• be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Same paper that just ran the “Women should stop shunning Trump supporters in their dating pool” article. I guess that’s so they’ll be less likely to abused under the pending dictatorship?

      • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Good point and probably not, but I’m too lazy to look right now.

        Edited to add: Presumably same editorial team, so the seeming dissonance between the two articles isn’t lessened much by having different authors.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          It really depends a lot. If it’s something by the editorial board itself, then it’s a very jarring difference. But you can have writers with polar opposite viewpoints in editorials. It used to be nice from a reader perspective to get that variety, but then the right went wacko.

          That said, I do think it’s weird the section editor would approve something like “women need to date more conservatives”. Maybe they take the approach of not being responsible for what their authors say, but that crosses enough lines that it’s odd they didn’t step in.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    As with Napoleon, who spoke of the glory of France but whose narrow ambitions for himself and his family brought France to ruin, Trump’s ambitions, though he speaks of making America great again, clearly begin and end with himself.

    As the author keeps comparing Trump to Napoleon and Hitler, I can’t help but wonder if maybe the US is due a conflagration. At what point do we admit that the American experiment returned a null result?