40
When Trump Threatens to Overturn an Election, NYT Suggests He Might Have a Point (fair.org)
submitted 4 days ago by to c/FuckTheUSA@lemmy.ca
1 comment fedilink hide all child comments
 

Times editors had to have known that this article would be a gift to an administration that claims Democratic wins are not legitimate, and that the very notion of Republican losses can only be explained by complicated election rigging rather than not getting enough votes (New York Times, 8/20/26, 10/17/26, 10/25/26, 10/27/26, 10/27/26).

If the Times had found potential wrongdoing by Alaska Democrats, that would have been a necessary story for readers. This, however, is a long-read about the usual shenanigans of US electoral politics. It doesn’t add to our understanding of politics, nor is it especially damning in the bigger context.

It is mildly entertaining, for sure, but the biggest impact this investigation will have is providing more justification for an authoritarian administration that already has plans in place to shut down democratic outcomes.

Fuck the perception that the New York Times is a serious institution of journalism or that it is even remotely unbiased and principled.

1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 4 days ago

Why are they so keen on stoking violence against their own compatriots.

They want Jan 6 to happen again and again till a massive war breaks out in their own streets? Cuz Iran and few others would love that...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    7 comments in c/pravda_news@news.abolish.capital view that post
    [–] 8 points 1 week ago

    “Cheating is only legal by pedophiles”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    They were pretty quiet on this in Florida last cycle...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    NYT have been fascists from the jump.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago

    I will never forgive the NYT for

    1. not pushing back against flimsy evidence for launching the Iraq War when the US government asked them nicely not to.

    2. trying desperately to be oblivious to the Palestinian Genocide and human rights crimes Israel has committed.

    3. reacting to Trump as if leaning into hyperbolizing how he breaks social norms weakens him rather than focused the spotlight more and more monomaniacally on him.

    That is just a handful of reasons I don't consider NYT a serious institution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Does that even make sense? Not only are the candidates clearly distinguished by having "Republican" and "incumbent" written next to them, it's also ranked choice. So why would someone who wants to vote for Sullivan and is still confused not simply rank those two? Would the votes for the wrong (weaker) candidate not automatically count for the correct (stronger) candidate once they are removed from the pool?

    Conversely, if you were a Democrat trying to up your chances, this would be an extremely ineffective way of doing that and a waste of time and resources. I may be misunderstanding ranked choice voting here, so if that's the case, please someone clear it up for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    New York Crimes forever

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •