LovingHippieCat

Okay so neither the CNN article or this article says that they've independently confirmed the reports/when the pictures in the articles were taken which i think is important but most importantly, this was 1989. He was 2-3 months off. This is likely just him misremembering from 35 years ago. He should have said he was there "around" tiananmen square but does that really matter much? CNN heard from a source close to Walz that said “the point Gov. Walz is making when he discusses this is that some folks in the World Teach program discussed dropping out after Tiananmen Square, but he continued on with the program because he believed it was important for the Chinese people to learn about American democracy and American history.” which makes sense.

CNN also said he has exaggerated the amount of trips he took to China saying 30 times once and dozens and dozens another time. They reached out to the Harris campaign who said it was likely closer to 15. When you go to a country that many fucking times it's not surprising to lose count. It's not like you're counting it. It's not hard to lose track. My mom has been to Greece tons of time to visit family but could she say how many times she's been there? Nope. She'd generalize because that's how that goes.

But of course we have to be pedantic and "fact check" this because it's important to be fair and who cares if we ignore some of the shitty things trump said during his rallies or how he's obviously mentally deteriorating, obviously Walz misremembering is so much more important. And obviously this shows it's a big scandal because earlier this year the news said that he said he carried weapons in war and he never served in combat even though he said he carried weapons of war during the war while he was stationed in the European theater. Which is accurate, but did the media care that's what he said? Nope. Walz isn't a consistent liar like Trump and Vance but sure let's equivocate them and Walz.

Oh 100%, they don't want minorities to benefit from it so they'd rather fuck themselves over than allow everyone to have a better standard of living.

Also the New York Times: "We have to represent both sides so we are fair, it doesn't matter if one side are fascists, they're still deserving of being represented."

This is something I see a lot with the houses that have Trump signs in my area. They always have a multitude of run down cars, a house that is falling apart, a bunch of stuff in their yard that are not lawn ornaments, and occasionally are fenced in. It's pretty consistent and they always have Trump signs and flags even though voting for Harris would likely help them afford to fix up their cars or house.

But it's not a situation ripe for abuse. You can't just call yourself a girl and get on girl sports, there's requirements. And should we be limiting the very very few trans girls in sports because someone COULD abuse it? By that same logic we shouldn't have social security because someone COULD abuse it.

Also sports will always attract people who have advantages based on who they are. Michael Phelps is a great example but so is anyone who plays basketball who's over 6ft. Cis women can be super tall, should they be kept from playing because they're so much taller than the other players?

And also, trans girls are girls, you saying that she shouldn't get opportunities set aside for girls is misgendering her even if you use the right pronouns. Why shouldn't she get the same opportunities when she puts in the work just like the other girls?

I hope this leads to being able to have a Proton sheets or whatever name the Google sheets equivalent will be.

The bill definitely has far more bad than good. I just didn't appreciate Truthout cutting out the context to the quote from Harris. Taking quotes out of context or, like Truthout is doing here, introducing your own context to it by cutting out large parts of the sentence and joining two sentences together to make something appear different than it actually is, is not good journalism.

There's definitely more than should be done but let's examine how the article is framing what Harris said at the debate. "Harris noted that she supported a bipartisan border bill, which would have “put 1,500 more border agents on the border” to help “stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States.” She added, “I know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country.”" is what the article says. This makes it seem like she was saying that the new border agents would have stopped the fentanyl and that without them it would flow across.

But here's what she actually said about the border bill "And that bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now over time trying to do their job. It would have allowed us to stem the flow of fentanyl coming into the United States. I know there are so many families watching tonight who have been personally affected by the surge of fentanyl in our country. That bill would have put more resources to allow us to prosecute transnational criminal organizations for trafficking." This is her saying not that the border agents would have stemmed the fentanyl coming across the border, like the article frames, but that the border bill itself would have done that which makes sense since it includes money for investment of tech that makes it easier to detect fentanyl at legal border crossings.

Should she be better on this and be talking more about how fentanyl comes in almost exclusively through legal border crossings and through US citizens? Yes. But she was NOT saying that the border agents themselves would have done it. The framing of the article on her words is just wrong.

And best of all, almost all of them (the posts) are on communities that they made themselves.

He should fucking resign 100% although I have no idea who would replace him in the last 4 months of the administration especially since the secretary of state is a senate approved position.

I've started blogging about videogames. So I'm just enjoying writing about stuff and looking forward to my posts on Wednesdays. No one reads it but it's nice to write my thoughts down about games that I play.

Or it gives the current congress the possibility of trying to fuck with the next congress if democrats flip the house and keep the senate.