177
I got in line to vote. It was a very short line.
I don't know why so many people are hurt by this statement. The turnout was abysmal.
One reason people might be annoyed by this is because it sounds like you don't realize how many people had to wait in four-hour long lines.
Anyhow, turnout wasn't abysmal, it looks like be down a bit from 2020's record numbers.
Thanks for the perspective. I guess I got in at a good time, and I didn't hear any reports of long lines in my area.
Yeah, a lot depends on where you live. Check out these lines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wmMobN4AVw And they're far from the worst! I just did a search on "four hour voting lines" and it happened in Chicago, New Jersey, UC Irvine, Northeast Ohio ...and that's just the first page of search results.
Because all of you sick fuckers don't even keep your kids home when they go to school. Then I gotta share a common space with the same people? Nah. I'm good. I vote by mail so I don't get exposed to your cooties.
I keep mine home when they are sick... but there is some evidence that reduced exposure to illness is actually bad for your health. So get out there and roll in the cooties a little.
A guilty conscience
Just accept the fact that the elections were functioning as intended with some expected hiccups as they so have every big presidential election. I had to get my ballot cured in 2016, it wasn't a conspiracy, just people doing the best they can.
There's no massive voter fraud, no machines flipping their shit. Just shitty fucking Americans as per usual.
Yep. The only real election fuckery is fox news, christianity and russia poisoning people's minds.
Hey! Give Elon a little credit! He tried so hard!!!
Good point, thousands of ballots being destroyed and forged definitely isn't voter fraud
I'm only wondering about the statistically improbable break between the state where they voted all Dems downballot but then swapped to Trump just for President.
This is so statistically unlikely, having one or two states this way would be improbable as hell, but (I am not claiming this is true) there are apparently many instances where this happened.
I'm not sharing any of this stuff I see but so far this is the one that got my eyebrow raised.
Missouri voted to legalize abortion again. Then elected the man who will get it banned nationally. Previously we voted to reduce dark money etc in local elections. And in the very next election repealed those restrictions again. People are fucking ignorant. Those in the state of misery doubly so.
Montana voted red all the way down except to protect abortion. Just last year they had kids argue to the state Supreme Court that they have rights when it comes to the environment, and they won.
I have no idea what is up or down anymore
I fully believe that the Rs pulled some sort of shady shit with ballots. For them 'every accusation is a confession' is an immutable law.
It doesn't matter, though, because the people who could do anything about it are on his team.
Completely agree. They said for months they had a better plan, Trump and Johnson had their little secret, elections have taken days in the past several yet this one ends almost immediately.
I completely believe that it could be legit, but I absolutely think that they managed to do something. And as you said, doesn't fucking matter even if they did.
elections have taken days in the past several yet this one ends almost immediately.
Not in the past several, in the last one where the whole country had pretty universal vote by mail abilities.
Now it takes a while to count the vote in places like California which still have universal vote by mail, and the returns are near instant in other areas that used the "voter fraud" narratives to eliminate or drastically scale back their vote by mail initiatives.
It's true that downballot Dems ran ahead of Harris in most states. Why do you think it's statistically unlikely? Polls ahead of the election showed downballot Dems were more popular than Harris. Republicans focused most of their negative campaigning on Harris. Biden's very unpopular and she didn't try to distance herself from him (I'm not saying that she should have, I'm just observing that she didn't). Sexists and racists were less likely to vote for Harris.
I had suggested to people before that if you are not going to vote for President, at least vote down the ballot for local people and don't discard the whole election. Voting Democrat but then for Trump does seem very odd.
That actually makes a lot of sense. Trump didn't get significantly more votes than he got in 2020. Harris just got way less than Harris.
That's assuming that all Trump supporters vote down ballot. I've been reading that a non-negligable percentage of Trump voters just voted for president and left down ballot races blank. Considering Trump only won the swing states by tiny percentages, a small percentage of Trump voters leaving blank the rest is easily enough to sway it
For instance, if we look at Wisconsin senate, we see that Tammy Baldwin has almost exactly the same number of votes as Harris (only a couple hundred more), but Eric Hovde shows less substantially votes than Trump got
Results with ~99% reported:
Donald Trump: 1,697,769
Kamala Harris: 1,668,082
(And about 40k for third party)
Vs senate
Tammy Baldwin: 1,668,545 [+436 from Harris]
Eric Hovde: 1,641,181 [-56,615 from Trump]
This is ludicrous. If someone is claiming their vote has not been received or counted I'm absolutely going to amplify them and make sure they're contacting the proper authorities.
