You must log in or register to comment.

poots024 t1_iwrile5 wrote

You should probably note that this incident too place in 2015.


Lazy-Street779 t1_iwrj8sq wrote

FYI It was in connection to the 2015 elections for boards of finance, education and representatives.


[deleted] t1_iws8zlh wrote

I know you are Happy and just say shit for a reaction but for anyone who reads this the Republican town clerk who was part of the scheme testified against him and wasn't charged. This was small town politics, not party politics.


coolducklingcool t1_iwsar1i wrote

Nice clickbait headline, OP.

2015 election for board of ed and finance lol. But sure, let’s feed the MAGA trolls.


Fantafyren t1_iwt0fln wrote


This person seemed pretty sus to me, so I looked through some of their other comments. And their intentions are kinda obvious. They will purposefully make an aggravating response to your post, disagree with what you say, or just try and push controversial opinions or even mild conspiracies on you, claiming to have "facts", but never actually posting proof when asked to. So don't sour your day by giving this person any type of attention.

I have followed their account, and plan on posting this wall of text in response to every troll-like comment made on here, until I find it too boring. Which could take a while. So move on, and have a good day.


coolducklingcool t1_iwva4d0 wrote

An accurate title would have indicated the year of the offense or the positions affected. Otherwise the news source is just capitalizing on the post-2020 panic over election fraud. Which they are allowed to do, I guess. They’re for profit, after all. But I just don’t think we need to reward them for shitty clickbait tactics. They knew what they were doing with that headline.

Honestly, why else would OP post if? Does anyone actually care about a local election for Board of Ed from 2015?


Embarrassed_Union_96 t1_iwvb1km wrote

The first question you ask at the end encourages people to come to their own conclusions in a sensationalist way. The second one diminishes the value of a democratically elected public office’s election process——which is the same process shared by all other elected positions.

We live in tough times. It’s okay to accept news we’d rather not see or hear, even if it feels like it’s delivered in a way that makes things worse. As long as it’s factual, it’s okay. If we can’t accept facts, and we suppress their sharing by devaluing them though sensationalist invocations, then things will only get worse.


Embarrassed_Union_96 t1_iwvinsv wrote

You can’t claim it’s deliberately vague. By what you’ve said, you wish they added more details because of the times we live in. However, even without those details, the title says what happened.

I understand the feeling tho.


coolducklingcool t1_iwvj81u wrote

Sure. And that’s why there’s an article on it. But the year it took place is essential information.

Listen, I’m not changing my mind that the article and post are clickbait capitalizing on the extreme political climate. So we’re wasting our time here. Have a good day.