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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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
If she’s jaded about the whole thing, can’t say I blame her. If the dems had pushed to get rid of the stupid electoral college after Gore’s “loss” she might have been president.
To be fair, I don't think she would have made a good president even if the electoral college didn't exist. She would have been better than Trump but that's not saying much, because a shit sandwich is better than Trump.
Why wouldn't she have been good? She was one of the few people in Congress that actually cared about understanding and enacting policy (ie actually getting stuff done). Her platform was the only one with actual details on how to accomplish the stated goals on a legal level.
Not that any of that matters now, since her comment here is pretty shit.
But I don't like the re-writing of history on how she was a million times better candidate than Trump and had a ton of made up conspiracy nonsense being claimed about her at the time.
The thing with Hillary Clinton is that, even conspiracy theories aside (because I'm not a conspiracy theorist), her morals are ambiguous. She is not "clean", with some questionable things she's done over the years, including some potential corruption.
Now, I'm not saying she's the most corrupt in the bunch, but she's not the saint that sometimes the Democrats make her out to be. I'm also not holding her to a higher standard, because that's bullshit, but what I'm saying is if we are taking the moral high ground here, we should pick a better mascot.
Ultimately it comes down to whether would she have been a better president than Trump? Without a doubt. But would she have been a good president? I'm not convinced.
Feel free to point out what corruption and morals you're referring to that aren't based on conspiracy theories or made up right wing mud-slinging then.
I remember a lot of the usual made up claims about her being anti-LGBT despite her long history of actually supporting the LGBT community (and voting or not voting for gay marriage in NYS is not a gotcha about her history or her reasons then).
It reminds me a lot of the made up nonsense about Biden's history with the African American community that right wingers and leftists were trying to mudsling over, yet said groups still being perplexed why he continued to have such massive support in said community. Because despite twisting of statements from decades ago, it was his actions that mattered. And that there's context to those actions (such as how the black community itself was the primary pushing force behind the 1994 crime bill).
What did she get wrong? The Iraq War vote was a huge one in my opinion, but of course this entire question depends on your individual values.
Really? You're bringing up that long since debunked canard? I can only assume you don't know anything about the context because you were a child when said vote happened.
Hint: That vote in question wasn't actually about allowing a war. And it didn't help that Bush actively lied about what intel we had from Iraq and Afghanistan. He really should have faced charges for that alongside Cheney.
The intel that many of us knew was fake at the time, before the vote? That intel? ... Yeah.
You can assume whatever you like, my friend. Good luck with that.
That would have taken a Constitutional amendment and I don't think that would have been possible any time within the last 24 years.
The Democrats never had anywhere near the majority needed and I doubt enough states would be willing to ratify it if they did.
I think the electoral college is stupid and archaic, but I also think we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future.
There's a workaround that several states have signed on for. Your state allocates all of the electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. But they only do it once enough states sign on to make a majority.
It sounds great, but I would be very surprised if any red states went along with it.
I think best case is that you get enough purple states to sign on. But either way, it's a lot more feasible than an amendment.
You ever know until you try. They couldn’t even be bothered to get behind the idea. It’s bitten them in the ass repeatedly.
I think they did know, which is why they didn't try. You need 2/3 of both houses of congress and a ratification by 3/4 of the states. There has been no time between 2000 and 2024 when that would have had the remotest chance of happening. All they would have done would be to waste taxpayer dollars on something performative.
Like I said, I don't like the electoral college and I wish we didn't have it, but we're stuck with it.
You don't actually need Congress at all. You need 2/3rds of the states to initiate the process via the convention route, and 3/4 to ratify (so functionally, probably 3/4 of states, assuming that a state willing to ratify is also willing to initiate).
But functionally, there is no way that 3/4 of the states are going to make a change to shift power away from smaller states to larger states, which moving away from the electoral college would do (well, okay, it doesn't have to do that, but if you want it to be moving towards a population-only weighting, which I think is the main reason that a lot of people on the left side of the aisle would like that to change, it does).
Okay, fair enough, but that's not going to happen either.
While you’re content throwing up your hands claiming nothing can be done, republicans already have a plan to change the electoral college to their advantage.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/03/nebraska-electoral-system
It's been estimated that as little as 2% of the population could kill an amendment if their state legislators voted likewise against it.
We don't need amendments anymore, we need to uproot the whole fucking thing and start fresh, new state borders, new constitution, new rule of law.
They've rigged the game for long enough to justify flipping the table and pulling out the ol' bully pulpit to smack the states into their fucking place.
Eisenhower set the precedent to flip the national guard around at their state governments if they act up, and Reagan set the precedent of cutting them off and letting them starve for funds until they get with the fucking program.
These subhumans want civil war anyways, let's give them the war they'll never forget again, and then let's actually see that damn southern occupation through to the proper finish this fucking time!