“Private moment” as in being out in public at a well attended event… How dare people hold her accountable for her actions and treat her as the vile individual she is? /s
She's also acting like it was some kind of spy video...
Wasn't it just like, normal security cameras that are always running?
for somebody who wants the government to be heavily into policing bedrooms she seems kind of upset that she's being shamed by the public.
That was only looked at in the first place because she was caught vaping in a crowded theater, then had the nerve to deny it and lash out at the workers for having the audacity to call her out on it.
My favorite part was at the end, when he simply ignored her and moved on.
It’ll be nice when she loses her seat. Some unwatchable “news” network might hire her, but eventually she’ll fade into obscurity, which is where she belongs.
Not a news network, she will be on OnlyFans.
Am I not supposed to be using OnlyFans as my primary news source?
OFN: The Truth Laid Bare.
Gives you a hand when you're down in the dark.
Reminds me of that Naked News show from years back
honestly OF news is probably better because there's less advertisers.
She can just transfer her escort profile over there.
That unwatchable news network might well be CNN to show the world just how “balanced “ they are.
she'll be around, like Sarah Palin
"I don't believe there was disrespect. Things were absolutely taken out of context."
The old out-of-context handjob in a theater. Who among us hasn’t been taken out of context in that way?
Context was the brand of her date's pants.
Are those the new all season fashion condoms by Latex?
She was simply giving directions to the restrooms and utilizing her longest finger for visibility
LOL, the magabrains just hate it when they don't have a platform that just lets them lie and lie and lie.
The notion that someone can push back, even if ever so gently, triggers them endlessly. Beetlebert is such a snowflake.
“… I'm apologizing for you, Kyle Clark, for getting video and releasing that and people seeing it in a very private moment.”
lmfao.. these dipshits always try the uno reverse “no u” response and it literally never works. Reminds me of when MTG told a BBC reporter “you’re a conspiracy theorist”, cursed her out, and then stormed off. Boebert is just the pathetic screeching version of this instead of the roid rage version.
It's not a private moment? It's the audience of a musical production.
I agree, and the footage was from security cameras in very much so public places. That block of text was a quote.
No worries, I totally understood your position. It's just always shocking how Repubs feel so comfortable blatantly contradicting documented reality.
It’s just always shocking how Repubs feel so comfortable blatantly contradicting documented reality.
Because their voters don't punish them for it.
Al Franken was run out of the Senate because of the appearance of impropriety in a staged joke photo.
Republicans lost over 60 court cases about the "rigged" 2020 election, and yet they're still gonna nominate Trump again. He lied about Hillary, he lied about the wall, he still lies about the economy, but none of that matter because Republicans want it to be true. That's what you get with the "feelings over facts" party.
It’s just always shocking how Repubs feel so comfortable blatantly contradicting documented reality.
I think its because Repubs believe everyone else contradicts reality, so they're just doing what everyone else does. They here something that is real, but supports a liberal position. They believe reality is contradicted so they feel no shame in making statements contradictory to reality because they believe its a level playing field. They're wrong, most of the time, but that doesn't stop them.
It probably works for more than a few gomers - "oh look at Beetlebert, owning the libz by turning the tables on that biased, unfair moderator!!!111"
Are all debates in America just 2 people talking over each other so no one can understand anything?
I think the rules are typically negotiable in advance, especially when it's down to just 2 contenders.
Debates have the potential to show more than eloquence or intelligence, they also show soft skills like whether the candidate can control the conversation, control under pressure, how easily they succumb when bullied, and give the audience an opportunity to read their body language, which may develop (or remove) trust.
Biden famously told Trump in a debate: "would you shut up, man?" And in that moment quite a few Americans were swayed to select him believing he's not susceptible to getting run over by trump mouth diarrhea attack like so many other politicians are.
When there are republicans involved the debates devolve pretty quickly.
Unfortunately, way too many people view Gish Gallop style "debates" to be the only way to have a debate. Shouting someone else down is viewed as "powerful" and the sign of a real leader or something.
