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
There's still Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.
I guess the only problem is that the voters of the US have proved themselves to still be a bit too sexist, with Clinton followed by Harris.
Personally, I put that at the feet of conservative women. When Obama ran, the African American vote showed up, he got a lot of support from voters that often leaned conservative. When women run, all too often it's the female vote that doesn't show up.
My problem is that AOC voted to stop the rail unions from striking. Funny how democrats can do so much nothing now, yet can flex so hard when a working class movement has momentum.
I think AOC would be able to overcome the sexism because she actually cares about the working class, unlike the establishment plants that reinforce the notion that our government doesn't serve us.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Women who run for office win at similar rates as men. That doesn't sound like a sexist electorate to me.
Why is a sexist electorate even hard to believe? Why is there even reason to doubt it? Hell, given the clear impact racism has had on our country these past few years, it seems awfully silly to write off sexism as a possibility. I mean, look around.
Could very well be, but Hillary Clinton's presidential run doesn't provide evidence to that effect, since the majority of voters chose her.
So what? The majority of people aren't racists, that doesn't mean that we don't have racism. Sexism can exist and have measurable effects even if a female candidate gets more votes. The fact is, she didn't get enough votes. That is in part because some voters wrote her off, believing a male candidate would be better because they were male. We know this is true because people have actually said that sex was a factor after casting their vote.
Again, agree, but a woman candidate getting the most votes is just not good evidence of sexism. Al Gore also didn't get enough votes.
But why are you still questioning evidence when we've already established facts?
This argument only seems to come up in the context of AOC running. It never seems to apply to all the MAGA women, or even right-wing Dems. And it seems very odd to argue that a woman can't win votes due to sexism, and to cite as evidence a woman who won.
I'm not following the sexism part. Why do you say that?
Claiming "sexism" is how you obfuscate that the candidates were garbage people.
Ouch... So then you must be of the opinion that Trump won the election on his merits?
Perhaps it was his fiscal responsibility that won him the day?
Dems lost in 2024 because Kamala Harris reached out to Republicans and ignored the left, and because the primary theme of her campaign was "Things are pretty good," when things were not. Sexism was a very minor part of the end result.
If we want people to vote for Democrats, we need better Democrats.