As recently as February, Mr. Walz said on a podcast that he had been in Hong Kong, then a British colony, “on June 4 when Tiananmen happened,” and decided to cross into mainland China to take up his teaching duties even though many people were urging him not to.
But it was not true. Mr. Walz, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, indeed taught at a high school in China as part of a program sending American teachers abroad, but he did not actually travel to the country until August 1989.
Why bother making something like this up?
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.