885
AOC Responds to Lauren Boebert's 'Sexually Lewd' Theater 'Show'
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
885 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2564 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Do they really have to say alleged sex acts? I mean, there's video. Are they suggesting that maybe the groping and fondling wasn't sexual in nature?
You’re right, the uh “activity” was definitely getting her boobs groped and flashed about- and giving a handy in return (both of which looked incredibly uncomfortable, just saying.)
That said, what the video shows is a crime, and there’s fairly strict ways they can write about potential criminals which more or less mandate tacking on qualifiers- like “allegedly”, at least until they can tack on the “convicted” qualifier.
actually, it's a mere presumption. as a matter of due process, you're guilty whether or not your found so in a court. the decisions by a jury are irrelevant to the fact of any acts you may or may not have committed- or the reasons behind them. Which is why we have innocent people that have been locked away on charges they didn't commit, and people who get off on charges we all know they did. Jury trials are a shitty way to find justice- the other ways are universally worse, mind, but that doesn't mean its great.
Back to the matter at hand, we've all seen the video. We all know what was happening. I was able to find this document providing a brief overview of CO's sex offenses. the two that apply are on page 19.
and:
The first is a shoe in. we all know that she was wanking him off. proving it might be a different matter, but we all know it. Ergo, it's completely legitimate to say she's a sexual offender. Worse, not that I know if it matters legally, kids were exposed to this. All that to say: yes she should get due process in court. No. that presumption doesn't change the fact that she's a sex offender.
deleted by creator
even if it was a felony, yeah. Don't you know who she is!?!
I'm far more interested in seeing her registered on the sex offender's registry than jail time or fines. "Party of Family Values" being championed by a registered sex offender appeals to my incredibly petty side.
You think the list of GOP champion sex offenders is small enough that adding boeberts name will make any difference?
Probably not, which is why it's the petty side and not the more reasonable side that this tickles, lol.
Thats a good point. She already apologized for getting caught as well. I think at this point its "verified exhibitionist sex acts"
Maybe she lost a popcorn down in her titties and he was helping get it out. And to thank him she... gave him an OTPHJ? I got nothin'.
The kids are now referring to that as a Boebert.
Fuck this timeline.
How about a Qbert, or a Qubie?
I thought that was a handie with a rubix cube
Ouch!
Maybe she was vigorously trying to get a stain ~~in~~ off his pants...
She was trying to get something off
In America yes. Unless someone has literally been convicted of something in court, you're better off just saying allegedly and not leaving yourself open to lawsuits.
So America is a false god? Or a farcical one at best?
That checks out.
I did fix my mistake, but I'm enjoying your interpretation. Thanks.
Nope, they REALLY don't have to. In fact, it's tantamount to gaslighting to claim that there's anything "alleged" about something that has been publicly shown to definitely be the case.
If they didn't have much bigger fish to fry, media ethics watchdogs should really clamp down on this kind of bullshit.
Probably avoiding the possibility of a libel case.
That's not necessary. As they say, the truth is an absolute defense in libel and slander cases. You can't convict someone of malicously lying when there's no lie.
You can bankrupt them proving that though. The idea isn't just to avoid the final judgement, but to avoid being taken to court in the first place.
Pretty sure Newsweek can afford a trial, especially one where they get a lot of free publicity and readers for standing up against a hypocrite sex offender who was already despised by most of the population trying to stifle the freedom of the press to publish the obvious truth 🤷
Point.