Sure, if it's somebody you know or trust who's saying this, then it's not disinformation; agreed about helping them contact election officials and/or other authorities, and if you think it's useful to amplify it, then I'm not trying to talk you out of it.
If it's not somebody you know or trust, then amplifying it is quite possibly helping out a disinformation campaign.
And in any case, amplifying individual claims is very different from the unsupported claims about "millions of missing votes", and that's what I am trying to talk people out of.
So every single report of blue ballots being stolen and burned is just a lie then?
Even if they turn out to be a Russian troll, just trying to sow discord among the American public?
Oh so when millions of accounts come out of nowhere to praise Orange Julius, call Kamala a genocider, and back Jill Stein those are real, but when someone with a credible web presence and years of posting history across various platforms claims their absentee ballot hasn't been received* they're a Russian troll? Get fucked.
Nah, I’m all for auditing the results, and ensuring no fuckery went down. But when I see a bunch of commenters come out of now where and say that their vote wasn’t yet counted, I get skeptical. Especially when that’s the exact thing the other side was saying 4 years ago.
Russias goal is to spark a civil war. They’ll come in and say whatever in favor of either side if they think it’ll increase the anger between them. Just be careful what you read.
"check to see if the information is accurate" is better advice.
All the way back to bush, conservatives were ramping up removing voting machines from minority and blue districts, purging voter registrations, challenging cosmetic scuffs on ballots, and they did the same thing this election.
votes being attacked and blocked definitely happened, and thousands of votes were blocked in most states that were perfectly legal, but it doesn't stop conservatives from challenging their validity.
it doesn't have to be labeled a "conspiracy" if it is a fact.
conservatives can't win purely on numbers anymore, so they focus on dividing and disqualifying democratic voters.
blocked legal ballots:
purged voter rolls:
"check to see if the information is accurate" is better advice.
This is just great general advice for anything you read or post online. A misinformation tweet on Monday, spreads like wildfire on Tuesday, is looked at by professionals on Wednesday, a reasonable take or correction appears Thursday, and by Friday the only thing anyone remembers is the lie.
I'm reminded of "This Video Will Make You Angry" by CGP Grey, https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc
But you don't get likes or whatever by taking time to write out a well thought out opinion.
I talked about that in the article:
Don't get me wrong, multiple voter suppression techniques actually were used to keep people from voting – purging voters from rolls, felon disenfranchisement, 6-hour lines, texts with false information, voter intimidation, voter id laws, signature challenges, etc etc etc. But that's not what these conspiracy allegations are focusing on.
And I also discussed it in terms of the goals of people pushing these conspiracy theories:
focusing attention on an alleged fraud that didn't occur is a good way to divert attention from all voter suppression that really has occurred and has been steadily ramping up ever since Republicans on the Supreme Court gutted the Voing Rights Act – and got even worse this year after Republicans blocked legislation that could have provided voters and election officials with more protection.
you also mention that we don't know the extent of the voter fraud that occurred, that there certainly was voter fraud, that exaggerated claims of voter fraud are not widespread.
and then the conclusion is to be careful of "conspiracies".
that doesn't track.
-
we're not sure how much of the rainforest corporations have destroyed.
-
We know that corporations have certainly destroyed large parts of the rainforest.
-
therefore, if you hear people talking about corporations destroying too much rainforest, it might develop into a dangerous conspiracy, so report it for disinformation?
no.
voter suppression is and has been a real and significant problem, people should be aware of it. reporting hyperbolic disinformation should be a supportive paragraph to this point, not the conclusion or title, especially when violent calls to action are not a problem on the democratic side..
as you say, hyperbolic claims only manifest sporadically on a couple message boards.
that is not the same as an entire political party simultaneously claiming that their election was stolen and then violently attacking the capitol and the two should not be correlated.
Only conservatives are allowed to claim election fraud, even if the evidence is literally incontrovertible that republicans stole it. Nice
What's the evidence you find "literally incontrovertible"?
The comparison is apt though:
-
In 2020, almost all non-partisan voting rights organizations and election experts (as well as most Republicans, despite losing) were saying that there was in fact no evidence of widespread election fraud. So conservatives claiming election fraud were seen as conspiracy theorists who were spreading disinfo (either intentionally or because they really thought there was evidence).
