Jump to content

Talk:Lauren Boebert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Easeltine (talk | contribs) at 01:19, 22 November 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

EDIT REQUEST: religious beliefs section?

I don't see anything that articulates her religious beliefs. This recent story by The Guardian mentions her belief in the end times prophecy and the second coming of Christ.

Boebert tells Republican dinner guests they're part of 'second coming of Jesus'

At a dinner hosted by Knox county Republican party in Tennessee on Wednesday, Boebert addressed the guests by saying ... "It is an honor to serve in this time. I believe that many of us in this room believe that we are in the last of the last days and that's not a time to complain ... but a time to rejoice," Boebert said. "You get to be a part of ushering in the second coming of Jesus," the congresswoman said to applause across the room. Boebert's remarks of the Christian belief that Jesus will return again after his ascension to heaven 2,000 years ago has triggered a slew of reactions online.

This seems important enough to add into the Wikipedia article about Boebert. What do others think? Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about this instead:
Boebart tells Knox County Republicans they're part of the last days
At a [fundraising?] dinner [costing $ per person] hosted by the Knox County Republican Party in Tennessee on [date], Boebert said, "I believe that many of us in this room believe we are in the last days, and that's not a time to complain." Her full statement was published [@where] on Twitter. Lamoatlarge (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this does not belong in a religious beliefs section, but in political views. That she explicitly, publicly mixes her belief in the rapture with her politics is about politics, not about religion. Lamoatlarge (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's complicated right? She is an evangelical Christian, which is a big part of her political identity and seems to motivate some of her political positions, such as Christian nationalism and etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

This page is atrocious. It is propaganda. It is not in the style or in conformity with pages of, for example, Ocasio-Cortez or Crist. It is attempting to be journalistic when it is supposed to be encyclopedic, and it does a horrible job of unbiased journalism. Lamoatlarge (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What specific changes would you like to see? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references to Mrs Boebert's ethnicity. It's unlikely that she is pure Caucasian. Does she have Latina or African American ancestry? 2402:D000:811C:3D8C:C9F3:F9EE:817D:1051 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing. There's a definite political slant in this article. Christianmusician06 (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We go by sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2022

Former Representative 68.60.76.80 (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The race has not yet been called as of the time of this response. Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of election outcomes, her term has not finished yet. Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2022 (2)

In 2022, after being strongly endorsed by the Former President Trump, Boebert suffered a surprising loss in the General election on November 8th and will no longer be serving in the United States Congress. She has refused to acknowledge defeat - her last public statement was about the "Red Wave beginning", but in fact - it never came and just like her term in Congress, it is over. Brianlarose (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It hasn't officially been announced that she has lost yet. Once it's officially called, we'll update the page. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that the second sentence would not be appropiate for this encyclopedia.89.246.53.70 (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True also. It'd be added in an encyclopedic way of course! ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for minor edits

In section "Tenure and Political Positions," under the subheading "Certification of 2020...," the link from the phrase "1776 moment" to the Declaration of Independence article should be removed because it is an Easter egg link. The reference is immediately explained in the text and linked to the American Revolution article, so this Easter egg is not necessary for context.

Under same subheading, in the second to last paragraph, there are several quotations that are written with end punctuation outside the quotation marks. Please edit these to put the punctuation marks inside the quotes in accordance with American English grammar rules. 72.204.54.180 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

