Stuff like “climate change” or “equity” are such common and broadly used terms they’re going to be all over the place. They’re boiler plate buzzwords.

It’s weird they even think of “climate change” as political at this point. Climate change as a political conflict rather than a simple description of reality seems long out of date.

Whether he was in Hong Kong or Nebraska the exact day Tiananmen happened is irrelevant to the part that makes him look good (going to teach in China in the immediate aftermath of Tiananmen).

Hey, don’t give them too much credit here. They assigned two writers to write a story about something Minnesota Public Radio covered. Except MPR just talked about the exaggeration for a couple sentences, because it wasn’t a particularly important fact in a larger segment about Walz and China. You need big journalism to figure out a way to expand second-hand reporting to a full length article.

His “lie” wasn’t even that he was there during Tianamen, it was about where he was when he decided to go to China. Hong Kong was British at the time and no version of his story claims he was in mainland China during Tiananmen.

It’s such an irrelevant fact check though. He didn’t lie about the actual thing that made the story (going into China shortly after Tiananmen), but they got him on where he was when he decided to go? It’s disappointing that his story isn’t pristinely accurate, but it’s not actually an important detail of it. It’s like fact-checking Kerry’s military service and focusing on which town he was living in when he signed up.

This just looks like NYT trying to find equivalent numbers of falsehoods so they can prove they’re not biased.

I don’t care. None of this is about Biden’s feelings and I’m glad we’re not hostage to them anymore.

Sorry, the best I can do is giving Garland a lifetime appointment as AG (* while Democrats control the White House). Think of how much of an epic clapback that would be since they blocked him from a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. They’ll be so upset when we continue to empower the guy specifically chosen for being extremely inoffensive to Republicans!

I think this is a “college” joke, not a political statement. Enhanced by the joke itself being supported by the teller’s implied lack of understanding about what the electoral college is.

This doesn’t make the electoral college irrelevant, it just rebalances the votes per state so they’re closer to proportional. California Republicans and Texas Democrats are still disenfranchised even if their states get a lot more votes.

Oregonians as a demographic would be considered “safe” for progressives and “lost” for conservatives, so neither side would give them much effort.

That’s now. You’re describing the electoral college.

Your state EC vote for a losing candidate is a purely symbolic exercise with zero effect whatsoever on the result. And once the NPVC is in effect even the symbolism will be effectively nil as people no longer care or count electoral votes.

If the Republicans win the popular vote, they’ve also won the electoral college, but even if they didn’t, that’s democracy. Trying to overturn the will of the people by reverting to an archaic and undemocratic system is anti-democracy. You have to actually believe the EC has some value to try go to the streets to try to restore it, but it’s a bad system that invalidates people’s votes, whether or not Democrats are winning.

Overturning what exactly? To record their votes in the EC for the losing candidate in a symbolic gesture? No one gives a shit about that, they’re still losing. You’ll have the state tallies, which actually count people, if you really want to say “most Oregonians disliked Trump”.

To unfuck the Supreme Court. That’s still an issue regardless of how the voting is done. And it’s usually referenced to discredit people just saying “let the system work it out” and in favor of quicker solutions like packing the Court.

You are a very weird person that just keeps doubling down on unsubstantiated claims while whining about downvotes. People aren’t “just slowly downvoting”, they’re pointing out that you’re just making up a report that would counter the reports that actually exist. And your only response to that is conspiracy minded “there have been past fabrications, therefore my positive assertion that reports must exist is fact”. That’s not what a fact is.

Been feeling awfully Iraq War-y around here since last October.

Also I don’t think Macklemore needs this first time festival where he was the most famous and accomplished act as much as they needed him.

I assume you think the same thing when the ACLU, EFF, NAACP, or other rights organizations make statements? News organizations and Lemmy should just memory hole all their statements because they’re “expected” and somehow you think the only opinion a statement could impact is the targets of their ire?

just giving you facts.

No you’re not, you’re just imagining convenient countering reports. Sure, maybe they could put together some fake report, but it’s not anything they’ve claimed and a cover report without actual facts behind it isn’t actually a counter.

I’m saying they certainly have competing documents that say the exact opposite

Why do you assume this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda

They don’t produce the weapons they buy from us. Eventually they could stand up domestic production, but it would absolutely impact the current war. Israelis themselves have said that. You’re just making up excuses the actual people involved don’t make.