Rule 4: 4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
The post title is the same as as the article title. As of right now, article title is: Los Angeles’s Mayor Was Contemplating a Mask Ban. She Just Got Covid.
I didn’t say he changed it, but he links these kinds of misinforming stories all the time.
I originally wrote the article was misleading, but since they correct the misleading headline already in the first sentence, that wasn’t really true.
So I changed it to the headline which is what is actually misleading.
But since this is misunderstood, I have now changed it back.
The fact of the matter is that u/return2ozma is flooding lemmy.world with misleading stories with misleading headlines, no matter how much they are the original headlines, they remain misleading. Those are often stories that in no way deserve to be spread.
Have you read the article? Honest answers only. I feel lile you’re just here to stir. Like the rest of the hivemind downvoting comments that aren’t wrong.
I have certainly criticized OP for posting things before, but I’m really not seeing the issue here with their actions. They posted an informative article that you just need to read to understand the headline… or just read the one-sentence preview if you click on the post to comment.
It isn’t their fault that the headline is deceptive. It’s a good article from what is normally a trustworthy outlet and it’s pretty much your fault if you don’t even bother to do the second of the two things I suggested.
It’s about responding to somewhat opposing public safety concerns. As someone else pointed out in this thread, when protestors are allowed to wear masks they are more likely to commit illegal acts, even violent ones. SARS-CoV-2 is no longer a novel virus. There is now significant immunity in the population and our COVID treatments are much improved, meaning the virus no longer constitutes a public health emergency.
This is not the left cannibalizing itself. This is the democrat leadership taking advantage of a candidate who will end democracy and instead propping up progressively worse candidates election after election. Instead of going with a candidate that is even moderately popular with the left of the party, the democrats put in a candidate who is best known for compromising with the right.
It’s, frankly, the result of the wealth of the democrat party stomping down anyone that would potentially raise their tax burden.
A big part of this decision is happening right now at Camp David with his family, according to the article:
President Joe Biden is expected to discuss the future of his re-election campaign with family at Camp David on Sunday, following a nationally televised debate Thursday that left many fellow Democrats worried about his ability to beat former President Donald trump in November, according to five people familiar with the matter.
Let’s face reality:
Biden is TEN POINTS nationally below where he was at this time in 2020.
Biden is losing in every single battleground state.
Biden is losing a large chunk of black and Hispanic voters compared to his 2020 run.
Biden’s aggregate approval ratings for Presidency are 37.7% with 56.7% disapproval.
… Biden asked for that debate because he was desperate to break the downward trend and reach these battleground swing-state voters. That backfired in the worst possible way.
The time is now, before the convention, and with enough time for an alternative candidate to be selected and ramp up campaigning. There are half a dozen candidates who fit the bill and have a semi-national profile, are YOUNGER, and have enough charisma and debate skills to beat Trump — almost by default by being a fresh face and younger
Anyone who says there isn’t enough time doesn’t understand just how much FREE viral media attention this would all receive. Every single person should be pushing for this to happen now. Because if Biden makes another gaffe like this in October or a medical emergency, then we are REALLY fucked.
I’m going to qualify this with the fact that I would vote for a corpse before I vote for Trump, I’m just frustrated the Democrats are actually making me.
Nobody’s worried that he had a bad debate. It was a massacre. Trump would loudly answer some unrelated question with how we have to murder/deport all Latinos, and on Biden’s turn, he’d just say “I’ve never heard such Malarkey”, take a breath, mumble three words, take a breath, mumble three words, take a breath, mumble three words, and then get lost. That’s not a bad debate performance, that’s somebody’s lost grandpa. They’re worried- I’m worried- because he seems unfit to be a Wal-Mart greeter, let alone president. I keep being told that we have too much at stake this election, and it’s true, so I’m currently bewildered that we’re staking the whole ass future of our democracy to a man who might no longer be fit to even drive. This is the time to bring the best we have to offer, to go as hard as possible, because I’m reading Project 2025 right now and it reads to me that the republicans intend to enforce what they determine to be social norms with murder. Instead, we’ve got a guy that can hardly make a campaign ad without sounding out of breath with the DNC basically flashing back to Hillary and saying shit like “no, YOU’RE out of touch” and “well, you don’t have any choice; what are you going to do, vote for that Bozo?” And we all saw how that turned out. People have already, in fact, elected that Bozo once before. There’s no reason to think it can’t happen again. If the folks at the DNC aren’t already white knuckling the wheel, then they must be the most delusional people on the planet.
And there is the problem laid bare - there are too many people associated with the campaign who have a vested interest in it continuing, and are unable or unwilling to step back and listen.
Its been blindingly obvious for the last 18 months that Biden is a very bad choice for the democratic nomination. But the entire discourse has been dominated by an attitude that if you don’t support biden, you’re basically support trump.
It is the Biden supporters who are going to hand the presidency on a silver platter to Trump.
They need to step back and look at the bigger picture. This is not just some Republican talking point to reflexively ignore and fight against. Biden IS too old, and he DOES come across as confused. And he is making trump look better by comparison - he is lowering the bar of expectation and scrutiny of trump because the focus is on Bidens age and mental capacity.
