You must log in or register to comment.

Animallover4321 t1_itqycpv wrote

Election deniers scare me. They are a legitimate threat to our democracy.


[deleted] t1_itr0f81 wrote



Animallover4321 t1_itr18fo wrote

> “The right-wing controlled Supreme Court may be poised to rule on giving state legislatures … the power to overturn presidential elections. Just think, the 2024 presidential election could be decided not by the popular vote, or even by the anachronistic electoral college, but by state legislatures, many of them Republican-controlled.”

She’s not saying the election results will be fraudulent she’s saying republicans will do what they attempted in 2020 and overwrite the will of the people. Anyone that witnessed the lead up and attempted coup on January 6th and doesn’t have the same concern is naive.


SileAnimus t1_its0cq1 wrote

They're planning replacing the government-can-overrule-the-will-of-the-people system with the government-can-overrule-the-will-of-the-people-slightly-faster system.

Oh, the horror


-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_its5wkz wrote

>She’s not saying the election results will be fraudulent she’s saying republicans will do what they attempted in 2020 and overwrite the will of the people.

Are you talking about challenging and objecting to the electoral votes?


flamethrower2 t1_itr2we7 wrote

MA is mentioned in the Post column but the column doesn't have a lot to do with MA.


Lasshandra2 t1_itr3fl2 wrote

I would guess we are a very juicy target for the magas.


NativeMasshole t1_its2nfs wrote

Seeing as how the state Republican Party are pushing to go full red hat, I'd say so.


m8k t1_itsobk0 wrote

When Trump said that Diehl would rule with an iron fist… yeah, they want to take this state badly.


flamethrower2 t1_itu7qku wrote

Their strategy certainly won't win the state, but the real purpose is to raise funds for candidates in other states. For example, Diehl took public campaign funds, and isn't running TV ads. I couldn't say whether traditional Republican or radical Republican is better for fundraising but it's clear which they're going with.


Psychogistt t1_itrw2l8 wrote

Here’s 12 minutes of Democrats denying election results

It’s probably been happening since the beginning of Democracy


NativeMasshole t1_its2cg7 wrote

Where's the video of them pushing their way into the Capitol Building to try to stop the certification process?


TheLittleGardenia t1_its2qil wrote

It’s mildly disingenuous to equate democrats talking about 2016 election results, which were investigated by both the FBI and US Senate intelligence committee and found to have Russian interference with 2020, in which investigations have turned up nothing.


Psychogistt t1_its7wpz wrote

They said there was Russian interference but we’ve never seen evidence of that let alone proof. The whole investigation was based on a fake dossier funded by the DNC.

I think it just shows that the FBI was in on sowing discord and distrust in elections.

I vote mostly Dem but let’s not pretend like we don’t do the same shit.


TheLittleGardenia t1_its8x3u wrote

So the FBI and the US senate intelligence committee, both while Trump was in power, are lying. That’s your position?


Psychogistt t1_itse7ev wrote

In psychology we have a saying: the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Considering that the FBI, and the intelligence community in general, have repeatedly lied to the American people, then it makes sense they would do it again.

The FBI is the same organization that tried to blackmail MLK into killings himself (and then maybe did kill him). It also recently came out that they tracked Aretha Franklin (of all people) for 40 years. And that’s just scratching the surface.

So yea, it wouldn’t surprise me if they lied. What makes you so willing to trust them?


TheLittleGardenia t1_itsj6sl wrote

What’s their motivation? Their guy is in power.

I guess you shouldn’t believe anything then, because apparently everyone lies


SileAnimus t1_itruyhf wrote

It's being reposted everywhere because it's propaganda. Someone is making a lot of money trying to push this narrative.

Edit: You guys are so easily marketed to it's not even funny. Every time you click to read an article like this you're making Bezos money.


[deleted] t1_itrwuee wrote



SileAnimus t1_itrzq9c wrote

The narrative that those people are somehow without "compromise" or anything like that. It's standard balkanization propaganda. People from the civil war went back to working with each other and not having animosity over the civil war where brothers killed brothers over the span of a few weeks/ months. But you're telling me that people that don't trust the US government's integrity are somehow an uncompromising stalwart faction of integrity regarding their personal views.

