746
Democratic socialist Melat Kiros defeats 15-term incumbent in Colorado House primary
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
746 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30243 readers
2215 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fuck off with that shit
Billionaire News strikes again
It's The Guardian, they operate on reader donations so that they're not beholden to billionaires.
The word choice here is somewhat poor, but I don't get the sense that this article is lamenting...
They don’t run ads?
Gee, I don't know. Why don't you click on the link and see if there's any ads? I sure didn't see any, but maybe your eyes are better than mine...
Apparently they are. https://usadvertising.theguardian.com/advertise
Funny, I don't see any advertisements either on the article in the OP or on the home page...
So your contention is they don’t run advertising.
No, that's not what I said at all. Where the fuck did you pull that out of?
You snarkily said "they don't run ads?" As if that backs up your point that they're captured by billionaire interests after I told you that they run on reader donations.
I'm telling you there's no ads when I read their articles, and you're acting like there are. Well I don't see any.
I'm not complaining that they don't run ads. I'm telling you you're wrong for insinuating their primary source of funding is from ad revenue.
This is a pancakes and waffles situation.
They’re trying to make these people look radical, when their platforms are centrist stuff most other western nations have done for decades. Her platform is universal healthcare, universal pre-k, building homes, not funding wars in the Middle East, and not taking money from big corporations and billionaires.
How is that radical?
In America, that is incredibly radical.
However, this is one of a string of incredible wins for the DSA, and I am very glad. As someone who has for a long time been despondent about electoral political change, it is a sign that the alternative - armed resistance and civil war - will not be necessary.
We should all support the DSA as much as we can if we do not want to see entire neighbourhoods on fire, civilians being slaughtered by the thousands, or all the other horrible shit that is inevitable in war.
Yeah, this is why so many of us have been saying stuff to the effect of "Wait till after midterms to see if democracy can prevail. If they cheat, or ignore the results, then all bets are off and anything goes. Until then, all is not yet lost, but if we resort to violence when there's still hope of peace, all will be lost."
There's still hope in a peaceful way out of this. The fascists want us to believe there isn't, but clearly they're nervous about this election so apparently they haven't rigged it as bad as they want us to think they have.
The people advocating for open revolt are not only jumping the gun, but they're feeding right into the fascists' plans. Some of them may even be fascists in disguise. Be very wary.
Healthcare AND Childcare AND Taxdollars being Used on AMERICANS and their CHILDREN? That is UNAMERICAN!
-People voting to Give your ID to Epstein's Associates to PROTECT THE CHILDREN TM!
I don't think that came across as intended. This is the Guardian, the US left is basically right in the UK.
I think what they mean is the Democratic Socialists are insurgent from the standpoint of a small group growning quickly. The negative connotation might not have been intended.