211
RFK Jr. can't win. But he and Cornel West could put Trump back in the White House.
(www.usatoday.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
211 points (80.2% liked)
News
37512 readers
1403 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Or or, and hear me out here. We could do what has happened many different times throughout history. And take over/replace the structure of a party. The Democrats already ignore state and local elections across several red states. What if we lefties/socialist/etc instead of trying to prop up separate parties and separate candidates that always fail. Fielded our own candidates who more closely match our own ideals. And run them as Democrats in these areas. Focusing on funding them ourselves as well as whatever money the DNC apparatus might provide. We might actually start winning. And if we start winning we might actually be able to replace those in the DNC. And if we replace those in the DNC. Things might actually get better.
Isn't that what they said?
Yeah it was, but they added more context on how it was possible, so I wouldn't really say it was redundant.
This is what the DSA has been trying to do and succeeding in for 30 years with candidates like AOC
Succeeding? They’ve elected a tiny handful of candidates over the last thirty years so now that’s success? Lol, sounds like something a right wing Democrat would say, because that’s a very convenient result for the party itself. You’re either blindly loyal to this party or you must think we’re stupid.
Almost all of which were elected in the past decade, that's rather quick for a political change as large as that. And more are being elected every year.
The DSA literally helped Bernie almost win the presidential primary, that wouldn't of even come close to happening if the average Democrat was some right wing anti-socialist hawk.
They propped up a Zionist who is now campaigning for Genocide Joe
When the military is deployed to crush protestors and trans people have their existence banned by Trump I'll know who to thank.
Kinda weird yall insist on calling him Genocide Joe.
I don't care what nonsense falls out of his demented mouth as long as he is sending bombs to an ongoing genocide
Do you really and honestly believe that Joe Biden Is so evil that he's been sitting there relishing in the deaths of civilians for months?
And you do realize that sending weapons is not the sole discretion of the president? About 75% if congress keeps voting to send those weapons.
I could care less what he feels as he snuffs out the lives of children in Gaza.
Yes, it's absolutely in his discretion, and the lies his State Department are telling to continue doing so are outrageous and absurd.
Wait-5-moths-before-calling-a-genocide-a-genocide AOC?
What do you think that purity testing gets you?
Everyone has purity tests, everyone has red lines. None are more reasonable than genocide.
She said it was a humanitarian catastrophe from day one of the invasion and called for an immediate ceasefire soon after. Just because she didn't use the exact word you want, a hugely legally binding and implicating one too mind you, you're willing to write her off?
You do realize that if that is your standard then literally no member of congress or in the executive is good enough for you, right?
Not to mention that it'd be hugely irresponsible for any government official to make a comment like that before the ICC ruling is actually finished.
You think it's irresponsible to call this a genocide before the ICC comes to a verdict in 20 years?