this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
2003 points (99.1% liked)

World News

41528 readers
3903 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Trump just presided over one of the greatest diplomatic disasters in modern history, with flared tempers, raised voices, and shredded protocol.

Never before has a U.S. president bullied and berated an adversary, never mind an ally, in such a public way.

During a tense Oval Office meeting, Trump and JD Vance attacked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, demanding he accept a peace deal with Russia or lose U.S. support.

The conversation devolved into shouting, with Trump accusing Zelenskyy of being ungrateful and “gambling with World War III.”

The meeting ended in chaos, with no agreement reached.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Doing God's work in excusing the DNC's unwillingness to do what it took to defeat Trump (just like, right now, they're not doing what it takes to stop him).

For the instinctive ass-kisser it's never the Royalty who is to blame, always the plebes.

With an "opposition" that doesn't actually oppose and is ever less representative of the population, Project 2025 was always going to happen, sooner or later, since the trend of the last 2 decades has been ever more of far right populism, propped up by the Democrats' ever more Rightwing policies and ever less trying to represent the broader population (and repeatedly using "we're not them" as their entire electoral strategy).

You know what might've worked? Not having licked the boots of the Democrat Leadership during the last decade or two.

Now, you're getting to enjoy the bed you made for yourself.

[–] jalkasieni@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 day ago (4 children)

They really have you all wrapped around their fingers, don’t they? Your democracy is literally on fire around you and the best both ”sides” can do is bicker whose fault it is.

[–] merdaverse@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There was never any democracy to begin with if you can't vote for whoever the fuck you want, without resorting to "lesser evil" strategies.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

So long as we have strict elections of a singular position like president, you are pretty much going to have to vote for lesser evil. It doesn't matter how many parties are running, the president is a singular office.

Other nations with more robust parties sidestep this by having an elected body figure out the executive, rather than direct elections of that office.

if you want those third parties get them into the house and maybe the Senate, where the task is feasible. For the singular president of the nation, whoever is doing the voting will have to be strategic. I'm disenchanted when I see those parties just make a presidential run without really investing much in the down ballot races.

The fixes are either removing direct presidential election, or severely curtailing the practical powers of the office. We shouldn't be so subject to the whims of a singular position.

[–] merdaverse@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Or just use ranked voting or rated voting. Single winner doesn't imply the god awful first-past-the-post method

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Sure, that lets people vote for who they want and still vote for someone that will actually win in a larger election, maybe pick up some more local offices.

Frankly Democrats should be big on RCV. The hard right and moderate right vote together, but the progressive is more split and a larger chunk refuses to vote strategically, at least if that is their only vote. RCV gives then the ability to vote the way they want to and still vote for a candidate with more broad acceptance.

Not sure it would have done anything in this presidential race, since there's no sign of third party vote being enough to change things in any remotely close state. It might have at least relieved the vitriol between would be allies over Democrat voters refusing to vote with the harder left versus the further left refusing to vote strategically with the Democrats.

There would remain the hopefully miniscule but very loud progressives that think either the electorate goes perfectly for their perfect candidate, or else someone like Trump should win to teach those voters a lesson, and maybe break things so hard that a path forward for their favored leaders to get in power.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

Well, the people aren't really capable of anything on our own, so what else are we going to do on discussion forums?

The people who can actually do something continue to pretend they have 0 idea how to do their fucking Jobs, they're not playing the blame game rn because they're too incompetent (willing or otherwise) to get that far

[–] the_q@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

That's by design.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Funny how you instantly presumed my opinion was from "They" (whomever "they" are).

Way to project how you see politics - in a Tribalist and Unthinking "Follow the Leader" way - onto others.

It's exactly through reasoning logically up from actual Principles that one concludes that the Democrat Party leadership are nothing more than unprincipled slick grifters representing whomever pays them better (which invariably are some very, very rich people), even when many of the common members of Democrat Party aren't at all like that but have either been swindled into going along with it (easy to do when people are tribalists and hence whatever their "leaders" tells them needs not be questioned with a keen skeptical eye) or just disempowered via anti-democratic mechanisms such as "super delegates".

America is as America is now thanks to all the useful idiots, and that's both the ones on the Republican and on the Democrat side.