MANY SUCH CASES
The idea of him hearing about Tiananmen, then going 
and racing to move to China is p funny.
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
114 points (96.7% liked)
politics
22336 readers
518 users here now
Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.
Labour and union posts go to !labour@www.hexbear.net.
Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or !the_dunk_tank@www.hexbear.net.
!chapotraphouse@www.hexbear.net is good for shitposting.
Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.
Off topic posts will be removed.
Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Dumb lie. Also not really anything and it's pretty funny that this even got its own article in the fucking NYT lol. I already wasn't voting for him.
It's also like perfectly reasonable to forget if two events happening 35 years ago within a few months of eachother were contemporaneous or not. Fact checking really jumped the shark over the past decade lol
I really don't think it's reasonable.
Like if you were in the US on 9/11, or travelled there a couple months later.
You really don't think there are people who went to NYC in like November, and are convinced they were at ground zero on 9/11?
Like some sort of Chinese Tim Walz?
A succulent Chinese Walz :democracy-manifest:
No it’s not really? He was part of one event and can easily look up when the other happened.
I forget when events I was a part of happened all the time. For him to misremember by a few months something that happened more-than-my-lifetime ago seems pretty reasonable to me.
This seems to happen even more when an event is a part of your life narrative. Like I regularly hear friends and family members reshape events of their life as they're telling stories. Uncomfortable fact but our memories are really unreliable, and as we retell stories to ourselves and people we know they often get changed with time. It's probably not worth obsessing over when politicians do it with their own life stories (though obviously important with historic narratives).
Amazed thry didn't pull the evil censorship card: "I was minding my business in an exchange programme, nobody told me they killed 420 billion people 3 blocks down the street!"
Listen, to be a viable politician in this shithole, you have to demonstrate that you undeniably hate China
Even if that means inventing the weirdest, most needless lies
and "foundationally" support isn'treal no matter what... to paraphrase what he said
"during Tiananmen" "when Tiananmen happened" are phrases that make absolutely no sense. like USians saying "during vietnam" somehow makes more sense than that.
"where were you when Manhattan happened?" "during Las Vegas Strip, I was in California" - phrases that make an equal amount of sense
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Damn, that's a Joe Biden tier lie
Joe Biden would claim he personally witnessed the man get run over by a tank.
Joe Biden would claim that he was Tank Man.
Diet cheese man hates China, nation shocked.
And people were comparing him to Henry Wallace lmfao Gerald Ford had a foreign policy to the left of Walz
it's so funny that he has to do this whole ritualized prostration to come out against China, and he does the ritualized prostration, and he's done it for years, and now everyone is calling him out on it for being infelicitous, like he was swearing under oath, and not just rhetorically prostrating himself.
all he would have to say now is, like, well, i was there, and i saw a lot of nascent dissidence and people wanting liberal freedoms, but much of that was stamped out and i'm not surprised it wasn't allowed to be covered by the press. like dog, just double down, you just look silly stammering halfbaked excuses, you're a politician, you have to keep playing the game. you have to keep saying the lines.
Walz is the new Bernie. The offering to what they think is the left.
no, they're very different political figures in the moments they represent. Bernie actually advocated things working people wanted and spoke in any terms at all to elements of working class impoverishment and suffering (which is where his grassroots support came from), and for this was completely shit on and obstructed and smeared and stomped into submission by the democrat apparatus. He was not "offered" at all, he was a social-democrat compromise candidate who a huge amount of working people and left-leaners had mobilized for to push into the primaries, who the democrats so objected to they suffocated his campaign in the crib and smeared him in every media and shit all over his supporters as 'misogynists' and 'bernie bros' and all sorts of other nonsense and continued blaming them after Hillary lost. It was a fundamentally different dynamic.
Walz is about 80% more right wing than Bernie (who himself is a liberal imperialist to start with) and rather than being mobilized for by literally anyone, was instead hand-picked (after their first choice got outed for covering up a murder) by the democrat establishment to be actively dangled like shiny keys by the in front of a populace who were already compromising with Bernie and at this point would sooner see all of the lead dems keel over from heart attacks.
