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
All it will do is make the youth stay home. They will see both parties as the corporate-owned jack-booted thugs that they are, and they'll decline to vote for either party.
Democrats, as always, will blame the voters for their own shortcomings with their own voting base. If they lose they will also spend a lot of time asserting, without evidence, that actually the youth turned out in droves for Trump, and it's all their fault. All while they hop on jets to get out of the fucking country before The Trump Purge starts, because they don't actually care how the outcome affects us, the citizens.
They already showed us once they won't actually stand in the way of a coup. The Democrats may as well be the Uvalde cops, sitting outside the school while Trump shoots up everybody inside.
When I read this, it feels like you came to this conclusion by studying a cork board with pushpins and red string tying disparate ideas together to try to form one simple answer that explains everything. Like most of the times people do that, ts so far outside of being even possibly true because of all the logical leaps you have to make you end up sounding paranoid and crazy.
A lot of words to be a walking example of "media literacy is dead."
You are in a really bad place when you're adopting the rhetoric of "Always Accuse Your Enemies of Your Own Sins". Its not a good look on you.
I can assure you, that's not the case, even though you'd like to think so. Also, "Always Accuse Your Enemies of Your Own Sins" has been working out gangbusters for Trump and the Republican party in general, and frankly, that's fucking scary, so I don't feel like I'm out of line for thinking Democrats are pussies in the face of this authoritarian threat.
Like why did the Democrats feel the need to hand Merrick Garland the AG position as a "consolation prize?" Garland literally waited to investigate Trump only after it became clear he was not going to return top secret national security files. Garland literally waited until Trump became so criminally belligerent he could no longer justify ignoring it.
How the fuck is that a show of strength? That's some pussy shit in the face of real fucking villainy. Like I said, equivalent of Uvalde cops, afraid to stand up for us.
I agree is fucking scary, which is why I was concerned you were doing it yourself. Its right out of the MAGA playbook these days.
I'm curious what your recommended strategy is. MAGAs are clearly pushing, bending, breaking the rules of democracy. Its terrifying. Democrats aren't (except in some isolated cases). Are you advocating for Democrats to do the same as MAGA?
For the most part Garland was a vetted and reasonably trusted individual from the work done to put him on the Supreme Court.
Garland was trying to avoid a Constitutional crisis and avoid the collapse of the fairly loose rules the Executive has to get their job done. The reason the loose rules have been in place to-date, and the reason they needed to be loose, was to allow the Executive, charged with the very difficult task of leadership to lead taking hard actions and making hard decisions. The office was never prepared for the Executive to be a bad faith actor.
So whats the result? Do we throw out all the loose rules and write hard and narrow rules for the Executive? How's that going to work when desicions the office of the President makes are literally precedent setting on a nearly daily basis? Does he/she have to run to the Supreme Court every time a decision is made, and if so, how does that not just transfer an unbalanced amount of power from the Executive to the Judicial?
These are crazy hard questions to answer with far FAR reaching consequences. I don't blame Garland a bit in trying to avoid facing them and collapsing the system that has held our country together for just over 200 years.
A show of strength? Thats more MAGA type talk. Our democracy can't be just boiled down to an absolute copy of team sports. It will collapse even faster than it is already.
Again, what actual actions are you proposing the Democrats do that isn't itself ignoring the rule of law and becoming the authoritarians we're accusing them of working toward?
Would Garland having started the investigation of Trump on January 7th, 2021 been the Democrats ignoring the rule of law?
I'm just some schmuck dude, so I don't have an expert plan to solve it all, but I keep seeing clear misses where there are opportunities to do something about this and we choose not to. I don't have a plan for the future, but I'm smart enough to keep seeing fucking own-goals.
We've been putting off nailing down the issue since Nixon stepped down and was pardoned by his successor. The fact that we've avoided the hard questions that long isn't the flex you think it is.
Avoiding those questions is why we let war criminals Bush and Cheney off the hook, and they paved the way for this. Literally, avoiding the question is the problem.
Yeah it's hard and will have far reaching consequences. That's how everything is. Putting it off because it's hard is pussy shit and more importantly enables Republican abuse.
I've also literally had Democrats talking down to me exactly like this my whole fucking life (even though I'm a fucking Democratic voter...), because I have the audacity to critique them for being milquetoast pussies who don't stand up for their constituents. There has never been a point in my 25 years of voting where I've voted anything but downticket blue, but fuck me for being willing to say "still not enough" I guess. Like, that's how you depress voter turnout from your own voters, browbeating them for asking for better.
Patty Fucking Murray, a Washington Democrat, agreed with Ted Cruz that airlines should be able to keep my fucking money if they cancel my flight. Real nice fuckin lady. Real standup for her constituents, my ass. These people are influenced by corporate lobbyists just the same as Republicans are, almost all of them have cushy lobbying jobs or Talking Head jobs lined up when they leave.
EDIT: Further, on the whole "The Democrats must follow the law" bit. I'm reminded of Martin Luther King Jr's Letter from the Birmingham Jail:
Those last two sentences in there are where I am at with folks like yourself.
Yes it would have been ignoring the rule of law because Garland wasn't appointed AG until more than 3 months later on March 11, 2021. source
Ignoring the Garland part, everyone was still getting over the shock and sorting out the details of Jan 6th 24 hours after your proposed start. The democrats started the impeachment of Trump started on Jan 25 2021 a mere 18 days later. That wasn't fast enough for you? source
You see opportunities to do something, but ignoring the dire consequences of doing those things. Then accuse others of inaction when they don't do them? That's of you disingenuous, isn't it? Why is it we're 6 posts deep before you admit that you don't even know what do to yet claim others should?
