171
Rumors, conspiracy theories, and disinformation about "millions of missing votes" and voting machine fraud
(privacy.thenexus.today)
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
171 points (94.3% liked)
politics
19115 readers
3805 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
If the downballot candidate hasn't been actively assisting genocide and hasn't been very publicly celebrating that, it probably helps with getting votes.
Not gonna argue this point because both candidates for President were staunchly pro Israel.
So they vote for the non-genocide down-ballot, and different, even more vocal, genocide support on the top?
That's what doesn't compute. It 100% would make sense if they said to hell with it and switched party affiliation across the board, that would be consistent even if you argue their logic. But this is internally inconsistent.
People fundamentally view voting through different lenses. Most people view voting as simply a lesser of two evils choice. Some however view voting as more of a personal endorsement. And they will choose to simply not vote for either candidate, or any candidate at all, rather than voting for any candidate they consider to be irredeemable.
You're not going to shame or convince people out of this. Any shaming based on the relative positions of the two candidates is pointless. Realize what you are going up against. You are going up against some of the most fundamental ethical frameworks human beings have for looking at the world. You are going up against thousands of years of human ethical reasoning.
When you start talking about how Kamala would have been objectively better for the Palestinians, you are arguing based on utilitarian ethics, the maximum good for the maximum number. You are saying, "yes, I know Kamala will abet a slow genocide, but I think Trump would abet a fast genocide. Therefore, Trump is better." When someone chooses to vote for neither Kamala nor Trump, they are voting based on a respect for persons ethical framework.
From a certain perspective, simply getting involved and endorsing anyone with the views on Palestine that either Trump or Harris have impugns you morally. This is literally the entire reason the Trolley Problem was created. One of the core perspectives from the beginning of that was that flipping the lever at all is morally wrong. It is wrong to kill someone even to save someone else.
Again, you can shout from the rooftops about how good Kamala or Trump would be for Palestine til you are blue in the face, but ultimately not everyone thinks on utilitarian grounds. And it wouldn't be such a classic discussion in philosophy if utilitarianism was the universally agreed on best moral framework. Utilitarianism's Achilles heel has always been that it can be used to excuse some pretty horrible things. Hell, even genocide itself is usually justified on utilitarian grounds.
I do not find it all surprising that many would vote for Democrats downballot and then simply not vote for anyone for president. It makes perfect sense from ethical perspectives that people have been debating since before ancient Athens. Shaming people based on utilitarian arguments is counterproductive for people who view their vote as an endorsement, not as simply a choice of which candidate is better than the other.
And I can't say they're wrong. I voted for Kamala. If she had won, she likely wouldn't have changed anything in terms of Biden's Middle East policy. And you know what? I would have had to go to sleep each night knowing that I helped put her in the seat that she was currently using to abet a genocide. Yes, I would know in some part of my mind that Trump would have been worse. But that would be cold comfort. I can absolutely see why millions of people would decide, "I refuse to accept responsibility for either of you. A pox on both your houses. YOU, not me, are morally responsible for any of your sins, but I refuse to get involved. Do what you want, but I'm not voting for either of you. I hope you all burn in Hell."
You can vote for someone against genocide for pres or just not vote for any candidate and still vote downballot.