News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Sure, but have you considered that Kamala had a weird laugh
She was enjoying the dead babies a bit too much
Also, those dumbass's who think a woman can't be president.
Unfortunately that includes a lot of women, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Most of those women were raised brainwashed by their church and family to be subservient to their man. In retrospect, giving those women in particular the right to vote might've been a mistake. It essentially just doubled the weight of their spouses vote.
That's the drawback of universal suffrage, not just women's suffrage....most people are idiots and easily manipulated. Women just moreso because of countless generations of oppressive patriarchy.
But there's no real good way to test a voter without opening the floodgates for fraud and discrimination...so here we are. Idiots in charge.
-Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
He had such a way with words, he did.
I really, sincerely hope that this current series of events leads to a period of American Enlightenment where we have a renewed focus on education, science, and the arts.
The weakest point in a representative democracy is very much so the uneducated public. The bigger their voter pool, the more they can drag down everyone else.
Probably won't, most of us will probably be dead long before that happens, and certainly before we could reap the rewards of it. But it would be nice.
The way the state handled the uneducated masses in White or Black was to keep a common enemy.
In that work, everyone gets an implant that helps them live longer and provides immunity to disease, but it causes a major weakness to the substance "Black Matter". Black Matter is a substance discovered in the mid-21st century, generated by extreme emotion like mania and rage. Since Black Matter can actually kill people with the implant if the concentration is too high, nearly everyone with an implant is united in keeping Black Matter under control.
The intellectuals and scientists, provided they are trusted by the state, are allowed to handle materials that cause people to generate Black Matter. The rank-and-file don't really mind this, since they trust that the state will keep their best interests in mind. After all, if the state doesn't keep their best interests in mind, lots of unrest will occur, which means massive Black Matter generation, which means mass death.
I'm really not looking forward to finding out how well "Mutually Assured Destruction" works in the real world. Lately, that seems to be the controlling-party's entire ethos. As long as it hurts them more.
Terry Pratchett died far too young.
My mom will still tell you that things would be much worse if Harris had won. Can't say how, but she doesn't hear the sarcasm when I suggest we'd all be learning Mandarin online while recovering from forced gender reassignment surgery and seems to consider that a legitimate possibility.
What actual percentage of the American people do you think believes a woman can't be president? And I mean, believe her nature as a woman makes her unfit, not people who believe the electorate won't vote for her.
Do you know any polls in the last year that indicate how big a contingent that would be?
I'd be shocked if it was over 0.5%. Even over 0.2% would be very surprising to me. Of course to get pols that precise you'd need to ask like 100,000 people.
Unfortunately, it's not black or white. I recall a woman saying she wouldn't vote for Kamala because she thought America wasn't ready for a woman president.
Is that her nature as a woman or people that believe the electorate won't vote for her?
It almost sounds like passing the buck, I won't vote for her because of everyone else's opinion 🤷 idk, I don't have the answers.
That would very clearly be an example of thinking "the electorate wouldn't vote for her".
If it was her nature as a woman, the reason would be some thing like "Because women are bad at _______".
Something clearly misogynist. Instead of just thinking everyone else is misogynist.
This is such a stupid argument and I wouldn’t believe it if it wasn’t for my dad. He keeps talking about her laugh and I explain to him that it’s appropriate to express all emotions…. And he doesn’t believe it. He’s also unable to connect me being in therapy and his behavior.
The statistics of who stayed home VS who voted for a white man with the same policies (older white men/women and older hispanic men) shows most of the votes lost are from Kamala being a colored woman and our most bigoted groups responding accordingly.
100%. A woman of color? No way.
This is why AOC can't run for president. We would just be stuck with Trump 3.0 or some Republican poser.
I think AOC could win since she's young and when younger generations do vote it's for younger progressive people.
But it also requires them actually communicating policies that will get young people to go vote.
Two very qualified women have been beaten by the worst presidential candidate in the history of the country.
In what world do you think the answer is running another woman?
I love AOC. I think she is the future of this country. But she would be much more effective in the senate. Let Gavin, Walz, or someone else who is in the white dude category be on the top of the ticket.
Is that fair? No. But do you want to be fair or do you want to win elections?
Two milquetoast Neoliberal women lost because them being women was enough to lose the few % of support their male counterparts had.
I think most people want leftist leadership these days. Most people want a third party.
