AOC Responds to Lauren Boebert's 'Sexually Lewd' Theater 'Show'
3 years ago by MicroWave to c/politics
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has spoken out after video emerged appearing to show House Republican Lauren Boebert engaging in what the New York congresswoman described as "sexually lewd acts" in a Colorado theater on September 10.
Boebert and a male companion were thrown out of the Buell Theatre in Denver after repeatedly vaping, using a cell phone and "causing a disturbance" during a performance of musical Beetlejuice.
Surveillance footage from inside the theater appeared to show Boebert's male accomplice groping her breasts, and then being groped in turn by the Republican firebrand. In a statement, Boebert apologized for her behavior, which she claimed "fell short of my values," but made no reference to the alleged sexual acts.
Ocasio-Cortez responded to the controversy in a one-minute video posted to her 323,000 TikTok followers on Thursday, in response to a viewer's question.
She commented: "All I gotta say is I can't go out to lunch in Florida in my free time, not doing anything, just eating outside and it's wall-to-wall Fox News coverage and then you have a member of Congress engaging is sexually lewd acts in a public theater and they got nothing to say.”
"I danced to Phoenix once in college and it was like all over the place. But putting on a whole show of their own at Beetlejuice and there's nothing? I'm just saying be consistent. That's all I'm asking for. Equal treatment. I don't expect it, but come on."
Wikifeet is...real? Yup, we don't deserve the internet. Or earth.
Also, why are the feet fetishists some of the creepiest? I don't like kink shaming but why are they so weird?
Dude, how long have you been online if wikifeet is what you think puts us over the edge of deserving internet?
You could honesty find at least 300 more taboo fetishes in under an hour without even getting into the dark web.
The tabooness of the fetish isn't what he's talking about but rather the personality of the person with the fetish.
It's one thing to have weird kinks, it's another to be including non-consenting strangers into it
hmm, don't think this is true anymore. the internet is too consolidated. I'm thinking like 3 big ones at most these days.
My theory is that some of the men who really enjoy sucking girls' big toe are sublimating their desire to show oral affection to an entirely kind of blunt roughly thumb-thickness object.
I am talking, of course, about cigars.
TIL I have small thumbs - I guess.
Sigmund Freud enters the chat
If it is as real as you suggest, they really missed an opportunity to call it "Wikifeetia"
Idk. With Wikifeetia I am intrigued enough to click with but with WikiFeet I know enough to stay away.
Doubt
lotta people are going to be real mad about their upvotes when op follows up with "...and that's why Lauren Boebert is great" or whatever.
AOC unfortunately became an establishment Democrat pretty quickly. She's all about the party nowadays.
Oh is that what she's doing? Yeah you can't rush stuff like that. But those people who criticize her will be eating their words with a giant spoon when those coalitions eventually bear fruit.
Nancy gave her a taste of the whoopin stick, and suddenly she let go her two most progressive and influential staffers. Since then, she's toed the party line, including voting to break the railway strike.
There's no such thing as liberals or leftists in u.s politics. Just conservatives and ultra conservatives. The grossest thing is that even the Democrats are infected now, you can't even criticize Biden (A man deserving of a career of criticism) or someone calls you a right winger. Anyone who isn't on the same spectrum of politics as you is a right winger, even people more far left than you.
I'm talked to tons of democrats who're unhappy with how Biden has failed to live up to his promises, and how he has lost an edge, and a myriad of other reasons. People criticize him ALL THE TIME! Left and right.
Edit- I've found that democrats are far more willing to criticize Biden than Republicans who are willing to criticize Trump. Despite the mountains of evidence to directly contradict most of what comes out of Trumps mouth, Republicans "stand by their man"
Is the one of Dimmy Jore's sock puppet accounts?
I fucking hate being left on issues because how much the left doesn't figure out the game.
On a post about AOC literally complaining about how effective the right is at suppressing voices on the left. You comment 'you know why AOC is a big dumb bitch'
It's tribalism, party over country
For those that downvoted me- please ELI5 to me how the Republicans have NOT reverted to tribalism?
I remember how much pearl-clutching there was over AOC. Dancing. In college. Oh, the horror! Imagine it! Dancing! All of a sudden every con became a town elder with a stick wedged in their posterior in the movie Footloose.
(By the way - I love to use those gifs of her dancing when replying to cons when the discussion is AOC.)
And now that Qbert is caught in a grope session, with children present, the cons seem to be mum. Weird.
AOC dancing in college, Vivek Ramaswamy rapping to Eminem like 2 weeks ago.
Narcissists like Vivek would just say, "what does Eminem know?"
campaign spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to US media: "Vivek just got on the stage and cut loose."
Desperately trying to make a Republican sound hip 😄🤦
Shaka, when the walls fell.
Data, his lower circuits overheated.
Kermit, drinking coffee.
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.
Unlike the court of public opinion, you are innocent until proven guilty.
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.
Public Indecency:
Performing in a public place or where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public, an act of sexual intercourse; a lewd exposure of an intimate part of the body, not including the genitals, with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of any person; a lewd fondling or caress of the body of another person; or a knowing exposure of the person's genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-301, C.R.S.)
A subsequent conviction of a knowing exposure of the person's genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-301 (2)(b), C.R.S.)
and:
Indecent Exposure
Knowingly exposing one's genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person; knowingly performing an act of masturbation in a manner which exposes the act to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-302 (1), C.R.S.)
