrified by your misogyny!!
That’s not what I said.
Who wrote that article? The amount of typos and misspellings is insane.
I’m not a fan or sympathiser for Boebert but nothing in the way the article is written seems to imply impartial journalism. We are so fucked.
Independent is a terrible outlet. I don’t know why it gets linked so much on social media. Maybe because they have the most click bait titles or something.
The world would probably look a lot different if we’d stop riling each other up all the time. Media outlets like that feed on the hate and only promote it.
Independent is a terrible outlet.
That’s why Trent Crimm left.
Trent did the right thing, even at the expense of his job. He moved on to bigger and better things.
Shame it was fiction; that’s a reality I could get behind.
I would argue that you couldn’t really get much less clickbait-y than the headline here. The only detail it leaves out is what the actual fact that was checked is, and that’s because that explanation wouldn’t fit in a title.
The headline implies a lot of people were laughing at her, at least that was my first impression. When it was really just one guy who gave a brief chuckle at her question. Considering the “laughing” is such a tiny part of what happened, I feel the opposite and it would be tough to make it more clickbait-y.
I mean, it’s exaggerated the situation, but to my mind clickbait is things like ‘you won’t believe what happened to Lauren Boebert’, something that doesn’t really give you anything to go on without reading. This, on the other hand, tells you pretty much all you need to know, other than the specifics of the fact checking, even if it is a touch sensationalised.
Both your title and the title that was use require you to click on the link in order to have any idea of what happened. The difference is that the real title misrepresents what actually happened to get you to do so. I would still rank it as worse.
Well, every article or story want you to read the whole thing, otherwise newspapers and magazines would cut themselves down to only headlines. In my opinion, headlines like this one give you an overview, and give you enough to decide if you’d want to read more, for details, context etc., whereas ‘clickbait’ headlines don’t even give you that, and you have to click to find out whether you want to read more or not. This title still tells you who (Boebert), what (laughed at), where (House floor), and why (fact checked), even if not when, so covers a lot of the vital information you’d want, even if slightly exaggerating the extent.
so covers a lot of the vital information you’d want
No, it covers none of the information I want. Thats my point. They use deception and leave a similar open question as the other title to get you to click, the other title just leaves an open question to get you to click the link (although, to be fair, it would be a lie because I would not be surprised by it. Lol).
I like to think “rouge bureaucrats” is another name for conservative bureaucrats.
What a dumb
___C U Next Tuesday
You know what makes me feel like a shitty person? Grinning when a piece of shit like Boebert gets embarrassed like this, but then realizing she probably has a serious mental deficiency. Still, she deserves all of this and more.
Probably? Her mama dropped her in the revolving door on the way out the hospital when she was born and then waited for a marching band to go through that mother fucker before scooping her up. There are people with mental deficiencies that arent full of hate and destruction. Don’t ever feel shitty when truth and reason finally gets a small victory.
She’s not embarrassed by this, you’ve gotta have more than 2 brain cells to rub together to feel embarrassed.
Ooof the dreaded fact check
She just kept thinking about that BBC lmao
Well yeah anyone can be politicians these days
I wonder if she’s taking Russian lessons yet
She’s learned all she’ll need
Hawk Tuah?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Michael Regan, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, gave Boebert a befuddled look when she asked him if the federal agency would continue enabling “rouge bureaucrats to enact unconstitutional regulations” even after the court’s decision that ended the 40-year run of the so-called Chevron standard.
Boebert fired back the same question and dug her heels in the sand, asking him which regulations the EPA would “repeal” to adhere to the court’s ruling.
However, the ruling does not prevent agencies from continuing to issue regulations – something Boebert’s question seemed to imply.
Regan testified to the House Oversight and Accountability Committee on Wednesday about the Supreme Court’s recent decision, saying he was “disappointed” and concerned about its impact.
He told committee members that the decision could hurt the EPA’s ability to interpret language and implement regulations about climate-related investments – something the Joe Biden administration has prioritized over the last four years.
Shortly after Boebert and Regan’s exchange, New York Representative Daniel Goldman pointedly spelled out the Supreme Court’s hearing for “clarify” purposes.
The original article contains 452 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
