this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
229 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19101 readers
3857 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Furious Washington Post readers have accused the news organisation of “caving in” to Donald Trump and failing to abide by its principles, while staff begged supporters not to cancel their subscriptions, as the media outlet struggles to cope with the fallout of its decision not to endorse Kamala Harris in the US presidential election.

For the first time in more than 30 years, the Washington Post announced on Friday its editorial board would not be endorsing a candidate.

“We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” Will Lewis, the newspaper’s publisher and chief executive officer, said in a statement on Friday, less than two weeks before the critical poll.

In letters to the editor, readers expressed their “disappointment, disgust and despair” at the extraordinary decision, which has been fiercely criticised across liberal America and has prompted a wave of subscription cancellations at the newspaper that exposed the Watergate scandal and brought down a president.

MBFC
Archive

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 40 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

I'm willing to bet they were preparing an endorsement of Harris and someone stepped in to block it.

You know, someone with control of the Post who would benefit from Trump tax cuts.

[–] teft@lemmy.world 45 points 3 weeks ago

But who would BE ZO Stupid?

[–] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 39 points 3 weeks ago

They had already written an endorsement of Harris before their CEO/publisher (Will Lewis) told them they couldn't print it.

Archive

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 25 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The thing is, there's no downside to it for Bezos. If Harris wins, she'll operate as normal. If tfg wins and Bezos was against him, he knows he'll get screwed over by the government somehow - an antitrust or monopoly investigation, something.

But he's telling fascists ahead of time that he's okay with whatever tfg wants to do, just don't hurt him. And that's how fascists win.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

Let's be honest, being billionaire taker scum he probably likes the fascists better anyway.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Yes exactly like that!

Plus maybe some antitrust lawsuits if we're lucky

[–] _bcron_@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

We all know Musk is gonna get all the space contracts and USPS/DeJoy will get free reign to set prices on the Amazon contracts so Bezos is kind of the idiot here

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 30 points 3 weeks ago

Cancel WaPo

Cancel Amazon

[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago