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.
That’s not the kind of head she good with
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.
She’s not embarrassed by this, you’ve gotta have more than 2 brain cells to rub together to feel embarrassed.
What a dumb
___C U Next Tuesday
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.
I like to think “rouge bureaucrats” is another name for conservative bureaucrats.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Well yeah anyone can be politicians these days
She just kept thinking about that BBC lmao