Which one is more likely, that all of that is objectively true, or that the news organizations are relying on yellow journalism and targeted opinion pieces to generate profit from easily agitated people?

And no, people don't "discredit" the voting process by not believing in it. That's how anything real works.


[deleted] t1_its0low wrote



SileAnimus t1_its14t4 wrote

If feelings mattered more than facts, then the election that conservatives claim was rigged would have actually been rigged. This is factually, not true. If you think feelings matter more than facts, then congratulations, you're have the same thought process as election deniers.

People don't "discredit" the voting process by not believing in it. That's how anything real works.

Anyways, don't forget to subscribe to Bezos's newspaper. I'm sure their news and opinion pieces have no ulterior motives.


[deleted] t1_its1xz8 wrote



SileAnimus t1_its2sm7 wrote

The riot happened because a candidate who built his entire candidacy on a personality cult lost an election. Bigger riots happen every year here in the US when sports teams lose games. This is an issue of how people act with personality and brand cults, not of election validity. And that's not even getting into the fact of how the government security did not take their jobs seriously.

>Beliefs often result in actions. Actions have effects and consequences.

The Jan 6 riot has literally no effect on whether or not an old lady and the rest of her bingo-night crew, who are actually filing and sorting elections, do their job properly. This fundamental lack of understanding in how elections work is why the Washington Post is trying to make money off of you. You are easily susceptible to propaganda.

Again, please, don't be a moron that's easily propagandized. You are literally acting the same way that election deniers act.


[deleted] t1_its6t3r wrote



SileAnimus t1_its7ew6 wrote

There's nothing bad about admitting you were in the wrong.


EricInAmerica t1_its8a5l wrote

Some self-reflection may be in order, here.


SileAnimus t1_itsfod1 wrote

I've done plenty. It's why I don't get riled by corporate opinion pieces slathered on reddit. How about you though? Do you chase the highs of ego by spouting off about much much you hate [group of people a company is making money off of you hating]? Because /u/TheUnsightlyLocks over there does- not realizing that the OP of this post is a bought account.


[deleted] t1_its1nbw wrote



SileAnimus t1_its3hlq wrote

Not even anything shady. It's the Washington Post. They make money any time someone goes on their website. Every idiot here that clicks on and reads some shitty opinion piece with a blatantly inflammatory title makes them money. It's so obvious.


[deleted] t1_ittexi7 wrote



SileAnimus t1_ittmsm0 wrote

You might be on the cusp of understanding why a not-Massachusetts-related opinion article got posted on the Massachusetts subreddit by a throwaway account. Please re-read that argument I had with you a few hours ago how how people like you are so easily marketed inflammatory propaganda for cash. You might be able to pick up on what I was saying.

I understand that reading comprehension isn't a big thing on reddit, but come on.


Linux-Is-Best t1_itr2ze9 wrote

Does anyone know else know the childhood story about the boy who cried wolf?

If you don't, it's pretty simple...

A young boy, who was watching his sheep, got lonely and bored, so he cried "wolf" as loud as his could. And the whole village came running to help him defend his heard against the so-called nasty wolf. At first, he told the story of him fighting off the "wolf" all by himself, and the boy was seen as a hero. He told the villagers this to explain why there was no wolf. He did this a few more times and depending on the telling of the story, the villagers either got wise to his false claims or assumed, after a while, he could take care of it himself. Until one day a real, live, nasty, big and bad wolf came and the little boy shouting "wolf" as loudly as he could, but no one came, and the little boy and his sheep were all eating up.

I think long term and I believe everything is technically possible, it's only a matter of probability. The big problem about these voter deniers crying wolf, should one day, true fraud were to happen, and our democracy was legitimately hijacked one day, who would believe it?

That is one of the fears I have about these false flags happening today. Not just that it could erode faith in our election system for some, but constantly saying there is a problem when currently none exist, could lead to a real problem one day going unnoticed.


lorimar t1_itr3fsh wrote

> should one day, true fraud were to happen

It will, the GOP will make sure of it. They've already convinced themselves that it is happening, so why not cheat for their side?


