World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Again, no, she couldn't:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5191087-harris-trump-biden-harris/
You're choosing to ignore cited sources, that's your issue.
Is this a joke? Are you pretending Harris did not make a choice here?
She didn't have a choice. Her entire campaign was Biden people and Biden money. She towed the line or had no campaign.
Of course she had a choice.
She had access to the campaign funds. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/can-kamala-harris-access-biden-campaign-funds/
Campaign funds that would have evaporated if she tried to backbite Biden.
After dropping from the race Biden no longer had control over the campaign funds.
Besides, even if we were to imagine that Biden could still hypothetically somehow take away the campaign funds, Harris still chose to play ball.
Again, the money came from Biden people. If Biden said "pull the money" it would have evaporated. Harris wouldn't have had more donations, and her staff would have left.
This is how politics works in this country.
How do you “evaporate” money that is already under Harris’ control?
The money she had access to when she became the nominee was already spent, it would not be replaced if she broke with Biden.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/harris-campaign-finances.html
The article you shared does not substantiate your claim that "the money she had access to when she became the nominee was already spent"
Besides, she raised plenty of money on her own https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/07/kamala-harris-drives-record-fundraising-after-biden-exit/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-campaign-fundraising-1-billion/
Campaign funds that were there to fund a losing message.
The electorate wanted a break from Biden, and if Harris' campaign funding relied on not breaking with Biden, what does that tell you about the influence and intent of that funding?
It wasn't just the money, her staff came from Biden as well. So she would have had to re-build the entire campaign from scratch with 30 days to the convention and 100 days to the election.
It wasn't possible, and everyone (well, everyone outside lemmy) knew that.
She took a gamble, a stupid one. Stick with Biden, keep his infrastructure, hope for the best.
It was a losing gambit, but it had a better chance of working than going out on her own.