Why not bring up Lauren’s ideas on Pro-Life Family Values - https://boebert.house.gov/issues/pro-life-and-family-values Many Christians are against the Democrat’s idea that Abortion should be legal up to the moment of Birth, like the Democrat’s Bill in the House and Senate would have allowed by Federal Law. The way Wikipedia does not present these issues makes one believe you are slanting your narrative against Congresswoman Lauren Boebert to an extreme Left viewpoint, not considering that termination of a well fetus through abortion at the moment of birth goes completely against even the Supreme Court’s decision of the 1973 case, Roe v Wade, and certainly the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v Casey?Easeltine (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easeltine, nobody says that abortion should be legal until birth, including Democrats. You're believing lies, which makes you think we're biased against Boebert when we're reflecting reality. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"nobody says that abortion should be legal until birth" - except for the ones that do, including many Democrats. Str1977 (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who, specifically? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can recall that during the debate about partial-birth abortions every Dem Senator (including Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Biden) of the time opposed the ban. This particular gruesome procedure was used in the later stages of pregancy. Stacey Abrams recently called on women to have abortions for financial reasons, not including any limits.
Also, this article (which apparently doesn't include the ballots held last week yet) has several states with "abortion legal at any stage". The California ballot proposition, pushed by Dems, does not contain any limiting language (unlike, for example, the Michigan ballot proposition).
Str1977 (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term, it is a right-wing dog whistle. So, I think we're done with you here. Zaathras (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we", your Majesty?
I was asked a question. I responded. Too bad you didn't like that. Str1977 (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC) PS. Would you prefer the medically accurate "turning a baby, crushing the skull and sucking out the pieces"? Str1977 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If those referenda were approved by the citizenry of the given states, then it's not just a particular political group that opposes the government standing between a woman and her doctor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those measures were introduced and supported by certain groups and not by others. I take your attempt to shift goal posts as admission that your initial objection was wrong. Str1977 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those older politicians were running for office this year? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Str1977: the term generally used by those who hope to be taken seriously is "third trimester abortion". They are rare, making up a small subset of the ~1.5% of abortions performed after 20 weeks. Generally performed when fatal birth defects are detected late in the pregnancy, which is why they should remain legal. We already mention the subject's opposition to reproductive rights in the article; what changes are you proposing? VQuakr (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Third trimester abortion" is a term for all abortions at that late stage. They are thankfully rare but nevertheless gruesome. They are not always necessary but even those that are - and these cases are pretty uncontroversial - are tragic and horrid, for both mother and child. Is it your position that they should ALWAYS be legal because they are SOMETIMES necessary?
"Partial birth abortion" is a colloquial term for a particular gruesome method used in the third trimester that was fortunately banned back in the day. What I wrote above was not primarily about that method but against the wrong claim that "nobody says that abortion should be legal until birth". I gave three points to debunk that false claim.
I wasn't proposing any changes. I was, as I said, responding to a false claim. Str1977 (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Always remember to never say 'always' or 'never'." And in this kind of case, 'everybody' or 'nobody'. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on that. And I like your reference to "What's up, Doc?" Str1977 (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely should be legal (and are currently too burdensome to get throughout most of the country regardless of fetal viability). Women don't need anyone making their medical decisions for them. VQuakr (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I live in California. Most Pro-Choice people are themselves not as extreme as agreeing with the idea of allowing an abortion on a healthy fetus up to the moment of birth, yet as stated these Bills voted on, and the Proposition in California do not give a limit on how late the Abortion can take place. They are passing laws much more extreme than Roe v Wade, or Planned Parenthood v Casey, like California AB2223, literally prohibiting prosecution of a woman who commits Infanticide. https://amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article266445476.html Easeltine (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1) That's off topic as it has nothing to do with Boebart and (2) the source says "The law does prevent pregnant people from being criminally charged in the event that an infant dies due to pregnancy-related causes. It does not decriminalize the killing of infants." EvergreenFir (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going back again to the Pro Life Pro Family stand by Congresswoman Boebert, (not Boebert). Congresswoman Boebert, will fight against making Colorado a Sanctuary Abortion State, (where the Bill passed does not define when an Abortion is illegal, moment of Birth is possible the way it is written), or a Transgender Sanctuary State where little boys can come to and get there you-know-what cut off. Easeltine (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC) *their Easeltine (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly given that Boebert is the incumbent representative in the US Congress, not a state legislator. The transphobia is less silly. VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Silly isn't the word I'd use. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Boebert, (not Boebert)" mean? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Baseball Bugs: I believe they are saying that references to the subject should always include the title "Congresswoman". VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what the reverential user calls Nancy Pelosi? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Madame speaker emerita", obviously. VQuakr (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen, above you spelled Congresswoman Boebert, “Boebart,” with an “a”. I am a Conservative, and I call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and President Biden I call President Biden, since I am older and have respect for the Offices. Easeltine (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's your prerogative, other users don't have to refer to public officials with their full title every. single. time.
Also, "Boebart" is clearly just a typo Scoutguy138 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Easeltine, as an Englishman I have a question about your respect - how do you refer to people such as Trump, Lincoln and Perot? Here in the UK there's no disrespect to say "Sunak" not "Prime Minister Sunak", or "May" and not "The The Right Honourable Theresa May", etc so curious as to the cultural difference, and why you feel it's necessary to include titles in conversation when it doesn't seem to be a common trait at all. Again, in all seriousness - why do you think missing the titles equates to a lack of respect? When it's perfectly obvious who the person is (and therefore their position in government) it seems a bit ostentatious. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's more respect toward Biden than Boebert and Greene have shown, they being the Statler and Waldorf of last year's state of the union speech. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like the disrespect from both sides of the aisle, like House Speaker Pelosi tearing up President Trump’s State of the Union address. About people addressing the Prime Minister as not Prime Minister, I do not know how the people not in Office address a person in Office, though watching people in your Parliament, mostly Canada’s Parliament they always go out of their way to use the Titles. Easeltine (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not in "Office". We're members of the public - or at least most of us are. If you hold some kind of public office, then I guess you can call them by titles, but that still doesn't mean that a lack of titles is equatable to a lack of respect. Incidentally - you didn't answer my main question of how you personally refer to Trump, Lincoln and Perot - ie former members of office, which is what I'm really interested in. Being an Englishman, I have no idea how Canada operates, but I'll be sure to ask the next Canadian I identify. (So, as Trump is no longer President - shouldn't you be calling him former President Trump?) Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If this is too much Forumesque, happy to be redirected to your talk page to continue. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel, with the particular Office of President one can address them as President the rest of their life. “ -#2) The contemporary practice is to orally address and refer to former presidents as President (Surname) in conversation or in a salutation. NOTE: The current president is the only one to be identified as The President or addressed as Mr. President.” - https://www.formsofaddress.info/president-usa-former/. It may be a little different for Prime Ministers, yet the term “Honorable” may be used for them the rest of their lives. https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/what-titles-do-the-prime-ministers-get-after-they-have-retired/ No, in the U.S. when talking about a former President, any good Journalist will refer to the person as, President Carter, President Bush Sr., President Clinton, President Bush Jr., President Obama, President Trump, and President Biden particularly the Office of the President. Easeltine (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 General Election results

