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
I hope that I am wrong about this, but I am not optimistic about Talarico.
He said all the right things to position himself as not just a progressive candidate, but as a christian candidate. White, male, middle aged, handsome, well spoken, seemingly levelheaded, and gives off strong Mr. Rogers vibes. Those things make him comparatively more palatable than most other democratic candidates, especially in Texas.
However, the democrats have had more than a handful of bad actors and turncoats in recent years. Candidates that talk the blue talk and walk the blue walk, but once they take office they quickly turn face. Sinema, Fetterman, Gillibrand, Robin Webb; not an exhaustive list of democrats that turned their backs to the rhetoric and policies that got them elected, but their the ones that spring to my mind first. Schumer, Jeffries, Pelosi, and a host of others could be rightly accused of actively aiding the republican-led undermining of the rule of law (and civil rights) while in office.
The Streisand effect has a long history of backfiring on public officials, so much so that it's not too far of a stretch to wonder if the administration banked on the FCC debacle to elevate Talarico. To be clear, I'm not entirely pessimistic about Talarico; I want to believe that there are still good people who want to get into public service for the right reasons. I'm just not optimistic because he's almost too good. Running a sleeper candidate against one of the stronger progressive voices in congress (who frequently and loudly called out the GOP's bullshit) is exactly the kind of thing that the far-right think tanks would do.
Follow the money. I think Talarico is at least trying to run a small donor funded campaign. Crockett was taking Israel's money and kicking unfavorable media out of her campaign events and denying it afterwards. I don't really believe in the existence of "blue maga" -- I think it's like searching for the "leader" of "antifa" -- but she's one of the closer things I've seen to it.
I mean, Crockett has literally voted for funding Israel. Her average voting record is par with Hakeem Jeffries. She's mean to people I do not like, but she has consistently been a showman. I'll take someone who pledges to not vote for funding genocidal ethnostates over someone who votes for them any day.
Appearances can be deceiving. From what I've read, Talarico seems the more progressive of the two. If he wins, we'll find out--the system is entrenched and hard to buck for anyone, until enough more progressive members are there to form a coalition with some power.
But I have no doubt that no matter what, he'll be vastly better than if the R wins. I'm much more worried about Platner turning out to be a Fetterman/Sinema than I am about Talarico.
If you were worried about a turncoat, I'd argue Crockett had much worse vibes. Israeli apologist, surveillance state supporter, pretty cynical in her position on immigration, and deeply self-promotional in a Stacey Abrahams way.
Also, her UAF fixation is... not great.
Talarico has his problems (took a big chunk of cash from the casino industry, for instance). But his politics at least seems more populist.
Idk if that's going to matter. Odds of winning a statewide office in Texas as a Democrat have been dogshit for thirty years.
But if I've got to live with a mushy liberal Dem as a Texas senator, I'm happier with him than the alternative.
texas is the most gerrymandered state , at least one of the most gerrymandered to hell.
More dems voted in the primary than republicans. Beto lost to Cruz by only like 2 points or something as well. I'm cautiously optimistic
way too close, and republicans almost always win the next time if the previous one is razor thin margins for democrats.
Honest question but why would taking casino money be a problem. Unless you’re a religious nut with a gambling addiction it’s not really a bad thing. Lots of jobs associated with casinos that will explode the local economy.
I'm religious, but that's not why I have an issue with gambling. To quote people I mildly disagree with on a different issue, I believe that gambling should be "safe, legal, and rare". I'm anti prohibition of most vices, but I think gambling has an atrocious social risk profile, and since its only benefits seem to have been taking some of white people's money back to native tribes, it should have been left for reservations.
That said, I'm hopeful for Talirico
Cause the casino was Miriam Adelson's, and she's one of Trump's biggest backers.
That’s really bad. Any Israel connection is going to drive his chances way down. Especially if that ghoul Addleson is involved
It's not great. But you're going to find it hard to locate a politician without this kind of relationship, because anyone who doesn't get their beak wet.
The Addlesons spread around a ton of money, especially at the state level.
Crockett took Israeli blood money so fuck her.