Lauren Boebert - Rotten Pork Sliders

[mikewof]

My son and I drove to Pocatello for the Streetboard World Championships and drove back home through Boebert country.

The people who support her are kind of apolitical, with a genuine hatred of the rulers of the day. Since the global shift of Obama, the rulers of the day are us "woke" lefties who are unable to recognize endemic poverty when it is dangled in front of our faces.

 

[Bus Driver]

My son and I drove to Pocatello for the Streetboard World Championships and drove back home through Boebert country.

The people who support her are kind of apolitical, with a genuine hatred of the rulers of the day. Since the global shift of Obama, the rulers of the day are us "woke" lefties who are unable to recognize endemic poverty when it is dangled in front of our faces.

Did you spend time in that area, earning the trust of the locals, and getting a full sense of them and their views?

Or did you, as you wrote, drive through?

 

[MR.CLEAN]

That drive-through arkansas Ph.D means he only needs to be near a new population to absorb everything about them. Amazing!

 

[mikewof]

Did you spend time in that area, earning the trust of the locals, and getting a full sense of them and their views?

Or did you, as you wrote, drive through?

I live and work in this state, the "area" is intimately connected to my own. I have worked with the people in her district for decades, it wasn't until I saw her recently placed campaign signs that I connected the dots.

 

[mikewof]

That drive-through arkansas Ph.D means he only needs to be near a new population to absorb everything about them. Amazing!

You are a dipshit with a law degree. In case you didn't notice the Boebert supporters and I all live and work together.

How did you ever pass the bar with your head filled with oatmeal? South Dakota's bar exam?

 

[Raz'r]

You are a dipshit with a law degree. In case you didn't notice the Boebert supporters and I all live and work together.

How did you ever pass the bar with your head filled with oatmeal? South Dakota's bar exam?

Wait, you just realized LB is from a district near you? It took yard signs to know that?

An observant fellow you are not.

 

[pusslicker]

View attachment 529231

What's the hardon they have for Fauci? My Trumpist sister was spouting this line recently. I don't ever probe, but I don't get how such a mundane guy like Fauci is a target of anyone. @Dog 2.0

 

[billy backstay]

What's the hardon they have for Fauci? My Trumpist sister was spouting this line recently. I don't ever probe, but I don't get how such a mundane guy like Fauci is a target of anyone. @Dog 2.0

I was wondering that myself, so did a little googling... https://reason.com/2020/11/02/why-is-donald-trump-so-mad-at-anthony-fauci/

Skip to the last paragraph for the Cliff Notes...

Why Is Donald Trump So Mad at Anthony Fauci?​

The president's COVID-19 adviser is not always right, but at least he is attempting to describe reality.​

