813
Democratic socialist Melat Kiros defeats 15-term incumbent in Colorado House primary
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
813 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30253 readers
3275 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
They don’t run ads?
Gee, I don't know. Why don't you click on the link and see if there's any ads? I sure didn't see any, but maybe your eyes are better than mine...
Apparently they are. https://usadvertising.theguardian.com/advertise
Funny, I don't see any advertisements either on the article in the OP or on the home page...
So your contention is they don’t run advertising.
No, that's not what I said at all. Where the fuck did you pull that out of?
You snarkily said "they don't run ads?" As if that backs up your point that they're captured by billionaire interests after I told you that they run on reader donations.
I'm telling you there's no ads when I read their articles, and you're acting like there are. Well I don't see any.
I'm not complaining that they don't run ads. I'm telling you you're wrong for insinuating their primary source of funding is from ad revenue.
This is a pancakes and waffles situation.
You f*** . . . The Guardian, is a business. Businesses exist to make a profit. A business that made almost £300 Million last year.
You got that in your fucking couch cushions do ya? That’s a non-profit in your august estimation is it? Oo they take donations - so does the IRS! So does trump!
Here’s your pancakes: a major global news organization is not calling out trump’s crimes or the many, many corrupt dealings of this fascist farce any more than the Ellison or Murdoch crime families are.
Yes, they are kinder and gentler. Yes, they are moving in the right direction. And a bunch of stormtroopers on the front lines have doubts. Woohoo. They’re sitting on a nuclear arsenal of media influence not using it as the world burns. KUDOS ON THEIR FISCAL PURITY.
What, you need examples? Specific citations to stories they deliberately hamstrung in order to be more marketable to MAGA? We got a whole bag of it in every edition, and all it takes to unlock the super-seekrit code is to read it.
If they weren’t cozy with the colons of billionaires they’d be publishing on substack like the rest of the journalists with nothing to lose because corporate news found a well-informed populace to be less profitable.
Damn dude, is all you have disingenuous arguments, personal attacks, red herrings, strawmen, and disinformation?
Here's just a few examples of The Guardian doing the things you claim they don't do, which includes criticizing trump and fascist policy, and supporting leftists:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2026/jul/02/donald-trump-us-politics-250-anniversary-republicans-democrats-latest-news-updates
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/02/florida-undocumented-college-students
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/02/aoc-endorses-el-sayed-michigan
If that's not enough, here's two more:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/02/trump-hijacked-250-anniversary
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2026/jul/02/ben-jennings-us-250th-birthday-under-donald-trump-cartoon
And oh look, an editorial where they state the Guardian's official opinion on the trump administration:
The Guardian view on Trump’s wealth and power: a medieval court wreaks havoc in the 21st century: Supreme court rulings, and revelations of the president’s enrichment since his return to office, show that he has turned back the clock
Next, I never called them a non-profit. If you really want to dig into their business status, here's what wikipedia has to say about it:
Not exactly a massive capitalistic hegemony. Oh, and $300 million is peanuts compared to billionaire revenues. This discussion started when you called them "billionaire news." A few hundred million does not a billionaire make.
Lastly, you want them publishing on substack instead? Where comparatively no one will read their articles? They have better reach as they are, and I see no reason to change that.
Also, substack is riddled with neonazis.
Right. You didn’t even read it. Ok.
Sure we’ll take a look at these exciting counterarguments but just fyi even fox news criticizes trump and fascist policy. “Supporting leftists” might be too far for fox news but hey the guardian’s found a niche! They’re supporting leftists! (Don’t tell the leftists that though, they won’t like it)
Thanks for the highest-level overview possible but I already covered that in much more detail than that - it was in what you already didn’t read.
£300 million or $400M US. Peanuts huh. Ok. Lemmy.world has revenues of $85,0000. The Guardian makes 4700 times that. “on donations” according to you. But that wouldn’t affect their editorial stance would it? Can . . . Can money change what people say? Noooooo. Unpossible. I mean it would take several hundred trillion to get someone to refer to sane persons as “critics”. At least.
Don’t get hung up on substack. It’s just a reference point. And yes, death to nazis.
Sheer projection on your part.
In other words, "Sure, if you wanna bring logic and facts into it but hey let me deflect little harder this time!"
You're blabbering yourself into one of the most confuddled stances of cognitive dissonance mine eyes hath ever beheld.
I went into more detail than you did. Detail which you refuse to engage with and instead continue to try to gloss over.
Yes, we're talking about whether or not they're "billionaire news" as you accused them, and for a supposedly billionaire news company, $400M is peanuts.
Bringing the revenue of a lemmy instance into it to compare to a major worldwide media outlet is disingenuous at best.
Also, the whole point of acquiring their revenue from reader donations, as I stated originally, is so that they're not beholden to large corporate and billionaire donors. And now that you've driveled your way in a circle of tangents, we arrive back where we started.
"Don't get hung up on the shit that I actually said when you point out that it was stupid. I didn't bother engaging with any of the reasonable points you made, instead dismissing them sarcastically as 'exciting counterarguments,' and I accused you of not reading my arguments, but don't bother engaging with the things that I actually said cause I'll just call those "reference points" when you point out how far they fall short as arguments."
If you're not a troll, you must have some serious brain damage to think this is what a reasonable person sounds like. It's okay to admit that you were wrong, you'll stop embarrassing yourself much sooner that way.
I kind of thought in the last few days that we're now going to start to see international western media starting to
22:18
actually have sympathy for Russia and put out pieces saying, you know what, these strikes on Russia, you know, they're causing a humanitarian crisis.
22:25
This is going to be a problem. Maybe Ukraine should slow down a bit. And I thought that might be a few weeks away, but I um always overestimate the media's
22:32
ability for nonsense. The Guardian published one 24 hours ago already. I don't know if you saw it saying that the strikes on Moscow were were unjustified
22:39
and it's too much. It's like you couldn't just like give Ukraine more than two seconds before apologizing for
22:46
Russia. I mean like really just two seconds.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/25/morale-bombing-moscow-is-not-justified
https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=5tuvNo-oAoA
Troll, screw thyself.