900
MAGA world is really mad that Trump is no longer running against Biden
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
900 points (97.2% liked)
News
23600 readers
3212 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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
Maybe they will start to realize the persistent election cycle is not a good thing. I would love to see a ban on all election campaigning until 90 days before said election but that wouldn’t get past a 1st amendment challenge.
Just do publicly funded elections, including things like publicly funded frequent small debates where the candidates had to appear as reasonably competent adults who could defend their ideas, and resurrect some of the regulations like the fairness doctrine and caps on media consolidation
The dogshit quality of the current election coverage is mostly a problem because it is the only type of coverage that is available. I think if there was a widely available and well funded type of election coverage that wasn’t this cash grab horse race ad supported bullshit, the bullshit would have to compete against it and would lose and improve as a result.
That sounds like socialism or something!
How about publicly funded elections and limits on campaigning more than 90 days before an election?
If you limit when the public funds are dispersed, then there won't be much campaigning outside that time frame.
Lets start by putting a cap on how much money can be spent on campaigns and keep it at a very minimal level.
Start by eliminating superPACs.
Sounds good. We'll just need to re-do Citizens United with fewer than 5 fully regressive appointees purchased by billionaires.
Cap it at like $30. You can run an ad in the student newspaper of your choice.
If it's robust enough that it actually limits campaign spending without loopholes, then that alone might do it. Campaigns would have to use their funds more strategically, and the best time to spend is in the weeks before an election, not a year out.
That'll never work, big donors will just hide it or do the advertising themselves unrelated of course