Debate perverts, they're called.
yeah its like the jerry springer model or something. People here argue and react; they don't debate.
The right cannot debate. They would get absolutely obliterated in a debate. The only thing they can do is get loud, sling insults and lie. It's like an adult trying to argue with a spoiled second grader that wasn't allowed to have desert after dinner.
And our "media" is complicit. This is only newsworthy because the moderator tried to press (heh) her instead of just letting her get her talking points (lies) in and moving on.
Yep. I think it was CNN that helped refine the "shout show". I remember a book written in the mid 00's by someone that was involved with that and trying to make up for it.
Of course a lot of daytime television did the same thing, although I don't know how much influence they have these days...but anyway, a forum in which points are awarded to the person that shouts the loudest, and gets the last word in, or some sick burn is apparently the way a lot of people think debate is conducted.
Those of us that are not letting logical fallacies guide all of our thought processes know this for the sham it is, but unfortunately, critical thinking is not something encouraged at all levels in our society. I honestly think being able to spot logical fallacies is something every high school graduate should have, and a real liberal media, if we actually had one, would constantly reiterate and reinforce.
Well Springer was an American politician so that makes sense
Go look up the debates between Biden and Trump from the 2020 campaign. Biden literally had to ask Trump to "shut up" on stage. The Cheeto-dusted dipshit literally could not stop interrupting. How embarrassing.
As an American I'm ashamed to say political discourse here has devolved into "who shouts louder", both among the politicians and the constituents.
It's unfortunately a lesson many of us learned in preschool, and yet it seems more congruent with voters across most demographics...
I cringed so hard the inside of myself is on the outside and the outside is in the inside. I am now extroverted. Nice to meet you, we should hang out
As a cringetologist I have to inform you, that you actually turned yourself into a black hole and emerged from a white hole in this mirror universe.
Congratulations, you are now extroverted and trust me, you will need all the friends you can find up in here.
Can’t argue with that logic
Lauren Hoebert would argue about the color of the sky if a liberal said it was blue
These news sites have gotta be purposely using photos where she looks like a blowup doll.
It might just be difficult to get a photo of her that doesn't look like a hooting gibbon.
You're thinking of MTG
I literally was, in addition.
DJT's makeup artist.
I couldn't quite figure out what color her skin was supposed to be. At least she feathers hers in and doesn't look like she was hit in the face with a cream pie.
"I want to look like a parody of myself."
WTF is with those eyebrows!?!
They look like giant fake caterpillar stickers or something.
Respectfully, I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms we can make without resorting to making fun of her appearance.
Edit for clarity:
Imagine if you were a woman who disagreed wholeheartedly with Lauren Boebert, and found her a wretched human being, but happened to look a lot like her. Then you see others who think like you do attacking her appearance.
Why would we create an environment that alienates people on anything other than ideological or moral grounds? The only people our criticisms should repel are people with dangerous ideologies that we don't want to be associated with.
No. She's an idiot and she looks stupid.
If it was something about her appearance she had no control over, then yeah. I agree.
But she made herself look stupid, and I'll call her stupid.
This comes off as a really sexist opinion. No one needs to change their appearance just because you don't approve of it. Bodily autonomy is a human right.
Sexist? What does her gender have anything to do with making fun of a persons stupid choices?
Check your own sexism if you think anything in my comments have anything to do with gender inequality.
Yes, bodily autonomy is a human right. It's not like I'm advocating for laws against her eyebrows.
Although she's free to do what she likes, she will still suffer the consequences of general pubic opinion when you purposefully make self look like a clown and being laughed at.
If it was something about her appearance she had no control over, then yeah. I agree.
You're implying that because you don't like her appearance and she's capable of changing it to be more pleasing or acceptable to you, it's okay to belittle her for it.
That's right up there with "you should smile more" and "you'd be so pretty with a little bit of makeup".
