By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former President Donald Trump vetoed a bill that would have provided funding for a crucial drinking water project in Representative Lauren Boebert’s Colorado district, which was unanimously passed by both houses of Congress. The veto, which would have benefited 39 communities with water contaminated with salt and radiation, was criticized by Boebert, who suggested it was politically motivated in retaliation for her calls for accountability regarding the release of Jeffrey Epstein files. Trump cited fiscal concerns as the reason for the veto. This decision, along with another veto affecting a Florida project, marked Trump’s first vetoes of his second term.
Read the original article here
Lauren Boebert claims Trump’s veto of safe drinking water bill is retaliation, and the sentiment is pretty clear in the reactions. It appears to be a case of the chickens coming home to roost, as many of the comments suggest, given her past support for him. The core issue revolves around Trump’s decision to veto a bill, which both the House and Senate had unanimously passed, aimed at providing safe drinking water. The reaction is mostly one of bewilderment, disappointment, and even a bit of schadenfreude, given her history of supporting the former President. The argument is that this veto isn’t about policy; it’s about personal payback, a “you’re with me, or you’re against me” kind of approach to governance.
The fact that the bill had garnered complete bipartisan support makes the veto all the more questionable. The justification given in Trump’s veto letter—concerns over “expensive and unreliable policies” and the need to restore “fiscal sanity”—is perceived as flimsy, especially when juxtaposed with the reality of a universally supported piece of legislation. It suggests that Trump’s decision wasn’t based on the merits of the bill but rather something else entirely, which many believe is Boebert’s alleged grievances. The phrase “quid pro quo” comes up, though it’s seen as an oversimplification of Trump’s style. It’s not even a straightforward transaction, but something far more capricious, driven by personal whims and a sense of self-preservation.
The prevailing view is that Trump’s actions are indicative of a deeper problem: governing like a business, but not just any business—a Trump-owned business. And, as the history of such entities often shows, this kind of leadership is prone to fraud and instability. The repercussions for those who find themselves on the wrong side of Trump’s favor are now becoming apparent, and it’s being met with a resounding “duh.” It’s a “leopards eating faces” scenario, where those who supported Trump’s policies, including Boebert, are now suffering the consequences of his vindictiveness.
The comments express a sense of inevitability, as if Trump’s behavior was always predictable. His platform, it’s suggested, has always been about retaliation and personal gain. The idea of loyalty to Trump is portrayed as a fool’s errand because Trump’s loyalty lies solely with himself. The current situation is also a symptom of a broader problem: the transactional nature of Trump’s politics, where everything is a tool for personal advancement or retribution. Many commenters see this as another example of Trump’s consistently making the “bad” choice in any given situation, a pattern they see as detrimental to the country.
One of the more interesting threads of thought delves into what might have prompted Trump’s ire. Was it the Epstein files? The Tina thing? The specifics are secondary; the point is that it was likely something personal that triggered the veto. The overall atmosphere is one of disillusionment. Many feel that this is a case of the rats jumping off the ship, as those once aligned with Trump start to distance themselves. Ultimately, the article reflects a general sentiment that this veto is a blatant act of revenge, a clear indication that Trump operates based on personal grudges, and those who supported him are now paying the price. The consensus seems to be that Boebert should not be surprised as Trump’s self-serving nature is well established.