Correct. You posted it. Which means you wanted others to read it. And I don’t understand posting something written by a piece of shit when there are plenty of other anti Harris articles out there written by not pieces of shit. You don’t have to post everything you find interesting, you chose to post this.

And that doesn’t answer my question of why you’d find an article praising Trump to be interesting? I’m trying to have a conversation with ya and you seem very resistant to it. I’m not trying to be insulting, I’m just wanting to understand your rationale.

Don’t have to subscribe to every viewpoint in articles you post? Sure, I get that. But to post one written by someone who is so obviously anti everything you believe in is just weird. There’s plenty of other anti Harris articles out there to post that aren’t written by people inherently opposed to everything you believe in.

Also, something I’ve genuinely been wondering, why post any articles praising Trump? He’s a fascist, you’ve said you’re not scared of him, but he’s still a fascist. Fascists are not worthy of any praise. You can say you don’t agree with the articles praising him, but why do you even find those articles interesting?

I understand you post articles you find interesting. But this article does not jive with your supposed socialist beliefs. The article is literally calling Harris a Democratic Socialist, which would be a good thing.

Harris’s agenda is almost identical to that of the Democratic Socialists of America, who are anti-capitalists.

It talks about how her wanting to pass a bill that codifies Roe is her refusing to find common ground with anti-abortion crazies.

This article was written by Merril Matthew’s who works for the Institute for Policy Innovation which is a think tank that, among other things, argues for less regulations to stimulate economic growth instead of any kind of stimulus or investment in the economy through the government, thinks we should reform (probably lower) taxes on insurance companies so they lower prices and “promote policies that create value-conscious shoppers in the health care marketplace.”, and that we should have less regulations and government investment with energy production because they “believe that free people operating within a free economy using voluntary risk capital will out-innovate government-directed central planning funded by taxpayer dollars.” They are very obviously a rather conservative think tank that is a piece of shit and thoroughly not socialists and I’d argue they think socialism is toxic.

They also have articles with such headlines as “What They Aren’t Telling You in That Crime-Reduction Happy Talk” (where they try to argue while crime is down, its actually up in some areas and criminals are becoming more aggressive and you should still be scared of crime), “Overturning Chevron Deference” (where they talk about how overturning Chevron is a good thing), “Net Neutrality: Regulation for Ideology’s Sake” (where they talk about how bad net neutrality is), “The Left’s Newest (Old) Idea: Let’s Build More Public Housing!” (Where they argue public housing is really bad and a horrible investment simply because its not well maintained due to federal funding being cut by republicans), and “About the ‘Warmest Year in Recorded History’” (where they argue that humans MAY contribute to climate warming, but really it’s not accurate to measure temps this way because we started measuring temps at a low point in global temperatures so there’s really no way to know for sure if global warming is man made or even out of the ordinary. There’s plenty more, but these were just in the first couple pages of their articles on their site.

So basically, this is an article written by a piece of shit who thinks that it’s bad to codify Roe and that regulations are all bad and who thinks that socialism is bad.

Why post this when it’s written by someone who is literally counter to your beliefs? Is it just because it’s anti Harris? Cause you should have a higher standard than that.

“Listen, we’re not gonna play this game. We are focused on the future. Now, let us show you a future where we cheat just like we wanted and tried to in 2020.”

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.

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.

It looks like that’s toped with some kind of minced garlic, is that all you did to make them garlic knots or did you do more? I’ve started experimenting with breadsticks with my leftover pizza dough but have wanted to try garlic knots.

NYT has normalized Trump and has continued to spread a significant amount of misinformation and bigotry, including platforming known transphobic bigots. I doubt they’ll change anything because you have to “be fair”. I’m just glad my mom has stopped supporting them.

That looks like a really interesting book! I’ve added it to my Kindle. Thanks for the post!

I definitely need to learn how to shoot, I did when I was a kid but haven’t gone shooting in a long time. Unfortunately, I don’t feel safe to actually get armed just because of my own mental health. I do have friends who are armed, though, and they’re willing to come help if need be.

Im trans and I have multiple trump people in my neighborhood. My partner and I have agreed us putting up either pride flags or Harris signs would simply make ourselves targets since we live in a red state and county. I don’t want people like this to put me on a list so they can come and attack the house if their fascist leader comes into power. Something that while they would want to do, I’m not positive they’d actually have the guts to do.

Regardless, this shit terrifies me.

There “was” a time? The gay and trans panic defense is still legal in a multitude of states and while it’s not as successful as it used to be, people still use it and get off without prison time.

I’m gonna assume you’re still talking about the Nazis since that was your original comment so let’s look at the reichstag breakdown of the election prior to Hitler being appointed Chancellor.

The Social Democrats won 121 seats in November 1932, the communists won 100 seats. The Social Democrats were socialists and the communists were communists. The nazis had 196 seats in the 1932 election. So if the socialists and communists had combined they would have had 221 seats which is more than 196. And those were leftist parties who were bickering. So if the leftists had combined they would have kept Hitler from being chancellor when he was appointed that in January 1933. But what about the centre party? Well, they had 70 seats and had a significant wing that was left and wanted to work with the social democrats. Now if we are conservative about it and say just 25 of those 70 were leftists, that would bring the 221 up to 246. And if the other 45 went to the nazis, which all of them never would because it was a big tent with diverse view points, that would have brought a nazi coalition to 241. So not as big of a majority but still a majority for leftists.

So yes, again, if the socialists, communists, and leftist wing of the centre party had combined their powers and hadn’t been bickering, hitler wouldn’t have been chancellor.

Basic source for the election results of November 1932. There’s more pages for the parties and stuff on there so go ahead and poke around.