So the issue with this thinking, is that those percentages will still be there no matter what candidate it is. I do agree with you that people generally prefer leftist policies. I'm a progressive, and would love a Bernie platform to be the policy foundations for the country.
The issue is, if you're going to voluntarily cede 2-4% of your electorate just because they are a woman, why not run someone who's a guy who has the same policy legs.
Personally I would vote for either. Idk if Bernie would make through a presidency but it would be a solid ticket if it was Bernie+ AOC as VP
Running on the status quo of a dying empire they lost to a populist lying about ousting corruption and forcing change. This story is a lot older than identity politics.
Except young people (or all people) need to go vote in primaries for those they want.
You can't just wait for your perfect person to show up magically. Ie. Policies reflect people who vote, not the other way around.
Yeah and unfortunately we are at a point where even if she does run and win in 2028 the conservative majority SCOTUS wouldn’t let any of her laws stick around.
People claimed that the tiktok people and the swifties are gonna pull the ship around because they would vote for the younger dynamic more progressive candidates. Turns out, they would rather make tiktoks about it.
Which canidates?
You can't just expect people who were just children to magically figure out how to create a political party to rival global billionaires.
They need someone young and progressive to vote for. Kamala is neither of those btw
I know, but the idea was that they would vote for kamala, because it's the lesser evil. And it would scare the piss out of boomers when they see they are outnumbered
I think if we are expecting young progressive people to vote for representation they will want at least young or progressive leadership.
Kamala was neither of those things
She was the lesser evil, but I think America is sick of choosing evil at all.
She also has no penis and is awefully dark for a good old white American
Musk will light your taxes on fire. Obama was huge on deportation. Kamala is a gun owner. OK, why won't you vote for Kamala then? "I just don't like her. She laughs weird." I couldn't believe it, but it shouldn't shock me. How do you even keep going after that?
I remember reading that immigration groups called Obama the deporter in chief. Trump wishes he could get a nickname that would go that hard with his base.
It wasn't really about the laugh.
She laughs like a black woman!
Ok that's actually a hysterical take. That's probably exactly what those people mean.
Yea, some of them also noticed she is a minority and a woman. Sadly our country has not accepted those groups are just as capable as white men to lead a country.
Maybe the broligarchy currently in charge will finally disabuse people of the notion of white male superiority. Maybe…
Any mistake by any woman "justifies" the canard that women are incompetent. Same is used for Black men, but judging by the election record, the misogyny is even deeper than the racism.
As a white dude, I really wish. I don't see much evidence of it though.
I mean Biden was personally killing Palestinians so let's all make sure Trump does worse too so checkmate lIbRuL. Ps I'm morally superior because I think my self righteous social media posts matter way more than the outcome I cause with my actions. And if you disagree? Well, you love genocide! /s
Well you see the genocide was always going to happen. That is why we needed to oppose the Democrats.
Also did you know NATO were actually the real Nazis all along?
/s
She also was hugely supportive of genocide, is a cop, huge opponent of sex workers, promised to outflank trump to the right on immigration and crime, had a terrible climate change plan including backtracking on things like fracking, terrible health care policy, denied any economic problems and her solution to massive poverty and increasing inequality boiled down to increased ease of first home buyers. She had terrible policies no reason to whitewash her.
"Please be distracted by our appointed candidate's skin color and genitals so you don't notice these other things!" - democrats probably
Schodinger's cat applies here. We will never know how good or bad Kamala would have been since she didn't win. However, since 47 has done so much shit to damage the country in ways worse than imagined, I'd say she'd done better.
BTW, have you ever heard Trump laughing at anything? That's even weirder IMO.
She would have been better. Biden was an OK president that was ruined by his brazen pro-genocide stance. It doesn't take a lot to be better than Trump.
I told my friends back in mid-October of 2023 that I thought the Hamas attack was probably 1.) heavily influenced by Russia, and 2.) going to throw the election to Trump or whoever the Republican candidate was going to be unless he could get that thing zipped up and a peace deal in place within a month or two.
So stupid. Biden could have done better so easily. But here we are, I guess, witnessing the oligarchy take over the world, using Trump and Musk as patsy’s, letting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and Ukrainians die by the hand of genocidal fuckwits.
In america a pro genocide president is still an okay president. Most school children drone stiked AND getting the nobel peace prize. Best president we ever had i tell you what.
It's a competition to destroy the US and your opponent is Donald Trump.
That's about the only competitive scenario you could put me in vs. Trump and I'd despair that there would be no path to victory for me.