Third or subsequent incident of knowingly exposing one's genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-302 (4), C.R.S.)
(emphasis mine)
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
Maybe she was vigorously trying to get a stain in off his pants...
She was trying to get something off
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'.
Fuck this timeline.
How about a Qbert, or a Qubie?
I thought that was a handie with a rubix cube
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 🤷
Right, but that's also where it's up to us to help call it out.
AOC's fighting exactly our fight, and the minute we get complacent, I say that's where we suck.
Right. Use these kind of hypocritical acts as ammunition with conservative supporters. They'll fight you. They'll get angry and defensive. They'll say it's not the same.
Don't let them get away with it. It is the same. Just keep saying that. Call them delusional. Call them out of touch.
Embarras the fuck out of them. They might not change their minds, but they will shut the fuck up and maybe even have second thoughts when voting.
That isn't how anything works though. The Backfire Effect and Confirmation Bias are the reason they dig their heels in harder the more you go to facts and figures. They don't care about reality. Even worse, when you engage them, it gives them an audience for the slapfight so they can show off to others how good they are at "debating," which in this context means "saying Ben Shapiro lines then looking smug"
Exactly. The way to win people over isn’t to smash up their house and then tell them to build themselves one like yours. You need to build them a better place to live that feels doable for them and ask them to move in. Forgive my metaphor but it makes sense to me.
Conservatives have turned being inconsistent into a sport. They're the world champs!
I get a lot of mileage out of this Sartre quote
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
They have gaslighting down to a science.
Me specifically? God can get bent. I'm busy. I got nachos in the microwave.
The article really is just about how she responded to a thing. Not even mentioning in title if she did it in a noteworthy way or anything, just that she responded. Amazing
Right. But people will eat it up, as evidenced by this comments section. Something happened, people will create their own facts based on feelings and find articles with the right buzzwords to support said feelings. How did we get here?
Didn't those weirdos also go on about AOC's boyfriends feet at some point? The right wing media and the GQP have absolutely no substance. Their whole existence is a huge drain on our society.
Chomsky is right to call them the most dangerous group in the world.
They go nuts about any mundane thing she does or doesn't do. She's practically the new Obama for them.
I wish becoming a billionaire made your head pop like a party balloon releasing glitter and little "Winner!" paper notes.
I wish for World Pizza.
Zarah Sultana
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/...
Seems good, except for voting against higher corporate tax and VAT
Yeah, I think perhaps my own ignorance is showing. I just see it as a tax, but I guess it is indirect and paid by the customer so it's not really here or there. High VAT means more tax money to rebuild our country but everything becomes more expensive. I suppose we're on quite a high VAT anyway in comparison to other nations, although Norway, which we seem to look up to, is on a 25% rate
The lady has a point.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has spoken out after video emerged appearing to show House Republican Lauren Boebert engaging in what the New York congresswoman described as "sexually lewd acts" in a Colorado theater on September 10.
Boebert and a male companion were thrown out of the Buell Theatre in Denver after repeatedly vaping, using a cell phone and "causing a disturbance" during a performance of musical Beetlejuice.
In a statement, Boebert apologized for her behavior, which she claimed "fell short of my values," but made no reference to the alleged sexual acts.
She commented: "All I gotta say is I can't go out to lunch in Florida in my free time, not doing anything, just eating outside and it's wall-to-wall Fox News coverage and then you have a member of Congress engaging is sexually lewd acts in a public theater and they got nothing to say.
Boebert's team had initially denied she was vaping during Beetlejuice, but after footage emerged contradicting this, the congresswoman admitted she had been, but insisted there had been no deliberate attempt to deceive.
Boebert's male companion at the musical was later identified as 46-year-old Quinn Gallagher, co-owner of the Hooch Craft Cocktail Bar, which has previously hosted drag shows.
The original article contains 673 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
So what?! I responded a lot. Where's my article?
Libs asking for the media to be consistent now that's some fucking poetic justice right there. Downright comical.
Two sides to that coin smarty pants.
Why is asking for equal treatment prudish?
Read what she said again. She doesn't spend time talking about how disgusting Boebert is, she doesn't call her names, she doesn't call for her resignation, she doesn't spend time whinging about the children, she doesn't do any of the things that would be done to her if she did something like this.
She simply noted that the reaction to this is less than what she has endured over lesser actions.
I'm having a hard time grasping how that amounts to being a prude, so please help me understand.
"You don’t have to be prudish to disapprove of adults fondling each other in an all ages theater."
Yes, yes you do have to be prudish to get mad at people making out in public. Like I said before though, hypocrisy doesn't work when it comes to sex, saying these people you hate like doing it isn't going to make them seem like the bad ones, and pointing out FOX not covering it isn't a news flash
Why did you phrase it like this "Yes, yes you do have to be prudish to get mad at people making out in public."? (Edit: Lol your profile explains it all real well but I still want to hear you say it) Because flashing her tits and giving a handjob with kids around while blowing vape smoke at a pregnant women are a little different than "making out in public"
I had a gf when I was younger that loved banging in public places. But you don't actually do that in a place with children, especially when you are vocally encouraging people to terrorize LGBTQ+ folks as groomers.
@lemmy.world
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
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
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
go to feed...
Living has gotta be tough when you know Ben Shapiro is updating your Wikifeet entry daily. Keep up the good work AOC. One day Ben will be gone and you'll be able to wear strappy shoes and sandals in peace once again.
save