Okay, well here are some facts that you can confirm with anyone else who has been involved in election administration that support my point:

• The individual or group of individuals involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
• The technology involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
• The article completely skips over addressing how any of these changes wouldn’t be caught during count verification steps.

Those are three things undermining the article’s credibility that you can confirm for yourself. It’s spewing the same kind of bullshit theories that I heard about the 2020 election, and spent the years since, fighting. I didn’t like the outcome of the 2024 election either, but I know what I’m talking about.

@andros_rex@lemmy.world I’m a mod on c/politics. I don’t speak for any of the other mods, and while I don’t recall interacting with your specific post, I’ll give you two reasons today that would likely be sufficient to me, for why I would have removed that post. (1) It’s an article to a Substack post, which isn’t necessarily dispositive, but the author is unknown (at least to me), which is a ding against its credibility. (2) I don’t know enough about the author’s intent to know whether to characterize the article as mis- or dis-information, but I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect. Specifically, the author demonstrates ignorance of the technology and logistics involved in the administration of elections, along with different methods of verification.

And just to be clear, the 2024 election was not perfect and there was institutionalized voter suppression; however, that Substack post is not rooted in fact.

Good point and totally agree!

Okay, thanks!

“Illegal immigration” actually isn’t a crime, it’s a civil infraction — like a speeding ticket.

I’m not disagreeing with the fact that the Democratic Party shouldn’t be cozying up with billionaires, but I’m not convinced that the most significant reason for the Harris’ loss. I think misogyny played a role.

I think Democrats don’t know how to create a zeitgeist of high-brow, uplifting pugnacity that punches through bullshit. “Oh you think ‘boys’ should be able to play in women’s sports?” “It’s a game!” “You sound pretty privileged to not have to think about scholarships for students to go to college!” “Shut the fuck up about peoples’ genitals, and let’s do something about people going to school. Let’s prepare children for the real world in school while they’re growing up, and if they want to go off to college after that, let’s make that affordable.”

The “Green New Deal” — do want to grow the economy with new industries? Do you know how much more expensive living with the consequences of climate change will be — do you like the cost of housing now?

“Poor people should have to work to receive help.” — (1) They already do, and (2) shut the fuck up and stop calling yourself a Christian unless you want to at least pretend to know the tenets of your religion. You would have been whipped in the temple.

Stop giving Republicans so many opportunities to go on bullshitting without checking them. That won’t immediately manifest the world we want to see, but it will at least shift the momentum.

… and cue the facial Equal Protection problems.

They’ll ask to have it “sent it back to the states.”

I guess my idea was that locking the comment thread wouldn’t censor the viewpoints, and everyone could still read the differing views while tamping down on toxicity.

If a conversation isn’t productive and people are just becoming mean and ugly toward each other, then all we’re left with is people being mean and ugly toward each other. That doesn’t promote community, it creates rage bait. And not that it necessarily means a conversation can’t be productive, I would assume — although maybe incorrectly — that the reason people are on Lemmy is because they’ve seen what happens when rage is monetized on social media platforms, and they came here to get away from that.

Mod here: We’ve received several reports from this comment thread. If I had the power to lock just this thread, I would because I can see how this conversation has some seeds for productive discourse, but that doesn’t seem to be the direction that things are headed toward right now.

I would encourage people to reread what each other has said, and rather than immediately thinking of a rebuttal, read it a second or third time until you can interpret what the other person said a different way than you initially read it.

Mod here: We’ve received several reports from this comment thread. If I had the power to lock just this thread, I would because I can see how this conversation has some seeds for productive discourse, but that doesn’t seem to be the direction that things are headed toward right now.

I would encourage people to reread what each other has said, and rather than immediately thinking of a rebuttal, read it a second or third time until you can interpret what the other person said a different way than you initially read it.

A report was received about this breaching rule 1. In this case, the title used to submit the link provides more context than the original title, and will be allowed to remain.

I hope she finds a healthier relationship.

Unfortunately, I don’t think there is a way to edit the title, but I think this article would have been clearer with a comma. I’m going to leave it up, but sticky this here with a clearer title: “[The] Senator [Who] Elon Musk Called a ‘Traitor’ Gets Rid of His Tesla: Don’t Want a Car Built By an ‘A**hole’.”

Thanks!

We’re not talking about a threat to Democrats, we’re talking about a threat to democracy. Go back in history, and look at Germany between the mid 1920s to the 1940s. Puritanical votes in the face of authoritarianism didn’t empower people to combat genocide, it decimated their ability to do something about it. RFK, Jr., the environmental advocate was so firm in his beliefs that he went groveling to the guy that pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accords, doesn’t believe in Climate Change, and just generally doesn’t give a shit about anyone or anything unless it benefits him. RFK Jr. wasn’t a serious candidate. Stein? The woman shows up every four years, and didn’t even know how many members of Congress there are — and she’s the one that should be trusted to know the policy and diplomatic complexities to bring peace to an ideological, geo-political battle spanning millennia? Are those the “other things” you demanded? In order to accomplish things in the real world, it takes consensus and working together in order to achieve results without dictatorial power. A vote for Harris isn’t a vote for genocide or a perfect world, it’s a vote for moving forward — or if you want to be super cynical about it, a choice for one of the two candidates that can win who is the least likely candidate to exacerbate tensions and cause the spilling of more innocent blood.

If you can’t understand that, then it just means I can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. There isn’t a third option out there that is coming to save us — it’s up to us to save us, even if we have to do it piece-by-piece because there is no magic snapping of the fingers that is going to fix this.

Except, you’re implying that’s not what you’re doing. You want to believe that your vote can accomplish everything you want, as easily snapping your fingers, but that’s not how it works. No positive change in history has happened in a day, but you seem to want to vote as if positive change can happen immediately.