1599
Joe Biden ends re-election campaign
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
1599 points (99.3% liked)
News
22882 readers
3868 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.
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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I thought you disagreed with the take that putting someone as a presedential candidate who locked innocent people up is a bad thing to do. It would help if you managed to say what take you disagree with instead of letting people guess.
You had many takes in there, ones that I disagreed with were mostly due to lack of supporting evidence such as:
She hates black people (I mean I guess you could say the blm protest jailings could be that, but I don't see a narrow window of action as being definitive evidence of a belief)
She is as crazy as Trump (even if all your takes were true, that's still a molehill being compared to a mountain)
Trump is being handed the election (again no supporting evidence considering that in polling she held within the error margin of Biden pre debate)
And lastly, that she has been less visible than Biden or Pence (though mostly due to how much we were laughing at Biden for ice cream gaffs, or how much we were being appalled by Pence's history that was coming to light)
I also don't agree with the take that she hates immigrants considering it was one action that she was lambasted for despite being asked to do so by the current president, and being less offensive in action than the former president. I will admit that I didn't like that particular action but same with the "she hates all black people" I don't see evidence of a history of actions to support that claim.
There's probably more but I'll stop there for now.
Now if you wanted to support any of those takes with actual evidence such as a history of actions that lead to that belief, we could have a discussion about it. However you seem intent on jumping to assumptions so I don't expect that to happen.
As a prosecutor she made sure innocent people stayed in prison. Many of those BLM protestors. That is reason enough to see she either hates black people or just doesnt give af about anything else but her career. Trump being handed the election is obvious when you nominate someone with less than 4 months remaining. I am happy if I am wrong here in the end though I think she is still very dangerous for america. A corrupt prosecutor will not make for a non corrupt pres.
Someone who makes politics based on "immigrants should stay out because they bring diseases" hates immigrants.
It's not "immigrants should stay out because they bring disease", it's "we have a pandemic and our immigration centers are packed which makes it more likely that people immigrating catch something that's already here or that someone brings with them, causing a further strain on already strained medical staff and resources that would lead to further deaths"
It's not pretty but it had nothing to do with "immigrants are bringing disease" unless you were watching exclusively conservative media.
In light of the first one, where is evidence that the people she kept in prison were innocent of all charges and that they were being kept due to her wishes as prosecutor and not the slow nature of our judicial system considering judge appointments were being choked until conservatives held positions to ensure a massive wave of conservative judges filled those roles?
Where is the evidence that those jailed were exclusively black to support your claim that she hates all black people?
And where is the evidence that you need a full year and a half of campaigning for someone who has current governing experience as part of the current party and is literally the second in line for president should anything bad happen to the current president? Why is four months too short when it has deprived the main opposition with a ton of financial resources in now-ineffective campaigning against someone no longer running and a short time to pivot to something about the new candidate?
Any evidence at all or still just your beliefs leading to your assumptions?
Quickly found this one for the other idiot desperately trying to defend a crooked presidential candidate. I get not wanting the fascist Trump but just defending someone like that without seeing what kind of person she is is just as blind as the trump cultists. But maybe that is just american politics nowadays.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/crime-lab-scandal-rocked-kamala-harriss-term-as-san-francisco-district-attorney/2019/03/06/825df094-392b-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html
Did you read that article? It states that her opponents said she was at fault, however neither the police who ran the lab nor the levels of associates in between her and the police lab informed her of the problem. When she did get the news, she took time to figure out if it was true and then dismissed 1000 cases that could have been tainted by that action, and took responsibility for not putting a written document in place about how to do something that was legally required and which the crime lab or the associates in between could also be legally required to do.
It doesn't point to being a corrupt attorney, it points to a failure in several rungs of responsibility below her which it made clear she wasn't informed of (she wasn't cc'd on any email discussing the unreliability of the crime lab worker). She dealt with the problem when it was clear it was the crime lab/prosecution at fault and took overall responsibility for not having a specific memo saying how they prosecutors we're supposed to uphold their legally binding duty to inform.
That's the system fucking up and the person at the top doing damage control and their job. Again, not evidence of corruption unless you only read the title and first paragraph where surprisingly the prosecutors in charge of those cases didn't get named or shamed, because it was politically expedient to hit the person at the top.
Jumping to insults because you find it annoying to have to source your claims isn't a good way to discuss anything with anyone.