The democrats have to ditch biden right now and begin the urgebt search for a better, younger candidate to unite behind. Its already very late in the day but every day they continue with Biden is another wasted.
If you don’t support Biden (by voting for him) you’re supporting Trump (by splitting the vote), but in this phrase Biden can be replaced by anyone chosen by the Democrats to be the president, it doesn’t need to be Biden, it just happens to be him right now.
The issue (before Thursday) was that the anti-Biden wing of the party couldn’t really demonstrate that the alternatives had any better shot of beating Trump at all. All the reasonable alternatives backed out of any major 2024 challenge precisely because they are young and can wait until 2028 (or even later!) to make their push. Once Biden announced for 2024, it took a lot of the momentum out of finding any Democratic challenger.
There is an assumption, though, that the person Democrats are nominating in 2024 is the same man who beat Trump in 2020. I don’t think we can make that assumption anymore. Biden had his chance to demonstrate that and blew it. He doesn’t get that many more chances. If he continues to blow them, then Trump wins by default. No Democrat wants that.
There, a candidate must win support from the majority of “delegates” - party officials who formally choose the nominee. Delegates are assigned to candidates proportionally based on the results of each state’s primary election. This year, Mr Biden won almost 99% of the nearly 4,000 delegates.
According to the DNC rules, those delegates are “pledged” to him, and are bound to support his nomination.
But if Mr Biden were to drop out, it would be a free-for-all. There is no official mechanism for him or anyone else in the party to choose his successor, meaning Democrats would be left with an open convention.
Presumably, Mr Biden would have some sway over his pledged delegates, but they would ultimately be free to do as they please.
That could lead to a frantic contest erupting among Democrats who want a shot at the nomination. Source
The bigger problem is landlords have already been gouging renters. They aren't just going to absorb this one, if their insurance goes up 30, they will raise rent 40
I don’t have a problem with doing this, but I don’t think that it’ll have much effect in policy terms.
Like, the states that are willing to guarantee abortion rights in their constitution are the states that are unlikely to pass a law ban abortions in the first place.
and Democrats across the nation hope similar measures mobilize supporters on Election Day.
It projects future generations if the MAGA wingnuts happen to capture control of their state legislature. They would have to repeal a state constitution amendment which should have a higher bar than passing a law.
MR MILLER: I think it confirms two things. Number one, as the IPC itself said, we need to get a ceasefire. And that is the best way – bar none – to alleviate the humanitarian situation on the ground and alleviate the very real, very tragic of the – situation of the Palestinian people. And that is why we are working every day to try to get a ceasefire. It’s why we were so disappointed that Hamas rejected the ceasefire proposal that was on the table that the United Nations Security Council and countries around the world endorsed.
…
QUESTION: Yeah. Also, do you have a written or public statement from Hamas stating that they don’t support the ceasefire, considering that according to you they were the ones who in previous months —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — proposed something similar?
MR MILLER: Yeah. They came back several weeks ago and rejected the proposal that was on the table in written – in written form. They gave us a written response that rejected the proposal that had been put forward by Israel, that the – that President Biden had outlined, that the United Nations Security Council and countries all around the world had endorsed. Obviously, we don’t make the text of that public, because these are very sensitive negotiations, but it was a written rejection and counter-proposal that came from Hamas.
Not that the original article wasn’t proof enough. Additionally:
What he’s saying: Speaking from Doha after meeting with the Prime Minister of Qatar, Blinken said: “Hamas proposed numerous changes to the proposal that was on the table. Some of the changes are workable and some are not.”
He argued the deal currently under discussion is almost identical to the one Hamas itself proposed on May 6. “It was a deal that Israel accepted and the world was behind. Hamas could have answered with a single word: ‘yes.’”
“Instead, they waited almost two weeks and then proposed more changes, a number of which go beyond positions it has previously presented and agreed to. As a result, the war will go on and more people will suffer,” Blinken said.
“It’s time for the haggling to stop and the ceasefire to start. Israel accepted the proposal as it is, Hamas didn’t. It is clear what needs to happen,” he said.
National security adviser Jake Sullivan said later Wednesday that “many of the proposed changes in Hamas’ response are minor and not unanticipated. Others differ more substantially from what was outlined in the UN security council resolution” endorsing the deal, which passed on Tuesday.
I’m sorry your opinion doesn’t change what happened. Hamas rejected the cease fire. You can quibble about whether you think it was put forward by whatever party, whomever it was put forward by, it was rejected by Hamas.
Netanyahu stated he was “prepared to make a partial deal—this is no secret—that will return to us some of the people,” referring to the approximately 120 hostages still detained in Gaza. “But we are committed to continuing the war after a pause, in order to complete the goal of eliminating Hamas. I’m not willing to give up on that,” he added.