-
In 2024, almost all non-partisan voting rights organizations and election experts (as well as most Democrats, despite losing) are saying that there was in fact no evidence of widespread election fraud. So ...
Genuinely, are you just denying the fact that trump supporters everywhere stole and burned and forged shit tons of ballots?
If you think there was "no widespread evidence" that's wilful ignorance. Have you just not heard a single thing republicans have been doing to steal the election? Do you live under a rock? Or do you just want trump to stay in office?
Do you think the Director of CISA -- who Biden appointed (and has done a great job) and Trump will almost certainly fire -- lives under a rock and wants Trump to take office? Because here's what she said:
https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/statement-cisa-director-easterly-security-2024-elections
I think she's a coward who thinks she'll be spared if she starts kissing trump's ass now. Her statement has no bearing at all on the fact that shit tons of republican voters stuffed and stole and burned ballot boxes leading up to the election, or how they're continuing to intimidate other voters, or EVERYTHING IN GEORGIA, or the repeated threats from Trump, the GOP, and authors of Project 2025 towards anyone who would resist their revolution. The election was stolen, plain and simple, and acting like an enlightened centrist about it won't get you put in a camp any slower than people who know
Who the fuck would downvote this? There's shit tons of literal evidence that republicans cheated this election, are yall really just gonna put your fingers in your ears and ignore it?
"Right-wing influencers are positioning this unfounded claiming as"evidence" of election fraud in 2020"
JFC... If they did that before why the hell wouldn't they just do it again? I guess even the Democrats that "stole the election last time" just like Trump now? Much logic.
People spent the last 4 years asking for proof in response for allegations of voter fraud and the only way to not normalize the concept of voter fraud is to continue to do just that. The only reasonable thing to do is just that.
Throughout America's history we've gotten through some pretty wild shit with nothing more than the fervent belief that the framework upon which our Republic is built can withstand the test of time so long as we are willing to defend it, and have faith that people like those were counting the votes, because most of them are
the fervent belief that the framework upon which our Republic is built can withstand the test of time
Which it clearly can't. You don't need to be a genius to figure out that the founding fathers weren't the demigods they're usually portrayed as and thus weren't able to predict 21st century problems in the 1700s.
Especially since their mechanism for changing anything fundamental has been made impossible by polarization.
Like the whole "American Dream" and trickle down economics, you'd have to be asleep to still believe that it's working.
so long as we are willing to defend it
You are correct in that the Constitution alone can't stand the test of time. In fact, I implied such.
No matter how willing you are to defend it, the 1700s system you're still operating on is broken. It was never designed to be static, much less anticipate 21st century conditions.
At this point, defending it rather than fighting for it to be replaced by something better is a big part of the problem.
That's a different thing entirely. On topic:
Any constitutional oath is a directive that can be superceded by no man. If someone attempts to amend the constitution without ratification, we're bound by oath to not acknowledge such a change. If we're given orders that violate the consitution, we're bound by oath to not acknowledge those orders.
Ideally, nobody who made an oath to uphold the constitution will fuck with a ballot. They won't sieze land, they won't use force on or unlawfully detain civilians, none of that, and if push comes to shove that is a hill people will ideally fight and die on. Trump can't make us do a god damned thing if it means turning our back on the constitution. The buck stops there.
You can soapbox about how we need reform, but that's a different topic entirely
Man this election was so cooked it came with a side of fries and two sachets of ketchup fml
How so?
I'm not picking I fight, I just want to know your thoughts on it.
Well I’m not American and not any kind of political expert so take it with a pinch of salt. My suspicion is that the republicans put their fat greasy fingers on the scales to ensure victory. That’s certainly what it looks like from the outside. Everyone knew Dunlop turnip was going to win weeks in advance. Tim Cook et al meeting with him to discuss tariffs, Bezos trying to quash the Harris endorsement. The fix was in. Musk is literally a conman with a hotline to the worlds least surprising piss enthusiast Vladimir ~~illych~~ putin. It was cooked. Good and proper, top to bottom. Also election predictions guy put his reputation on the line to say Harris would win, and the only other time he’s been wrong is 2000 - less said the better. It’ll all come out.
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
177 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3405 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS