“We are also aware that these crimes and this trial took place in another country, but it’s important to us that no one anywhere ever be held accountable for anything,” Jeffries added.

Why now? Because Prop 40 is on the ballot on November 3rd. Its not a coincidence that it ties into the midterms - it's the same ballot

Its an opinion piece by 'the director of RootsAction and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy' - someone who's whole thing is the tension between corporate and progressive Democrats, and wealth inequality. Not some random journalist 'tipped off' about prop 40 by a Russian

Okay first of all I'm saying I can't believe any culture or people anywhere ever has a detailed history of their ancestral habits 12,000 years ago, at least prior to modern anthropology. It's not a slight on Native Americans specifically.

For context, the Epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia, generally regarded as the world's oldest surviving literature, is 4,000 years old.

I would genuinely love to see a source about this 80,000 year old oral history. I admit to being sceptical.

Secondly, it's not under an article about Mammoths existing 5,000 years ago. It's under a meme. A wrong meme.

I've thrown out 1 number, not 2. 12,000 years ago, or 10,000 BC. This is the same. It's also when Mammoths went extinct. I am consistent on this.

Which Native Americans historically have said they used to hunt them? Mammoths went extinct in the USA around 12000 years ago, so this story doesn't ring true. Oral history just does not survive that long

There's a debate as to whether giant animals from Native American folklore are a warped cultural retention of extinct megafauna, sure.

To be clear, Native Americans did hunt Mammoths, and they have also been oppressed and culturally maligned. No disagreement there

But I'm very much questioning that Native Americans outside of modern academic contexts have claimed knowledge of what their tribes hunted in 10,000 BC

I do not care about your opinion on an article you haven't read

My point here has never been defending the article. It's that you shouldn't make wrong assumptions based on headlines and comment based on those. It's bad form

This is an interview with Sanders' chief campaign strategist about his new book dissecting the 2016 primary. If you don't care about it then fine, whatever. But you're clearly commenting on what you imagine the article is, not what it actually is

The article is really about how the situation informs the current landscape and strategy for 2026 and 2028, but I guess you didn't read it before commenting

As a Londoner I can tell you straight up that commuting together does not build community and solidarity

You could pick any day in the last 200 years and say that [US President] was trying to [do something to foreign nation]. It means nothing

It says it is used. But it's not the map this thread is talking about. It's not the map the UN is replacing. It's not the map in the thumbnail. It's not the original Mercator map. Its not the most widely used map projection.

It's used in specific situations yes

We do not

(Well, we do sometimes but it's not the map in question)

The projection we use is just the Mercator. Horizontally, it's called a Transverse Mercator