I agree its the same problem from the Nixon-era, but here you are again saying we should have done something, yet don't acknowledge the horrible consequences of doing it. So brave.
The Bush/Cheney Iraq stuff is bad, but not Constitutional Crisis bad. Mixing the Nixon and Trump crises in with Bush dilutes the importance of addressing Trump. That doesn't help anybody.
You understand that you and I and everyone alive right now has enjoyed almost 50 years of some of the highest standard of living on the planet. What you casually toss around as what should be a solved problem would likely have shaken that to its knees and sent us and the world into a tailspin that would have taken many decades to recover from, if ever.
Your bravado undersells that drastic actions that would unfold from that. You get no credibility to me from simply yelling it must be different without being part of the change and accepting the consequences. It certainly looks like you are simply washing your hands of it and expecting others to come up with all the answers and pay the price. I'm sorry, but that's just not how the real adult world works.
Forgive me on the details, re: Garland. I have cancer and the meds make my memory and mind go a little wonky sometimes. I'm pretty sure you understood what I meant, despite the mistake.
Impeachment isn't the same as a criminal investigation, and Garland still waited two years until the ex-President had become so criminally belligerent. He could have started on day one, and he chose not to.
We simply don't agree on "the consequences of doing it." You think it's a lot more dangerous than I do, it's as simple as that. I don't think prosecuting criminals for crime is really that hard of an issue when the whole point of this damn system is for these folks to represent us and our interests. Sorry that we disagree on the far reaching consequences. "You get no credibility to me from simply yelling it must be different without being part of the change and accepting the consequences." Okay, we both see different consequences unfolding, so obviously I am accepting the consequences and you're being fucking obtuse. The fact that you view this as "Only I am smart enough to know the consequences" speaks loudly of how condescending you've been this whole time. You have also failed to detail these far reaching consequences that are so fucking dangerous.
Sorry I don't have a plan. I have cancer and meds that cost $18.3K a month without insurance. You want me to be in charge of the plan? I'm in my forties and have cancer in a country that's happy to let me die. I'm about to be a fucking statistic in "youth" cancer deaths. I've got my own fucking problems. I'm a voting citizen and I get to voice my opinion. I'm not required to hop and skip out of the fucking cancer ward to save the world.
"You understand that you and I and everyone alive right now has enjoyed almost 50 years of some of the highest standard of living on the planet." Yes I do understand that after WWII we were the only country that hadn't had our infrastructure bombed to living fuck-all and we were in a unique position to get a stranglehold on the world economy, and that included Reagan supporting coups in South America to get friendly dictators installed so we could exploit the living shit out of them for our gain. I don't exactly feel good about that history, and frankly, neither should you. It was a fluke on the worldwide stage and our shithole country is spiraling into stagnation because we never had a plan beyond exploiting the third world. We're losing that high standard of living right the fuck now, despite the Democrats "doing the right thing." Amazon is literally about to sue the NLRB out of existence! Literally fuck-none of that has anything to do with Presidential immunity other than proving we need to be able to prosecute Presidents for crimes like that. I don't care how great our quality of life has been if it's been at the expense of other countries and their democracies. America isn't the center of the fucking universe. The amount of times it has been abused is too god damned high.
All I hope is that if Trump wins, your defense of doing it "the right way" comes back to haunt you when the brownshirts come for us all. Having chosen the "lawful good" path won't save you once Trump is in charge.
First, I'm very sorry to hear about your cancer, and I hope your treatment ends soon with your cancer in remission. I'm crossing my fingers for you.
Second, you go fuck yourself. You're doing it again where you're doubling down on this being someone else's problem to solve. Sure you have a voice and an opinion, and instead of facing the truths of what you're proposing you're saying it someone else's responsibility to come up with a perfect solution and implement it. I'm confident you'll be there at the conclusion of said plan calling out how shitty it was because it didn't do everything. Yes, you have cancer, are you're trying to use that as a free pass to stand on a hill of moral superiority by pointing out a problem and calling everyone else assholes for not solving it to your liking? Those close to me that have (or have had) cancer told me when they found out they had cancer they didn't want to be pitied and treated differently. They wanted to be treated just like everyone else that didn't have cancer. I'm going to show you respect and assume you're the same.
If you want me to pull my punches and let your weak arguments stand unopposed because you have cancer, just let me know. I'll respect that choice of yours too.
I agree we are in different places on where the end result of this would be. The problem isn't so much convicting the criminal today, its what that conviction does to the office of the President forever into the future. I'm not saying this to say we shouldn't do something, but that it isn't about the orange guy today, its about what it means to everyone else after he's convicted.
Nope, not "only I". Apparently all of the leaders of our government for the last 50 years too.
In charge? No, a participant? Yes. No one is asking you to lead the team, but if you want to play the game you've at least got to be on the field, not just a spectator in the stands.
I'm not talking about post-WWII Truman era. I'm talking about Nixon and his crimes. Thats what we were talking about.
I don't feel good about that, but thats a different argument that doesn't have anything to do with Trump or Nixon.
And Starbucks tried to do something similar being anti-union, and got smacked down. We now have unions at Starbucks locations all over the place. If you look, you'll always find ugly battlefields. I'm not telling you to stop looking, but understand the battle isn't over, and it could result in a win for the good guys like when Starbucks lost against unions, like when Jim Johns lost against the FTC this week and unilaterally destroyed predatory companies from using Non-compete agreements. source
So you want the worst to happen if you lose an argument? How does that help anyone?
I'd ask what you see the alternative is to avoid that, but we've been over that. You only point out problems and not even any elements of solutions.
What office are you running for?
Dog catcher.
Wow. Big dreams eh. Well, good luck!