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
Weird how the comments are defending AOC here. We can agree that she maybe should tread lightly so as not to fall out of favour with the party, but that doesn't take from the fact that she gave a spineless response here and should be gunning to primary Schumer
Idk, while it's not explicit as I'd hoped she did just imply that a good chunk of Democratic senators are rotten sellouts.
It's all about framing. She could've and should've been more assertive about it. While it's okay to point out the problem is bigger than the senate minority leader, she nevertheless should be about the matter. Millions of Americans will not be able to afford health insurance anymore. This isn't the time for pragmatism; everyone is angry, and her words should echo that anger. People want action and assertive language is as close to action other than action itself.
It's not even like it's scapegoating, Schumer has been incompetent for a while now, and this should be the final straw that breaks the camel's back.
She basically said "schumer is a symptom, the real problem is the party itself, we need to primary people and get them out." Not sure how that's spineless.
She should say yes Shumer should live then talk about how the problem is deeper
VOTERS ARE ALREADY AWARE THE PARTY IS PROBLEMATIC.
They don't need it repeated for the umpteenth time. She needs to start making more cutthroat statements and quit tap dancing around the conversation.
NO THEY ARE NOT!
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates https://news.ballotpedia.org/2024/11/25/95-of-incumbents-won-re-election/
Get out of your bubble. Vast majority of people keeps voting for incumbents. They still see Democrats as opposition to Republicans, not as a different wing of the same party it is. Voter are still light years away from understanding what's going on and voting accordingly.
AOC is 100% right here. This is not about Schumer or the 8 "traitors". Dems were going to approve this budget from the beginning. They did a little bit of theater and sacrificed 8 of them. Now people want to stone 8 of them instead of being mad at the whole party. Next elections they will vote for incumbents anyway because "my senator didn't vote with Republicans". Yeah, he didn't have to. They only needed 8 votes but would get 30 if they needed.
If she's going to run for his position, she's not gonna tip her hand.
What's weird to me is the sudden uptick in narratives by real "leftists" trying to paint Sanders and AOC as "moderates at best" as people like Stephen Miller continue to claim AOC and Sanders are essentially radical jihadists, and the media claims the Democratic party is completely divided and turning on Schumer. Yet when you actually read what Sanders and AOC have to say, they've both given level headed responses that this is a much bigger problem than just Schumer.
Meanwhile, it's implied by the media that everyone in the democratic party is on board with Ro Kahnna's calls for Schumer to immediately resign (although it's not clear why Democrats would be demanding this sudden resignation without some one in mind to take his place. Obviously it can't be AOC since she's not even in the Senate as of now).
The media and even some of the "real leftists" who argue incessantly that AOC and Sanders are now moderates, will also often praise Kahnna as a "progressive" who has the balls to finally stand up for Americans.
Yet nobody (the "real lefties"®️ or the media) ever wants to mention that Ro Kahnna is funded by Peter Thiel and David Sacks, or that as of October, he still held stock in Palantir (just like Stephen Miller, MTG, and several other Republicans). What an odd coincidence.
If Jefferies gave that same response everyone would assume he wasn't going to do anything. People aren't listening to what she's saying, they're just looking at who its coming from and forming their opinions from there.
She has to choose between primarying Schumer or running for president in 2028. The former may be more realistic but it's certainly not an easy decision.