Hell yeah, boosting a warmonger to own a warmonger. Sick burn. 

You know this would leave us with Chief Justice Ginsberg.

There’s only one logical way to do this.

Can someone call The View and have them hide Meghan? The big tarp would work.

“Toxic bros”? Really? Consider: Maybe Kirsten just kind of sucks and there’s zero appetite out there, among wither men or women, for a Wall St lawyer turned political opportunist. And that maybe she was kneecapping a perceived political rival in Franken rather than making a principled stand. When Republicans are…

Yeah, not seeing who she thinks her demographic is. 

“CLARIFICATION: This piece has been updated to include marginalized genders affected by anti-abortion bans.”

before many women and other marginalized genders even realize they’re pregnant

Perhaps the true penis was the friends they made along the way?

Perhaps the true iron throne was the friends we made along way. 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Lord, he’s white.

Mayo Blah Blah Blah

Because it is confusing as fuck.

This is a best a distraction, and at worst an attempt to make her transition the issue instead of the crimes she was convicted of, like they attempted to do in the other article. If she hadn’t leaked documents to Wikileaks no one would know who Chelsea Manning is.

We’ve entered bizaro world. Are you people actually confused?

Thank you for communicating this concept. I tried for twenty minutes and couldn’t get it to not sound stupid.

I think a lot of this is just Paul being an idiot who admires a criminal.

Assange is a bit too rapey for my tastes. But hey- you keep admiring him.

Why is the Times acknowledgement that when Chelsea was convicted, it was prior to her transition, when she was known as Bradley - “wrong”? The transition does not erase the history of who she was prior, it simply corrects her to who she is. But when you look at legal records, they will not be edited to reflect the…