The list repeats until a name is “retired,” as this one probably will be

Except the whole “women coming after him” is steeped in misogyny and not reality. How many people get accused by multiple victims of the same thing?

To be fair, I think there’s only one person who can’t put that down

I rely on 30+ sources. I do not work for any of them, although I (edit: pay to) subscribe to 3 or 4 (edit: NyTimes, WaPo, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Wired, if anyone cares). Every weekday, I ensure ProPublica’s work gets posted somewhere on Lemmy, that’s probably the only one I never skip.

I don’t alter site headlines and can’t force any outlet to write a better article. The news here is that Boebert said a racist thing. The low-quality journalism thing where they do the “what does twitter have to say about this?” isn’t really important.

You mean like hoods executive order that was blocked by courts? I’m not saying he’s the biggest trans ally but saying he’s done almost nothing is unfair imo

Have you ever heard of idioms?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lightning never strikes (the same place) twice

Because if you don’t quote someone it sounds like you’re saying it and then you get sued

Lightning doesn’t strike twice. It would be one thing if one ex accused him, but two?

What’s weird is that he’s complaining about androgynous names. Was he born yesterday?

Sucks to your assmar

Lord of the Flies? How?

Man, I swear I heard it. Probably on NPR. I can’t find it per se but I did find that it could come from devices concealed inside standard electronics, so I think a phone would make sense.

In my state, bartenders (and waiters) can be 18. You can serve and not drink. I thought that was similar in other states

Edit: same for beer, wine, liquor stores

Covering extremists with a critical take isn’t “giving them a voice.” People listen to this stuff. If you don’t understand it, you can’t understand other Americans

Oof, that’s a bit worse than I recalled. The article seems to be saying that he just views Ukraine as a pawn in a US-Russia or NATO-Russia war, which doesn’t seem fair. Some of his conclusions would be fair if it were just a US-Russia war but it just isn’t.

He’s identified in the article. I think it makes more sense than putting his name in the headline. Nobody knows who “Jonathan whatever” is. We all know what a banker is

I wouldn’t say heated with Putin but I do think he had some misguided conclusions about the invasion (honestly it’s been a while since I read his takes, but I remember being a bit confused and wondering if maybe he was losing his edge)

Wow that definitely wasn’t addressed in the first paragraph