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

politics

18645 readers
3482 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

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 1 month 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 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 month ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 111 points 1 month 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] 69 points 1 month ago

That's not the kind of head she good with

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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...

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 month 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 1 month 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)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month 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.

[–] Imgonnatrythis 14 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

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

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

C U Next Tuesday

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month 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 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Independent is a terrible outlet.

That’s why Trent Crimm left.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

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

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

Ooof the dreaded fact check

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

She heard "head" and got excited.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Well yeah anyone can be politicians these days

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wonder if she’s taking Russian lessons yet

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

She’s learned all she’ll need

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

She just kept thinking about that BBC lmao

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month 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 ›