Spiced Lamb Taco on Fresh Naan
LovingHippieCat @ LovingHippieCat @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 361Joined 2 yr. ago
Your title implies that because amazon argues for a 15 dollar minimum wage, just like us leftists do (actually many of us argue for higher now but for the sake of your post, lets stick with 15), that means its a bad thing. I'm genuinely struggling to understand why you thought to post an about article directly from Amazon with your own bs title. Just because a big corporation advocates for the same thing doesn't mean those things shouldn't be advocated for. Amazon is also lobbying for the legalization of weed, does that mean that legalization isn't a good thing? It's an incredibly flawed argument and if that's not what you're saying I'd love to know what you're actually trying to communicate with this post.
A good way to make your queer employees feel like their "comfort levels" don't matter. I guess only bigots matter at this school.
I've had basically the same conversation with my sister who lives in Albania. I just want to use something encrypted like signal but she just refuses and says it's either WhatsApp or Facebook messenger. Cause of that I barely talk to her.
Don't forget that the Simpsons play a huge part as well. Even citing two episodes in his blog post.
This article was written by Douglas Mackinnon. A political consultant who has written for multiple publications including Fox News. Here's a quick list of article headlines he's written there: "Latest wave of wokeness to hit west point reveals one simple solution", "Woke left will erase american history unless we stop them", "A 'Star Wars' story: How can I get a job as a woke ‘activist’?", "We must speak to save our founding fathers from the woke left", "Bidens nasa launches new mission to planet woke", and "Moms for liberty shows spirit that would make the founding fathers proud".
If these article headlines haven't made it obvious, this man is not worth paying attention to. Talk about biden being a bad candidate all you want but don't use pieces of shit who are focused on "wokeness" to hide their idiocy and bigotry.
Also, biden is not going to be replaced at the convention. Not gonna happen. But if you're putting forward the idea of it happening, you better bring with it an idea of who should replace him.
This article is shit, return2ozma, you can do better.
This isn't the DNC fucking shit up. It's a thing that's happened several times before including in 2020. The article goes over how in 2020, Oklahoma, llinois, Washington, and Montana accepted provisional ballots from both the RNC and the DNC. In 2020, the RNC was from August 24th to 27th. The DNC was from August 17th to 20th. This is not a fuck up, it's just that the rules are being enforced more strictly this year, particularly in republican states. I wonder why Republicans would enforce rules more strictly in an election year they intend to fuck with as much as they can. Totally isn't a partisan weaponizing of laws that are usually not a problem to deal with.
The IDF: "Oh no! They're reading! Only Hamas reads!"
Don't get me wrong, this is a shitty thing to do. But there are two important facts to keep in mind. First, that this has been something they've been working on for months so it's not like biden and his administration went from telling bibi that he needs to protect civilians and try to come to a deal with hamas and have a ceasefire to selling him these jets in the same talk. Second, these jets have to be built. It'll take at least 5 years for them to be built and anyone who is aware of how slow our government builds jets knows that that could be extended. If anything this isn't shitty because it's giving Israel jets, its shitty because it looks like a fucking bribe from the Israelis to try and make sure the US continues to support them.
Okay so, in the article it talks about how Mike Johnson back at the height of the pandemic had an interview with the Student For Life Organization (Anti-Abortion Group) and said “Of the things we’re on the lookout for is the use of chemical abortions because there’s this move towards telemedicine and off-site medical treatment and that kind of thing. ‘We need to be able to treat people remotely, and so we’ll just mail them a chemical that will induce the abortion.’ You know: a pill or a syringe or whatever it is,”
This motherfucker knows Mifepristone is a pill. He just wants to try and make it sound like doctors are mailing syringes out to people. That those syringes are dangerous and dirty and that women obviously shouldn't be injecting themselves with them. He is such a piece of shit and knows what he is saying and doing.
This is the same kinda thing that happened recently with Ohio and Michigan republicans where they were discussing how they intend to ban all gender affirming care for literally everyone. It's almost like the Republicans are bigots and monsters who want to enact their bigotry and awfulness on the country.
