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
3859 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
Look I’d be happy with a recount. I think they should recount, just to be as sure as possible. What I’m not OK with are conspiracy theories and lies.
I was there in 2004. Lots of conspiracy theories were pumped on the blogs that were ultimately unfounded. If I recall, Stephen’s “expert claim” pertained to Ohio and that claim was spurious.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies
The steal in Florida was real but it came in the form of a phone call, not a software exploit.
these are the facts Jack, and facts don't care if you don't like them.
also, conspiracy does not equal untrue.
a conspiracy is a group of people planning to carry out or carrying out a scheme.
that happens in the real world everyday.
it's fine if you don't like that one guy, ignore that one guy.
Focus on all of the other computer security experts stating that because of trumps lawyers admitting they hired a group to steal voting machine software, and their stated intention to interfere with the election, we should do a manual count to make sure that all the ballots are legitimate.
you can ignore that one guy and listen to all the other scientists you don't have a problem, who you claim to agree with, with who have 19 credible sources supporting the electoral obligation for a manual ballot count.