Again, you're still arguing from the standpoint that I'm making fun of her natural eyebrows.
Which I'm not.
I'm making fun of her shallow decision making and poor choices.
Again, you're still arguing from the standpoint that I'm making fun of her natural eyebrows.
Which I'm not.
You're attacking appearances. How one dresses or applies makeup doesn't matter in the context of the conversation. These are are matters of personal taste. Why do we need to know your thoughts on this?
I'm making fun of her shallow decision making and poor choices.
Not really, though. You're just talking about how someone's personal taste doesn't align with your personal taste. This is like arguing about favorite colors. It's a weak position to argue as it's entirely subjective. It actively undermines any other argument you might be trying to make.
Of all the things to mention, and you're focused on eyebrows? You sound extremely biased because of this weak argument. It gives the impression that you share this same quality of being shallow. It serves as a potential indicator that you might be unable to pick out relevant detail in a conversation, which also makes you seem like a waste of time to communicate with.
If you're arguing another point this is detracting from that point. If you're not arguing another point, then this insipid opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.
I mean, whether they are natural or not shouldn't matter. The "shallow decision making and poor choices" are just as accessible to a leftist woman. It feels kind of yucky to be setting standards for how you think it is acceptable for women to present themselves, regardless of whether they are on the same side of the political aisle.
"We can shame women for how they choose to present themselves as long as they disagree with us about Palestine" is a weird take when you examine it for what it is.
We both think that she's an idiot. Why does she have to look stupid? If some right wingers were talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez this way we would find that repugnant.
Normally, one should not mock someone's appearance. But, I think fascists and nazis are excluded from this ruleset.
Hitler's mustache is now so closely associated with nazis and fascism that we would rightly mock anyone who unironically kept their facial hair that way. Lauren Boebert's eyebrows don't feel like they deserve the same treatment, since it is very normal for many women with leftist values to keep up their appearance in a similar way. The eyebrows are not the problem; her beliefs are.
poor Charlie Chaplin.
Mocking someones appearance is like dropping a bomb. You might hit your target but this shit has a radius and so you might also hit innocent people.
People who might be already hurting and are insecure. And hurting those people because you are not clever enough to come up with something precise is weak.
Yeah but it’s fun!
No, we can make fun of it if it's crafted. Those eyebrows aren't natural, they're penciled. Face paint is fair game.
I don't know, there's nothing morally wrong with her makeup and face. If she happened to be a leftist but otherwise looked the same, I doubt we'd be rushing to the comments to mock her style. This is alienating to women who are like minded to us but have a similar sense of fashion to Boebert.
It's gross that you are getting downvoted. Lemmy users still have a lot to learn when it comes to debating effectively.
The way she speaks it's like her words have no meaning. Nonsensical bullshit woman.
It's not the crime, but the coverup. So much of this would be a non-issue if she'd simply owned it, rather than talking out of both sides of her mouth.
Kyle is so good in these confrontational situations. I wish more people got to see him but broadcast news is losing viewership...
That dude seems too good for local news.
In Denver and Kyle Clark is a bit of a local treasure.
Absolutely fantastic, I loved how he just talked completely over her pointless blustering, without missing a beat.
I guess she doesn’t know what “expected level of privacy” law means yet. She will though if she tries to pursue it. Anything outside of a bathroom or private owned business you can’t sue someone for filming footage as you can’t expect privacy. Or maybe she knows this so caustic words is all she can think to do.
I wouldn't imagine even a privately owned business would qualify for privacy. I don't expect any privacy when I'm walking around in Walmart.
It's about public access. If the public is generally allowed in a space, you have no expectation of privacy in that space. Anyone can have an eidetic memory, which is as good as having a camera in their hand. If they can hear it, see it, or reach it from a public space, you can't consider it secure.
Ok so for any of you confused about what would be an expected level of privacy while recording people in public with a cel phone:
The person working the back office of Walmart crunching numbers where customers aren’t allowed has an expected level of privacy.