These remarks come as a surprise after U.S. President Joe Biden presented the plan as an Israeli initiative, referred to by some in Israel as “Netanyahu’s deal.” His comments could further strain U.S.-Israel relations, as the U.S., Israel’s primary ally, has made significant diplomatic efforts to push for the ceasefire.
Political bluster does not negate what internal negotiations are resulting in. This does not at all disprove my sources. I’m sorry, Hamas is holding this one up. As stated, everyone was waiting for Hamas to sign. If your assertions about Israel hold any weight, Hamas really could have stuck it to them and signed the cease fire, forcing Israel to either back up it’s bluster or move forward. But they didn’t.
I didn’t say anything. You’d have to quote me, which you can’t :)
You have a problem with what Blinken and the resolution itself are saying, and they say Israel accepted the deal. Take it up with them. I’m done with you, this exact situation was discussed with you in a previous thread by another user. This is a bad faith effort to muddy the waters, and I reject this kind of discussion.
Goodbye.
Edit: since reading the original article is not a thing here:
Driving the news: Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walked back the proposal and told Israel’s Channel 14 that he is interested in a “partial deal” with Hamas that will free “some of the hostages” held in Gaza and allow Israel to continue fighting in the enclave.
A day later, under pressure from the U.S., Qatar and hostages families, Netanyahu corrected his comments and recommitted to the proposal.
But if it were up to the above user, this wouldn’t have been mentioned.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that if a ceasefire plan backed by the US and UN does not progress, Hamas will be to blame.
Mr Blinken reiterated his call for Hamas to accept the plan as outlined by President Biden 11 days ago.
He said the onus was on “one guy” hiding “ten storeys underground in Gaza” to make the casting vote, referring to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.
Mr Blinken said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had “reaffirmed his commitment” to the proposal when they held talks in Jerusalem on Monday.
Mr Netanyahu has not publicly endorsed what Mr Biden outlined nor said whether it matches an Israeli proposal on which Mr Biden’s statement was based.
Mr Blinken described as a “hopeful sign” Hamas’s response to a resolution passed by the UN Security Council on Monday supporting what Mr Biden had announced.
The resolution noted that Israel had accepted what Mr Biden had presented and called on Hamas to do so as well.
Hamas issued a statement on Tuesday welcoming “what was included” in the resolution.
But Mr Blinken said Hamas’s response was not conclusive, adding that that “what counts” is what is said by the Hamas leadership in Gaza, “and that’s what we don’t have”.
If the proposal did not proceed then it was “on them”, he said.
And I’ll tack on, why had Hamas rejected in written form the proposal and responded with a counter proposal?
Additionally, your source says they signal support. No where did it say Israel rejected it. Even from your article:
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in Tel Aviv to meet Israeli officials, called this a “hopeful sign” but said it was not conclusive.
More important “is the word coming from Gaza and from the Hamas leadership in Gaza. That’s what counts, and that’s what we don’t have yet,” Blinken told reporters in Tel Aviv.
You are lying. Also, considering it was a cease fire, not negotiations, that was proposed, this seems like a feeble attempt to obfuscate the situation.
adding that “rival claimants” were “stepping up cooperation with extraterritorial forces in the study of historical and legal issues” concerning the South China Sea.
Oh no! They might figure out what’s true is not in China’s favor!
What are folks doing in those cases? Where I live you can’t get a mortgage if you don’t have proof of insurance and until your loan to value in hits a certain amount the bank basically manages the policy.
Oh, if you can’t get insurance, most all mortgages have a clause that says the bank can pick a policy (usually a really expensive one) and you are forced into it. Wonderful, isnt it?
No no, the bank doesn’t pick a 3rd part company, they will place insurance on the house, usually with a bank subsidiary or other kind of bank entity. Usually is only for replacement value of the house, not theft or anything. It’s placed to protect the bank only, and you pay.
They don’t get a state farm policy… The bank gets a “this bank insurance company” policy.
There is a third scenario which this article doesn’t address. The President has a natural understudy whose only job (other than to show up to the Senate a few times a year) is to take over in case a President can’t do his job anymore. So why are we all acting like it’s some big wildcard?
If any President had a major medical, condition – say, a stroke or heart attack – during a campaign it might be prudent for them to back out not just from the campaign but from the office itself. In that case, there is no question who takes over the ticket because it will be the new incumbent President.
Now, we all know Biden didn’t have any major medical episode. All he has is a sudden case of notgonnawinitis, complicated by inflammation of the opeds. But if he came out next week and said “I had a minor medical issue two days before the debate, my doctors said I would recover fully at the time but now they are not so sure, so I need to back out of all of it”, don’t you think the entire party would immediately (and enthusiastically!) hand the reins off to the vice-president, once they remember who she is?
I keep hearing how Kamala would be worse than Biden, and I have my doubts. Yeah, she did basically the worst in the 2020 primaries and the democrats have done almost nothing to promote her since then, but I assume she didn’t beat medicare and can speak in clear and complete sentences.
In fairness, the job of VP is to keep a low profile. Support the President and be involved enough to take over in a heartbeat, but don’t be too visible or else people might think the VP is trying to overshadow the main guy.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.