Can you think of anything less useful than a story with the source "according to the trump campaign"
Why use a fake photo, when she actually just looks like that?
I'm sure they made $600 million through this breech somehow?
What a fucking headline.
Actually...
"Cop recklessly shoots multiple innocent people in dense public area, including one bystander shot in the head, missing their intended target who was a suspected farejumper that they confronted, escalating the otherwise nonviolent situation in a very unsafe area."
"You wouldn't know the assassin, they don't go here, they are from Canada and they are a model."
Go watch her breakfast club interview. So transparent that they are pandering with hollow buzz word mention. The hosts call her out pretty well. If they are real about an issue like ranked choice voting, then I want to see you become the face of that issue publicly for the next 4 years, until it's passed into law through consensus and politicking, in a way that the green party clearly earns a place in a tangible victory.
You won't, that's not what you're being funded for, but that's what you'd do if you actually cared.
It feels like someone recently has leverage over the republicans and they are being forced to humiliate themselves publicly, one by one. Almost like they each woke up in compromising positions one morning, disoriented and frightened, looked at their TV and a video started playing giving them instructions on some horrible thing they had to do to themselves, or else face more severe consequences...
Some sort of sick, twisted... game?
So fucking crazy that anyone will repeat something when the only source is "According to the Trump campaign"
Hey Guardian, that's called lying. You can say lying here without liability.
And none of the forced tech support "AI" replacements work. And the companies don't give a shit.
Those aren't her looks. They were purchased by Russian people and cemented to her face. I've never said anything bad about her actual looks.