The people using the bathroom in Walmart also have expected level of privacy.
The people in the changing room has an expected level of privacy.
If you were caught with a cel phone recording in any of these circumstances you could be persecuted for violating privacy.
If however you’re walking around on the main floor of Walmart recording a person looking at the price on a can of beans, you’re safe from legal prosecution as far as privacy laws (although that isn’t to say you are safe from being charged as a stalker or harassment in a certain context) .
And legally you could record what cops are doing out in public.
Kyle Clark is a Colorado treasure. I watched his show almost every night since 2018 until I moved out of Colorado. He is witty, insightful and just the right amount of sarcastic. I hope he is still on air when I finally go back home
HOOO-WEEEE, look at her go!
That was fun to watch
Dude has a future in journalism, at least in live interviews
I love how some people have 'private moments' in public. It's like we don't matter on their planet.
I’m a big fan of loudmouth grandmas who sweat red meat so if she’s in so am I.
TBF if I were running for a public office that oversees civil rights, infrastructure, military, and a national budget and a debate moderator was asking me questions about a public sex act then I would also be a little peeved.
That said, taking an unbiased stance with people like her is an impossible task from the very beginning.
From her very own "Contract with Colorado":
Leadership. I am a strong conservative with principles that I will always stand up for.
I’ll hold myself accountable and you can, too. I can be reached at Lauren@LaurenforColorado.com.
If part of your campaign is specifically about being principled and holding yourself accountable, a sex act in a public space is absolutely fair game regardless of the venue in which the question is posed.
Her proclivity for finger-banging doesn't affect any of her policy stances (which are awful or worse). Other than that I agree with you.
I’ve become generally hyperconscious of the male tendency to forcibly talk over people, especially women, as a matter of societal equity that I should do my best to pay into… but this is an instance of “I’ll allow it”.
Boebert is an absolute imbecile of a human being, and insults the very concept of democracy by the fact that enough imbeciles were fooled by such imbecilic rhetoric to elect her in the fucking first place. She is not a good person, and has clearly not developed any level of personal or social maturity beyond that of a middle schooler.
I don't agree with you focusing on that aspect of this interaction but it is interesting to see how many downvotes you got just for pointing out the gender dynamics of men talking over women. Men can be really sensitive to that sort of thing. Source: I am man.
“Private moment” as in being out in public at a well attended event… How dare people hold her accountable for her actions and treat her as the vile individual she is? /s
She's also acting like it was some kind of spy video...
Wasn't it just like, normal security cameras that are always running?
for somebody who wants the government to be heavily into policing bedrooms she seems kind of upset that she's being shamed by the public.
That was only looked at in the first place because she was caught vaping in a crowded theater, then had the nerve to deny it and lash out at the workers for having the audacity to call her out on it.
My favorite part was at the end, when he simply ignored her and moved on.
It’ll be nice when she loses her seat. Some unwatchable “news” network might hire her, but eventually she’ll fade into obscurity, which is where she belongs.
Not a news network, she will be on OnlyFans.
Am I not supposed to be using OnlyFans as my primary news source?
OFN: The Truth Laid Bare.
Gives you a hand when you're down in the dark.
Reminds me of that Naked News show from years back
honestly OF news is probably better because there's less advertisers.
She can just transfer her escort profile over there.
That unwatchable news network might well be CNN to show the world just how “balanced “ they are.
she'll be around, like Sarah Palin
The old out-of-context handjob in a theater. Who among us hasn’t been taken out of context in that way?
Context was the brand of her date's pants.
Are those the new all season fashion condoms by Latex?
Here's the frame from the video showing her giving the finger to the staff, that's she's denying.
She was simply giving directions to the restrooms and utilizing her longest finger for visibility
LOL, the magabrains just hate it when they don't have a platform that just lets them lie and lie and lie.
