top 85 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 91 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

So wait a minute here guys, you're telling me that the man who was convicted by a unanimous jury of fraud (cheating) in the 2016 election, the same guy who called the governors of various states and asked them to 'find him some votes' in 2020, did not run a clean honest campaign in 2024???

Get the EFF out of here!!

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 78 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    This is why manual hand counted votes still happen to this day in Canada and Australia. They both faced the same MAGA threat and the lib won.

    Yes it takes longer. And sometimes results will take weeks to resolve but at least they don’t end up in a situation like this where the entire system is so corrupt 4 months later it’s near impossible to fix it.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They both faced the same MAGA threat and the lib won.

    Largely thanks to the local public backlash to Trump tariffs. If Kamala had prevailed in November, both countries would likely have MAGA governments today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, it's weird to be an American and hope the silver lining of trump is that the rest of the world keeps making better choices in response to how bad this is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Part of the Trump brand is "Fuck you, I've got mine" which isn't condusive to international coalitions.

    Hell, just look at the Ukraine/Russia conflict. As soon as Trump got Zelensky to sign a bunch of Western Ukrainian real estate over to his cronies, he unleashed a large traunch of weapons to fuck over Putin. As soon as he got another Perfect Phone Call from Xi, and secured some unspecified promise, the Chinese tariffs evaporated.

    My man stands for nothing that won't fit into his pocket.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    We can’t say that. We don’t know what would’ve happened in Canada if Trump lost.

    If Trump lost:

    • Trudeau might not have resigned
    • if he did, Carney might not have became liberal leader
    • The election probably wouldn’t have even happened yet, and the campaign likely would’ve been longer when it was.
    • Every party would have run very different campaigns since the top issues wouldn’t have been US relations

    A lot of things could’ve been different, but most notably:

    • PP might not have run a Trump-esk populist attack campaign.

    For all we know PP wouldn’t be seen as “the same MAGA threat”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Note to mention that not only are they harder to scale attacks against, manual vote counts are easier to trust, As anyone can understand the process and how it ensured that their vote counted.

    No matter how well they are protected it's hard to explain to the average person how a computer ensures their vote was counted correctly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 214 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I wonder if this is Musks "you wouldnt have won the election without me" quote.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 149 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Trump said months before the election that he's got it covered and he isn't worried about it. Why would that be? He told us what he was doing at the time, his people were rigging it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 129 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I also strongly believe in their use of projecting as a preemptive defensive strategy.

    They say "you cheated you cheated you cheated!" so we reply "you're nuts there's no evidence, it's all a conspiracy theory" so then they can cheat later on and turn it around on you when you go to investigate. "Oh now it's true because you lost? Yeah yeah yeah..."

    They're always playing psychological warfare with the population... :(

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They’re always playing psychological warfare with the population… :(

    Why can't we do psychological warfare on them? I thought they were so much dumber than us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    They already believe it's happening to them which is why they refuse to listen to any source of information that isn't from their preferred brand.

    There are plenty of intelligent MAGA that just have an innate bias that they want to have confimed so they allow themselves to be convinced by mis/disinformation. To admit you were wrong, or to accept that you misunderstood actually creates a "pain" type response that people are very adverse to, there are also the types that have so entrenched themselves in their political beliefs that it becomes their identity. This form of physiological warfare I mentioned is just one way of allowing these people to maintain their identity and to give them a "valid" defense against inconvenient information.

    Over time a person can be chipped away at, but if you always give them an answer then they never have to suffer the thought that they were ever wrong about anything so they can remain on "your side."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago*

    And even:

    Yes, Trump said Musk knows vote-counting computers 'better than anybody'

    He knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide.

    — trump, on stage at a victory rally in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 19, 2025

    The idiot can’t keep his mouth shut and basically blabbed exactly what they were doing, yet nobody really listened.

    It will never cease to astound me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Hijacking the top comment to mention (as posted in more detail below) that this actually has a very logical explanation. In short, Biden also got 0 votes in some precincts, which was a total flip from 2016 where Clinton won by large margins. The difference? The community is 100% Hasidic, and community leaders met with Clinton during her Senate race while Bill was president. During this time, there were community members being indicted for a fraudulent Hasidic school. The community voted for Clinton for Senate, and shortly after Bill commuted the sentences of these community members. I.e., very possibly a quid pro quo. So that community in particular supports Clinton for this very specific reason, when Trump was still a relatively unknown quantity, and then flips to support Trump for his very aggressive support of Israel during his first term. I despise Trump, and would love him locked up, but these are cherry picked numbers that prove nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 73 points 1 year ago (20 children)

    Why didn't the democrats demand hand recounts when the election was initially called? It felt like they all just rolled over and accepted defeat.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No fuckin idea. Didn't make sense then, either. We were so afraid to look like the crazy MAGAs. Their tactic worked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    "Accuse your enemy of what you intend to do"

