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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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
At this point, don't let the news, horserace polls, TV and social media's narratives of false equivalency (like how Trump wanting generals like Hitler's is equally newsworthy as Harris not going on Joe Rogan's show) paint your attitude.
Give it your all, give it your best, vote, volunteer, encourage your friends, DO NOT GIVE UP until the day after Voting Day at least.
As a Canadian I can't vote, so I can feel especially helpless sometimes with what's happening to the USA. What I can do is inject hope and positivity and courage to give Harris the best chance to cross the finish line. So take this energy and run with it until the end.
I remain optimistic about Harris's chances, completely honestly. But even if my optimism is well-placed, it is vital that we remember this bullshit, not only in the lead-up to the election, but in the days after it. Fascist cunts will try to pretend none of this ever happened. We have to remember it, and cite it, and push it forward every time one of them tries to convince some burned-out swing voter that both sides are 'just as bad' or 'the mainstream media is in the pockets of the DEMS!'
I'm not optimistic, but only because I see how well trumps vile behavior is playing in the south.
He's playing them like a virtuoso pianist, and their advantage in the EC might make it enough.
I hope you’re right. I have hope too, but it’s really only denial that there is a reality where Trump is a serious candidate. This is 2016 all over again, but with proof, plus he’s gone even darker
This kind of brought us into this place in the first place. If people had cared to push the Democratic party to deliver, rather than being the other right wing economic choice for the tech billionaires, the Reps being for the oil billionaires (although the tech billionaires seem to have grown much more fascist these years) they could actually bring proper policy. Especially the unwillingness to make deeply needed economic, social and political reforms is a result of the party remaining in the firm grip of established elites like Biden, Clintons, Obama... Of course the fascist get stronger every election, if the two choices are fascists and economic right to far right.
Voting is not enough. It can merely be the start of digging the US out of the whole that it has moved itself into deeper and deeper.
You're right, voting is the first step of many to fix the country. People need a bit of a break from it all at some point. While tuning out for 4 years is what gets us in this situation, power through to election day then give a few weeks for voters to reward themselves if Harris succeeds.
Remember that Harris and Walz aren't even elites. For now they have to cater to voters of all stripes and billionaire, religious leader and warmongerer sympathies to an extent. Only once the nation has evaded the worst of outcomes, is there an opportunity for things to be fixed using normal processes. Downballot effects if it's a massive blue wave would be huge for the country, and when Harris is preparing to take charge in January, people everywhere petition for change in the system from the people they freshly elected or re-elected.
Canada doesn't have voting?
They meant in the US election.
That's right I voted in my local provincial elections where a clear winner still hasn't emerged. My local NDP MLA wrecked the hell out of her Conservative opponent in votes, thankfully.
Then they should have said that.
It was pretty clear what they meant if you had at least two functioning brain cells to rub together.
It was pretty clear I was making a joke about their ambiguous wording if you weren't a complete asshole.
Here you dropped this
(つˆ0ˆ)つ /s
If you were joking, then you figured out what they meant. If you figured out what they meant, then everyone else can too. Their wording was fine and clear within the surrounding context
Shit, you really don't understand sarcasm.
I'm not sure that you do. Pretending to not understand something you then say that you did understand is not sarcasm. It's more like feigned ignorance. And while I guess that can be used to point out that something is unclear, in this case the thing was clear, so the 'joke' didn't really land
Shit, you really don't understand sarcasm.
Sometimes they just don’t land.
I'm flying this fucker to the moon.
To be fair the Harris campaign hasn't been able to get traction.
It's infuriating Harris is taking about medical records while Trump is planning to undermine the results.
What do you mean? She’s on fire!
No she's not.
There's every chance she's going to lose the election to a criminal, fascist, rapist, lying, insurrectionist octogenarian who's only policies are lynching political opponents and tanking the global economy with a tarrif war.
I like Harris immensely and I think she would make a fine president, and maybe go a long way to healing the yawning chasm between progressives and conservatives.
However given the remaining likelihood that she will lose against such an opponent you have to agree that her campaign hasn't really gotten traction.
No, I actually don’t agree respectfully. I wholeheartedly disagree. I think she’s on fire.
🔥🔥🔥Harris🔥🔥🔥
It's like you haven't watched any commentary at all.
I desperately want her to win but every indication is that she has even odds.
Sounds like you’ve been listening to the wrong people instead of watching her interviews and rallies for yourself.
Come on. If you want to evaluate the effectiveness of Harris' campaign, should you listen to her talk, or listen to commentary from a variety of sources?
To evaluate the effectiveness, you would listen to the people, of course. What “sources“ are you talking about? News pundits? Because that would be a terrible metric.
That doesn't make any sense.
How can you evaluate how well the voting public is resounding to Harris by listening to Harris talk?
If only there were some way you could kind of collate the thoughts of voters and try to predict which way they were going to vote. Like a statistical analysis of voters opinions. You could call it an election survey. You could do it every week or so to get a trend showing the comparative effectiveness of each party's strategies.
I mostly listen to the British and Australian public broadcasters. Both have journalists in the US. No media is completely free of bias but these are pretty good imo.
Regardless, I challenge you to find a commentator who's saying Harris is on fire.
It makes plenty of sense actually. In my line of work I get to talk to a wide variety of people. Not just regionally, but even out of country at times, which I was fortunate enough to do earlier this month.
When it comes to regional excitement around a Harris presidency, I’m seeing a lot of excitement around her. Even from my republican friends and folks I meet. I’m seeing libertarians saying they’ll vote for her.
In Europe they love her and pray Trump doesn’t win.
But that’s who I choose to listen to. You like to listen to media pundits. Okay, to me those guys kind of suck balls. You have to listen to them with some real heavy filtering.
🔥🔥🔥Now get out there and vote for Harris🔥🔥🔥
I don't really know what you mean by "media pundits". Some forms of journalism are biased and opaque, others are less so. You can't just make a sweeping generalisation and say that someone listening to commentary from a variety of reputable balanced sources has been misled because "media pundits".
Your on-the-ground insights are obviously something I don't have, being that I'm in Australia, but they are of course anecdotal. There's a lot of polling and research that doesn't really support your perspective.
If you want to believe your direct insights rather than the accepted science, then I don't really have much to say to you - that's how people end up believing in a flat earth.
No, no. Flat earth is insanely dumb
🔥🔥🔥Harris🔥🔥🔥 true af