The notion that someone can push back, even if ever so gently, triggers them endlessly. Beetlebert is such a snowflake.
lmfao.. these dipshits always try the uno reverse “no u” response and it literally never works. Reminds me of when MTG told a BBC reporter “you’re a conspiracy theorist”, cursed her out, and then stormed off. Boebert is just the pathetic screeching version of this instead of the roid rage version.
It's not a private moment? It's the audience of a musical production.
I agree, and the footage was from security cameras in very much so public places. That block of text was a quote.
No worries, I totally understood your position. It's just always shocking how Repubs feel so comfortable blatantly contradicting documented reality.
Because their voters don't punish them for it.
Al Franken was run out of the Senate because of the appearance of impropriety in a staged joke photo.
Republicans lost over 60 court cases about the "rigged" 2020 election, and yet they're still gonna nominate Trump again. He lied about Hillary, he lied about the wall, he still lies about the economy, but none of that matter because Republicans want it to be true. That's what you get with the "feelings over facts" party.
I think its because Repubs believe everyone else contradicts reality, so they're just doing what everyone else does. They here something that is real, but supports a liberal position. They believe reality is contradicted so they feel no shame in making statements contradictory to reality because they believe its a level playing field. They're wrong, most of the time, but that doesn't stop them.
It probably works for more than a few gomers - "oh look at Beetlebert, owning the libz by turning the tables on that biased, unfair moderator!!!111"
Are all debates in America just 2 people talking over each other so no one can understand anything?
I think the rules are typically negotiable in advance, especially when it's down to just 2 contenders.
Debates have the potential to show more than eloquence or intelligence, they also show soft skills like whether the candidate can control the conversation, control under pressure, how easily they succumb when bullied, and give the audience an opportunity to read their body language, which may develop (or remove) trust.
Biden famously told Trump in a debate: "would you shut up, man?" And in that moment quite a few Americans were swayed to select him believing he's not susceptible to getting run over by trump mouth diarrhea attack like so many other politicians are.
When there are republicans involved the debates devolve pretty quickly.
Unfortunately, way too many people view Gish Gallop style "debates" to be the only way to have a debate. Shouting someone else down is viewed as "powerful" and the sign of a real leader or something.
Debate perverts, they're called.
yeah its like the jerry springer model or something. People here argue and react; they don't debate.
The right cannot debate. They would get absolutely obliterated in a debate. The only thing they can do is get loud, sling insults and lie. It's like an adult trying to argue with a spoiled second grader that wasn't allowed to have desert after dinner.
And our "media" is complicit. This is only newsworthy because the moderator tried to press (heh) her instead of just letting her get her talking points (lies) in and moving on.
Yep. I think it was CNN that helped refine the "shout show". I remember a book written in the mid 00's by someone that was involved with that and trying to make up for it.
Of course a lot of daytime television did the same thing, although I don't know how much influence they have these days...but anyway, a forum in which points are awarded to the person that shouts the loudest, and gets the last word in, or some sick burn is apparently the way a lot of people think debate is conducted.
Those of us that are not letting logical fallacies guide all of our thought processes know this for the sham it is, but unfortunately, critical thinking is not something encouraged at all levels in our society. I honestly think being able to spot logical fallacies is something every high school graduate should have, and a real liberal media, if we actually had one, would constantly reiterate and reinforce.
Well Springer was an American politician so that makes sense
Go look up the debates between Biden and Trump from the 2020 campaign. Biden literally had to ask Trump to "shut up" on stage. The Cheeto-dusted dipshit literally could not stop interrupting. How embarrassing.
As an American I'm ashamed to say political discourse here has devolved into "who shouts louder", both among the politicians and the constituents.
It's unfortunately a lesson many of us learned in preschool, and yet it seems more congruent with voters across most demographics...
I cringed so hard the inside of myself is on the outside and the outside is in the inside. I am now extroverted. Nice to meet you, we should hang out
As a cringetologist I have to inform you, that you actually turned yourself into a black hole and emerged from a white hole in this mirror universe.
Congratulations, you are now extroverted and trust me, you will need all the friends you can find up in here.