JACOB SULLUM | 11.2.2020 3:15 PM

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL

(Alex Edelman/Zuma Press/Newscom)
During a campaign rally in Miami this morning, President Donald Trump suggested he might fire COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci after tomorrow's election. Trump was complaining about press coverage of the epidemic when shouts of "Fire Fauci!" erupted from the crowd. Trump's response: "Don't tell anybody, but let me wait until a little bit after the election. I appreciate the advice."
Trump has been openly critical of Fauci, who has directed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, for months. "People are tired of hearing Fauci and these idiots, all these idiots who got it wrong," Trump said during a phone call with campaign staff last month, calling Fauci a "disaster." At that point, Trump was reacting to a 60 Minutes interview in which Fauci contradicted the president's rosy outlook on the epidemic. Fauci's most recent sin was a Washington Post interview last week in which he did the same thing.
Fauci's comments are obviously inconvenient for a president who has repeatedly claimed that "we're rounding the corner" on COVID-19, which supposedly is "going away." But is there any substance to Trump's complaint that Fauci "got it wrong" when he advised the president and the public about how to deal with the threat posed by the disease?
Trump's spat with Fauci is not simply a matter of optimism vs. pessimism about the course of the epidemic. Last spring, Trump embraced an utterly implausible worst-case scenario that projected as many as 2.2 million deaths in the United States based on the counterfactual assumption of "no intervention." The White House continues to rely on that projection, claiming "President Trump's Coronavirus Response Has Saved Over 2 Million Lives."
Leaving aside the fact that the worst-case scenario was never realistic, the administration's math is puzzling. The current U.S. death toll is about 231,000, which does not leave "over 2 million lives" for the president to have saved, even if you assume no one else will die from COVID-19 and you implausibly ascribe the entire difference between reality and the fantastical projection to Trump's policies.
Nor is the current White House claim consistent with what Trump was saying last spring. "By very vigorously following these [social distancing] guidelines," Trump declared on March 30, "we could save more than 1 million American lives. Think of that: 1 million American lives." That estimate was also dubious, but it was less than half the number of deaths Trump is now claiming he prevented.
Even as the Trump administration was citing the worst-case scenario to urge dramatic changes in behavior last spring, Fauci was telling Americans not to put much stock in those numbers. During a March 29 interview on CNN, Jake Tapper asked Fauci how many COVID-19 cases the United States can expect to see. "To be honest with you, we don't really have any firm idea," Fauci said. "There are things called models. And when someone creates a model, they put in various assumptions. And the model is only as good and as accurate as your assumptions. And whenever the modelers come in, they give a worst-case scenario and a best-case scenario. Generally, the reality is somewhere in the middle. I have never seen a model of the diseases that I have dealt [with] where the worst-case scenario actually came out. They always overshoot. So when you use numbers like a million, a million-and-a-half, 2 million [deaths], that almost certainly is off the chart. Now, it's not impossible, but very, very unlikely."
When it was politically convenient, Trump promoted a highly pessimistic scenario that Fauci deemed "very, very unlikely," and he continues to rely on that scenario to make his policies look good. If the question is who "got it wrong" when it came to predicting how many Americans COVID-19 might kill, Fauci's measured comments certainly look better than Trump's scaremongering.
Perhaps Trump means that Fauci "got it wrong" by favoring lockdowns as a response to the pandemic. But during his debate with Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden last month, Trump strongly implied that lockdowns had helped reduce the death toll; he even tried to take credit for those sweeping restrictions, which were actually imposed at the state level. "As you know, 2.2 million people, modeled out, were expected to die," he said. "We closed up the greatest economy in the world in order to fight this horrible disease."
One way in which Trump explicitly says Fauci "got it wrong" concerns the utility of face masks in curtailing transmission of the coronavirus. During his first debate with Biden in September, Trump noted that Fauci had changed his position on that issue. "He said very strongly, 'Masks are not good,'" Trump observed. "Then he changed his mind. He said, 'Masks are good.'"
Although The New York Times and other anti-Trump news outlets frequently imply that Fauci's initial position was based purely on a desire to avoid shortages of face masks for health care workers, that is not true. Fauci did mention that concern in the early stages of the epidemic, but he was also skeptical that general mask wearing would do much good.
"There's no reason to be walking around with a mask," Fauci said during a March 8 interview with 60 Minutes. "When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet. But it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often, there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face….When you think 'masks,' you should think of health care providers needing them."
Fauci is singing a different tune these days, saying "there should be universal wearing of masks." He ascribes that change to accumulating scientific evidence concerning the effectiveness of masks and the importance of asymptomatic transmission. "As you get further information," he told CNN in September, "you have to be humble enough and flexible enough to make your statements and your policy and your recommendation based on the evidence that you now have, which may actually change some of the policy."
If Fauci initially "got it wrong" on face masks, of course, that implies his current position is right. But that is not what you would gather from Trump's persistently muddled messages about the value of this precaution. Although the weight of the evidence indicates that it's a good idea to wear a mask when you are indoors and in close proximity to strangers, the views Trump has expressed on the subject are agnostic at best, and his behavior suggests the same reflexive hostility toward masks that many of his supporters express. While Fauci says his opinion of masks changed based on evolving science, Trump has swung wildly between calling face coverings "patriotic" and dismissing them as a partisan affectation.
Which brings us to the current dispute between Trump and Fauci. Notwithstanding the recent spike in newly identified infections, which have reached record levels during the last few weeks, Trump insists we have "turned the corner." During his interview with the Post last Friday, Fauci strongly disagreed.
"We're in for a whole lot of hurt," Fauci said. "It's not a good situation. All the stars are aligned in the wrong place as you go into the fall and winter season, with people congregating at home indoors. You could not possibly be positioned more poorly."
That last part seems like hyperbole. The United States would be positioned more poorly, for instance, if the case fatality rate had not fallen dramatically since mid-May, partly because of changing patient demographics and partly because of improvements in treatment. But it is surely reasonable for Fauci to worry about the course of the epidemic as Americans spend more time indoors, and he is right that we are apt to see a further increase in daily deaths, although probably not nearly as big as the increase in cases, let alone as big as the huge surge that Biden has predicted.
Fauci not only contradicted Trump's excessive optimism. He made the mistake of contrasting the Biden campaign, which he said "is taking [COVID-19] seriously from a public health perspective," with the Trump administration, which he said is focused on "the economy and reopening the country."
The angry White House response to Fauci's comments noted the falling case fatality rate but was otherwise not exactly substantive. "It's unacceptable and breaking with all norms for Dr. Fauci, a senior member of the President's Coronavirus Task Force and someone who has praised President Trump's actions throughout this pandemic, to choose three days before an election to play politics," said White House spokesman Judd Deere. "As a member of the Task Force, Dr. Fauci has a duty to express concerns or push for a change in strategy, but he's not done that, instead choosing to criticize the President in the media and make his political leanings known by praising the President's opponent—exactly what the American people have come to expect from The Swamp."
In short, Deere is telling us that Fauci is a Swamp creature determined to prevent Trump's reelection, not a scientist giving his honest take on COVID-19 trends. If the White House thinks that take is wrong, it should be telling us why. Instead, the White House is telling Americans to accept the word of a desperate politician whose allegiance to the truth is tenuous even in the best of circumstances.