Even if still tentative, it seems to me that by now something ought to be said about the results of the November, 2022, general election. --Haruo (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing we can say at this point is As of (date), the election remains too close to call.(ref) – Muboshgu (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't any reason to say anything until the results are out. Wikipedia isn't a news sources so it's not an issue if we wait and update when the results are final. There is no need for play by play vs just waiting for the event to play out. Springee (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like Widipedia mistakenly calling Adam Fisch the winner on his page on 11/9. They have fixed that after notifying them of the mistake. Easeltine (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia" did no such thing, it may behoove you to figure out how things work here before spouting off. All Wikipedia articles save a very tiny number of highly-traffic and/or highly-contentious ones are open to all editors to edit, new, old, and even IP addresses. The edit in question here was made by someone no differet than you, just a regular person, and it was removed in 15 minutes. Zaathras (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras: given that they've had their WP account for almost 15 years, don't hold your breath on their learning our processes if they haven't by now. VQuakr (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right now they are fixing their problem by “curing” the votes. Easeltine (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot curing is a normal part of counting the votes in an election. It gets more attention when the vote tallies are close. It isn't accurately summarized as "fixing their problem". Are you proposing any specific changes to the article? VQuakr (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just a clarification for Haruo on why this Election has not been called yet. The Election has not been called, since Colorado Law allows 28 days to request a recount if the vote is within .05%. The Requestor must pay for the recall unless they are the winner in the end. Easeltine (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might consider adding to that article Adam Frisch called Congresswoman Boebert, congratulated her for winning. My opinion, President Trump, Secretary of State Clinton, and Vice President Gore could all take lessons from him… Easeltine (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We say that he conceded. Boebert is the subject of this article, not Frisch so expanding on that probably isn't due. Clinton conceded the 2016 presidential election BTW. VQuakr (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False election call

In the main article it says Boebert won re-election in a narrow margin The Associated Press has not called the race and therefore there is no winner as of right now 7:14PM November 18th 2022 216.223.198.134 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her opponent has conceded. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AP, like other media, reports wins but doesn't "call" them in any official capacity. With her opponent having conceded it seems reasonable for her to be identified as the winner ahead of the official results that will come out in a couple of weeks. VQuakr (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, see above, one has 28 days to request a recall by Colorado Law, so not yet. Easeltine (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean recount not recall. Recounts in Colorado are automatic for races with 0.5%. [1] VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, recount, except it sounds like there needs to be a request. https://ballotpedia.org/Recount_laws_in_Colorado. Where I am getting this. Easeltine (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We linked the same source. First bullet point from the article: Does state law require automatic recounts? Yes, when a margin of victory in an election is less than or equal to 0.5% of the winner's vote. Other recounts have to be requested, but recounts for races within a 0.5% margin are automatic and mandatory under Colorado state law. VQuakr (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauren_Boebert&oldid=1123131195"