this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
667 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2315 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 212 points 4 months ago (13 children)

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.”

[–] [email protected] 108 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] someguy3 34 points 4 months ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 122 points 4 months ago (3 children)

great. doesn't matter, that bitch won her primary, and is going to win the seat she carpetbagged her way into. all the shaudenfruede means nothing when the monsters still have the majority in the house, and can legislate. yeah she's a moron. republicans don't give a shit.

[–] TexasDrunk 24 points 4 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] krashmo 33 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] worldwidewave 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[–] Today 5 points 4 months ago

.17 - pretty good for a Thursday.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Plot twist: your name is Bender Bending Rodriguez and your current BAC is 70.00

[–] Alexstarfire 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A real fan would know he always uses 40%.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LEDZeppelin 8 points 4 months ago

Republican voters neither have shame nor self respect. That’s why they keep voting for carpetbaggers like Bobert, Majorie, Chickenshit Hawley etc.

[–] Zachariah 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Is there nothing we can do to prevent her re-election?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Boebert defeated five other Republicans for the party’s nomination in Colorado’s 4th District, which opened up after Rep. Ken Buck announced this year that he would resign. She will be heavily favored to win the seat in the general election given the area’s rightward lean.

[x]

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL 111 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] RedditWanderer 70 points 4 months ago

That's not the kind of head she good with

[–] [email protected] 47 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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...

[–] dejected_warp_core 14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

$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.

[–] chiliedogg 12 points 4 months ago

The reason corporations buy politicians is because they're cheap.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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 ~~third~~ second(? 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.

[–] Thteven 34 points 4 months ago

"Elected idiot doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground" could be a permanent headline these days.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 4 months ago (10 children)

Did she change something? Is it the hair? She seems way more plastic and somewhat more doglike than usual.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] snausagesinablanket 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] masterbaexunn 4 points 4 months ago

C U Next Tuesday

[–] just_another_person 19 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] SupraMario 10 points 4 months ago

She's not embarrassed by this, you've gotta have more than 2 brain cells to rub together to feel embarrassed.

[–] 1luv8008135 19 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] TheRealKuni 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Independent is a terrible outlet.

That’s why Trent Crimm left.

[–] mPony 5 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] ajoebyanyothername 4 points 4 months ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago

Ooof the dreaded fact check

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago

She heard "head" and got excited.

[–] p5yk0t1km1r4ge 9 points 4 months ago

Well yeah anyone can be politicians these days

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I wonder if she’s taking Russian lessons yet

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kikutwo 6 points 4 months ago

She just kept thinking about that BBC lmao

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

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!

load more comments
view more: next ›