    Not actually a quite from Goebbels or Marx, but the Republican guiding principle nonetheless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Accuse your enemy of what you intend to do

    It's ironic that Hitler's "Night of the Long Knives" (when the Nazis arrested and eventually murdered numerous brownshirts and their leader, Ernst Roehm) acquired that name because Hitler himself used the expression in a speech that he gave immediately after the event. In the speech, he accused Roehm of having been planning a "NIght of the Long Knives" himself, directed at Hitler and the other Nazi leaders. Quite unintentionally, the phrase came to describe Hitler's actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Probably same reason they just gave up in Gore v Bush.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    They didn't give up. The supreme Court decided Bush won Florida, without a recount.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Gore then conceded without continuing to fight, to help the county heal. Because actual fighting to win would be bad

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Yes, but then he un-conceded. How do you think it got to the Supreme Court unless he fought?

    He brought it to the Florida circuit court, and when he lost he appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, who ruled in his favor. Then Bush appealed to the US Supreme Court.

    The problem was a coordinated effort to steal the election by the bitch queen Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State and Bush's Florida campaign co-chair, a fake riot by Republican operatives to disrupt a recount, and a collaborating Supreme Court. It was all tied up nicely in a bow and there wasn't much Gore could have done, although he should have requested a statewide recount right from the start instead of just cherry picking solidly Democratic-leaning counties like Miami-Dade.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Because they didn't want to be perceived as doing the same thing as the Republicans after the 2020 election. After complaining about the Republicans not having a "peaceful transfer of power," Dems thought it was important to demonstrate how that works, and be smug about it.

    Unfortunately, this was precisely the wrong election to make that point, since this election truly was rat fucked by MAGA.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I've thought about that. But that seems like a terrible strategy, because it lets the Republicans do anything. The Republicans do a bad thing, or accuse you of doing a bad thing, and now you're incapable of responding to it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    But that seems like a terrible strategy...

    I mean.... we are talking about the Democrats. That's almost their motto.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Yes, it's a terrible strategy, but it's the easiest one to default to if you are a cowardly spineless weenie Democrat who is afraid to confront serious treason and corruption, like Chuck Schumer. Traditional Dems are satisfied with losing, as long as they can feel smug about being morally superior while doing it, even if it means watching the Reps systematically dismantle America on behalf of the Russians.

    We need elected representatives at every level who aren't afraid to go to battle to defend our country from treasonous criminals and Sociopathic Oligarchs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Others clearly have their pitch forks ready to go but the real reason here is because they won NY. I'd be shocked if any presidential candidate in the history of the US demanded a recount in a state they won.

    Is 0 votes suspicious? Absolutely. Is the recount process the right way to uncover something happening at a scale to compromise an entire district's election process? Probably not.

    According to Balletpedia, it's unclear who in NY even pays for a voluntary recount (NY has mandatory recounts in close elections).

    However suspicious this district is, it's not justification for a recount in another district in a completely different state.

    If there is interference at a meaningful scale, it's not going to be uncovered by volunteers working without sleep to deliver election results as quickly as humanly possible. The wheels of justice turn far top slowly.

    A lawsuit is a good first step.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 71 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    OK, next question: Let's say we do a 'recount' at this hour, assuming the evidence isn't already lost, what then?

    Think he's going to go, ohh my bad?

    Think he's going to leave willingly?

    Think the court case will even be appropriately handled once it goes to the SCOTUS.

    Think the SCOTUS will even hear it?

    How is it 100 days later, we just now hear about this?

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think the best outcome would be that it might uncover deliberate malfeasance that might prompt some folks in congress to do what is needed. I wouldn't be optimistic though.

    Slightly more likely is that such discovery would drive the public towards a congressional swing away from his enablers at the next congressional election next year, assuming we have it. I'm moderately more optimistic on that, apparently such a swing is already forming, but to what extent isn't clear.

    We can't undo the election results, the congressional count done on jan 6 is definitive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I fear, if it looks like Congress isn't going his way he's just going to seize control.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Then it'd be time to put those 2A to use.

    That's it, the last box in this lineup:

    Ballot -> Soap -> Jury -> Ammo

    So if it comes to it y'all are going to have to be willing to use it, unless you'd rather live under a King.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Best case scenarios aren't really on the table. Doesn't mean you stop fighting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I can see how it looks like I'm saying that I'm not advocating that at all. I just want to make sure that people understand this isn't a direct path to change.

    Even a direct admission will not change anyone's mind. You are at best removing a couple of easy outs** for them to lie and say that's not how it is. In the end they're just going to lie and say that it's not real.

    It'll be satisfying. It might make some already engaged people a little more engaged, But it isn't **in itself going to drive the needle we're going to need more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Even if this is true, I don’t think they’re going to find the number of votes to change any outcome. Didn’t Trump win by like 3 million votes? Maybe this could have flipped an electoral college vote, but would that have even mattered?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Even if it's not isolated, how do you move forward after this unless someone involved confesses and gives up other areas involved? Maybe they weren't dumb enough to be this obvious in other spots.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Ideally, you start demanding recounts But I can't imagine that votes are properly taken care of after the fact especially in this case.