In 10 years nobody will remember Bernie, it has always been Walz all along who led the progressive movement. And if you try to bring Bernie up they’d tell you it’s the Mandela effect or worse, being called a “Bernie truther” like you’re a Qanon conspiracy theorist.
:downbear：
/c/badposting is that way
It's not that they're similar ideologically. It's that he fulfills the same role Bernie did: attract people who are theoretically left wing and move the political spectrum further to the right.
They will hold Walz up as a champion of the left and hide what is actually left wing politics, just like what they did with Bernie.
that's what I'm saying, they didn't hold Bernie as a champion of the left or a champion of anything at all. Even his shitlib ass was railroaded into malignment and shuffled as hard as possible into the sidelines and obscurity by the democrats and democrat-libs, and all their corporate media and astroturfed social media; and where he did manage to break through the wall of censorship and denialism through ground-up grassroots movements lifting him up in spite of the Democrats not at all with their participation
they censured him and demonized him and his supporters, not even on real terms but as "unrealistic," as "crazy," as "misogynist," as 'anti-american,' as 'envious' as 'spiteful,' as a 'spoiler' setting out to deliberately 'undermine' and 'sabotage' Hillary, and all sorts of other lies and gibberish, and all kinds of mud-slinging and slanders, that they continued both toward Bernie and toward his supporters after Hillary lost and never really stopped.
They never held him up as anything to hide anything because he and his supporters, weren't ever treated with respect or sincerity as a real political force worth engaging or treating with dignity
he and his supporters were only ever treated as an unfortunate and shameful abberation of politics and an enemy by the entire democrat and political and media landscape. You're misremembering how that actually played out. They never held up Bernie as anything even neutral let alone positive, and tried their hardest to actively ignore him and pretend he didn't exist, and where he was lifted up by the grassroots movement into the news and primaries he was actively pushed down by the democrats and democrat libs as not worth attention or respect or listening to.
Walz is a fundamentally different phenomenon, and is closer to what you're describing that they're trying to pretend he's progressive when he's not. They never did that for Bernie. Them lifting Bernie up as "attracting left wing politics into reinforcing bourgeois parliamentarism" was the compromise that his supporters were elevating him for, but instead the democrats and democrat-liberals actively engaged in hostilities and sabotage against him and against those workers lifting him up for that purpose
the complete opposite of what you're saying happened. And because they refused that compromise, and did so with such hostility and disdain for working people, it actively made a shit ton of real communists rather than diffusing them into social-democrat liberalism mascquerading as left politics like you're suggesting. A huge portion of his supporters immediately turned on him as an opportunist and capitulator because of how he folded to the democrats shameless assault against even his liberal compromise self and took to radical politics. I was involved in activist work in the middle of this all happening and watched it.
It would have have been more intelligent for the ruling class to do what you're saying they did but they didn't do that they did the opposite and it's the reason so many of his supporters are far far left of him now, including a huge portion of previous Bernie supporters now calling themselves anarchists, marxists, and communists, and openly advocating for revolutionary politics, where before they called themselves "liberal" or "democratic socialist" and were pushing for Bernie to do reformism. Walz isn't going to appeal to any left anything because that ship sailed with Bernie. Bernie was the compromise for the ruling class to do what you're saying they did which they didn't. They're trying to do this shiny keys nonsense now, but it's way too little way too late, for a candidate who's way farther right than even Bernie's center-left liberal imperialist self no less.
after their first choice got outed for covering up a murder
There was a pick before Walz? Who was it?
Josh Shapiro; there was a lot of Washington murmur that spilled out into corporate news giving rundowns of "who is Josh Shapiro?" that promptly cut and did a 90 degree turn to 200% volume blast the new direction for Walz and Harris once it came out too public he covered up a murder.