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. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating 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 10/19
-
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
Nate Silver is terrible and usually terribly wrong, but just step outside the last year and it's been crystal clear Biden would and will 100% lose the Electoral College to Dump. No amount of Cult Jr telling us to just vote blue no matter who is going to change that. Most Americans don't know the difference between a row and a column or a watch and a warning, they aren't thinking critically about Presidential elections.
It's so ironic to see the "vote blue no matter who" people argue against replacing Biden when data shows a high probability of him losing. If they suggest we vote blue no matter who then why are they so ardently telling us that it has to be this one guy?
"the data" would also suggest that a late replacement could be destructive and have an even Higher probability of losing. More importantly the process to oust Biden is highly unlikely to succeed. Therefore the very act of pushing for these kinds of changes only demonstrates weakness for the GOP and accomplishes nothing but push away any remaining undecided voters toward a party that at least has a clear favorite. I wish people would support the current candidate more aggressively rather than destructively attempt for replacement when doing so is futile.
While you are at it, you might also wish for people to vote Blue. It's not going to happen though - independents refuse to tow a particular party line, preferring instead for candidates to earn their votes, and they will watch the world burn, or even turn to Trump to help it, rather than give in. This is what true democracy looks like - sometimes people lose, when enough people on the other side vote to win. We can only control ourselves - e.g. if the Dems were to pick a replacement, there may be a better chance, while otherwise we simply sit back and roll the dice to see whatever happens.
Who will replace him? Michelle Obama doesn't want to run, Gavin Newsom has full support for Biden, and Kamala Harris is already VP.
I'm sure plenty of people would step up if he actually stepped down. What you're seeing now is people doing damage control to keep from undermining his campaign. It doesn't mean that they're actually telling us their true beliefs. Newsom says he fully supports Biden, and if he stepped down, Newsom would fully support whomever took his place.
I think Harris is just as bad of a candidate as Biden or Clinton. Michelle Obama is an option but I don't see why we have to treat this like a TV reboot where we keep rehashing the same names and faces that we saw previously. I'd personally love Bernie or AOC, but I know the party leadership hates leftist candidates and will actively work against them, so we're probably screwed either way just like we were in 2016.
The fact you couldn't name a single person who would step up proves that switching is equally, if not more risky to do that lol
How would any of us know who's going to step up when none of the potential candidates want to come out and undermine Biden's campaign by saying they want to replace him? Even if they don't believe in Biden, they're going to back the current party pick because they too need the party support should they wind up running. This should be obvious.
We can do it now or wait until November and roll the dice, but current polling isn't looking good for Biden. If the party doesn't do anything and he does lose, there better be a fucking retribution because this will be the second time they've handed a victory over to Trump by forcing terrible candidates upon us.
They are saying your prediction is bad because you couldn't even follow your own logic to an actual real persons name.
I listed two people who I would like to see secure the nomination. As I said in my previous comment, any potential replacement is going to keep their mouth shut until Biden steps down otherwise they're undermining his campaign (should he not step down) and pissing the party leadership off. Do you think it's logical for a high ranking Dem to shout on the news that they're going to step in this late in the game while the presumptive nominee is still in the race?
Do you think it's the time to be indecisive? You don't even have one solid suggestion everyone else approves of.
You proved my point by saying "you don't know", "you're not sure", "there are a few possible ones". That's what this problem is all about, democrats not being organized enough for this yet