 

[mikewof]

Wait, you just realized LB is from a district near you? It took yard signs to know that?

An observant fellow you are not.

Did Clean give you private dipshit lessons?

I have always known that Boebert is from around here, and I have known her supporters because I work with them. But being on the Western side of the state gives a whole different view from the one in the news. The anti-Biden, Boebert signs aren't in the places with money, they are in the economically broken areas, and not just 'redneck' white areas, but the poorer Mexican areas too.

It seems that the sentiment with these Boeberts and Trumps and such are far less pro-Republican than they are anti-establishment, and the "establishment" is apparently not monied Republicans anymore, but monied Democrats, who simultaneously proclaim their support for economic parity, while managing to siphon money from the poorer areas of the State into the wealthier areas. In some cases, it's hard to believe that we even share the same state, some of those areas on that side of the state are economically ravaged.

Of course, being critical of my fellow lefties tends to inflame them rather than promote introspection and help us correct what we do wrong. It's the nature of politics, it seems. It isn't about fixing problems, it's about winning funding.

 

[Raz'r]

Did Clean give you private dipshit lessons?

I have always known that Boebert is from around here, and I have known her supporters because I work with them. But being on the Western side of the state gives a whole different view from the one in the news. The anti-Biden, Boebert signs aren't in the places with money, they are in the economically broken areas, and not just 'redneck' white areas, but the poorer Mexican areas too.

It seems that the sentiment with these Boeberts and Trumps and such are far less pro-Republican than they are anti-establishment, and the "establishment" is apparently not monied Republicans anymore, but monied Democrats, who simultaneously proclaim their support for economic parity, while managing to siphon money from the poorer areas of the State into the wealthier areas. In some cases, it's hard to believe that we even share the same state, some of those areas on that side of the state are economically ravaged.

Of course, being critical of my fellow lefties tends to inflame them rather than promote introspection and help us correct what we do wrong. It's the nature of politics, it seems. It isn't about fixing problems, it's about winning funding.

sorry bud, you can try to change the focus if you'd like, but it ain't working. I know the sorts of folks who were democrats and are now republicans. Yeah, the duopoly fucked up with open trade, but there are ways forward. Hillary was right, those "mining/logging/low-tech mfg" jobs (take your pick) aren't coming back. We collectively fucked the pooch on that one. We can try to fix it with isolationism and hate-your-neighbor politics, or we could invest in those folks, move them to where the jobs are, etc.

