Remember when the Democrats propped up Trump thinking Clinton would curbstomp him because who the hell would vote for him? Good times. (Europe is doing the same, pushing the far right to pretend the vanilla right is the only viable opposition and actually pretty center, and then act surprised when everything implodes)

How about lets win something before we dismantle our army

What do you do when the people getting protected are hindering those wins?

No, Biden was elected after Trump 1. Then people wanted more change and it became very clear that Biden was not going to win his reelection (not because of policies alone). Harris simply didn’t either, but she didn’t lose where the old white man would have won in the same circumstances and everything else equal. Harris being equal to Biden is what lost votes, not her gender.

They’re not up for reelection next cycle, so they’re already getting fired, it’s just too bad that’s not happening for several months and it already fucked this particular situation and everything behind it (and they’ll do it again before they’re gone).

Remind me what’s the conversion rate from pound to dollar? Probably the right ballpark.

You see, this is why I speak of nuance.

No, you don’t. You “observe” that both sides are “saying the same thing.” You remove all nuance. And then you piss around complaining about being misunderstood and misinterpreted. And it turns out everyone sees through you because everyone already knows the “just asking questions” “just observing (very vague surface level vacuities)” stereotype.

I’m not American, dumbass.

Thing is, the Republicans are lying. So when you quote their excuse verbatim and put them on the same level of truth and representation, you are spreading a lie / propaganda.

Republicans are not doing gerrymandering to counter Democrats gerrymandering. They are doing it to silence opposition, over-value their voters, steal power, and abuse the law-making and law-enforcing system. And they claim that they are following the law.

No, Democrats removing undue power by placing equal representation back on top is not the same thing. They are saying the same thing on the surface, but one side is obviously lying, and when you say they use the same thing, you ARE acting like the excuse has the same value as the truth. And if you wanted to spin it as “they both makethe same claim / use the same excuse” , now you’re casting doubt on the veracity of the Dem’s argument, which is also inappropriate. The only spin that would make sense is to say that Dems are correct and Reps are lying by making the same claim.

That’s why you get downvoted.

The biggest party in the parliament, or a coalition, pick the prime minister. I’m pretty sure this one was from a coalition, and she was the leader of her party, and her party was the bigger of the coalition. Members of parliament do get elected into it by the people, who vote for a person and/or for a list. They didn’t pick her to be leader of the party, but they voted for the people in the party that she recently became leader of.

I don’t understand how but she’s supposedly a conservative.

Far right Trump lover who wants a return to traditional values. You know which tradition she’s talking about, and it’s not a Japanese tradition.

Also, prime minister not president, and not elected.

We should be passing bills that make President Trump’s executive orders permanent.

Can she though

No, he’s changing the meaning of “unwell” by comparing what she says about Trump to what Republicans say about Democrats. Which is not that they are actually too old and sick to govern. Well, they do say that and a lot more, but that’s not the implication he’s making here. He’s downplaying how “unwell” Trump is. Because “unwell” is a fucking understatement, and this is him just pushing it further under.

Unfortunately, reporters also couldn’t find a single general who cares that it’s allowed to disobey an unlawful order and that they can overthrow a domestic terrorist.

Sounds like he was almost named “Jacknobobyeahthatsbetter”’

The Greek trolley was not a car either. We came up with a big idea, we made something very limited and pretended that it was that idea, and we’ve only added a coat of paint since, is the analogy I prefer to make.

Your argument is literally that you don’t like the editorialized title, that’s it’s lazy and unprofessional, that the title alone is somehow distorting facts, that you think your version is better, and that the writer is a hack because of it, even though the point is correct, and you claim that parroting a press release can be the job of a good journalist. And you’re trying to wiggle out of it by pretending that it’s not the point you’re making, even though I am quoting you. I am telling you that this way of splicing quotes used to be correct even if you don’t like it, and what your argument leads to, and you still want to stick to it.

Exact quotes can be in the article. The title can be an editorialized summary that gets the point across as long as it’s a correct interpretation that you give your argument for in the article.

What you’re asking for is state propaganda, that’s where it goes, that’s where it is right now. It teaches politicians to spin longer phrases that clearly sound like promises and denouncing bad things so they can then deny everything the next day, because “that’s not what I said.” And on the other hand, it punishes those who make a short, blunt comment and then get hounded about the exact word they use, not allowing for any explanation - or any mistake. That’s how you get nations refusing to call something a genocide, and Nazis pretending to be upset at getting called Nazis, that’s how you get any left winger denigrated because they used a word you decided was not right, while denying the meaning of a word that a right winger said. You erase the importance of meaning by focusing on the importance of an exact quote while denying an interpretation. It teaches the media that asking questions and making editorial interpretations is forbidden because only the exact phrase from the press release is permitted, making it easier to manipulate the message being put out, because copy-pasting is easier than interpreting, and it reduces variations that expose the gaps and underline the problems.

You yourself right now are denying that this is really what she said because that’s not her exact words, leaving an opening to deny the entire comment - because that’s how it goes, not necessarily from you, but from anyone who comes after that. Hell, you’re already dismissing whoever wrote this as a hack because you don’t like that they didn’t use an exact quote, even though the meaning is absolutely right and you know it. Even your suggestion will be met with “but what was the exact quote” from people who will promptly ignore everything you say that’s longer than one sentence, and what you thought was more correct than this title will be deemed not correct enough. Like it or not, this is historically how journalism did things right, this absolutely was how quotes worked, until Fox News had to argue in court that only an idiot would believe they were news, and then nothing came out of it except Fox getting more power. This is how people keep moving toward more autoritarianism, that is what they have been doing, and that is what is happening now. Diversity in journalism is a good thing, and what you are defending only pushes toward uniformity.

But the actual use of the word is a redefinition from the literal meaning, though. Democracy is power to the people, and states are the ones that keep adding conditions on who has the right to vote, starting with citizenship or criminal records - and deciding who gets to be a citizen as well as inventing new crimes that can lose you that right. This is a legal limitation that is decided by the state and it is always redefining the word. So no, modern and ancient states alike never really had a democracy, they just created a word and then decided that actually some people don’t have that right, beyond the literal definition of that word. Power to the people^not everyone is people^.

It seems like you don’t remember what regular journalism used to be, because it was absolutely proper journalism to splice together pieces of sentences that make a shorter version for a title, as long as it was clear that the original really did mean that - which is the case here. The only issue here is the quotes, it would typically be “we’re dealing with (…) a communist dictator” or “we’re dealing with” “a communist dictator.” Your nitpick that the exact sentence wasn’t sliced up this exact way is misplaced, you’re not advocating for precise quotes, you’re just advocating for plausible deniability, like someone’s going to say “I didn’t say that, you don’t have a soundbite of me saying Trump is a communist dictator.” That’s just legalese, and that’s denying the meaning of the job, because actual journalism isn’t supposed to be a parrot job, this is exactly what it should be. It is, in fact, what she literally said.

You’re only pronounced dead at the hospital AFAIK (or by a doctor or something), so even when your head just explodes, you have to wait until the ambulance makes it to the hospital to be pronounced dead. Doesn’t mean you survived until they decided that chest compressions weren’t working.

Everyone in here asking for physical evidence before convicting because false accusations exist, pretending they’ve never heard of discovery. You open a case and get a judge to order access to the Epstein files, you don’t demand the victims do all the work first. Also, what is a jury for.