Thanks for letting us know that your conviction is just performative shoe-pissing.
MHLoppy
Okay, in do-or-die wartime I can accept some suppression of the truth.
If you genuinely believe the situation in the US is so bad and analogous to wartime that it's worth spreading and supporting lies for the sake of "winning" then you need to stop wasting your time commenting on nottheonion posts and go figure out how to win. At the very least don't waste time talking to people like me who spend time on truth, set up an automated posting farm and flood the entire internet with anti-Trump propaganda with no attention wasted on what's true or otherwise ethical or moral.
If it's not that bad and you can afford to piss away time here then you can still afford the truth.
Pick a consistent position and take actions that align with whatever you pick, but don't try to have your cake and eat it too, it just comes across as hypocrisy to the rest of us. I hope to either see you around or not see you for a few years -- and nothing in-between.
The short paragraphs thing predates smartphones and the collapse of print newspapers (here's a paper from 1996 that does it), so fwiw I don't think it's that. I assume it's some sort of stylistic / presentation thing that's just normalized in news reporting. Maybe it's an outdated holdover from print media somehow (where presumably more spacing = more expensive, so it presumably wasn't a financial motivation) but I think orgs would've moved on by now if it was purely done for unnecessary legacy reasons.
Accepting whatever makes "the other side" look bad instead of fighting for the truth is the reason we're in this thread talking about that dipshit [Trump]. I'm not sure I'll ever understand why the fuck people in this thread fighting against that so hard
Trump is a convicted felon, promoted beans at the resolute desk, received millions of dollars in inauguration fundraising from big tech, has his own cryptocurrency which he promoted by promising presidential access, and is being called a madman by economists for the least stable US economic policy since Bretton Woods.
Trump is not like "other country leaders". Historically the above would be disqualifying for "other country leaders". You can't cover news about him like "other country leaders". I almost can't believe that you're saying that you can.
Fucking socialists man /s
Yes, but the implication of "given the medal to look at" and "pocketing FIFA medal" is that Trump "stole" it or wasn't supposed to keep it, which I haven't seen supported by a credible source yet.
Edit: regarding your own edit (adding the second image), I found no information at the linked source supporting the sentence as presented.
Nonetheless, it's pretty common for news sources.
E.g.:
- Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/minot-city-north-dakota-ground-squirrels-dde22d2fa10140191a168687a5aa4daa
- Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/technology/intels-new-ceo-plots-overhaul-manufacturing-ai-operations-2025-03-17/
- ABC (Australia) you already saw
- BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwqewyrw57o
- CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/carney-first-nations-summit-c5-1.7586758
- Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/17/europe-assumes-financial-burden-of-ukraine-war-alarming-russia
All use this style of paragraphs. It's not universal but I'm surprised that it's surprising anybody!
That's.. pretty common for news sources?
Well, the trans person who triggered the alarm wasn't violently executed, so in a way they kind of were allowed to live their truth?
I have linked a video showing what actually happened, linked a verified signatory of the International Fact Checking Network and member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network saying that it was given to him and that the submitted headline is misleading, and your response is "don't be naive".
Are you guys fucking for real? What the fuck even counts as credible evidence to you anymore!?
I'm not sure I can agree - using your own source, here are the people which her votes most closely aligned with, in descending order:
Slightly below that are 95% of current/former ALP members ranging from 62% to 42% in one almost-contiguous block, with 95% of current/former LNP members below that at 40% to 18% in another almost-contiguous block. If her voting record was just LNP + [climate change / queer people existing] then these numbers don't make sense.
There look to be (based on this source) several other policy areas that aren't in the bucket of [climate change / queer people existing] where she's voted progressively. I don't think judging based on a single policy is the right way to accurately classify political leanings here.
edit: softened language slightly because I was just broody about something unrelated to this thread when I first replied