    But then if we find mass wrongdoing in counts, now it's a court thing, It goes to SCOTUS. Are they going to side with him? Frankly, there's no way. It's going to be authoritarian dictatorship or coup I don't think there's any other viable directions this could go.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Is that your general experience with people doing dumb things? That they only do it once?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I think something like this where the fuck up gets noticed could be done at the poll level to some extent. Orders from above how to it, and this one person or area may have just fucked it up.

    So these people would probably fuck things up again, but people at a different poll could do it properly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    Kamala carried New York either way, it absolutely would not change anything in the EC

    e: unless it led to the uncovering of widespread fraud in key swing states, but even then they wouldn't do shit

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    I always had a feeling that the election was a bit too quickly decided. I’ve said before that in the coming months and years after the 2024 election we would find out something fishy was happening.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That’s honestly what got me too. Like it took a week for them to get all of the results from 2020, and sure, that could’ve been all the mail in ballots, but then you have Rogan saying elongated muskrat had called the election the night OF voting?

    I don’t know man. I’ve seen a few elections now and don’t remember that happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Agreed it’s very fishy I don’t wanna sound like a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist but if it quacks like a duck then it’s a duck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If you have a few hours to kill, this podcast had the guy from election truth alliance on. It is the most tolerable of the few podcasts he's appeared on because this guy is data heavy, and quite frankly it can be boring with how much he talks about data and graphs, but the data is there. They are very data driven. Part 2 has most of the data, but essentially votes went way up for Republicans as time went on. Statistically speaking, there should be a similar distribution of votes throughout, but what we see is any time Kamala gets close, a flood of red votes come in. The theory is a vote switching algorithm. Imo Elon saying that without him the Dems get the presidency and the house is not hyperbole. I'm pretty sure they were flipping votes and/ or using data from the super PAC $100 giveaway to file fake votes. There are a bunch of submitted ballots that were down ballot dem, but president and house / Senate (the ones that mattered the most) went to Republicans. The only way to find out is to do audits. And even if (and imo when) we do find out it was stolen, I don't think we have any recourse to remove him, but it would be nice to know that we didn't choose this, and the states can beef up their election security and politicians can stop being so spineless thinking that he's so popular and they are powerless.

    The guy was dancing around like a crazy person to Ave Maria at his last rally and yelling about people eating cats and dogs on the debate. There's no way anyone saw that and wanted that running the country save the maybe 8% of the population that are Trump Simps.

    His rallies were empty and Harris had the momentum with a packed house everywhere she went. She mopped the floor with him in the debate. The fact that she accepted the results and didn't push for a single recount was asinine imo. With Trump, everything is projection. There's evidence they tried to steal '20 and we're just overwhelmed by the sheer volume of people who voted by mail to oust him. Vote by mail is typically hand counted and harder to alter.

    https://youtu.be/UgIay64Obcs

    https://youtu.be/t-yr-Mgkhm0

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    The guy was dancing around like a crazy person to Ave Maria at his last rally and yelling about people eating cats and dogs on the debate. There’s no way anyone saw that and wanted that running the country save the maybe 8% of the population that are Trump Simps.

    You overestimate this country.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I'm tired of going high when they go low.

    If the new standard is for Republicans to cast doubt on the legitimacy of every election, except for the ones they win, then we should, at the very least, be scrutinizing every single aspect of the election. Refuse to concede, demand recounts, hand tally the electronic ballots, search up and down and under every rock for evidence that the other side is guilty of some foul play.

    Because if they had done that in the first place, they might have uncovered shit like this before it was too late to stop the wrong candidate from getting inaugurated. If they had bothered to put up a fight instead of maintaining decorum that the Republicans never bother to show, maybe they would have discovered what many of us already suspected - that Elon Musk somehow tampered with the voting machines to swing the election in Donald Trump's favor in key swing states. They practically admitted as much on stage, and nobody batted an eye at it.

    I don't expect to ever live to see another fair election for the rest of my life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Sure but Harris already win NY, so it doesn’t affect anything

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    It doesn't change anything in New York....... And ... In before the flood of other like cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yep, if the machines were tampered with in NY, a relatively liberal bastion, what the fuck does that mean for the swing states?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 171 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I do believe people were calling me alarmist for noticing strange patterns.

    Like winning all 7 swing states? Your fucking kidding me right?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Also not surprising that investigations weren’t pushed harder after election and before new administration. Biden and Garland should’ve put throttle down on a five-alarm-fire investigation into election. Did they? No. Surprised? Not at all.

    Transitions shouldn’t necessarily be smooth if an election was potentially fraudulent — peaceful, yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    17 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    15 comments in c/BoycottUnitedStates@europe.pub view that post