Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men “were men”) have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.

I think by “support” they mean “send billions of dollars in US military hardware, which both funds the military-industrial complex and furthers wars and conflicts on the other side of the world”. Not everyone thinks that is a good idea.

Oh, I agree. I think the last six months have really disabused me of the notion that working to effect meaningful change within the US system as it currently stands is even remotely possible.

Yeah, fair play. I’ve been something of an apologist for AOC for some time, but her full transformation to mainstream Democrat is disappointing.

Based on what evidence? That claim was just an attempt to smear her campaign on social media.

Yes, God forbid that people vote for parties that actually represent their values rather than always picking the lesser of two evils

More bullshit from the DNC. Luckily the judge appears to have dismissed the complaint, which means the Greens are still on the ballot in Wisconsin.

The DNC has subsequently filed a lawsuit in response. The author of the complaint, David Strange, says the Greens should not be on the ballot because

the Green Party can’t nominate presidential electors in Wisconsin because no one in the party is a state officer, defined as legislators, judges and others. Without any presidential electors, the party can’t have a presidential candidate on the ballot

All this pretty rich coming from the party that is allegedly out to “save democracy”.

Just don’t take it too seriously, I would say. Not every news piece from the same source is going to be of the same quality or bias.

When I was on in Reddit I used to do it all the time, but writing everything out, organizing it and including citations etc. can be rather time-intensive.

These days, I’ll leave a quick comment on a post if I have enough time, but nothing major.

I used to be a fan of it, but in the past couple of years I’ve seen MBFC rate sources as “highly credible” that are anything but, particularly on issues involving geopolitics. That, plus the inherent unreliability of attempting to fix an entire news outlet to a single point on a simple Left <-> Right spectrum, has rendered it pretty useless, in my opinion.

There days I’m much more of the opinion that it’s best to read a variety of sources, both mainstream and independent, and consider factors like

1. is this information well-sourced?
2. is there any obvious missing context?
3. is this information up to date?
4. what are the likely ideological biases of this writer or publication?
5. What is the quality of the evidence provided to support the claims made in the article?

And so on. It’s much better this way than outsourcing your critical thinking to a third party who may be using a flawed methodology.

Yup, sorry you’re right - it was World News, not News.

I’m not necessarily fully agreeing with OP’s thesis that MBFC is a pro-Zionist project, but something is very much amiss if UNWatch is considered to be a “highly credible” source.

I myself debunked a highly flawed and biased article from UNWatch that was posted to News@Lemmy.world* last month. The post was removed by the moderator (@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world) after being determined as disinformation. (I can’t link to it, since it has been removed, but if you want to see the details of my critique, check out this screenshot of my comment)

Having seen that first hand, I would absolutely say that MBFC’s credibility rating system is, at the very least, questionable.

• edit: World News

This isn’t a damn football game

Try telling that to millions of Americans; That’s literally how they see politics.

All this bluster about “wasting” millions of dollars attacking Biden is telling, because that’s literally the GOP platform in a nutshell. God forbid they actually put forth policies that improve the lives of American citizens, or, I don’t know, spend their time arguing their case for why their candidate should be president in the first place.

There has been no presence of international journalism on the ground in Gaza for months. This is how Israel wants it. News agencies have to either take the IDF’s version of events at face value or cite reports from what remains of Gaza’s government, i.e Hamas. There are no other sources except for what fragments get uploaded to social media by eyewitnesses.

Personally, I’ll take anything from Al JAzeera over anything coming from Israeli intelligence.

Especially with videos like this showing up on Twitter.

It’s literally just boredom and dissatisfaction driving people to change from one side to another. Thanks to the two-party corporatocracy that the US pretends is a democracy, what other options do they have?

Because

• None of the above legally prevent him from running.
• Republican voters will still vote for him en masse.

It’s that simple.

It’s not that simple; A court must rule that the action in question is an “official act”. As the SCOTUS intentionally declined to elaborate further on how this is defined, it will be up for the courts to decide what is and what is not covered by immunity.

Not that this couldn’t become subject to abuse and partisan rulings, but it’s more than just the presidental equivalent of

Yeah, that was the single biggest Biden blunder of the evening, IMO. I was dumbfounded.

What happened is that Biden and his team completely screwed up. They called for this debate and agreed to its terms, which included the fact that the moderator team would not be fact checking Trump in order to avoid accusations of bias.

These terms shifted the onus of calling Trump out on his biggest lies to Biden himself, who would have known that Trump would try to gish-gallop his way through the debate and avoid discussing policy because that’s precisely what he did in 2020. The fact that Biden failed spectacularly to counter Trump in any meaningful way is the reason why he lost the debate.