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
I thought the POTUS couldn’t break the law? Or does that go out the window once they’re not sitting? Does Trump really want to set THAT precedent?
When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
Obviously not retroactive to before Trump!
Or after... or in-between trump 1 and 2.
I believe Nixon had said that.
Yup. And at that time, we never found out if it was true or not. Since then, Republicans have been tirelessly working to ensure it is. And now we see the fruits of their labor: a Republican president as king.
Often I imagine had Carter elected to move on a Nixon conviction if we would be where we are now. I don’t think we would. Holding power to account doesn’t seem to be an American or Democratic thing to do. When it is, I believe we may have more geopolitical standing in accountability and Democracy. Until we walk the talk we seem to be a cesspool of quacking ducks.
Jimmy Carter pardoned Nixon because Carter was the bigger person and he believed that forgiveness is the most powerful act one can perform against their attacker.
What Carter forgot was, he's supposed to represent the people who voted for him, and the voters weren't, and didn't care to be, the bigger person; they wanted accountability and didn't place such abstract values on the act of forgiveness.
It was a good personal decision to make, but as a presidential decision, I find it lacking.
Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon which may have been one of the reasons Ford lost to Carter the next election.
Doesn't matter if trump sets the precedent.
The DNC kicked neoliberals out of the chair last year, and Martin has been giving all the money stolen from state parties via the "victory fund" back to the state parties this whole time
Holding that money and hanging it above the state's heads is how the neoliberals maintained power.
That's gone, been gone...
We won't get a neoliberal candidate forced down our throats this time, we'll get a candidate that Dem voters actually want, and they're fucking tired of maga getting away from this shit and want someone actually willing to hold them accountable asap.
And without that money hanging over state parties heads, our next set of congressional leaders will similar not be neoliberals who fight progress harder than MAGA.
It's like we're up 250-0 in the first quarter. The battle for the party is over, progressives won. We just have to wait for the clock to run down, unless we can pressure neoliberala to resign now so they can be replaced in special elections ahead of primaries.
They're gonna shove Newsom down our throats.
The oligarchs will try, but they don't control the DNC, so it's just gonna be billionaire owned media saying Newsom is great, and that's not going to change anyone's minds. They're also pay for bots and bad actors to try and convince people on social media that voting in Dem.primaties are useless...
Like, I kind of feel like you not only are ignorant of what's been happening with the party, but you literally didn't read anything you just replied to.
Unfortunately it's hard to tell if you just incapable of understanding this, or if there's another reason you want people to disnegage from the Dem party as soon as we clawed it back from the oligarchs
They control the entire media apparatus. You're overestimating the importance of the DNC.
I don't believe minor changes will be enough to shake entrenched power. A huge number of the Dem's voting base (and the sway votes they'll need to win) are disengaged and will only check in around October while living the rest of their life tacitly ameliorated to mildly annoyed--the perfect marks for a handsome, put together, well spoken candidate who can claim to have experience running the 4th largest economy in the world.
Newsom's got baggage, but not Adams or Cuomo level baggage. With moneyed interests behind him it'll be enough to sway the right people and shove him down our throats.
The chair of the DNC...
Who has full and total control over the party, and is accountable to absolutely no one, even the voting members if the DNC that appointed them to the four year term...
Is a "minor change"?!
What the actual fuck would you consider a major change? Even a moderate change?
The proof is in the pudding and we haven't seen a damned thing change with the DNC since he took over. Your claims are the same box full of false future promises we've seen from the DNC for decades.
I think moneyed interests will outcompete progressive will. It doesn't matter to voters who the chair is if they're still seeing more ads for Newsom all throughout the primary and electoral seasons. I don't think the DNC is gonna pull a reverse Hillary and force Newsom out if their base is promoting him in the primaries and I think their base is gonna promote him in the primaries.
I hope you're right, I really do. I just don't think it's enough.
