877
Democratic socialist Melat Kiros defeats 15-term incumbent in Colorado House primary
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
877 points (99.9% liked)
politics
30310 readers
2326 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh, what's that? An opinion piece in their "Letters" section where non-journalists can submit their letters of opinion? Perhaps there's more nuance to it than you're making it out to have. Let's see what it says:
Now, I have zero sympathy for Russia. But that opinion piece sounds more like it's urging restraint with regard to operations that have the potential to inflict civilian casualties. On the surface at least, that seems like a fairly reasonable point to make.
It doesn't come off as "sympathy for russia," nor as insinuating that the Ukrainian operations are "causing a humanitarian crisis."
Did you know when a corporate news outlet prints something it gets amplified across the world?
Do you think the Guardian editors know that? Do you think they like making $800,0000 dollars a year? Would such a thing induce them to take suggestions from their bosses?
No? Just pure journalistic integrity, eh. *snif* That’s beautiful, man.
It was an opinion piece submitted by a reader. And as I've already pointed out, they also published opposing opinions.
Not to mention, the original opinion in question was not even pro-russian as you seem to be trying to insinuate.
Is it pro-hamas to say Israel should have avoided killing Palestinian civilians when they retaliated for October 7th? Is it pro-zionist to say Palestinian groups should have avoided killing israeli civilians when they retaliated for Israel's aggressive settler-colonialism and ethnic cleansings?
You’ve hit upon and described exactly how influence operations work. Well done. Remember when the russians intentionally leveled a building full of children that had “Children” written in big letters on the front lawn because we naïvely thought russians wouldn’t slaughter children for fun? There was no strategic benefit, they just wanted to slaughter children.
Fortunately, the wise and leftist-supporting editors at The Guardian reminded everyone of that when publishing this pro-russian screed. Oh wait, they didn’t? Well look at that. Maybe they really are leftist-supporting then.
That's a red herring. I never detracted from the atrocities russia has committed, and neither did the author of that opinion piece. They squarely blamed russia for indiscriminate killings of civilians in Ukraine.
Literally all he said is that Ukraine should be careful to minimize civilian casualties in their retaliatory efforts. He didn't say they shouldn't retaliate. He didn't say "oh but it's fine when russia does it."
Your entire argument is based on a mischaracterization and a strawman.
It's in the fucking article, you dunce. Apparently you didn't read it.
Russia is not leftist.
Au contraire. That’s the whole of the piece. Protect russia from what it’s been doing to others for longer than WWII.
They have done nothing but that. To even suggest they haven’t is outrageous bullshit. And the news corp The Guardian knows this very well.
Of course not. That would give the game away. Hell, MAGA-level intellects would start to suspect it was a pro-russia piece if he did that.
I will give you $5 (five) American dollars for you to make a post on some popular lemmy.ml comm and say that. They’re up in politics and politicalmemes and news and a bunch of other comms with that as a given in their own minds every day. It’s a constant. Fuck, go define a liberal position to them on here and watch them turn inside out with self-righteous rage.
The russia supporters on .ml and our venerable Southampton professor have something in common. And The Guardian is helping them spread it around. In large part because they are a corporate entity. Which was my point all along. ProPublica’s not publishing that garbage, and why not? Because they don’t have to.
Fuck tankies, half of them are paid russian trolls and bot accounts posing as leftists. That doesn't make russia a leftist country. Most actual leftists hate tankies, and it's quite fun to shit on them whenever they venture into leftist spaces that aren't protected by their tankie bubble.
The southampton professor was not making a tankie argument though, and if you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
As for the rest, I've already addressed it, and I feel no need to continue beating a dead horse.
I disagree, but that’s ok, I can see how one might consider his position to be simply humanistic or simply anti-war.
That’s why it’s important to note the professor’s argument isn’t the only element in the article. The fact that The Guardian published it, how, and when they did, are all equal if not more significant elements. All of them combined make it a pro-russian article which is exactly why it was correctly called out by the first people I quoted linking to it.
All the “red herrings” and “strawmen” you see are part-and-parcel of propaganda as it is performed today. Plausible deniability is how the three-letter-agencies used to say it.