Why does she look like her life purpose is to make people’s lives miserable? She seems like the type who’d slip laxatives into your soup when you’re not looking.
It’s kind of telling that you can tell what the person writing the article thinks about the other person by what picture they choose.
This lady is not an attractive woman by almost any standard, but they intentionally chose the one where she’s like suddenly shocked and glaring at the camera, a photo that any child would know means that they are about to get physically attacked by this woman, as the photo for their article.
I wonder what the reaction would be if you posted the exact same article but you had a nice and pleasant picture of this woman?
All of the words exactly the same the only difference is she looks more like your kindly neighbor up the street.
She’s absolutely fucking batshit crazy for allowing herself to become the face of an anti-gay movement and for shirking her elected duties that she agreed to follow in order to specifically discriminate against gay people in the name of “pleasing God”, (all of which are actions that would not please God), but I still wonder about the visual bias that we place in these articles.
OK, I guess I get what you’re trying to say, but this is just how she looks…? She rarely smiles and often forgets to fill in her half-brows. As you can see glaring is pretty common for her too.
Why does she look like her life purpose is to make people’s lives miserable? She seems like the type who’d slip laxatives into your soup when you’re not looking.
She’s just one of the people whose outside match their inside.
It’s kind of telling that you can tell what the person writing the article thinks about the other person by what picture they choose.
This lady is not an attractive woman by almost any standard, but they intentionally chose the one where she’s like suddenly shocked and glaring at the camera, a photo that any child would know means that they are about to get physically attacked by this woman, as the photo for their article.
I wonder what the reaction would be if you posted the exact same article but you had a nice and pleasant picture of this woman?
All of the words exactly the same the only difference is she looks more like your kindly neighbor up the street.
She’s absolutely fucking batshit crazy for allowing herself to become the face of an anti-gay movement and for shirking her elected duties that she agreed to follow in order to specifically discriminate against gay people in the name of “pleasing God”, (all of which are actions that would not please God), but I still wonder about the visual bias that we place in these articles.
If that happened, I’d probably be too preoccupied with the pigs flying past my second story kitchen window as hell freezes over.
No such picture of her exists or will ever exist since she’s never going to look like that, much less BE like that.
She very actively sought it out. Don’t pretend that none of it was her own doing.
I literally saw that screenshot & thought this was the most flattering photo I’ve ever seen of her.
deleted by creator
OK, I guess I get what you’re trying to say, but this is just how she looks…? She rarely smiles and often forgets to fill in her half-brows. As you can see glaring is pretty common for her too.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=kim+davis&iax=images&ia=images
Damn, resting evil face much.
The way she does her hair makes her look like a conehead with how it accentuates her forehead.
Nothing about her looks kindly. Wrinkles are just the faces you make so much they stay with you.
I’m from the area she’s from. There are many like her. Multiple marriages, kids with different dads, huge hypocrites, typical ‘christians’
She looks like she’s not even doing this for ideology, she just wants to ruin lives and sees a way to do it. The Omega Karen