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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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
Once again, we agree.
Why always with the old white men, when we have prominent politicians like Yang, Buttigieg, Klobuchar? And as for Bernie, if you want a firebrand who's going to alienate moderates, why not AOC? Well, she's too young to run, but she's not the only truly liberal option. Warren is old enough, progressive enough, and a woman. But, no, Bernie Bros gotta Bro.
Yang's a grifter.
Why?
I'm honestly trying to think of who they could run this late and I'm coming up short. Gavin Newsom is terrible idea in my opinion. Like you said, AOC is too young. Kamala Harris? People hate her.
The age specifics might be important. AOC turns 35 in October, before she'd take office if elected. And therefore might actually be eligible.
That would be the sort of legal battle that I could see taking too long to resolve.
There's no battle to be had. You can be elected at 34 and you have to be 35 to serve. As long as you are 35 before inauguration, you are good. There is nothing to challenge. It's cut and dry.
None of it is cut and dry. It never is. You must realize that.
In this case - it is.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There is NOTHING that prevents anyone from campaigning or running for president that is younger than 35. You have to be 35 to serve as president. There is no ambiguity.
Dude, SCOTUS is currently deciding whether or not it's legal for a president to assassinate his political rivals.
Okay - you know what. I yield. I shouldn't have to in the first place, but I legitimately cannot argue your point.
Tim Walz. Minnesota has been kicking ass with progressive legislation these past few years, and here in Minnesota we've been wondering if he's been quietly trying to get his name out there to run for President. (And the general consensus is that we don't want to lose him as governor, but I guess we'll give him up to save US democracy, lol.) On paper he's fairly moderate too.
I've never even heard of him and I'm more politically in the know than a lot of people.
Is that really a bad thing, though? Generic Democrat polls really well against Trump. The people who know of Walz really like him, even the more reasonable rural Republicans here grudgingly admit that while they don't agree with him politically he clearly cares about Minnesotans. Newsom doesn't have that. The past couple of years have seen some semi-viral quotes from him poking at politicians in red states, mostly along the lines of "we fed children, what have you done?", and I've seen them posted here. The people who know him like him. For the people who don't, he's Generic Democrat. He's well spoken enough to handle the discussions around the George Floyd protests (which already came up in the first debate but Biden didn't address directly). He's well spoken, smart, kind, and down to earth - everything Trump isn't.
Also, I hadn't heard of Obama before he ran for president. For a sufficiently likable candidate, it's not a deal breaker.
Then there's this little time to campaign? I'd say yes. You had a lot more time to learn about who Obama was.
Agreed, and agreed.
Why not Klobuchar? She's got some national recognition from the 2019/20 cycle, politics are acceptable to moderates, progressive (enough), and she'd eat Trump for lunch in debates and on social media. Plus, she's from the Midwest, and might pick up some folks for regional loyalty, and could play against the "slick New Yorker" which might still work.
The bases are going to vote party lines. I think undecideds and wavering moderates are the pick-up points, and I think Klobuchar could do that.
I like Yang's politics, but he's got a popularity problem, and Buttigieg - Trump would just harp on his sexual orientation, and I'm not confident enough that America's ready yet to vote for a gay president. Hell, we can't even get a woman into office.
IMO Klobuchar's the safest bet against Trump.
Trump won't agree to a debate with a new candidate. I doubt that there be another debate at all as is.
For sure. But there will be a lot of indirect debate on social media, because Trump can't keep his burger-hole shut, and Klobuchar's free to murder him (metaphorically) on public platforms. Even if he only posts to TruthSocial, everything he says gets parroted on X and Facebook, and that's still where the most eyeballs are.
And old school public media picks this stuff up and repeats it - that's mostly what they've been reduced to -but it still reaches a lot of eyes and ears.
And: Trump refusing another debate, she could just hammer on his cowardice, over and over. That'd be a win.
Klobuchar is tough. If nothing else, I'd love to see that fight. Only slightly less than I'd love to see an AOC v Trump fight; that'd be like watching a skinny junkie enter the MMA ring against Holly Holm. It'd be hilarious. But AOC is too young, and Trump will be either dead or in a home by the time she's old enough to run. I just hope Bernie is still active enough by then to support her. I don't know that she could get elected - she's too polarizing - but it would be a marvelous spectacle.
Anyway, I prefer Yang's politics, and I'd be thrilled to see Buttigieg in the White House, but I stand by Klobuchar as the best bet.
AOC turns 35 before the election, so she's eligible. She might be "too young" to vote for but not too young to run.
She was born in October; shit, you're right. She'll be barely legal in time for the election, and certainly eligible by the time she'd take office. So she won't be too young to vote for by the time of the general election.
Wow.
And imagine the click-through rate for "hot barely legal candidate" ads going straight to a policy video.
Klobuchar is definitely a good idea. Although I'm not convinced that replacing Biden this late in the game is going to save the presidency either. I don't know what should be done.
The only reason to vote for Biden at this point is anti-Trump and Blue No Matter Who. Those still apply to anyone else that the DNC puts forward, as a base score, with any actual merits, charisma, or vigor adding to that. This should have been an easy decision six months ago and doing-nothing-and-hoping-for-the-best doesn’t seem to be making the prospects any better.
anti-Trump sounds like a pretty damn good reason for me. Unless you think there's a good reason to let a dictator win.
You clearly didn’t read what I wrote, but you sure took the time to start talking some more.
The only reason to blindly insist on Biden as the only possible nominee, a bad-mouth someone who discusses an alternative approach, is if you want Trump to win.
I read every word. I still maintain that "not dictator" is always a better vote than "dictator," even if that is your only reason.
I said that the DNC should run someone who is more charismatic and younger so that they could more easily beat Trump. Where are you getting the dictator garbage?
Seriously?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritarian-presidential-election-f27e7e9d7c13fabbe3ae7dd7f1235c72
So, again, anti-Trump is a good enough reason to vote who whomever gets the nomination as far as I can tell. They could nominate clam and they'd get my vote.
That’s literally exactly what I said.
Geez, you make some good posts sometimes but interacting with you is a really horrible experience every time. So needlessly hostile.
I don't think I was the hostile party here:
Then how does "needlessly argumentative" strike you? You misinterpreted the other poster's point entirely, and then entered a cycle of doubling down without making any further effort to understand.
Maybe I misinterpreted their point, but I'm not sure why I should have been expected to make much more of an effort after that first reply. And then I get blamed for being hostile all the time by that same person?
My guess is that they're conflating "stubbornly contradictory" with "hostile," which isn't accurate. Being labeled as or treated as hostile when you're not is frustrating, and it leads to poor communication. That goes both ways, though, and I can see where you'd both be able to infer hostility that may or may not be intended by the other party.
Also, I'd suggest that if you no longer feel that you should "make an effort" then the best course of action is exactly that - cease engaging.
I don't disagree, but I should point out that the conversation between the two of us also ended last night, so I think we have both ceased to engage.
I think what the other commenter meant was that for many people, like yourself, a D near the name is enough to vote for that person but the bar can be higher for other people. If the dems had put (might be time yet?) a not-absurdly-bad candidate, as they have now, they would've won easily. But seeing how it's going you guys are gonna enjoy four years (hopefully only four) of Trump as president, and the rest of the world will have to put up with all his crap as well.
If that were all it took to win, we wouldn't have been worried before the debate and twice as worried after. Not-Trump isn't the autowin the establishment wishes it was.
Whether or not it's all it takes to win doesn't mean it isn't a good reason.
🙁 🤝
Lemmy really, really needs emoji responses that don't require and entirely new comment.