244
‘Government by the worst’: why people are calling Trump’s new sidekicks a ‘kakistocracy’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
244 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19149 readers
3896 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 don’t know the other names. Just Spoonamore, who is known only for his fake credentials and for crying wolf.
If I’m reading correctly, the evidence is primarily that “the numbers” look too high to Spoonamore. I’m not sure where he gets the “35 billion to 1 probability” from, because he doesn’t show his work anywhere.
Most of these states already hand count samples to verify the machine counts, so it’s weird he says a hand count is needed but hasn’t addressed what supposedly went wrong with the original hand count.
I voted Harris-Walz and have no doubt trump would cheat if he could, but I don’t trust this publication, the author, or the “expert” being interviewed, and the writing style smells like sensationalist drivel cooked up to drive engagement.
i read the open letters linked to in the article which had the info you're asking about if you're actually interested in it.
The second letter is just advising re: the leaked software and suggesting an expanded hand count. It doesn’t offer any “damning” evidence. It doesn’t even claim election interference. And the spoonamore letter is more of the same BS from his interviews and doesn’t answer my questions at all. What am I supposed to see?
Here's my complaint about this. Had trump lost the election, he would be demanding recounts in every possible place as well as launching lawsuits to delay and distract. We KNOW this, since he did it in 2020.
How unreasonable is it, then, that with all the questions raised by both his statements in public (such as "we’ll have it fixed so good you won’t have to vote" regarding 2028) and the statistical anomalies we can't call for a recount in places where things seem amiss? If nothing is found, great, we elect a fascist; but if there was an attack/hack/fraud, then we find it and expose it. We have nothing to lose (we're saving money over a trump loss and recounts everywhere) and Democracy to win.
I'm in a swing state and I definitely checked after the election to see that my ballot was counted. However, I can't see the details as a private citizen, so I can't verify it was tabulated correctly. I'm in NC, where the republican governor candidate was truly repugnant, but trump won by 3.39 points and Josh Stein won by over 14! In fact, more people voted for Stein than Trump. Maybe we could get Mark Robinson to request a recount...
I’m with you, and I don’t see any problem with demanding a recount.
I just don’t like the idea of doing or saying anything simply because the other side would or did. And conspiracy theories tend to spread rapidly online among those who have the incentive to believe, devolving into unidimensional “for us or against us“ advocacy wars.
It’s sort of like being at a counter-protest and trying to stop someone on your side from assaulting someone on the other side. They look at you in disbelief “whose side are you on anyway?” And the only thing you know is that this isn’t how you want to win.