politics
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Aside from the hypocrisy I don't really care at all. So she had sex with three adults? Good for her. I actually think it's kinda sad that she feels she needs to keep it a secret that she likes women. Other than that, she's a terrible, terrible person, so I won't be crying any tears for her.
But you know, there's an actual sexual predator in your Whitehouse, his whole inner circle is filled with Nazis and pedo's. When compared to all that, Lauren Boebert should get an award for being so... consensual about sex. I hate her hypocrisy, and she shouldn't be using government money to book hotel rooms for her sexual escapades, but shaming women for liking sex? Miss me with that shit.
What most people here seem to be missing is that she was fucking her employees.
That's the problem.
There is a massive power dynamic imbalance when you're a world-famous politician in one of the highest profile jobs available and you start making moves on underlinings. It's highly unethical behaviour and has been exactly the conduct that caused many politicians to be ousted and even impeached in the past.
That's definitely true, though her being a republican in 2026.. is she expected to face any real consequences?
To be fair, Boebert fucking her employees plays into the hierarchical social structure that conservatives support. The fact they're her subordinates is probably what makes it okay.
I was just about to point this out.
While I take your point and agree with the merits of power imbalances inherently muddying the waters of consent, at what stage are we infantilising adults with the capacity to consent? Without knowing the particulars of the circumstances, it’s very difficult to say that she acted in a predatory manner towards these people. In your comment, you suggest the idea that Boebert was the one ‘making moves’ on her staffers. Is there any verified information to suggest this was the case?
My broader question is this: are there any circumstances in which an employee can truly consent to sexual activity with their employer? I worry that answering ‘no’ to that question unfairly infantilises people, while I simultaneously worry that answering ‘yes’ justifies abuse of power to extract sexual favours.
It’s a very difficult puzzle, and one that I would personally argue heavily relies on context and the accounts of those who we fear may have been sexually abused. I’m reminded of the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky saga which posed very similar questions, and to which you’ve also alluded in your comment.
https://ethics.house.gov/publications/code-official-conduct/
It's a violation of house ethics rules. Hypocrisy aside, its just simply against the rules of a body who's purpose is to make the laws that govern the rest of us. No tolerance or excuses for that.
Pretty much any job anywhere will fire you on the spot for sleeping with a subordinate because it's obvious that it's a coercive power dynamic and bad for business and legal risk.
Lol they are wheeling in a barely functioning octagenerian for votes, and have a staffer to correct him when he votes wrong. You think Congress cares about ethics or power dynamics?
Right my comment was intended to hilight how outside the norm this is
Regardless of if the individuals she was fucking were fully consenting or not it's unethical. It's going to lead to favoritism of those individuals over the ones who aren't fucking her.
Well the issue is the power disparity there. She was basically these peoples boss. Even if it's consensual, that's not really a situation one wants to have. And having someone in power over you make sexual advancements is a huge red flag in any case.
Given she is a political figure, they also left her open to being compromised, which is also something you don't want to have happen to leaders in government. Given there was $200.000 of hush money paid, I'd say she was indeed compromised.
There's also the whole hypocrisy part, but that's par for the course when it comes to Republicans. So while still bad, hardly worth mentioning.