politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This serves as a great reminder that Tim Walz is…..wait for it…..a politician!
Seems to me he convinced himself it happened this way and just kept telling the story. It’s a pretty relatable thing to do actually, but yeah, he was in China the same year, but not during Tiananmen.
This is not the same kind of lie that Trump and Vance tell, but it’s still not the truth. Fortunately many of his supporters can hold two truths in their head at the same time: Walz is a politician who sometimes lies a little, and Walz has more integrity in his pinky finger than Trump and Vance have combined.
I think you mean human being. If it's a mistake it's not an attempt to deceit like is kind of implied by reminding us he is a politician.
Here comes the subtle propaganda accounts. "No really, I'm gonna vote for this liar".
Bullshit. The whole point is to put Walz's slight mistiming of a story that happened 40 years ago on the same level as "they're eating the dogs!"
Is it a coincidence that these people are coming out on October 1st, about the same time Reddit got hit with a massive wave of bots?
I see where you’re coming from, because yeah he’s more of a human being than most politicians. But what makes him a politician is that he hasn’t corrected the record, and telling the story makes him look good, so he keeps telling the story.
But also, he is a politician. (A politician I will happily vote for.)
Whether he was in Hong Kong or Nebraska the exact day Tiananmen happened is irrelevant to the part that makes him look good (going to teach in China in the immediate aftermath of Tiananmen).
His "lie" wasn't even that he was there during Tianamen, it was about where he was when he decided to go to China. Hong Kong was British at the time and no version of his story claims he was in mainland China during Tiananmen.