213

Debate in nuclear-armed former colony fails to reassure global community (www.aljazeera.com)

submitted 1 month ago by hackerwacker@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 64 points 1 month ago

However, it got off to a less than stellar start. The three moderate candidates in the race – Jill Stein, Cornel West and Chase Oliver – were barred from participating.

Instead, the contest pitted the two frontrunners: former President Donald Trump, the candidate of the far-white Republican Party, widely thought to be the political wing of white-Christianist militias, and Kamala Harris, the current vice president, who led a palace coup two months ago that forced the ageing, unpopular incumbent, President Joe Biden, to abandon his quest for re-election.

When did Aljazeera get this 🔥

[-] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 38 points 1 month ago

the session at times degenerated into name-calling, fearmongering and outright lying. The two candidates traded insults, incited anti-China sentiment, differed over women’s rights and whether the country is facing an invasion by hordes of violent, pet-eating criminal immigrants, and agreed on backing the genocidal regime in Israel. There was little articulation by either candidate of a coherent vision for the country.

That's exactly how the world saw this, spot on mate 😂 I think they need to look up the definition of "debate"

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 month ago

Point of order, Kamala didn't "lead" anything, she was chosen by party insiders of the clinton wing to take over.

Also Aljazeera has always been highly critical of the US, I started reading them fairly regularly in the mid 2000's as they were one of the only outlets criticizing Bush. (I don't think the intercept existed yet.)

[-] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 month ago

IIRC, the Intercept started during the first Obama term.

[-] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The debate is literally an agreement between Donald trump and kamala Harris. There is no neutral debate commission involved. This doesn't really make sense.

Those candidates are free to have their own debate if they think they can convince someone to put them on TV.

Edit: Also is Jill Stein a "moderate"?

[-] the_wise_wolf@feddit.org 23 points 1 month ago

I think the point he's trying to make here is about the undemocratic nature of the election system, in which only the two frontrunners have a chance.

[-] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

But there is no public debate commission, and no public funding going to these debates. It's two campaigns making a deal with a private TV network to show them on TV arguing with each other. Should there be a public debate commission? And if there were, would it be appropriate to feature more candidates? Maybe! But as is, the only real issue is that the vast majority of the public does not care about these candidates.

load more comments (23 replies)

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

Here's the thing: Al-jazeera has always had turns of phrase like this, but they've been sprinkled in their pieces to remind and reassure us there are smart people writing who get it. But the name and their focus can tend to be off-putting so they're ignored by wary whiteys with simpler reading tastes. Ohai.

With this one, you know they wrote the hell out of it. This viral bit of prose could be them reminding us they're still relevant. I know I needed that reminder , and I hope they'll be gentle if they ever realize Canada exists.

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

I hope they’ll be gentle if they ever realize Canada exists

here is their canada portal: https://www.aljazeera.com/where/canada/

they also have some documentaries: https://www.youtube.com/@aljazeeraenglish/search?query=canada

[-] qprimed@lemmy.ml 52 points 1 month ago

[-] subignition@fedia.io 52 points 1 month ago

Reads like the author moonlights for the Onion.

[-] qprimed@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 month ago

these days old onion articles are prophecy and new onion articles cant even give me a raised eyebrow.

this is/does both.

[-] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 month ago

I gotta say, this article makes me feel sane again.

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Propping up democracy in the US has long been a vital priority for safeguarding global peace, given its linchpin status in the Caucasian bloc. Analysts say allowing autocracy to once again flourish in North America and in the ethnostates of sub-Scandinavian Europe could lead to yet another all-out Caucasian tribal conflict that would draw in the rest of the international community

Absolute peak Journalism 🫡

[-] DefinitelyNotAPhone@hexbear.net 37 points 1 month ago

My favorite genre of journalism: other countries' journalists writing about the US the same way the US writes about their countries. I'm just sad they didn't dredge up some "America expert" who's never been to the US and doesn't speak English to call for mass balkanization of the country followed by conspiracy theory screeds for the extra flavor.