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

politics

19097 readers
4434 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
(page 2) 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 111 points 3 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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if she’s taking Russian lessons yet

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

She’s learned all she’ll need

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 212 points 3 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] 34 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 108 points 3 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.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

She just kept thinking about that BBC lmao

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

Ooof the dreaded fact check

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 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: ‹ prev next ›