Laszlo-Panaflex t1_itrkd3g wrote

It already has happened. The only cases of voting irregularities have been in favor of candidates on the right. Just a few examples that have facts and data to back them up:

Lots of issues in Ohio in 2004 helped W get reelected:

Statistically fishy votes in Florida that same year:

Voter disenfranchisement in Florida swayed the election in 2000:

The left has allowed the GOP to get away with blatant fraud, minimally fighting back while maintaining a level of decorum, and these crazy right wingers have the absolute gall to loudly accuse the left of fraud.


joexner t1_itr5rgt wrote

Like Russia with the made-up threats of Ukraine using dirty bombs


SLEEyawnPY t1_itr7s7y wrote

>Not just that it could erode faith in our election system for some

I still have complete faith in US electoral system to the extent that at least one of the small number of very wealthy candidates whom corporations with a lot of money have spent a lot of money on making one of the small number of available candidates, will eventually be determined to be elected to a particular high office. for some amount of time.


Linux-Is-Best t1_itrd5zw wrote

In other news, water is wet. /Sarcasm

All jokes aside, I agree, it would be very nice and healthy for us to get money out of politics. Because as it stands now, it just seems like some wealthy rich man or woman always is propped up above everyone and everything and that isn't working for our democracy.


WaterIsWetBot t1_itrdats wrote

Water is actually not wet; It makes other materials/objects wet. Wetness is the state of a non-liquid when a liquid adheres to, and/or permeates its substance while maintaining chemically distinct structures. So if we say something is wet we mean the liquid is sticking to the object.


How do you make holy water?

Make sure to boil the hell out of it.


SLEEyawnPY t1_itrdy4h wrote

>All jokes aside, I agree, it would be very nice and healthy for us to get money out of politics.

Yes, I think it would be better all around if politicians had to pay us to listen to them. that's not a joke either they should pay up.


FatherOfTheSkye t1_itr8z44 wrote

I can see it now when Diehl (hopefully) gets defeated. There will be election fraud and the machines didn’t work and the mail in was rigged by the Knights Templar at the postal service…. Blah blah blah. Of course if he gets elected the machines will be magnificent beautiful perfect running machines.


SheeEttin t1_itrf2fn wrote

Nah they'll probably claim fraud either way, just to be sure.


MOGicantbewitty t1_ittgxdt wrote

The worst part is that most of the postal workers are firmly in the Republican camp and support Trump and his delusions


CoolAbdul t1_itqved2 wrote

We need a list of the people running for office in Mass who are election deniers.


SLEEyawnPY t1_itqw63s wrote


ChainmailleAddict t1_itrd0gv wrote

Lombardo refuses to comment on the 2020 election, and dodged when directly asked by his supporter. He's an election-denier, as is most of the Republican state reps if not all for voting for "election integrity" measures.


ak47workaccnt t1_itqxt2u wrote

Pretty sure it's all of them except the guy running for auditor


CoolAbdul t1_itr0dyr wrote

Yeah that is pretty much my understanding as well, though I think Evangelidis, the Worcester county sheriff running for reelection, is also sane.


spokchewy t1_itrjn51 wrote

Shawn Dooley has successfully walked back his votes and support for Donald Trump and is somehow walking the centrist “tightrope”.

PLEASE, PLEASE, if you are in the Norfolk, Worcester, Middlesex district for State Senate, GOTV for Becca Rausch.


AnistarYT t1_itsjxyf wrote

Which ones? The 2016 deniers or the 2020 ones?


Gold-Door-3608 t1_itsmduo wrote

Didn’t Hillary deny the 2016 election, claiming Russian interference? Probably funded directly through the Clinton Foundation with Saudi Money.


AccomplishedGrab6415 t1_itsxq3t wrote

There actually was Russian interference though.

It's been proven.


ajuice01 t1_iturwn0 wrote

Wasn’t it proven that Hillary had people fabricate that evidence?


AccomplishedGrab6415 t1_ituuyp2 wrote

If you're referring to Durham, everything he's put forth has been repeatedly shown to be bullshit.


AccomplishedGrab6415 t1_ituu2zj wrote

If this is the case, it's news to me. Please cite a credible source for this.


ajuice01 t1_itv8268 wrote

What about your credible source for proven Russian interference?


AccomplishedGrab6415 t1_itvckgp wrote

LMFAO. Another MAGAt/conservative/liberatarian/CT/trump apologist fanboi.

