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.”
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.
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 less-popular 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.
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.
If it is as real as you suggest, they really missed an opportunity to call it “Wikifeetia”
Selection bias. Foot fetish is the most common fetish, and therefore has the most creep.
I love her, downvote me if you must.
Wait, what? I’ve just reread my comment like 50 times trying to figure out what you mean.
AOC unfortunately became an establishment Democrat pretty quickly. She’s all about the party nowadays.
You mean she’s learning how to build coalitions to get real policy enacted? Or is she not enough purist leftie for you?
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 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’
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.
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.
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.
A journalistic org will always say alleged until someone is convicted, even if the crime is “obvious”
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’.
gave him an OTPHJ? I got nothin’.
The kids are now referring to that as a Boebert.
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.
I’m America, yes.
So America is a false god? Or a farcical one at best?
That checks out.
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.
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.
Obviously she’s completely correct. But she should realize at this point that it’s a waste of time to ever expect conservatives to be consistent. It’s not in their nature.
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”
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.”
