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 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.
view the rest of the comments
First, im no trumpster, i dont like the guy. The MM is really pulling out all the stops on spinning this one. Trump did just fine, Republicans think he did just fine, and some even consider it a win. It's crazy how strong the MM is pushing it a major Harris win and that Trump did very badly, and that even Republicans think he lost, the headline "Republicans dismayed" is just bullshit, I know a lot of Republicans, and none have claimed to be "dismayed". That's the spin. I know everyone here thinks it was a big Harris win and no one denies it, so I'm just here to tell inform yall that those of us who live in reality don't consider it a big win for Harris or that Trump did badly. All the big news stations are helping to push that narrative of a MAJOR Harris win. As always, MSNBC, USAtoday, CNN, NBC, NYtimes, Washington Post etc. I know most of yall trust these news outlets and don't think they have bias, but they most certainly do.
Kamala pissed me off with all the stupid faces she was making, she also just sounded like a whinny B---- several times. My personal opinion is that it was more like a tie than anything, Harris had no content to what she said. But Trump did let her get under his skin. They both lied... and quite a bit.
Anyway, I know where I am, I know the responses I'm going to get in this liberal echo chamber. So come on.
Interesting that Kamalas facial reactions bothered you that much, but apparently Trump's clown faces didn't even rate a mention. It's almost like your not nearly as impartial as your pretending.
Trump looked and sounded like a sloppy bafoon.
Concepts of a plan? Eating pets?
Your huffing weapons grade copium my dude.
Lol. Sounds like you've already ingested too much propaganda. You're parroting it perfectly. You've mixed stupid personal opinion with the main stream medias rhetoric.
Go look up the definition of "concept." Having a concept of a plan like nearly like saying, "I have a plan of a plan." Which would be redundant. Saying, "I have a concept of a plan," is like basically saying, "I have a plan." There is nothing weird or wrong about the phrase, "i have a concept of a plan." This is English anyway, always flexible. You parroting those talking points indicates to me you are probably incapable of an independent discerning perspective.
'I have Concepts of a plan, I'm not president' That's a weak, dog ate my homework, BS non-answer that any intelligent listener heard and understood as such.
'eating pets' You gonna defend the ex president repeating easily disproven twitter misinfo on the debate stage too? We both know it would've bothered you if Kamala did.
Any major gaffes or mistakes made by Kamala you care to mention? Or was it just her face that you, a paragon of impartiality, object to?
I'm not going to argue every point with you. Waste of my time/energy.
... No, it demonstrates that those who share your perspective probably failed English in high school. Your claim of intelligence is fallacious. I'm sorry... fallacious means it was wrong or deceptive. I'll use smaller words for you.
'I have concepts of a plan, I'm not president'
This could be clearer. But it conveys that one has ideas or concepts of a plan but not in a position of authority to implement it.
I hope many read this so I don't have to keep "ELI5" to everyone.
(Edit: added the word "could")
Lots of typos for someone championing high school english..
So your brilliant analysis that I overlooked in my assessment is that:
"concepts of a plan conveys that one has ideas or concepts of a plan"
Lmao, your brain worms must be starving
Lol, yes! Are you ok? Yes, It means what it means. It doesn't have to be explained any different. I honestly don't understand why you and so many others cant comprehend this simple phrase.
He should've just said he plan then, or done that in 2016, or in 2020. Reality is he doesn't have one but understands what a plan is. Hence he "has a concept" of a plan but doesn't actually have a plan. Luckily he has MAGAts to explain what be REALLY meant.
... you all over the place, buddy. Nearly incomprehensible. Did you have anything of substance to add?
Read slower, if you can decipher Donnie's ramblings you shouldn't have any problems.
Who said I can? Yours is incoherent and disjointed. Reading slower doesn't help.
Ah it's a comprehension issue, that explains so much.
IT IS A COMPREHENSION ISSUE BECAUSE WHAT YOU WROTE IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE.
I'm just about done... yall are wearing me out.
Luckily for you I worked in special education in a former life so I have some experience with this:
Donald Trump should’ve just said the plan (that he claims to have) then. (Stop me if you need clarification)
He could've shown us some plan in 2016 (still waiting on that healthcare plan) (Stop me if you need clarification)
He could've shown us some plan in 2020 before he lost the election and attempted to overthrow the legitimately elected government of the U.S. (Stop me if you need clarification)
The reality is that he doesn't have a plan. (Stop me if you need clarification)
He understands what a plan is so he can say "I have a concept of a plan" and think he's being clever, but again, he doesn't actually have a plan. (Stop me if you need clarification)
His cult of followers will do an incredible amount of mental somersaults to hear whatever meaning they want to hear in his words, because it's a cult of personality. (Stop me if you need clarification)
Let me stop you for clarification. Is your attitude this reprehensible and insufferable in real life? Or just online?
Weren't you complaining and ad hominem earlier?
Pointing them out is one thing. Complaining about them is another. And no, I wasn't complaining about them.
Cool. Now how about you comment on the rest of the post that was very gently laying things out so that it would not be "incomprehensible"?
That's for the invite, but no thanks. Don't even know what comment you're referring to.
Of course not, that would require you actually having a coherent point to try to defend.
I was referring to this comment by the way if you want to take a stab at actually trying to say something worthwhile: https://lemmy.ca/comment/11599323
This is me being nice to you.
I didn't comment about you being nice or not. I commented about how utterly insufferable you seem to be. The reading comprehension is very low here...
I'M GOING TO EAT YOUR PETS.
edit: I love how you've used "comprehension" twice after I used it, did you learn a new word today?
... I used comprehension in direct response to your use of comprehension.
I'm about to just stop responding to everyone. I feel this is a losing battle...
Yes.
That barely holds up if you consider this argument in a vacuum. Brought into the context that Trump said he had better plan than Obamacare since 2016, your argument is utter bullshit.
And then... you say
So... you aren't putting it in a vacuum, you are putting it in the context of something 8 years ago. (Relevancy here is a stretch)...
My argument...? What was my argument?
Wait... You are arguing just about semantics but say stuff like arguing about points made by someone else would be waisting time? Be gone troll.
Translation: I can't defend the clearly batshit crazy thing so I'm going to try to ignore it.
You've been wasting a lot of time/energy replying here, but for some reason responding to the fact that Trump said immigrants were eating pets, post birth abortions are happening, and children are coming home from school having had gender changing surgery forced upon them, well that's just minor quibbles not worth arguing about...
Hah you're not wrong about that. I'm nearly worn out now.
I haven't answered those topics for a few reasons. Some are more nuanced/complicated and require more effort, and like you said, I've "been wasting a lot of time/energy replaying" already. But no, they aren't "minor quibbles" and totally worth arguing, but I have enough on my plate already.
Translation: it's indefensible and should disqualify him, so I'm going to try to keep the conversation on other topics as much as possible and hopefully people will forget the completely bat shit insane things Trump claimed.
Translation: You're a dumb ass
Edit: sorry... y'all've sapped my energy with idiocy.
Interesting, you still have the time and energy to respond, but not about the specific bat shit crazy things Trump claimed...