The conditional is right there

I’m sure Vance was lying, but if these were anything like the Presidential debates, there would definitely be a strong Democrat bias. You can’t possibly think that Walz didn’t get fact checked because he was a perfect little angel with flawlessly honest rhetoric, right?

Disclaimer: I didn’t watch very much of the debate because, as others said, it was boring, but Harris sure as shit lied in her debate.

what’s opposing nationalisation and public ownership is and always has been purely ideological

It’s private interests seeking to maintain their own profits. The ideology is downstream of that.

I hope so

There are certainly criticisms to be made of it, but characterizing them as “the bad guys” in a conflict with Israel because they do [thing Israel has been known for for decades] is either sarcasm or rank stupidity

You could be clearer next time by adding an /s

It self-consciously is the reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYLNCcLfIkM

Israel only has lobbying groups that are allowed to operate in American politics because the US was already dedicated to zionism. Otherwise there’d be, like, a Chinese AIPAC lobbying for the PRC or something.

States aren’t people, dog

I think Bibi was technically born in Israel and spent his early childhood there but lived in Philidelphia during the period that he went to high school.

Israel serves a geopolitical purpose destabilizing the Middle East and suppressing development of rival countries (e.g. assassinating that nuclear physicist in Iran).

Take it from Biden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYLNCcLfIkM

“Both sides are just as bad!” is the bullshit

It’s not that they are identical, it’s that delineating between the Hitlerites and the Strasserites just isn’t very meaningful compared to the understanding that they are wings of the same monstrous entity that needs to be destroyed. You don’t even need to Obamas embracing Bush and saying “same values” to see that, but seeing that makes denial inexcusable.

The first-past-the-post voting system sucks; the resulting two-party system sucks; but

The hand-wringing isn’t the worst part, but it’s definitely the most annoying. “Don’t worry, I’m disavowing Harris while I vote for her in my non-swing-state, so it doesn’t count even as she uses those votes to claim legitimacy just like Biden did”.

It’s an understandable mistake regardless, but just for your reference, the “What is your story?” at the end informally indicates it only wants affirmative answers because that’s how you’d have a “story” to tell in this regard. There are often hints like that in a question like this.

It’s been the official policy of the DPRK for most of its existence that the US was its primary enemy. That recently changed to South Korea, but the US is still enemy #2 (I disagree with the new characterization, but that’s neither here nor there). The whole reason the DPRK is so aggressive about its own ICBM program is to deter the US. It can attack Seoul just fine with artillery (which is part of why it has maintained such an extent of artillery manufacturing that it’s exporting to Russia).

Counterpoint: “Fact checkers” with an institutional bias are an excellent way to cover for lies promoted by those institutions

I rarely see it, but MBFC is an atrocious website that defines bias by distance from the center. It’s just nonsense.

Israel’s actions now are, like the American military’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, both propped up by American imperialist interests and the MIC. The people opposed to Israel’s campaign of genocide are more analogous to the (admittedly totally ineffectual) anti-war crowd from back then.

deleted by creator

I seem to remember a book where TVs watching people was a core element of the setting. Ah well

Well, you can look at it as the rags in question being more inclined to receive such claims with uncritical credulity if they say something like “CCP bad,” etc. They don’t need to lie, and in fact strategically shouldn’t (though some of them countenance an alarming amount of direct lying, here I am thinking of the NYT), they can just accept what they are told by the US government, which obviously dings itself by lying but a) with the source being anonymous, how will you pin it on them without the receiving journalist destroying their career by revealing an anonymous source? and b) they’re the US government, it’s already kind of understood that they have a record of lying, but their position of power nonetheless acts as a sort of font of credibility, especially to US citizens.