World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Lmao. Enjoy Dearborn, Michigan. When he kicks you out, you can join them in limbo.
"But if the Dems ran a better candidate...."
"But Harris didn't even stop in Dearborn, so it's her fault not ours"
"Sure, everything Trump says is a lie, but at least he stopped here to lie to our faces. It's the dem's fault."
"One of Trump's first acts last time was a Muslim ban, but I can't be arsed to remember that far back"
"I had to vote for this otherwise the dems wouldn't learn anything"
/s
"we just had to teach the DNC a lesson at the polls during that specific election!!!"
This is completely valid criticism. Stop pretending it's not. The DNC is in the habit of specifically going out of their way to choose unpopular pundits, and that's not voters fault.
Voting for Trump, or not voting is their fault...
You clearly have no idea how US elections work at that level. The single candidate with the most votes wins. "Not Trump" was not a candidate.
If Trump gets 49% of the vote, Harris 48%, and "other" gets 3%, that's not counted as 51% against Trump and he loses. That's Trump winning with 49% of the vote.
Anyone who didn't vote (or didn't vote for the only candidate likely to defeat Trump) is responsible for his win.
Two things can be true at once. Voters not voting is bad, and it's their fault. The DNC being incapable of finding pundits people want to vote for is also bad, and is also their fault. Pointing one out, has nothing to do with the other and both of these factors led to the election of Donald Trump not once, but TWICE.
Pointing out the DNC's responsibility to find electable candidates doesn't elevate the voters responsibility. But if the DNC were capable of finding pundits voters wanted to vote for no issue would exist. You wouldn't have people refusing to vote, or voting for Trump out of some fucked up sense of "haha, I'm gonna stick it to you!"
Pretending like this issue is solely at the fault of the voters is so fucking disingenuous, disgusting and partyist its insane.
The DNC could have run an iguana wearing an offensive trucker hat, and we still should have voted for the iguana when Trump was the alternative or stood a chance of winning again.
It's up to the voters to make smart choices, and some of them made the stupid choice.
You don't have to convince me of this. I completely agree. I've said only that the DNC has a responsibility to provide something better than an Iguana and for the past three election cycles, that's what we've got and people are pissed. But every time you try to have meaningful discourse about how the DNC is only supplying Iguana people treat you like you're some kind of turncoat who voted for Trump. And that's just bullshit.
We need to be mad at non-voters, people who "lashed out" and voted for Trump, and people who let themselves be swept away by the lies of a grifter who we did nothing but warn them about. But we also need to be mad at the DNC... It's not entirely the voters fault and fuck anyone who says it is.
Please also try to funnel that anger into meaningful action. Staying mad at non-voters is understandable but also entirely unhelpful. Staying mad at the DNC however is both understandable and rational, and has the potential to drive change if you allow yourself to channel it into something productive.
So much fucking this. The DNC has to learn from past mistakes or this shit is going to keep happening, and unless people are mad at them, they won't even think to change.
YOU do not seem to know how elections work beyond a single cycle. You view each election as singular isolated event, and you have zero perspective of the grander game that's played between cycles.
What exactly do you think would happen if 100% of Dem voters always "voted blue no matter who?" If every Dem vote is already locked in from day one, what incentive does the party have to do anything to actually represent them? This is why the Dems worked so hard to court Republicans to vote for Harris. They figured that the Dem base was so scared of Trump that their votes were already locked in.
If you want a party to actually represent your beliefs, there have to be some people on your side willing to walk away if the party drifts too far out of line. If no Democratic voters are ever willing to abandon a Democrat for being too conservative, then the Dem candidates will drift further and further right each cycle.
Yes, there's the idea of democracy being on the line, but when is democracy NOT going to be on the line? And truthfully, the Democratic leaders proved that they were not reliable stewards of Democracy. The party that nominated Garland had zero ability to argue that they would defend democracy. Just look at how limp-wristed the Democrats in Congress have been in responding to Trump's lawlessness. These people are not capable of defending democracy. Trump should have been thrown in Gitmo on day one of the Biden administration. Instead Biden nominated a Republican to be his attorney general, and the rest is history.
Which is exactly why in order to win an election, a campaign needs to offer concessions to voters to earn as many votes as possible.
Something the Democratic Party's Campaign decisively chose not to do, and in fact do the opposite.
Instead of trying to secure hundreds of thousands to millions of constituents by supporting a permanent ceasefire and weapons embargo, a policy vastly supported by the Democrats own voter base (in addition to the majority of also independent and Republican voters), they instead alienated those voters by more than just ignoring their valid concerns.
They chose to arrest thousands of student protestors, gave billions of dollars to a genocide at the tax payers expense consistently for 15 months, actively suppressed the voices and representation of the main victims of the genocide, and campaigned with Liz Cheney (who was actively involved with the Bush-Cheney foreign policy in the middle east and enthusiastically pro ethnic cleansing of Palestinians). They chose to do all that instead of represent the view of the majority of their constituents and abide by domestic/international law.
And that was just one of the major issues, along with immigration and the economy, that tanked the approval of the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party wanted to actually win against Trump they would have done everything to gain as many votes as possible. They chose not to. They threw the election and let an unpopular fascist win.
most electoral college votes. Less people voted for trump than did for Hillary in 2016, and he still won.
This was literally Bidens plan as well.
You can have fun laughing at people that didn't want to vote for someone directly responsible for killing their families (as if you'd be different at all), but don't do it because you think this is something worse that Trump is doing that Biden wouldn't.
I mean Jordan said recently that they'd consider pushing refugees across their border an act of war. Trump's "plan", if it can even be called that, doesn't include a realistic way to bring about all this. I think I represent a good number of Muslims when I way: Fuck him, but it ain't happening.
Trump wants to own hotels and resorts in a razed and reconstructed Gaza. Do you think he cares where the Palestinians go? Do you think the rest of the world will want to look more deeply into it if he just says "they've been relocated, no I won't tell you to where"?
He's presenting a Palästinenserproblem. People should be watching very carefully.
Well, I do suspect the EU will be more than a little miffed about it. Not enough to come to blows, but probably enough to sanction Israel. That said, that is secondary to the real problem with Trump's plan: There's no way the Arab states will agree to this. Assuming he does start exterminating Gazans they'll flee to Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and while the IDF will be able to keep them from from crossing the border (mostly by killing everything that moves), it's impossible to expect that of Egyptian and Jordanian soldiers. Gazans will cross over into these two countries, which will lead to a collapse of the peace treaties between them and Israel. Also on the home front, the outrage at all this just might be the last straw that gets an Arab head of state assassinated or lead to some kind of regime change. The former has precedent; this is what got Anwar El-Sadat. Now there's a very real chance that Egypt, Syria and/or Jordan declare war over this, but even if they don't this will isolate Israel in the region in a way it hasn't been in decades. Even if Trump is okay with that, the Israeli government sure as hell isn't. That's what will ultimately throw a wrench into the whole thing.