Anyone: States a widely accepted truth and fact

You: States wild contradiction to said fact.

Anyone: Prove your contradiction.

You: No, you prove your already proven and widely accepted fact.

But I'll play along. Here's 5 sources for you. Now pony up.


Practical_Salt_258 t1_itt28ut wrote

You need a different news source.


AccomplishedGrab6415 t1_itt4xzo wrote

Sorry you don't agree with the reality of the issue.

You need new sources if you think it didn't really happen.


Negative_Recording_4 t1_itug4sz wrote

Yes it did happen …and was proven Clinton paid for the bullshit dossier you all swallowed for over 2 years .


techiemikey t1_itzcm6y wrote

Deny the results? No. Said Russia interfered? Yes.

But she also conceded that she lost, as well as saying "russia should be punished so they wouldn't do it again" rather than saying "She should be installed as president." The closest I heard during the time personally was "the electoral college has the right to vote their conscience if the state allows for it."


techiemikey t1_itzev8t wrote

As a note, while a few people may have denied the 2016 election results (as people have denied EVERY election result), the general popular claims regarding the 2016 election and 2020 election are drastically different in both what was claimed to be done and the remedy being sought.

First, let's establish what people are claiming for 2020. For the 2020 election, the people common things people are claiming is: "people illegally voted" "new ballots were created for people who didn't exist", "people voted multiple times", and "votes were lost/changed". The loser refused to concede the loss. And to counter this blatant cheating, people wanted the election fully overturned.

Meanwhile, there is the 2016 election. The claim was different. It was that Russia was interfering in the election, but not that the votes were changed/added/removed. And to my knowledge the remedy was not a new election or to overturn the results, but to hold Russia accountable so they wouldn't do it again and shore up election results. Hillary conceded that she lost the election.

These may sound different, but the severity and remedies involved are drastically different.

The severity of claims in 2016 is "They interfered to help the other side, and the results likely changed as a result of this". This is bad, but as a country it's a "ok...we should stop that in the future" level of bad. In 2020, the claim is "They literally stole the vote illegally so the results aren't what were counted, but rather a different result." This is REALLY REALLY bad. Like, if this is what happened, you can't trust anything about the government.

TL;DR: in 2016 people said "influence happened, we should stop that in the future" In 2020 people said "votes were changed. Burn it down."


Calliesdad20 t1_itrvale wrote

You can’t argue logic with morons, anyone who watched 2000 mules and believed that crap is a nimrod. When you ask for proof of massive election fraud , there is no reply. If the democrats had this vote stealing technology etc, they would let McConnell win re election ?

Lindsey graham ? Why is it when the republicans win there is no voter fraud ,but when they lose it’s fraud ? That’s not how fraud unless it’s bs. So only the democrats have fraudulent ballots ? It’s ridiculous I vote mail in ballot, and it’s far more secure than morons believe , I have to fill out a ballot, put it in an envelope, sign it Put my address ,put it in another envelope.sign that put my address and mail it in ,

it’s also much more convenient Republicans hate mail in voting ,and try to disenfranchise voters because there policies are wildly unpopular And if it was one person / one vote instead of the stupid electoral college they would never win the presidency look at the polls the majority wants abortion ,some form of gun control, republicans want to privatize social security and Medicare ,all terribly unpopular .


Pappa_Crim t1_itvgp8j wrote

I am not a liberal but the election shit urks me. We found nothing and its time to move on.


No_Rope6843 t1_itrigu2 wrote

We'll solve the problem the same way we did with the fascists in the 1940s. Time to start training!


sailboat198476 t1_ituchd6 wrote

Why post this here? It's a wapo article that has nothing to do with Massachusetts...

Take your brainwashing to r/politics. We want to talk about food and cool places to hike.


M80IW t1_itwto8o wrote

This doesn't belong in this sub.


-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_itrkt4d wrote

I love how for 2 years leading up to the 2020 election, the media was saying how easy it was to hack voting machines and steal elections. As soon as the Democrats won, we are no longer able to talk about that stuff anymore. Seems strange to me.


DumbshitOnTheRight t1_itrs72h wrote

If you have physical access to those machines, they're hackable. That's true of damned near every computing device.

There is no evidence that occurred, in either the 2016 or 2020 elections.


