@OfficialJonaveh Toss it back to them by saying that you advocate for the abolition of taxes. When they logically ask how we will pay for the military, entitlement programs, and other government cheese, tell them you don't know but you think abolishing taxes is a start. Fight stupid with stupid.
@Brett1231@baseballcrank You do understand that if a "software error" accidentally dumps $50k into your bank account and you spend it, you're still liable for having spent it. These people who voted are still liable for having illegally voted and should be prosecuted.
@lutherabel1 I have serious questions about whether it is fair to lump in "cohabitating couples" with married couples. Yeah, half the marriages end up in divorce, but it seems to be a more stable arrangement then two 20-somethings shacking up together. Why not report the data separately?
@SizerTanya@PatAdams96@MargoinWNC An account which opened on March 3, 2022, one week after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, spouts anti-Ukraine and anti-Jewish talking points. Fascinating. I'm not one to accuse random X accounts of being bots, but you have to admit the timing here is remarkably coincidental.
@Called_2_Glory@DashDobrofsky And yet progressives fell madly in love with him, so much so that they are still fighting to keep him on the ballot. That would be the most incredible GOP psy-op ever.
@MaineDems Ha ha: "Graham Platner's team has no role in determining the nominee." Maybe he'll just refuse to step aside. That sure makes it seem like he's holding all of the cards, doesn't it?
@janthonylong@mpaulseder@HabCorpLinguist@jimgeraghty Just the fact that you apparenlty believe that if you don't like Candidate X then you are morally obligated to vote for Candidate Y strongly suggests that you aren't a very serious thinker.
@kasthomas@Heccles94 No, it's just that most of us have let go of the child-like illusion that governments spending massive amounts of money somehow solves problems.
I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists.
As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them.
But then the weeks dragged on. They kept coming back to us saying the editors needed more. I needed to go on the record (okay). We need more screenshots (okay). I met every bench mark they set, eager to provide more sources or evidence as needed.
After the story went up I began to ask them … wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)?
Why does it say “nobody could corroborate” when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?
Why did they include an out of context quote from a friend joking “do not call Graham” after I called off my wedding? (Because she knew I would never).
Where were the screenshots they’d said they would use? Or the mention that I’d supported local democrats and that most of my family (and husband) are liberal?
The editors said it was too much, they explained.
The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so.
It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along. The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.
And at the end of my call with them I reluctantly accepted their insistence that this was still a powerful story and that I had done a brave thing. And I thanked them for all the hard work they had put into it.
Still fawning after all these years.