Shapiro vs Swalwell

[jon-nyc]

Seemed forced not clever. Like he had the joke and decided he was going to use it whether there was a good opportunity for it or not.

[taiwan_girl]

I dont understand how he "broke" the guys brain. Seemed like a pretty normal exchange.

[jon-nyc]

I think it’s up there with ‘owned’ ‘shredded’ and ‘destroyed’ as a sign the post can be safely ignored.

[Horace]

IMO pwnage of magats has that special blend of truthiness and hilarity that demands to be shared.

[89th]

I enjoy watching Ben Shapiro break brains

[jon-nyc]

Do you consider this to be an example of that?

[taiwan_girl]

It was a (semi) witty comments. Jillions of examples of that on the internet. Maybe we should start a separate forum thread on "breaking brains" with witty comments.

For example:

Link to video

Go to 3:20

[kluurs]

Jon's correct - and it's a feature of both left and right "pundits" - and I use that term loosely. It's click-bait - makes one watch - and if you're a pro-whomever, maybe you do think that "oh yeah, your mother wore army boots" was incisive and clever - but most folks will think - not much to see here.

[George K]

Noted political scholar, Mark Hamill comments on Project 2025's agenda.

Project 2025 responds.

Project 2025 responds to the Biden ad.

[Jolly]

Wonder how many will read the rebuttal?

I haven't read the 2025 project, but a non-partisan reading and a nice debate on its suggestions might be good for the American public...The sort of thing NPR and PBS ought to be doing.

And don't.

[George K]

@Jolly said in Shapiro vs Swalwell:

The sort of thing NPR and PBS ought to be doing.

I keep forgetting. What's the "P" in those stand for?

[89th]

@jon-nyc said in Shapiro vs Swalwell:

Do you consider this to be an example of that?

Not at all. It was a pleasant exchange, actually. That was a clickbait twitter title.

[xenon]

Why does Ben Shapiro need to address congressional committees?

[89th]

It's dumb. They wanted a conservative voice (if I were them I'd never invite Shaprio out of fear of getting logic dunked on) to talk about Project 2025 I guess? It's a mostly made up strategy by the democrats to shift focus from the Resident to fear monger about Trump.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Shapiro vs Swalwell:

I've heard of project 2525. Of course, it's not clear whether their man, or indeed any man, will still be alive.

I have written my congressmen to vote "no" on Zager/Evans 2525.

[Renauda]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Shapiro vs Swalwell:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Shapiro vs Swalwell:

I've heard of project 2525. Of course, it's not clear whether their man, or indeed any man, will still be alive.

I have written my congressmen to vote "no" on Zager/Evans 2525.

[Copper]

Cut Social Security?

[Jolly]

@89th said in Shapiro vs Swalwell:

It's dumb. They wanted a conservative voice (if I were them I'd never invite Shaprio out of fear of getting logic dunked on) to talk about Project 2025 I guess? It's a mostly made up strategy by the democrats to shift focus from the Resident to fear monger about Trump.

Get with it, man!

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Shapiro Testimony.pdf

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in Shapiro vs Swalwell:

Seemed forced not clever. Like he had the joke and decided he was going to use it whether there was a good opportunity for it or not.

I just listened to the full testimony, and nope, if that was the case, he would have had plenty of other opportunities before then. Swallowell was only the last straw. Multiple democrats kept going on all morning about Project 2025 though it had nothing to do with the hearing, and Shapiro finally snapped after about 90 minutes… The full part where Swallowell tried to trap Shapiro on standard conservative views and tying them into 2025 was quite a bit more extensive than the bit where they talked about bureaucracy and public spending and welcome to the Republican Party…

[taiwan_girl]

Lauren Boebert get her "brain broken" by EPA administrator.

Michael Regan, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, gave Boebert a befuddled look when she asked him if the federal agency would continue enabling “rouge bureaucrats to enact unconstitutional regulations” even after the court’s decision that ended the 40-year run of the so-called Chevron standard.

“Do you understand the ruling?” Regan asked the Colorado rep, calling her question “ill-formed.”

Boebert fired back the same question and dug her heels in the sand, asking him which regulations the EPA would “repeal” to adhere to the court’s ruling.

“The Supreme Court didn’t tell us to repeal anything,” Regan said before laughing and shaking his head at the congresswoman.

The recent Supreme Court’s decision in the case overturned the longheld precedent known as the Chevron deference that allowed federal agencies to defer to their own expertise when interpreting ambiguous language.

Now, it is up to the courts or Congress to interpret language during legal challenges.

However, the ruling does not prevent agencies from continuing to issue regulations – something Boebert’s question seemed to imply.