Nah, men can’t help themselves, why hold them to any standard of basic humanity? This is about punishing women just for being women, anyway, so why get in the way of that with distractions?

Would 100% watch.

I’m finding it difficult to muster up much sympathy about this because I’m already fairly sure Fox wouldn’t kick anyone to the curb if they didn’t think they could gain by it.

Scroll up to Betty Wycombe’s post. WA was literally listed on The Hill’s article when I checked - it genuinely was there - and now it’s not there and the count is down by one. The Hill mis-reported, and I didn’t catch the edit in time to edit my own post. Yeah, apparently she’s thinking about it. SIGH.

I know, it literally was on the list and then twenty minutes later, it wasn’t. Apparently the News Tribune article says she’s “thinking about it”. UGH.

I’m somewhat stunned. Not least of which because I just learned there’s a National Association of Secretaries of State.

The linked article from The Hill lists Washington state, yes, but only waaaaay down at the bottom in the summary of all the states. It’s incredibly easy to miss and I only found it because I CTRL + F’ed for “Washington”.

Unsure about who exactly controls WA State’s voter rolls - cursory research directed me to the Secretary of State website with no obvious information on a Board of Elections. Still, that’s a pretty dumbass move toward Illinois, at the very least. They’re so clueless.

The best part to me is that’s a presumptive “go soak your head.” It says up front they haven’t actually received any letter yet, but on the chance that they do, hell to the no.

I was pretty sure our state was going to be on the voter information denial list, since Washington’s been quite willing to push back against this administration, but I’m glad to see it confirmed. I wish the number was higher than 22, but that’s a pretty good response after one day.

I was all ready to storm in, guns blazing, in defense of Wonder Woman but after perusing the article, I’m...not quite sure what question is she’s even being asked, or even what the point is she’s trying to get to, really, and ended up realizing the flow of the conversation seems really strange and almost, in a way,…

I’m not going to suddenly agree with you that it’s not blackface because he’s a complete derp who clearly didn’t take a look at his photo for more than three seconds and think “hm, there might be something problematic with this.”

Um.

Yeah, you’re not wrong, I didn’t phrase that sentence well.

The only possible explanation for those lips that I can see is that he called it “Jacklyn Jaws” and so MAYBE he thought...lipstick. But why not put lipstick on the actual shark’s mouth?

....

If he wanted to make himself up as the “black inside the shark’s mouth”, that doesn’t explain those overly bright red lips. That’s the (pardon the pun) red flag right there. If he’d painted his entire face solid black, he might have an argument, but he didn’t.

Preach. Especially when other people in the same room are acting as though they see or hear nothing wrong about the situation at all.

You know what would help that mold problem?

No, see, it’s about ethics in historical journalism.