Can’t argue with that logic
Lauren Hoebert would argue about the color of the sky if a liberal said it was blue
These news sites have gotta be purposely using photos where she looks like a blowup doll.
It might just be difficult to get a photo of her that doesn't look like a hooting gibbon.
You're thinking of MTG
I literally was, in addition.
DJT's makeup artist.
I couldn't quite figure out what color her skin was supposed to be. At least she feathers hers in and doesn't look like she was hit in the face with a cream pie.
"I want to look like a parody of myself."
WTF is with those eyebrows!?!
They look like giant fake caterpillar stickers or something.
Respectfully, I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms we can make without resorting to making fun of her appearance.
Edit for clarity: Imagine if you were a woman who disagreed wholeheartedly with Lauren Boebert, and found her a wretched human being, but happened to look a lot like her. Then you see others who think like you do attacking her appearance.
Why would we create an environment that alienates people on anything other than ideological or moral grounds? The only people our criticisms should repel are people with dangerous ideologies that we don't want to be associated with.
No. She's an idiot and she looks stupid.
If it was something about her appearance she had no control over, then yeah. I agree.
But she made herself look stupid, and I'll call her stupid.
This comes off as a really sexist opinion. No one needs to change their appearance just because you don't approve of it. Bodily autonomy is a human right.
Sexist? What does her gender have anything to do with making fun of a persons stupid choices?
Check your own sexism if you think anything in my comments have anything to do with gender inequality.
Yes, bodily autonomy is a human right. It's not like I'm advocating for laws against her eyebrows.
Although she's free to do what she likes, she will still suffer the consequences of general pubic opinion when you purposefully make self look like a clown and being laughed at.
You're implying that because you don't like her appearance and she's capable of changing it to be more pleasing or acceptable to you, it's okay to belittle her for it.
That's right up there with "you should smile more" and "you'd be so pretty with a little bit of makeup".
Again, you're still arguing from the standpoint that I'm making fun of her natural eyebrows.
Which I'm not.
I'm making fun of her shallow decision making and poor choices.
You're attacking appearances. How one dresses or applies makeup doesn't matter in the context of the conversation. These are are matters of personal taste. Why do we need to know your thoughts on this?
Not really, though. You're just talking about how someone's personal taste doesn't align with your personal taste. This is like arguing about favorite colors. It's a weak position to argue as it's entirely subjective. It actively undermines any other argument you might be trying to make.
Of all the things to mention, and you're focused on eyebrows? You sound extremely biased because of this weak argument. It gives the impression that you share this same quality of being shallow. It serves as a potential indicator that you might be unable to pick out relevant detail in a conversation, which also makes you seem like a waste of time to communicate with.
If you're arguing another point this is detracting from that point. If you're not arguing another point, then this insipid opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.
I mean, whether they are natural or not shouldn't matter. The "shallow decision making and poor choices" are just as accessible to a leftist woman. It feels kind of yucky to be setting standards for how you think it is acceptable for women to present themselves, regardless of whether they are on the same side of the political aisle.
"We can shame women for how they choose to present themselves as long as they disagree with us about Palestine" is a weird take when you examine it for what it is.
We both think that she's an idiot. Why does she have to look stupid? If some right wingers were talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez this way we would find that repugnant.
Normally, one should not mock someone's appearance. But, I think fascists and nazis are excluded from this ruleset.
Hitler's mustache is now so closely associated with nazis and fascism that we would rightly mock anyone who unironically kept their facial hair that way. Lauren Boebert's eyebrows don't feel like they deserve the same treatment, since it is very normal for many women with leftist values to keep up their appearance in a similar way. The eyebrows are not the problem; her beliefs are.
poor Charlie Chaplin.
Mocking someones appearance is like dropping a bomb. You might hit your target but this shit has a radius and so you might also hit innocent people.
People who might be already hurting and are insecure. And hurting those people because you are not clever enough to come up with something precise is weak.
