311
submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

At a casino bingo hall in southwestern Colorado, Lauren Boebert, a Republican congresswoman, bounced her 6-month-old grandson on her knee.

“The election’s still a ways away,” she said as the guests arriving for the Montezuma County Republican Party’s annual Lincoln Day dinner trickled into the room. “And in talking with people at events like this, you know, it seems like there’s a lot of mercy and a lot of grace.”

The month before, Boebert, then in the midst of finalizing a divorce, was caught on a security camera vaping and groping her date shortly before being ejected from a performance of the musical “Beetlejuice” at the Buell Theater in Denver for causing a disturbance. The footage contradicted her own initial claims about the incident, and the venue’s statement that Boebert had demanded preferential treatment added to the outrage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Sorry, you must not have understood me so let me put it into clearer terms. I'm bagging on Boebert for not practicing what she preaches and having a child at 18 out of wedlock. Not her son. I have no idea what he preaches. I only pointed out that there seems to be a pattern here that stands in pretty strong contrast to her party's dogma; other than that I don't know why we're focusing on him.

Her son is not the elected representative for the party that is pushing abstinence-only sex ed, moving to ban both birth control and abortion, and defunding programs that help young and single parents, all against the will of the people.

Though, to answer your question; it does stand to reason that if she, as a parent that supposedly follows this ideology, can't even keep teen pregnancy out of her own home, let alone her own body; how does she expect things to go on a national level without the aforementioned programs and services? Just as you said, teens don't tend to heel to the dogma of their parents and government especially when said dogma goes against their very basic nature.

[-] FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

people are allowed to change. just because she (or anyone, im not really defending her personally) has an opinion now, doesn't mean they always had it. in fact, past expereiences tend to shape peoples feelings. If someone is 36 and preaching about not having sex before marriage or not having a child at a young age, it's probably because they had a child out of wedlock at a young age and have the experience to talk about it now. it's asinine to believe that people can NEVER change their minds about something. everyone makes mistakes, though not everyone learns from them. but you, i bet you're perfect right? you've never changed your mind about anything. you've stuck to you guns 100% about everything always.

[-] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Seems we have more confusion. Let me repeat myself.

The party that is pushing abstinence-only sex ed, moving to ban both birth control and abortion, and defunding programs that help young and single parents, all against the will of the people.

How does she expect things to go on a national level without the aforementioned programs and services? Teens don't tend to heel to the dogma of their parents and government especially when said dogma goes against their very basic nature.

The moral of the story is that she can have her beliefs without forcing them onto the general population. Also that abstinence only education does. not. work. No matter the beliefs of the parents or what they've learned through life experience. Pubescent teens are going to be pubescent teens. They are ruled by hormones, not their parents beliefs, and abstinence-only education simply does not teach them how to safely navigate that.

but you, i bet you're perfect right? you've never changed your mind about anything. you've stuck to you guns 100% about everything always.

I mean we're talking about Boebert here but if you must know. When it comes to public policy, my 'mind' tends to go by what has been proven through research and data. As it turns out that does make it right more often than those that go by faith alone, which is the sole thing that guides most of the nonsense mentioned up above. The difference is that science welcomes being proved wrong as it presents an opportunity for evolution and greater consensus and understanding, and is formed by many more minds across many more generations than just my own. Whereas evolution is still a dirty word in faith. Sorry you have such a complex about it.

this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
311 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19026 readers
2181 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.
  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