• bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    216
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.”

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      109
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 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.

        • TheFriar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          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

          • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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

    • Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      61
      ·
      5 months ago

      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?

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    111
    ·
    5 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.

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      $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.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        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@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    4 months ago

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

    • Today@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      5 months ago

      I get her and the other one mixed up. Is she the bleach blonde bitch body or the Beetlejuice handy?

        • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

        • Today@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          They’re both horrible people. I labeled them by their recent news. You’re defending them because they’re women?

          • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.

            • Today@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              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!!

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

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

  • 1luv8008135@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • Thorry84@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

        • mPony@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              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.

              • ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                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.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  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).

    • JDCAce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I like to think “rouge bureaucrats” is another name for conservative bureaucrats.

  • Beaver
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Ooof the dreaded fact check