For civil discussion of US politics. Please be nice.
Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only
▪️ Title must match the article headline
▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)
▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.
Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Huh.
Between this and the similarly themed LA Times op-ed, it almost appears as if at least some notable mainstream outlets are starting to maybe suspect that electing a profoundly mentally ill would-be dictator might not benefit their bottom line as much as they'd initially thought.
Is it too much to hope that they might even start subjecting his constant stream of crimes, lies and threats to scrutiny instead of just letting them pass unremarked?
This is surprising to me, have you seen their headlines and/or their board?
I list them out and who they're affiliated with here: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/12173817
Someone that bad being ran, surely the Democrats have a slam dunk candidate to run against him, right?