Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert’s campaign said that it was “investigating some very unusual voting patterns,” as the MAGA congresswoman was on the brink of losing her reelection bid.

As Democrat Eileen Laubacher’s lead over Boebert grew slightly Thursday in the race to represent Colorado’s 4th District, Boebert’s campaign released a statement suggesting foul play. Scott Gessler, the attorney for the campaign, claimed that the votes had been “trending” in Boebert’s favor since election night, “consistently lowering the margin under one percentage point.”

“We are investigating some very unusual voting patterns and expect this election to head to a recount, one way or another,” Gessler continued.

As of Friday morning, Laubacher was still leading Boebert 48.75 percent to 47.94 percent, with 97 percent reporting. The two candidates had a margin of 3,069 votes, more than three times the automatic recount threshold of 921 votes. Boebert’s campaign could still choose to pay for a recount.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 1 day ago (16 children)
  • [–] 15 points 1 day ago (15 children)

    That makes sense, the uncut are easier to jerk off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago (14 children)
  • [–] 16 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    Yeah. There's more physical sensation and lube is less required.

    And the skin heals faster than whatever tissue makes up the head.

    Bit more work to keep clean, but I highly recommend being uncut.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    The real reason for the prevalence of circumcision was to discourage "self-abuse".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    I think it reduced infection and such legitimately, in men. So called female circumcision, aka female genital mutilation, is done to prevent sexual escapades by woman, as I understand it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 15 hours ago (1 child)

    Kind of. Before washing and soaps were a thing, it had a benefit. If you weren't able to clean yourself, a lack of foreskin gave one less area for bacteria growth

    There's an obvious issue though. That was surgery on a baby before basic hygiene. They'd just slice it off with a sharp object and suck blood from the wound until it stopped bleeding (a technique that has somehow survived to the modern day)

    STDs from the guy sucking off babies aside, serious infection was a frequent issue. Many babies died. I'd much rather have harder hygiene than risking dying. Not to mention how many procedures cut off too much skin, or healed incorrectly, affecting the later use of the mutilated member

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago

    Jesus Christ! They sucked on fresh foreskin removed baby dick? Ugh, I like medical history for just this type of stuff. Wish I had a better source to read more like this but I will have to look this up. This is just, so weird it has to be reality.

    You are right, before antibiotics and sanitation before, even cutting yourself shaving could lead to a mortal infection they say.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Have you ever seen those water-wiggler/infinite tube things people used to give out as party favors way back in the before-times? It kind of works like having a built-in one of those at all times. That's why they started to encourage people to cut them off in the 1800s. People kind of forget that the whole reason Christians started doing it was prudes getting up in their feelings about men having a good wank and the corpos liking the idea of not being able to jack it without having to pay for some Vaseline or a bottle of Jergens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment