How in the fuck does this not say “two men one truck”. Opportunity missed.

Who are we supposed to vote for? Genocide corpse or fascist corpse?

Sure, let’s not apply the law to ex presidents. What could go wrong.

In places with “hard” water (lots of calcium) you tend to get a calcium plaque in the pan after several years. It will absorb any iron in the water and turn brown.

It’s pretty much a rock growing on the porcelain. A brush won’t move it.

Given that the law was passed two weeks after they were married I think it has already been drafted and the whole subject was probably one of much debate. Also note three neighbouring states passed laws at the same time.

It seems likely that someone said “find a story about under-age marriage for our front page”, and these two hapless yokels (or should I say Johns the hapless yokel) were the only ones stupid enough to have their photos taken.

In summary, I think society was working up to passing a law like this, and these two had a bride that was younger than most and got married at the right time.

That said, the author has definitely tried to imply that this sort of marriage was commonplace in the 30s, when it was probably at most “unusual”.

*tenet

Exactly. Reporting on what Trump does rather than what he says does not require you to ignore nazi rhetoric.

You can report on the behaviour without breathlessly trotting out every sentence.

The actual story is that Trump is using nazi phrases to stoke furore, generate headlines, and galvanise his base. It’s so tiresome that it’s working so well.

That’s not what I said.

You can acknowledge the behaviour without reporting on every utterance (which is what he wants).

I think that’s exactly what’s happened with Trump, is that deviance has been defined down in the sense that there’s so much focus on, it’s almost like an overload of sorts. The result is, you just don’t see it — it’s almost like he’s kind of normalizing this on some level. Even as outrageous as he can be, it’s been very difficult, I think, for people to maintain a consistent vigilance and see the threat that he represents because it’s kind of overwhelming, really, in many respects.

Precisely why this article shouldn’t exist. This article is normalising the behaviour. Reporton what he does, not what he says.

Thankfully I’m not in her situation, so i can’t judge her actions, but I do wonder whether it would be better not to give the perp the satisfaction of publication.

I can imagine someone jizzing their pants over this article and their little stunt.

Bridget, you deserve to be fired from your job because you are terrible at your job, not because you had sex with a woman,

I love this so hard. Epic burn.

Wouldn’t mutually exclusive mean that no one with a mental illness supports Trump?

This is heresay and supposition but… I suspect the Columbian government is trying to figure out how to secure the value represented by the find, and the archaeological angle is one way to do that.

I don’t know anything about Columbia but I assume there’s some corrupt government officials there somewhere. Billions might not be a lot when talking about a country’s budget, but this isn’t part of their budget. Any gold that makes its way into someone’s pocket is fair game.

Again supposition but… I wonder whether Spain would have any claim on it if it wasn’t considered archaeologically significant.