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.
-
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
-
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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
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
That is not true, and you can look at the 2016 vote tally as evidence.
The problem is that the female candidates we're being provided are walking dog shit.
Compared to the senile pedofile rapist they should have been electable even if they were zombified dinosaur shit.
You, and everyone else who uses that word, kinda just needs to stop. 2024 and 2016 proved that the notion of 'electability' is flawed and more than a little asinine.
Bernie and AOC were supposedly unelectable, and either would have done far better in either of those elections as evidenced by the fact that the Republicans adopted their politics (granted, only in the rhetorical sense) to get elected themselves.
Far as I can tell, "electable" just seems to me to be conformity to political norms, and people clearly do not want that, because the political norms are keeping them in poverty.
Wait AOC just turned 35 in 2024, she was literally “unelectable” before then according to your constitution.
Also I meant that word in the sense that anyone with a grasp on the English language (which all other candidates had) should have won against the senile rapist pedo.
I am Swiss, so English is actually my third (or fourth of you count dialects) language… if I read a word a lot in English media I tend to incorporate it into my vocabulary… so blame your media, not my grasp on your language.
And yes, I am a huge fan of Bernie and AOC - they are both great politicians who actually seem to care about the majority of Americans and not just about their donors.
I understand your meaning. The problem is you're wrong.
And it's just annoying to me to keep hearing the word 'electable' as if that means anything.
So why did the senile pedo win - apart from racism and sexism?
Would any woman have stood a chance? Maybe a really racist woman?
There are several reasons, that Dems apparently would rather just ignore and make excuses for than acknowledge. Here's my take:
First, and foremost I think, is that neither of these two candidates won a primary. Harris was selected by a president with dementia and foisted upon the country and Hillary's primary was rigged, a fact later admitted to in court when the Democratic Party was sued over it.
Secondly, both Hillary and Harris followed Democratic presidents whose records left their constituents vastly more impoverished. In Hillary's case, it was Obama's decision not to address the Great Recession in a meaningful way for the poor and working class as well as the foreclosure crisis. In Harris' case it was Biden's decision to ignore the affordability crisis and rampant inflation. In both cases Donald was the candidate of change, and people wanted change.
In Hillary's case, there was also the problem of evident corruption, made public via James Comey and Wikileaks.
Lastly, both Hillary and Harris came off to voters as ~~"electable"~~ scripted and inauthentic, and particularly in Harris' case, there was a clear effort to stage manage every single appearance and her campaign suffered for her desire to be so controlling; whereas Donald went on a media blitz for the entire campaign and appeared everywhere he could, and despite saying a lot of dumb shit, he came off as authentic. (and thereby, more trustworthy, because it was abundantly clear he wasn't trying to hide himself)
If you honestly think Harris and Clinton lost because they are women and/or black, that's your right, but I don't think that point of view stands up to facts. It's particularly true in Hillary's case, given that she won the popular vote. The answer as to why they couldn't beat such a despicable man is that they are shitty candidates who ran shitty campaigns.
And this is coming from someone who predicted the outcome.