One party seems to want to do that. One party wants to hate.

 

[Steam Flyer]

What's the hardon they have for Fauci? My Trumpist sister was spouting this line recently. I don't ever probe, but I don't get how such a mundane guy like Fauci is a target of anyone. @Dog 2.0

They hate Fauci because the RWNJ noise machine tells them to. There is still a cadre of people with a grudge against Fauci because, as a newly-minted chief doc, they expected him to back up then-President Reagan's saying AIDs was a punishment on gays from God. And of course they hate science. And he made Trump look like an idiot (because Trump -is- an idiot).

And last, they don't really need a reason to hate anybody. They just do.

 

[Bus Driver]

I live and work in this state, the "area" is intimately connected to my own. I have worked with the people in her district for decades, it wasn't until I saw her recently placed campaign signs that I connected the dots.

It's rather weird that the post I responded to said nothing of the extensive contact with the folks in her area you are now claiming.

In that post, you described returning from a trip through that area, and that really has fuck-all to do with how you have such intimate knowledge of the folks in that area.

 

[mikewof]

It's rather weird that the post I responded to said nothing of the extensive contact with the folks in her area you are now claiming.

In that post, you described returning from a trip through that area, and that really has fuck-all to do with how you have such intimate knowledge of the folks in that area.

Fair enough, you didn't know that I live here. But Clean knows I live in Colorado.

 

[Raz'r]

Fair enough, you didn't know that I live here. But Clean knows I live in Colorado.

Hey, just cause you want to be intimate with LB, doesn't mean anything, really. Just that you have bad taste in women.

 

[mikewof]

sorry bud, you can try to change the focus if you'd like, but it ain't working. I know the sorts of folks who were democrats and are now republicans. Yeah, the duopoly fucked up with open trade, but there are ways forward. Hillary was right, those "mining/logging/low-tech mfg" jobs (take your pick) aren't coming back. We collectively fucked the pooch on that one. We can try to fix it with isolationism and hate-your-neighbor politics, or we could invest in those folks, move them to where the jobs are, etc.

One party seems to want to do that. One party wants to hate.

I didn't mention a word about people were "democrats and are now republicans." That is you changing "the focus."

And regardless what you quote about Hillary, those areas depend on the low-tech jobs like growing stuff, fattening cows, logging and mining. That is the only industry in some of these areas that off the track from weed tourism and ski tourism. For your talk about "one party seems to want to do that," I haven't seen any sign of that. Maybe they want to do that, but they have failed to do anything like that. The "Fuck Biden" spray paint signs on the fences and overpasses may be your idea of the "party that wants to hate", but it is also an indication of the party that not only has failed as much as the other party, but also just chalks up their misery to "shit happens" as Hillary Clinton did.

The only apparent reason they hate the Democrats more than the Republicans is because the Democrats control this state and the Republicans have not controlled this state in a long time. People in Denver who live in $2 million homes and never visit places like Rifle, Parachute, Orem, Maybell or Pueblo might have no idea how many people have been left behind by the politics that they support.

Support it as you will, regardless your talk about the "duopoly." From what you've written here, you would get along great with those people who live in $2 million homes, never visit places like Rifle, Parachute, Orem, Maybell or Pueblo and have no idea how many people have been left behind by the politics you blindly support.

 

[Raz'r]

I didn't mention a word about people were "democrats and are now republicans." That is you changing "the focus."

And regardless what you quote about Hillary, those areas depend on the low-tech jobs like growing stuff, fattening cows, logging and mining. That is the only industry in some of these areas that off the track from weed tourism and ski tourism. For your talk about "one party seems to want to do that," I haven't seen any sign of that. Maybe they want to do that, but they have failed to do anything like that. The "Fuck Biden" spray paint signs on the fences and overpasses may be your idea of the "party that wants to hate", but it is also an indication of the party that not only has failed as much as the other party, but also just chalks up their misery to "shit happens" as Hillary Clinton did.

