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
She's not saying Harris needed a few more weeks. She's saying Biden never should have gone for a second term, and they should have had a real primary process to choose a better candate. Which was a mistake I pointed out when Biden announced his second run.
Any Democrat can run in a primary. Hell, Democrats even let Independants run. There was nothing stopping Pelosi or her chosen candidate to begin a run. What did she want Biden to do? Write speeches for them? These campaign runs start years in advance, does Nancy expect Joe to know what she's thinking in the future?
This is naive. A Democrat isn't going to challenge a sitting president for the nomination. Pelosi is absolutely right about this. Biden never should have run for reelection.
So you want a free primary, but but nobody will challenge the incumbent? Seems like Pelosi wanted him to resign before he took the oath.
Biden never should have run a second time at all. His running scared away any other candates. If he clearly said he wouldn't run for a second term, they could've had a full open primary with a dozen candates or more.
As it was, they did everything they could to discourage a real, full primary process.
Even after he was forced out, he could've not handed he's entire campaign war chest and staff to Harris. And instead had a contested convention where candates lobbied attendees for their votes. Like used be done a century ago. Then given all his campaign resources to that nominee.
Supposedly he couldn't give the resources to anyone else as they were gathered for a biden/Harris campaign.
Since Harris was part of that there was no problems with her taking it over
Probably some kind of fraud otherwise. Collecting funds for a different purpose.
That makes sense.
no it doesn't harris raised almost a billion in 3 days. that billion was not committed to biden. not even 200 million of it was before he dropped out. trump won on 400 million.
I'm not sure how any that matters to any campaign finance rules that might prevent Biden from giving his war chest to another candate?
You dont realize how the majority of money was raised after he dropped out and that trump managed to win with half of the money is relevant to the discussion of 'only harris could access biden's campaign funds.' nonsense reasoning the dnc and media gave for why we absolutely must go with harris as the candidate?
Oh! Now I get it. You're talking about something I wasn't. It's true none of that has anything to do with the rules specifically, like I thought. But instead, you want to talk about some broader point we weren't thinking or talking about. Okay. Yes your right. It matters to the larger situation, beyond the scope of our immediate discussion. Thank you for explaining.
Np. As for the campaign finance laws im also fairly certain those excuses were a load of bunk too. I dont believe anything prevented biden campaign from returning them to the donors and letting them reallocate.
That's ridiculous. No canadates steped forward.
It's a circular firing squad. I choose not to participate. You can if you want.
Because Biden ran.
I said that.
That was the whole point of what I said.
You don't seem to be participating anyway.
If nobody challenges it's not a false argument.
Enjoy your circular firing squad.
It's not an argument. It's an excuse.
A post-hoc justification, given as a robotic response to my explaining how it's false.
In this exchange it's literal nonsense.
Like I've said enjoy the circular firing squad, I hear it's your turn next.
People don't even take turns in a circular firing squad.
I have no idea what you're talking about any more.