666
Lauren Boebert is laughed at on the House floor as she’s fact-checked by EPA head
(www.independent.co.uk)
She heard "head" and got excited.
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
666 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4479 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"Elected idiot doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground" could be a permanent headline these days.
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.
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.
The reason corporations buy politicians is because they're cheap.
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.
I like to think "rouge bureaucrats" is another name for conservative bureaucrats.
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).
Maybe I'm just being too forgiving, but I don't have an issue with this headline. For me, something being clickbait or not comes down to whether I have to open the article to get an overview or if I can get it from the headline alone. In this case, I'd say it's the latter. You are more than welcome to your own opinion on that.
That's not the kind of head she good with
Well yeah anyone can be politicians these days
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.
She's not embarrassed by this, you've gotta have more than 2 brain cells to rub together to feel embarrassed.
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.
Did she change something? Is it the hair? She seems way more plastic and somewhat more doglike than usual.
view more: next ›