news
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
view the rest of the comments
Remember to
if you don’t want
WW3 is still on the table too
Tbf its arguable that ww3 has already started.
the cold war was ww3, this is ww4
I refuse to say the USSR lost a world war. They lost the Cold War, but won the World War.
they survived in the face of fascism for another 44 years, at best it's a loss deferred
That's true, it just hasn't entered direct confrontation phase yet.
Yeah it seems very possible that the debate in 30 years will be whether WW3 started with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or October 7th
Or maybe our coup? Or the 8 years of shelling the donbas?
Eh that stretches it past world war territory imo
2/3 world wars started with Belgrade
Trump really did have the most consensual sex scandal of any president.
Its too early in my workday for you to have broken my brain with this observation.
Also really highlights how little people care about certain things considering all the terrible shit he's done to all his wives
Those Biden signs in DNC offices actually have the gall to claim he ended the standard of having kids in cages.
They're now free-range child prisoners
am i a lib because i do believe in voting just not for shitty corporate parties? i was all in for cornel west when he announced but the bernie movement didn't show up to get hin the ballot access needed so i'm going stein. She'll be on the ballot in at least 48 states.
Damn I hope he sits down and listens.
I feel like you are making a point here but I am not sure what it is?
why do you think voting is futile in the U.S. when it has been successfully used by "populist" aka "democratic" movements in other countries? Specifically, I'm thinking Brazil or Mexico most recently. Not being combative but really just trying to learn more about why you think that's true. Definitely open to the possibility that I'm wrong about this and just want to hear more.
I hadn't heard the bad takes myself from West, but happy to be enlightened on it. He has seemed pretty morally consistent as far as I've seen, but like I said just because of ballot access I'm thinking Stein could be the strategic move to try to effect change on the electoral front.
Ill probably tic her box too but she's allowed on the ballot (and i know you know this) cuz the green party poses no threat to the caps. No positive sustained MSM coverage on a candidate erases that candidate from the public consciousness. It's quite amazing how well it works, the 2 party mindset. Theres no harm in voting for her, increased 3rd party turnout might pave the way for even stronger future showings, yeah. To say you believe in voting when it is so thoroughly corrupted in the us, and when there's no chance she'll win raises the question: what is it that you believe still works?
Tonal check, i am honestly curious not fighting with you.
Organized labour. Organize unionize and strike. That is literally the only tool the proletariat has to effect change. (Well that and violence but you can't have a revolution unless you have an organized working class)
Perhaps it's the legacy of my lib-dem upbringing but I can't help but think electoralism could be another effective front in the greater struggle. But like I've been saying I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong about that so happy to learn more if you think voting truly can't be used to take power. I guess I'm just looking at the successes in Mexico and Brazil recently and thinking: why not here?
Yes, I appreciate the good faith discussion about this. I really just want to figure out strategically the best way forward, because I have to admit after Bernie's run in 16, I thought we'd be further along by now building up something new. As far as the Green Party goes, Stein's positions on Palestine and Ukraine alone, not to mention the rest of her platform in general, I can't help but seriously consider if this is the best strategic move for the next 5 months. The platform certainly doesn't seem any worse than Bernie's. They've been chugging along, putting in the hard yards to maintain ballot access. It seems now is as good a time as any to try to use that.
When I say I believe in voting I guess I mean in the abstract, that it can be used by democractic movements to achieve tangible things, like in Mexico and Brazil. So then I'm wondering if it is possible there then why not here? If there is something unique about the US system that makes it "impossible", I just want to learn more about that and why people feel that way. I guess at the minute I am not convinced it's completely hopeless outside the existing dominant corporate parties. But if people are convinced then I am open to hear why. Really trying to come at this with an open mind.
I know there are anti-democratic structural obstacles to winning here. The Electoral College is certainly less democratic than a popular vote. As far as I understand you need just a plurality, not majority, of votes in a state to win all of that state's electoral votes in the EC. And then it's 270 to win I guess which is the majority of total available. I could be wrong especially about the first part. Still, it doesn't seem insurmountable?
The MSM problem is real, even if it continues to undermine itself in the eyes of more and more people as the contraditions become too obvious. Still, I feel like those other countries also have shameless corporate media, so I'm wondering how AMLO and Lula overcame them. I don't know how they did it I wish I did. But again, if they did it, maybe we can?
I think there's also value in forcing them to steal it from you, like Bernie did in 16 and 20. Having the undemocratic, top-down nature of the regime forced to reveal itself is useful, at least for the future. But really I'm thinking we should just try to spend the next 5 months and try to win. I know it seems impossible but Mandela said "it always seems impossible until it's done" and that's something I really believe. But if you're not going to win, I guess making them steal it from you is the next best thing.
So basically let's say a conservative estimate is that in a three way race we'd need 70 mil votes to actually win it. Bernie had 1 million volunteers, so that'd be like 70 votes turned per volunteer on average. Obviously we don't have 1 million volunteers at the minute, but I don't know it still seems possible and more importantly worth trying. Again, this is just how I see it. If I'm wrong about something, I'm open to hear people's thoughts. I feel like this is as good a place as any that I know about to be having these discussions.
Damn that ended up being a lot my bad and thanks to anyone who read it all lol.
Cornel West is a grifting joke. Pathetic and hypocritical loser. Does a lot of both sides crap about Israel-Hamas, lots of empty rhetoric that obviously will go nowhere or misses the point
Oh is that true? From what I had seen I thought he had been pretty clear in his solidarity with Palestinians, and that the root cause of the conflict is the occupation. Disagreed with Bernie and called him out for opposing BDS, even when he was stumping for him. I hadn't seen him do both sidesism myself, but if you had examples of that I'd def check it out.
Did you hear? He also pinky swore he would never pardon his son (likely because he knows he'll never need to)! Don't you just love him for this empty promise of moral superiority?