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.
-
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
-
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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
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
Careful. There is a movement right now to begin blaming democrats for everything even though MAGA still has its disgusting grip on decision making.
This article is about Trump threatening to use his executive powers. He is going to try to do things neither houses are used to seeing a president do. He is going to challenge precedent and rules as he already has. Yet you are already blaming democrats.
I agree though that the democrats are in a delicate position where they have to root the centrists out of the party. But thats not what this article is about.
Why hasn’t Abdul El-Sayed Accomplished Any of his Campaign Goals since Winning 2 Minutes Ago?
I get the worry here, but that is why we voted for them. This is the exact kind of thing I expect them to stop. Demanding the things you actually want from your representatives is not wrong.
If you look through my history, you'll see that I'm well aware and have been actively arguing against those people.
At some point, however, you have to stop falling for it. They need to fix shit (or at the very least, attempt it earnestly) or else I'm done.
You argue against them, then try to make the same exact points as them? That makes no sense.
Are you arguing for not holding the Dem party accountable for it's action or inaction? If there are no legislative blocks even tried, that's a bad sign. Yes, we need to root out centrists, but we also have to have votes to identify them, and Jeffries and Schumer know that.
All the newly elected haven't even been sworn in yet and won't be until after New Years. Slow your roll, the R's are still in charge for a few more months.
Sure, happy to wait. But so far Jeffries looks poised to be Speaker, and that's a bad sign we should be agitating about. I don't see any reason to take the pressure off and I certainly don't want to be accussed of being a MAGA plant because I want Democrats to actually deliver on an agenda of real change.
We all want Democrats to deliver, and we absolutely should hold their feet to the fire for every failure to do so. It has to be reasonable criticism though. Right now the Dems couldn't pass a fart. That changes when they actually have the butts in seats to make a difference. Jeffries is a problem, but it looks like Schumer may be replaceable and that's not nothing.
Yes, the comment that started this was, "If Democrats don't stop this [invasion of Cuba], they should never run for anything again." (or something, the comment's behind this pop up editting window.
I think the problem with that criticism isn't that it is criticism. It's obviously phrased as an IF-THEN thing.... my problem with it is it's punishing Democrats for not effectively stopping an authoritarian president on a power congress has spent 50 years abdicating to the executive... that's kinda a high bar. My edit would be "If Democrats don't make significant attempts to stop this ...."
At the same time, I think cutting the military budget to the bone is absolutely the only way they can stop the war in Iran, and you can bet there will emaciated troops on Fox news every day explaining the Democrats are starving them .... but it is what people overwhelmingly voted for, so if you want to stop a war, guys, this is the only way to do it, and that's gonna take some chutzpah.
Fair enough. Although you could also take money from the pentagon, and back-door in a program through a different department to support the soldiers. Maybe send them big checks with "Democrats support the troops" on them.
Good solution!
I'm also kind confused how misappropriation of funds isn't a crime. If Congress explicitly tells you not to do something, and you do it, how is that not breaking the law?
This is what impeachment is for. In fact, impeachment for withholding funds was already successful but the votes weren't there in the Senate for removal the first time round.
The problem is with reps having blind loyalty to a party and not to their oath of upholding the Constitution or providing a check on executive overreach.