He can’t because there is no such thing on record. All that can be found are exaggerations on comments she made about the Equality Act. The worst she did is call the Act disgusting and somehow that was interpreted by some as saying trans people are disgusting.

I don’t doubt she’s made questionable comments in her personal life, but there’s obviously no proof of that.

why are you supporting his incredibly asinine take that only direct threats or encouragement of violence, or outright hate speech could be reasonably described as "elevating anti LGBT+ hate rhetoric and anti-trans lies" (which is the AOC quote i posted)?
suggesting that only such direct statements could be considered proof is something only fundamentally dumb or dishonest people do. no halfway reasonable person would deny that boebert and all the other GQP goons have been unmistakably anti LGBT+, pushed the baseless "groomer" narrative, and significantly contributed to the rise in hostilities against the LGBT+ community - even without directly telling her braindead followers to shoot up gay bars.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/aoc-lauren-boebert-prayers-lgbtq-club-shooting-1234633966/

https://hrc-prod-requests.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/CCDH-HRC-Digital-Hate-Report-2022-single-pages.pdf

Okay so no concrete evidence that she hates trans people or promotes hate towards trans people, other than your heavily biased worldview that not being 100% approving of your ever narrowing acceptability of opinions is in and of itself "hate". Gotcha.

hm, i might have mistaken you for someone else, my bad. there's just too many hateful randos in this sub, lol. i think there's a somewhat reasonable "conservative" here who also has a dog avatar, and i think they at least live in the real world and are receptive to reason and facts, and not in full defence mode for GQP nutters and their hateful agenda. that's obviously not you, again, i just cba to remember every pard bigot, so i shouldn't be surprised you committed to cletus' braindead "iF sHe DiDn'T mAkE a dEaThThrEaT hErSeLf, nO oNe cAn sAy sHe'S aNti-LgBt" narrative, lol.

imagine being confronted with an actual study (in addition to her deafening dog whistles) and still pretending there's "no evidence", lol. that's why it's called a "cult"...

You obviously have the wrong person again, I’m not a republican or a democrat - I’m not even American. I don’t rabidly defend a party or launch a tirade of personal attacks as you do when someone dares to disagree with my worldview. It’s suprising to see someone like you who wants to give an image of a man opposed to hate in general be so hateful over a normal discussion.

Link to her hate comments against trans people, that’s the evidence asked you and so far you’ve been dodging more than my lvl99 Zon. I don’t care much for her and to be fair I don’t even agree with her stance on LGBT stuff, but she can disagree with you and your party on trans issues without it being hateful.

As for the death threats part, if she didn’t comment hatefully towards trans people directly, how can you assume that people would use her words as a reason to threaten trans people?

"oH, wHiCh sTaNcE? LiNk a tWeEt oR yOu cAn'T pOsSiBLy teLL wHicH sTanCe sHe hAs. hEHeHeHehE, i aM vErY iNteLLenT." - cletus

do you genuinely not see how dumb that "argument" is?! again, i linked you to an actual study pointing out how she elevated the baseless "groomer" narrative, documenting the rise of hate against the LGBT+ community. i can just show you the evidence, i can't comprehend it for you, or force you to be a reasonable person who is able to put one and one together...

I don’t know who made you the way you are, but I hope the people responsible feel sorry about it every day and apologized to you and that you are able to get the professional help required to adress these feelings of yours.

With that being said, I don’t agree with the whole groomer narrative, but once again that’s not hate towards trans people, that’s hate towards groomers or anyone who could be identified as such (with a non-neglible number being part of the LGBT community). Identifying all gays or trans people as groomers would be hateful, but that’s not what was said. You’re understanding this all wrong, but I won’t stoop to your level of throwing middle school insults as if it was a good way to discuss with strangers.

imagine getting that bamboozled over such an obvious dog whistle... unfortunately, even violent extremists are smarter than that and know exactly where she stands on the issue - as does literally every halfway intelligent person who hasn't been in a coma for the last six years. fantasise about my life all you want, weirdo, to each their own, but please don't expect not to be called out when you support such fundamentally moronic talking points, trying to deny blatantly obvious truths...

again:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/aoc-lauren-boebert-prayers-lgbtq-club-shooting-1234633966/

https://hrc-prod-requests.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/CCDH-HRC-Digital-Hate-Report-2022-single-pages.pdf



(pretend to) be too dumb to understand that connection, but the overwhelming majority of people understand how that kind of stochastic terrorism works, and who drives it. all you're doing here is disqualifying yourself from ever being seen as at least somewhat rooted in the real world, with borderline decent reasoning skills, lol.

It’s okay if you don’t have the evidence YeeHaw asked. You could have said so instead of going on a rage-induced flame posting rampage.

Have a good day nonetheless

it's ok if you reject scientific evidence in favour of a lazy goal post move, in order to deny the obvious truth of boebert's stance and rhetoric concerning the LGBT+ community. any halfway intelligent person will be able to tell.

have a good day nonetheless, and have fun with those fantasies about me.