The only apparent reason they hate the Democrats more than the Republicans is because the Democrats control this state and the Republicans have not controlled this state in a long time. People in Denver who live in $2 million homes and never visit places like Rifle, Parachute, Orem or Pueblo might have no idea how many people have been left behind by the politics that they support.

They hated hillary as she told them the truth. Time to move, retrain. It sucks, but that's life. I know. I moved, trained, and got the hell out of an area that my great, grand and parents loved. It's quite beautiful as well. But, no jobs. The mines are dead and all the cabins are owned by boomers who retire there for the low cost of living, so no room for tourists. (And who wants to cater to tourists?) Hell, you don't even see many folks out water-skiing anymore. Boomers be way too old.

They loved Trump because he lied to them.

 

[mikewof]

They hated hillary as she told them the truth. Time to move, retrain. It sucks, but that's life. I know. I moved, trained, and got the hell out of an area that my great, grand and parents loved. It's quite beautiful as well. But, no jobs. The mines are dead and all the cabins are owned by boomers who retire there for the low cost of living, so no room for tourists. (And who wants to cater to tourists?) Hell, you don't even see many folks out water-skiing anymore. Boomers be way too old.

They loved Trump because he lied to them.

When we see someone like Boebert take a commanding position, we are supposed to use her popularity as a bellwether, as a canary in the coal mine that we need to adjust policy to help bring success to everyone.

When you see Boebert, you seem to take her popularity as an indication of legions of people too stupid to see the writing on the wall that you plainly see.

The undeniable reality is that we can't just chalk up vast areas of the country as economic failures of people who refused to get on-board with the emerging service economy. You look at the enormous expense of the CHIPS Act and you don't see a problem with our inability to compete with Asia. We need mining like REEs, we need to transition at least 50% of our softwood industry to hardwood, we need to transition Western agriculture to low-water. You see these opportunities, the ready supply of workers in these areas, and you shrug your shoulders, sucks to be them.

That is political and economic polarization that doesn't benefit the country. But you'll take the salve of politics and hate the convenient populations who don't vote the way we do.

 

[Raz'r]

When we see someone like Boebert take a commanding position, we are supposed to use her popularity as a bellwether, as a canary in the coal mine that we need to adjust policy to help bring success to everyone.

When you see Boebert, you seem to take her popularity as an indication of legions of people too stupid to see the writing on the wall that you plainly see.

The undeniable reality is that we can't just chalk up vast areas of the country as economic failures of people who refused to get on-board with the emerging service economy. You look at the enormous expense of the CHIPS Act and you don't see a problem with our inability to compete with Asia. We need mining like REEs, we need to transition at least 50% of our softwood industry to hardwood, we need to transition Western agriculture to low-water. You see these opportunities, the ready supply of workers in these areas, and you shrug your shoulders, sucks to be them.

That is political and economic polarization that doesn't benefit the country. But you'll take the salve of politics and hate the convenient populations who don't vote the way we do.

Why would you think I hate anyone? Why would you think I wouldn't support infra projects to help transition the economy? You must think I'm a republican. They are the ones against those, and also looking to remove the few remaining safety nets that exist.

I might not agree with their choices, but I understand them. It's hard to live 2000 miles away from your family. But sometimes hard shit needs to be done.

 

[Mrleft8]

I wonder if Lauren Boebert has slippery thighs.....
Then again.... ICK! EEEEEEWWWWWW! GROSSSSS! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<Retch Retch HEAVE COUGH HEAVE.....Retch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[mikewof]

Why would you think I hate anyone? Why would you think I wouldn't support infra projects to help transition the economy? You must think I'm a republican. They are the ones against those, and also looking to remove the few remaining safety nets that exist.

I might not agree with their choices, but I understand them. It's hard to live 2000 miles away from your family. But sometimes hard shit needs to be done.

If you support them, that's good.

Our state clearly has done not so much while large chunks of the state fall between the cracks. The perception seems too often to be that the blue gets the development, rather than the red, because the money is with the blue. Has Biden had any success in this area, bringing economic development to the red areas? Or do we just blame the reds for their own failures as a gaggle of dumbasses?