Important note for those who dont want to read the actual article: the ban is essentially saying only some flags can be bought with federal funds and then hung up officially, and the pride flag isn't one of them. It also doesn't prohibit personal displays, so while they can't be on flag poles or bought with federal funds, they can still be displayed. Interestingly, the bill also bans the confederate flag. It's still just bigotry being forced by the GOP but there's always more context than a headline can provide.
First off that article says nothing about MS increased rates anywhere. But also, it talks about something that happened from July 9, 1953 to Aug 1, 1953. It's one instance of testing a chemical for the cold war that was for trying to determine how Nuclear Fallout would spread in the area. Also, worst of all, you said there was an increased rate of MS in Saskatchewan but then posted an article that talks about something that happened in Winnipeg, which last I checked, was in Manitoba not Saskatchewan.
Edit: It does list an event that happened in Alberta but those were just claiming they could see some "distanctly visible emissions" but no study has shown any evidence for that being an actual chemical being ejected from the planes. There is also a supposed instance of it in St. Lois where they use just two people as evidence for it. It also talks about other tests the cia and other government agencies have done on the populace but none of those listed were a chemical dispersal except the original.
Which is very characteristic of the Conspiracy minded, they occasionally have a kernel of truth and then turn it up to 11.
"Well if too many people get rights and don't have to worry about making rent or their mortgage payment or affording their groceries and generally able to live comfortably then, well, the people will be weak and babies and think they're equal to us normals!"
Fucking Chemtrails. I have MS and one of the times I was in a physical rehabilitation clinic, relearning how to walk, I had a nurse who believed in chemtrails. She asked if I realized that my MS was caused by chemtrails. I was taken aback. I was actively playing civ with a friend who heard my side of the conversation. After she said that, I had a short conversation with her about how chemtrails aren't real. She said "Well I guess all those congressional hearings I watched were fake." To which I said that we are never going to agree on this and it's better to just stop talking so we don't have an argument. She basically agreed and thankfully she was gone by the time I needed my MS meds that evening. Chemtrails are BS and yet so many people believe they're real, even in professions that should understand they're not real, that it is genuinely depressing.
The uncommitted movement is 100% what primaries are for. It gives a clear message in actual voting data to the democrats and bidens campaign and I do think they know that they've got some ground to cover, whether they manage to remains to be seen. To be honest I was gonna vote in my primary but I'm in a red state and there's no uncommitted on the ballot so I don't really see a point when all of my other candidates for other positions are also already decided. Worst of all, all of my local positions are solely Republicans and it sucks that I don't feel like I can vote for anyone locally who could actually represent me. Anyway, I'm really glad there have been so many uncommitted voters, it's how primaries should work when there's only one real candidate.
Sure I'll bite. This article was written by John Burn-Murdoch, and from what I can tell, he is not related to Rupert Murdoch and just seems like a boring centrist. So let's look at his first graph. It says it shows diminishing support for democrats among non-white voters, supposedly showing they're now at 60% support for non-white voters entirely. So the argument is that they are leaving the dems because they're being disillusioned. That 60% figure is suspicious though since actual voting shows completely different dynamics. In 2022 the breakdown actually shows around the same amount of support in particularly black voters, 93% of black voters supported the dems, which was around the same amount as the election in 2020 and 2018. But in the graph in your article it does not use those numbers. It uses share of non-white voters who identify as democrats, not actual voting patterns. The author uses that to show that black voters and other non-white voters are separating from the democrats, but never mentions the actual voting data showing that despite not identifying themselves as democrats, they still vote for democrats.
The next graph does the same thing, uses how people are identifying themselves in a poll as opposed to actual voting data and doesn't even make much sense when actually looked at, especially since the y axis isn't labeled so it's confusing. I mean, does it show how nearly 100% of white voters in 2022 are republicans and close to 100% of white voters are liberal? It just makes no sense and is not a good representation when the author doesn't even provide context to what the graph is trying to say. It makes no sense. Then he uses a book to try to illustrate that black voters are abandoning the democrats, but that book “Steadfast democrats: how social forces shape black political behavior”, was released in 2020 and is about how black voters are unified around the democrats and examines the reasons for this. So this author is using data to say what he wants to say that actually says the opposite of what he is trying to say. Then the next graph supposedly shows racial breakdowns for different more conservative beliefs and for those that identify as liberal or conservative. But it as a graph that also makes little sense. 75% of black voters identify as conservative while close to 90% or above identify as liberal? How can you have those numbers when they don't add up to be 100%? There's not 165% of black voters. This graph is suspicious as fuck, if you are gonna use percentages and want me to take you seriously, they need to add up to 100%. I'd also like to acknowledge here that multiple of the links in this article that are supposed to lead to actual other articles, actually just lead to the main page, that could be because I am not a subscriber, it's just annoying and not the important part.