-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_itrw85y wrote

Again, It is funny how the media, for 2+ years, before the 2020 election kept talking about vulnerability in our voting system. If you even speak about the subject after 2020, you are an "election denier".

Just strange to me, that is all.


DumbshitOnTheRight t1_itryp2f wrote

Not it's not, because you're deliberately and dishonestly conflating "Voting machine security if you can get your hands on the innards are hackable" and "the election was compromised by hacked voting machines."

I've also noticed the "election deniers" (read: The people who thin without a shred of evidence that the votes tallied were compromised) also think those elected from the GOP should be unseated as well.


-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_its7i4q wrote

We had people calling Trump an illegitimate president without any proof of Russia interference for years before the investigation was complete. Are they "election deniers"? They had no evidence?

How about in 2001 when Rep. Waters objected and attempted to challenge the certification?

How about in 2005 when Rep. Jones and Sen. Boxer challenged and objected the certification for Bush due to "voter irregularities"?

How about in 2017 when House Demograts challenged the electoral vote?

Were they all election deniers also?


Negative_Recording_4 t1_itufzbr wrote

You libs were all just fine with it when Hillary and Abrams screamed from the rooftops about election stealing ? Biggest hypocrites on the planet .


ShoreNorth9 t1_itsfjdk wrote

I agree. Hillary calling President Trump an “illegitimate president” is a threat to democracy.


DrOblivion5550 t1_itr4c29 wrote

Just don't vote for them. Sooner or later they will be out of favor.


pfmiller0 t1_itrzm7w wrote

I don't know about you, but I only get one vote. It's all the crazy people voting for the absolute worst candidates they can dig up that are the problem.


SileAnimus t1_its3pau wrote

Welcome to any sort of Democracy. First time?


DrOblivion5550 t1_itsjqqs wrote

Everything takes time. MY family has been here since 1620, and during that time they all come and go..just hang in there.


[deleted] t1_itru935 wrote

That’s such a scary thought, people actually want a one party political rule without any outside ideas or thoughts. Just the way things are going now, media censorship, social media blacklisting, removal of things like YouTube’s like and dislike ratio. It’s like we’re on a crash course for keep your mouth shut and do what the government tells you, and the worst part is the majority is like down for that lol

America needs to ditch the ridiculous two party system, and America needs to realize every side needs each other to keep things and check and progress forward. One party to rule them all would not be ideal. Regardless of your political leaning. I can’t believe people actually think this is the idea of progress.


DrOblivion5550 t1_itsjwgq wrote

The only upside I have is being 72 I'm destined to be gone


techiemikey t1_itzfsug wrote

No, we don't want a one party political rule. We just don't want people who deny reality in power.

I do agree we need to ditch the ridiculous 2 party system. I would love any voting system that isn't First Past the Post to allow for it. Can you image a ranked choice vote or similar where we get to say "Hey...Here are all my prefered candidates...but if they don't have enough, after that, here are the priorities among people I disagree with". It would mean we could get more moderate people through.


Sinman1982 OP t1_itrcxar wrote

Speaking like a sane person, too rare in the US!


DrOblivion5550 t1_itsk48d wrote

It's the benefit of being '72 and on my way out! lol. Besides my family has been in America since 1620, and it's lasted this long because of good people!


Sawfish1212 t1_its16sl wrote

You mean like the way Hillary continued to doubt the election results, and numbers of others in the media and democratic party?

This isn't something only one side does


revjoe918 t1_itr2ngp wrote

Does this include 2016 election deniers and Russian collusion claims too?


DumbshitOnTheRight t1_itr3ghu wrote

No one sane denied the 2016 election results.


revjoe918 t1_itr3vaw wrote

I'd agree, but plenty of mainstream people did it, and there was even people who lied to start a whole investigation over it.


medforddad t1_itr6217 wrote

That's not true. No one disputed the actual results or claimed it was actually stolen. Virtually everyone agrees with the actual counting of the votes (no votes were added, changed, or thrown out).

People were saying there was interference from, and collusion with, Russia. Those actions would be illegal in their own right and would have influenced the outcome of the election, but no one said the actual outcome of the election should be overturned.

It would be like if I kidnapped you on the morning of the election, and didn't let you go until after so that you couldn't vote. That kidnapping was illegal. And it certainly affected the tally of the votes. But that doesn't mean that the results should be overturned or that you should be allowed to vote retroactively.