There's still an inordinate amount of money in politics, a huge number of people that aren't paying attention, a continued misunderstanding in how government works, and misattribution to what the President's authority is enough that many people only vote on leap years. There's also too many ideological purists that refuse to vote out of misguided fears that it constitutes an endorsement of the system or that it's ineffective thereby ceding their opportunity to influence to stalwart Dems and waivering centrists.
The right has been working since desegregation to secure their political power and neoliberal ideologies have become a mainstay since the energy crisis. A couple of terrible terms isn't going to be enough to break the ratchet and usurp decades of established power in one election--even if the chair of one of the parties is different now.
That's wild...
You think ad spending would be enough to make a neoliberal popular?
What are you basing that on? Because it's not the last dozen plus years of reality...
Popular enough to win the general election? No. Popular enough to win primaries because the vast money/media coverage imbalance meant he was the only candidate many of the voters had heard of? Yes.
👌
Is this satire? That is a wildly optimistic take, if not. Wildly.
This person has single handedly taken on the task of white washing the DNC on lemmy. They've been posting stuff like this for months.
Yeah, you really have to follow details of politics to understand what he's talking about, and not just headlines on Lemmy.
The effect of the DNC rule changes or the effect the head of the DNC head are not things that are covered here.
How arrogant to claim that i only know of things written in headlines and posted to Lemmy, while completely failing to elaborate on even a single point mentioned. Please enlighten us with actual examples of this "new" DNC in action.
Ken Martin was the best choice of the short list for chair of the DNC. We will see what his leadership brings.
Sounds like a roundabout way of calling him the "lesser evil." Sounds like the same old party to me.
If all you want is heads on pikes you can say that. If you want democracy you have to work with the demos your have.
Im assuming you meant 'demons' and I'd argue that this line of reasoning is exactly why we are where we are currently. Republicans make things bad and then Democrats come later and keep them bad. Republicans make things worse and Democrats come in and keep things worse. Nothing ever actually improves and you get to a point where people are so desperate for anything different that they elect Donald fucking Trump to be president. This is the ratchet effect that Democrats enable through inaction due to their stated ideals being diametrically opposed to their actual ideals and the ideals of their wealthy donors. They simply tell you what you want to hear during election season and then disregard you once they take office.
I wouldn't call having the same shitty, hand-picked type of people forced upon you over and over "democracy." That's just the illusion of democracy much like going to the grocery store and seeing shelves full of 'competing' products that all turn out to be owned by the same three companies. Things will not change until we break this cycle.
"democracy" rule by the people
"Demos" the people.
If you want democracy, then the people around you get a say. Yes, things will not change until we change them. That's how democracy works.
If things are shit, we have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing things to be shit.
This is soooo exactly spot on, thank you.
I actually believe him, and I'll tell you why:
Because before the leadership change, he was one of the most distinctly anti-DNC posters I remember interacting with. He was so incredibly critical of the Democrats it was easy to mistake him for one of those MAGA/tankie trolls trying to discourage people from voting (that was never actually his message, but it was easy to misinterpret it as such).
Point is, IMO he has street cred against being a "vote blue no matter who" type.
Can you explain how that makes you believe him? I recall the same thing as someone who is also highly critical of the DNC after what they've done this past decade and I have yet to see anything signaling change from them that would warrant even the smallest belief in what they say.
They recently blocked the release of the "autopsy report" of the 2024 election:
So apparently Martin was either lying or isn't wielding unchecked power like that person claims. Furthermore, Martin is stating that the party only cares about winning and anything that doesnt help them win is simply a "distraction." This means if the DNC feels its more popular to have ICE round up and throw immigrants into concentration camps, they'll do it. If they think more tax cuts for the 1% is popular, they'll do it. They're abandoning all pretenses of ideology in favor of populism. They're not interested in solving problems, but rather winning by telling people what they want to hear. These are their real statements and actions. That user is trying to sell you a bill of goods of more future promises with nothing to back it up.
To me this just reinforces my view of them being little more than patsies and controlled opposition for the Republican party. They only exist to legitimize a completely broken one-party system of the ruling elite while we're treated as little more than cattle.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/18/dnc-kills-its-own-public-2024-autopsy-00697403