Anyway, lets go to the next graph which the author introduces by saying that he extended the books research to include all non-white groups, despite it again not actually showing what he wants it to show. He claims it shows that different races are increasingly identifying as conservative, but it uses the book and a Pew Research Center American Trends Panel Wave 43 to make that case. But from what I can tell in that pew research trends panel, there is no mention on how many non-white voters identify as conservative, so I have no clue where he is getting that information unless it's from the book which I also doubt given the book being about how black americans rally around the democrats consistently. The article finishes by saying that as the US becomes less racially segregated, more black and non-white Americans will change party affiliations to republican. But all it uses for that is just the census data which never mentions less racially segregated america leading to more non-white GOP voters. It also uses a republican pollster named Patrick Ruffini and his book “Party of the People Inside the Multiracial populist coalition remaking the GOP” as evidence, again, for showing how black voters are abandoning the democrats despite the fact that the share of republican black and non-white voters hasn't changed much in the last couple of elections, the distribution is the same, it's just that turnout was higher so there were more non-white GOP voters. Okay last thing on this incredibly long post, the article actually ends by saying that these voters are likely to become swing voters and that they likely will be won back by the dems, or at least can be. Essentially saying that all that he was saying in the article wasn't actually influential and that the distribution in the voters could still be the same. He doesn't use voting data for the entire article, which is the most important data to use when it comes to this.
Anyway, I couldn't find a lot on John Burn-Murdoch, but this article is still trash.
This article was written by Jeff Charles. A podcaster and political contributor who has appeared on fox News and Newsmax. He's also anti sensible gun control, transphobic and believes being trans is just ignoring biology, believes that schools should ban books that have "ideology" in them (anything queer), thinks kids are being indoctrinated just because it occasionally comes up that there are different ways of being a person, says he's an anarchist but will say libertarian sometimes to avoid "making people think he's crazy" but just doing that shows that he doesn't actually understand what anarchism is (or how crazy some libertarians are), and also talks about how the left wants Americans to be dependent on the state (all social programs). He's also on point for some things, specifically things that most libertarians ascribe to, like fuck cops and anti drug war. But like most libertarians, he only believes in his "do whatever you want and leave me alone" mentality when it lines up with his personal beliefs.
I don't disagree that there are black voters who are frustrated with the dems, but this is not a very good article and is written by an ass who has to push the idea so he can continue to be brought onto Fox News and Newsmax to talk about it and so his site gets new subscribers. Subscribers that have to pay 50 bucks a year for his premium content. Which I'm honestly surprised doesn't cost more. He's also partnered with Doni Anthony who has his own site/substack, which when you're on the landing page, the second article is, well, it requires subscribing and I'm not gonna do that. But it's about a bill called the Inclusive Democracy Act of 2023 which is about restoring voting rights to people with criminal records/felonies who have done their time, the article is about the "hidden" reason the democrats support the bill, which is a far right conspiracy that average voters would never vote for a democrat so they have to make new voters to be able to win. It's all baseless conspiracy stuff and is the same thought process for the "illegal immigrants voting" conspiracy.
The point is that an article is only as reliable as the author is, and this author is just crap.
I mean technically yeah, but that's just updating the citizens that the process is actively rolling. I'd rather be updated that things are happening as opposed to radio silence and thinking the administration is ignoring the issue.
Small advice on your Tzatziki, if you want, try draining the yogurt in the cheese cloth for a few hours, it removes a lot of the moisture and significantly thickens it. And if you like lemon, replace the vinegar with the juice of a couple lemons. My yia-yia and papou (grandmother and grandfather in greek if you aren't also greek) taught my mom how to make it like the food stands in larisa (where my papou grew up) and she taught me.