832
‘Sleepy Don?’: Trump Nods Off During Trial of the Century
(www.thedailybeast.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 15 Apr 2024
832 points (100.0% liked)
News
23648 readers
2122 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
Maybe a stupid question but how come in a nation of 330 million people, many of them should be qualified, the people are limited to two bad choices?
Has it always been this bad in US presidential elections?
Nope. I've been following politics since Nixon and Biden is the best president we've had in the last 50 years.
Carter was pretty good. Got ousted from his boat by a rabbit, but he was still a decent president.
If you want to see some great Republican hypocrisy, read up on Carter and his beehives. They made a huge deal about what a national security risk him selling honey and how he needs to divest from it, but then let Diaper Don slide right in by.
The problem is the first past the post system which heavily encourages a two-party outcome. A ranked choice system would drastically improve the chances of new candidates or parties to emerge with meaningful results.
But since that hurts the current holders of power, it's pretty unlikely to be enacted anytime soon.
Because the people don’t choose their options, just from the options chosen for them. The rich are one team, and our options are just to give us the illusion of choice and to pit us against each other as if it were left v. right and not haves v. have-nots. Notice the options are always deeply rooted in the “haves” camp…
From the outside looking in (not American, but Canada has similar problems) it looks transparently theatrical. But then I look around in Canada with that same “outsider” perspective and, yeah, it’s just as bad here. Our Premier of Ontario is a slightly less embarrassing version of Trump. Claims to be “for the people” but gives little-to-no fucks whatsoever based on his actions.
Anyway… Ready whenever others are to burn this all down…
To be blunt, do you genuinely believe that the population of the US is capable of agreeing on better candidates?
If so, again to be blunt, how many people would it take to sway this decision, and why can't this number of people strategically ensure that their candidate is chosen?
Admittedly, I'm old enough to remember when Digg tried to make Ron Paul a thing, and when that went hilariously wrong, they shifted to Obama and made out that he was their candidate all along. I'm not saying that it's easy, but mainly trying to say that I imagine that it's actually quite difficult to get 300m people to agree on anything that isn't an incredible compromise.
Not this bad but yeah
There's actually a lot more bad choices but you never know about them because nobody cares.