January 6th occurred, Trump has been relatively unscathed, and Trump is running again. That’s what has changed since 2019.

If Trump had been fully prosecuted, or had decided not to run Biden likely wouldn’t be running.

The example is the Telluride though? That’s the whole point. Of course any sane person would pick a cheaper car. For that matter why would you ever buy a brand new car?

I definitely agree, but I went with the option which would have the lowest monthly payment. On the other end local rates have a 36 month loan at 6.75%, but that’s $1,800 per month.

I just Googled and the 2024 Telluride has an MSRP of ~$55,000 in my area, used 2023 models are about ~$45,000.

Looking at an auto loan calculator, that’s between $700 and $900 per month with a 96 month 9% auto loan.

Point is, if you can afford the car you’re probably not worrying about the subscription except on principle. If you can afford the car and have principle concerns you’d probably buy a different car.

Nah, even if they did their NATO % contribution the amount would be pitifully small. When you look at most of the articles that talk about “10 Best Places to Live” it’s mostly super small population, low immigration, countries with virtually no military.

Most NATO countries are between 1-2.5% of their GDP, but that’s only ~$300 billion. The US does ~3.5% which amounts to ~$811 billion.

The other NATO countries wouldn’t just need to meet their NATO 2%, they’d need to more than triple it. Even just for the US to come down to 2% would cause a ~$348 billion decrease (more than the rest of NATO combined).

If I were a European country free riding in NATO the last thing I’d be pushing is the US to reduce military spending.

Oh that’s cool, I ran across the same website while making a comment to another user here.

I’m not super sure how reliable they should be considered to be honest. Looking at Mediabiadfactcheck.com they state that they are mostly factual in reporting but points to their lack of transparency on funding and strongly loaded emotional wording that may be misleading.

Based on the rest of the review it seems that they are really good about being very specific in their statements to avoid inaccuracies. Looking through this article and a few of their other articles they mostly focus on local accounts (X person said this, they live in Gaza) or third party references (Y on Twitter said this based on an article by Z at the BBC).

Another representation of this style of reporting would be this example:

Headline: “The Election Was Stolen!”

Body: New information has come out about an investigation into the legitimacy of the 2020 election. SOUTHERN boy on Twitter shows a video of FBI officials going into the election offices to perform an investigation. SOUTHERN boy also recently posted a potential connection between the investigation and the Trump 2020 election, but it hasn’t been picked up by the mainstream media.

We also spoke to Melissa Simpson in Mississippi and she says she and all her neighbors believe the election was stolen.

Since 2020 Trump has been telling everyone that, “The Election Was Stolen!” Does SOUTHERN boys information show the proof to Trump’s claim?

End example

Technically nothing I posted is false, I’m not making any claims myself, but anyone reading this would know the subtext to my article.

A lot of people have no objection about receiving news about Palestinians from blatantly pro Israeli outlets. So yeah, there is one Pro Palestinian source, surely the balanced person would take info from both.

In the real world this is certainly true, there are way more Pro-Israel publications and listening to an opposing opinion is wise, but on Lemmy it seems that the vast majority of active persons have been unwilling to accept any Israel source, no matter how tangential.

The double standards have to stop. Either object against both, or read both and decide for yourself.

There’s nothing to say this person doesn’t, and given the amount of flak Israel related sources get it’s worth noting the bias here as well.

But to always call out just Palestinian sources, it smells of cultural oppression

I completely agree, but I am somewhat thrown by the choice of name by this publication. It just lacks a certain professionalism associated with good journalism. This isn’t to say it’s not a worthwhile source, it’s just not the best name. It’s kinda like if someone named their publication the Digital Revolution, the Uprising, or something similar, I’m just gonna cringe a bit and be skeptical from the start.

Looking online I found this site (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/electronic-intifada/) which reviews the bias of various media sources. Based on this it’s just a group of international journalists with their publication based out of Chicago. Their information seems to be mostly from grass roots reporting or third and fourth party accounts.

EDIT: I wanted to quickly follow up, I’m reading through the article now and it’s a real shit show for navigating. In general I’m not familiar enough with the people they reference that it’s really hard to get a good read on this article. It’s kinda like if I said that a guy I know named Billy works at the city and he said he spoke with the Mayor who said that crime is on the rise, but the Chief of Police released a report to the contrary. Billy could be worthwhile, but I don’t know Billy and I can’t readily find good references to the Mayor’s statement.

Even the representation of the original referenced article by YNet is kinda shit. For example, they use a reference to Syrian Girl on Twitter who is referencing Yoav Zitun on YNet, who is referencing a paraphrased statement from Lieutenant Colonel A. Zitun states that the Lieutenant ordered the Fighters to shoot everything near the fence and later attacked their own installation so that other troops could move up to it. Syrian Girl makes the connection that Zitun’s reporting indicates that the military was blindly killing everything that moves (including their own troops) and EI runs with that sentiment.

In Zitun’s own article (included at the bottom of the EI article) it is clear that unrestricted firing was only in proximity to the fence itself but other bypasses of firing restrictions were approved separately as needed or were taken by Fighters without approval.

The only thing that seems expensive is the veggie patties in my opinion. For $4.99 I would have expected a 4 pack.

The buns are a bit pricey, but we’re talking a dollar and some change then.

Looks to me like you have most of 4 lunches and 4 breakfasts for $18.

Think he means a red eye?

I’m a big fan of Shutup10 (https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10). It’s an app you can download and run that greatly simplifies the privacy options available in Windows.

Seeing this had me go on a dive into the history of this. I was already aware of the Tulsa Race Massacre, but I hadn’t heard anything about it that was remotely recent until I saw this.

Typically I’m not in favor of any calls for reparations because it’s generally a cluster fuck of issues. In this case though the State legislature authorized a commission to review the situation in 1996 and in 2001 the commission delivered it’s final report.

The recommendation of th commission was as follows:

1.) Direct payment of reparations to survivors of the 1921 Tulsa race riot

2.) Direct payment of reparations to descendants of the survivors of the Tulsa race riot

3.) A scholarship fund available to students affected by the Tulsa race riot

4.) Establishment of an economic development enterprise zone in the historic area of the Greenwood district; and

5.) A memorial for the reburial of the remains of the victims of the Tulsa race riot.

The state later passed legislation which created a memorial park, established an economic development zone, and provided more than 300 scholarships for descendants of the Massacre. No reparations were issued and it was the opinion of various government entities that a recommendation by the committee was not an obligation by the Government.

I found it odd that roughly 3 of the recommendations had been followed, yet the 2 highest priority ones had been ignored. So I got to looking at what the dollar values and terms for reparations were. The commission determined that the value of the damages would have been ~$1.4 million at the time, though some claimed $1.8 million. The commission adjusted this for inflation and came to the value of ~$17 million. $17 million doesn’t seem overly problematic, especially for a state budget, but the problem became evident in later research.

While the commission had projected $17 million others argued the damages and their resulting impacts were between $50-100 million with others claiming even higher.

I think the main reason why reparations in this case are likely to forever be denied is that there is no grand concensus on how much would be owed and who should get the money. At this point the number of descendants (we’re talking 3+ generations) is likely significant. If the state were to approve reparations they would be acknowledging liability and then the subsequent litigation would be either arguing that the reparation amounts aren’t enough or that someone was excluded who shouldn’t have been.

I think at the very least the State should have recognized the direct payments for the survivors who are still alive, but Oklahoma will be Oklahoma.