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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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
I thought the POTUS couldn’t break the law? Or does that go out the window once they’re not sitting? Does Trump really want to set THAT precedent?
When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
I believe Nixon had said that.
Yup. And at that time, we never found out if it was true or not. Since then, Republicans have been tirelessly working to ensure it is. And now we see the fruits of their labor: a Republican president as king.
Often I imagine had Carter elected to move on a Nixon conviction if we would be where we are now. I don’t think we would. Holding power to account doesn’t seem to be an American or Democratic thing to do. When it is, I believe we may have more geopolitical standing in accountability and Democracy. Until we walk the talk we seem to be a cesspool of quacking ducks.
Jimmy Carter pardoned Nixon because Carter was the bigger person and he believed that forgiveness is the most powerful act one can perform against their attacker.
What Carter forgot was, he's supposed to represent the people who voted for him, and the voters weren't, and didn't care to be, the bigger person; they wanted accountability and didn't place such abstract values on the act of forgiveness.
It was a good personal decision to make, but as a presidential decision, I find it lacking.
Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon which may have been one of the reasons Ford lost to Carter the next election.
Obviously not retroactive to before Trump!
Or after... or in-between trump 1 and 2.
Doesn't matter if trump sets the precedent.
The DNC kicked neoliberals out of the chair last year, and Martin has been giving all the money stolen from state parties via the "victory fund" back to the state parties this whole time
Holding that money and hanging it above the state's heads is how the neoliberals maintained power.
That's gone, been gone...
We won't get a neoliberal candidate forced down our throats this time, we'll get a candidate that Dem voters actually want, and they're fucking tired of maga getting away from this shit and want someone actually willing to hold them accountable asap.
And without that money hanging over state parties heads, our next set of congressional leaders will similar not be neoliberals who fight progress harder than MAGA.
It's like we're up 250-0 in the first quarter. The battle for the party is over, progressives won. We just have to wait for the clock to run down, unless we can pressure neoliberala to resign now so they can be replaced in special elections ahead of primaries.
Is this satire? That is a wildly optimistic take, if not. Wildly.
This person has single handedly taken on the task of white washing the DNC on lemmy. They've been posting stuff like this for months.
Yeah, you really have to follow details of politics to understand what he's talking about, and not just headlines on Lemmy.
The effect of the DNC rule changes or the effect the head of the DNC head are not things that are covered here.
How arrogant to claim that i only know of things written in headlines and posted to Lemmy, while completely failing to elaborate on even a single point mentioned. Please enlighten us with actual examples of this "new" DNC in action.
I actually believe him, and I'll tell you why:
Because before the leadership change, he was one of the most distinctly anti-DNC posters I remember interacting with. He was so incredibly critical of the Democrats it was easy to mistake him for one of those MAGA/tankie trolls trying to discourage people from voting (that was never actually his message, but it was easy to misinterpret it as such).
Point is, IMO he has street cred against being a "vote blue no matter who" type.
Can you explain how that makes you believe him? I recall the same thing as someone who is also highly critical of the DNC after what they've done this past decade and I have yet to see anything signaling change from them that would warrant even the smallest belief in what they say.
They recently blocked the release of the "autopsy report" of the 2024 election:
So apparently Martin was either lying or isn't wielding unchecked power like that person claims. Furthermore, Martin is stating that the party only cares about winning and anything that doesnt help them win is simply a "distraction." This means if the DNC feels its more popular to have ICE round up and throw immigrants into concentration camps, they'll do it. If they think more tax cuts for the 1% is popular, they'll do it. They're abandoning all pretenses of ideology in favor of populism. They're not interested in solving problems, but rather winning by telling people what they want to hear. These are their real statements and actions. That user is trying to sell you a bill of goods of more future promises with nothing to back it up.
To me this just reinforces my view of them being little more than patsies and controlled opposition for the Republican party. They only exist to legitimize a completely broken one-party system of the ruling elite while we're treated as little more than cattle.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/18/dnc-kills-its-own-public-2024-autopsy-00697403
Okay, let me rephrase that: I believe that he believes what he's saying -- I don't think he's trying to "whitewash" the DNC (i.e. I don't think he has an ulterior motive), as your previous comment accused him of. Whether he's actually correct in his assessment might be another matter, but I believe he is expressing it in good faith.
Also, responding to this part separately:
I think you've got some misconceptions and false assumptions going on here:
"Populism" (i.e. listening to the majority, which is the working class) isn't a bad thing. Bernie Sanders and AOC are "populist." The word with a negative connotation that you're looking for is "demagogue" -- that's what Trump is.
Your speculation about them deciding to support fascist shit is fearmongering. In reality, that's incredibly unpopular amongst the actual people (as opposed to extremists amplified by sympathetic media) and I don't think they're that stupid that they'd support it by mistake. If anything, moving to "populism" means moving away from that.
The DNC's problem up to this point has been exactly the opposite: refusing to do what their voters want and instead catering to what their rich donors want. Frankly, Martin claiming that they want to win (instead of being controlled opposition while raking in corporate donor graft) is the best fucking news I've heard in a while.
Ken Martin was the best choice of the short list for chair of the DNC. We will see what his leadership brings.
Sounds like a roundabout way of calling him the "lesser evil." Sounds like the same old party to me.