Yeah but it’s fun!
No, we can make fun of it if it's crafted. Those eyebrows aren't natural, they're penciled. Face paint is fair game.
I don't know, there's nothing morally wrong with her makeup and face. If she happened to be a leftist but otherwise looked the same, I doubt we'd be rushing to the comments to mock her style. This is alienating to women who are like minded to us but have a similar sense of fashion to Boebert.
It's gross that you are getting downvoted. Lemmy users still have a lot to learn when it comes to debating effectively.
The way she speaks it's like her words have no meaning. Nonsensical bullshit woman.
It's not the crime, but the coverup. So much of this would be a non-issue if she'd simply owned it, rather than talking out of both sides of her mouth.
Kyle is so good in these confrontational situations. I wish more people got to see him but broadcast news is losing viewership...
That dude seems too good for local news.
In Denver and Kyle Clark is a bit of a local treasure.
Absolutely fantastic, I loved how he just talked completely over her pointless blustering, without missing a beat.
I guess she doesn’t know what “expected level of privacy” law means yet. She will though if she tries to pursue it. Anything outside of a bathroom or private owned business you can’t sue someone for filming footage as you can’t expect privacy. Or maybe she knows this so caustic words is all she can think to do.
I wouldn't imagine even a privately owned business would qualify for privacy. I don't expect any privacy when I'm walking around in Walmart.
It's about public access. If the public is generally allowed in a space, you have no expectation of privacy in that space. Anyone can have an eidetic memory, which is as good as having a camera in their hand. If they can hear it, see it, or reach it from a public space, you can't consider it secure.
Ok so for any of you confused about what would be an expected level of privacy while recording people in public with a cel phone:
The person working the back office of Walmart crunching numbers where customers aren’t allowed has an expected level of privacy.
The people using the bathroom in Walmart also have expected level of privacy.
The people in the changing room has an expected level of privacy.
If you were caught with a cel phone recording in any of these circumstances you could be persecuted for violating privacy.
If however you’re walking around on the main floor of Walmart recording a person looking at the price on a can of beans, you’re safe from legal prosecution as far as privacy laws (although that isn’t to say you are safe from being charged as a stalker or harassment in a certain context) .
And legally you could record what cops are doing out in public.
Kyle Clark is a Colorado treasure. I watched his show almost every night since 2018 until I moved out of Colorado. He is witty, insightful and just the right amount of sarcastic. I hope he is still on air when I finally go back home
HOOO-WEEEE, look at her go!
That was fun to watch
Dude has a future in journalism, at least in live interviews
I love how some people have 'private moments' in public. It's like we don't matter on their planet.
I’m a big fan of loudmouth grandmas who sweat red meat so if she’s in so am I.
Hehe
Bobo OF wen?
archive
TBF if I were running for a public office that oversees civil rights, infrastructure, military, and a national budget and a debate moderator was asking me questions about a public sex act then I would also be a little peeved.
That said, taking an unbiased stance with people like her is an impossible task from the very beginning.
From her very own "Contract with Colorado":
If part of your campaign is specifically about being principled and holding yourself accountable, a sex act in a public space is absolutely fair game regardless of the venue in which the question is posed.
Her proclivity for finger-banging doesn't affect any of her policy stances (which are awful or worse). Other than that I agree with you.
I’ve become generally hyperconscious of the male tendency to forcibly talk over people, especially women, as a matter of societal equity that I should do my best to pay into… but this is an instance of “I’ll allow it”.
Boebert is an absolute imbecile of a human being, and insults the very concept of democracy by the fact that enough imbeciles were fooled by such imbecilic rhetoric to elect her in the fucking first place. She is not a good person, and has clearly not developed any level of personal or social maturity beyond that of a middle schooler.
I don't agree with you focusing on that aspect of this interaction but it is interesting to see how many downvotes you got just for pointing out the gender dynamics of men talking over women. Men can be really sensitive to that sort of thing. Source: I am man.