The difference is that there are plenty of people that say the actual outcome of Biden's election was wrong. That he actually "stole" the election. That votes were directly tampered with. And it's not just a couple of crazies that are shouted down by the "sane" Republicans. There's a huge portion of sitting Senators and Representatives and Supreme Court justices who believe this crap.


[deleted] t1_itrukqb wrote

I love how as soon as you say something contradicting to the left on Reddit. Your downvoted to oblivion. It’s like they’re mad because they know the comments usually right lol

Ironic really. Pretty soon we’ll all end up on some sort of like/dislike ratio. If your not down with the brainwash then GTFO essentially, scary world we’re living in.


Mission-Meaning377 t1_itsj44g wrote

The echo chamber is a key part to why all of the left is so surprised and taken a back when the voters punish their candidates.


Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_itr58ap wrote

That’s different, you are allowed to deny those because it’s the right side.


Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_itr4c7u wrote

I’m starting to think that people obsessed with the tiny number of people who are actually election deniers are just as bad as the election deniers.

I get it, it’s always easier to boil your world view down to simple perspectives but you would think progressives would have learned about getting behind the idea that people who don’t agree with them are inherently bad. We’ve seen the backlash around bitter clingers, basket of deplorables etc. stop giving fuel to populist movements by being so dismissive


medforddad t1_itr6iby wrote

> Tiny number of people who are actually election deniers

You're not paying attention:

> Nearly 300 Republicans seeking those offices this November have denied or questioned the outcome of the last presidential election, according to a Washington Post analysis. > > Many will win. More than 170 election deniers are running in districts or states where Republicans are expected to win, according to Cook Political Report race ratings and Partisan Voter Index. Dozens more are in competitive races.


[deleted] t1_itrv509 wrote

Linking an article from the Washington post which is unequivocally a left leaning media outlet isn’t the best example to use against someone else to say “you’re not paying attention”

That’s like someone linking a post from Fox News and expecting you to take it as fact


medforddad t1_itslxqh wrote

They're just numbers. Which numbers have the liberal bias?


[deleted] t1_itsmbah wrote

Lmao the ones Jeff Bezos pumps up, plus I don’t think you want compare numbers and statistics. When you start rattling those off that’s when the left gets mad


disco_t0ast t1_ittcm24 wrote

So in other words, you cannot dispute anything presented in the source, you can only resort to ad hominem.

Typical conservative.


medforddad t1_itug6pw wrote

We're not even talking statistics here. It's literally just counting up names. If you're saying it's wrong, it would be very easy to show that.


[deleted] t1_itvtvl1 wrote

No I’m not criticizing the article per say or any of the information presented. Simply saying that posting from a biased news source and then proceed to tell someone there not paying attention is just ironic and funny.


medforddad t1_itvw9xu wrote

The information is true whether it's published there or anywhere else. If they're not aware of the large number of election deniers in (and running for) political offices, then they've not been paying attention.

It's not like you'd have to be reading The Washington Post to know about it. They're not the exclusive location for this information. The politicians themselves have been saying all of this stuff out in the open.


[deleted] t1_itw3ena wrote

Sure that’s fine. Again you’re missing the point. Also I really don’t care to argue this matter lol. Like I said before, posting liberal based news links and telling someone there not paying attention is ironic. Regardless of the story content or facts.


medforddad t1_itw5g26 wrote

> Also I really don’t care to argue this matter lol

Says the guy who replied to me 3 times in 6 minutes LOLOLOLOLOLllllOOOoloooLLooooLLLLol


[deleted] t1_itw7gq3 wrote

That’s how I type. In spurts. Easier for me to get things out than one big long rant. “Not only” was referring to not only have you ignored my point that I’m not arguing election denier BS. But more or less the irony behind the statement of the redditor above, not only that but you also can’t see your own hypocrisy in the left wing political media. But that’s gone over your head a few times now so we’ll just leave it at that.

Good day.


[deleted] t1_itw7z73 wrote



[deleted] t1_itw3t0e wrote

Not only that but it’s an opinion piece and uses buzzwords like MAGA mob, yea so the millions of Americans that voted for him in 16 and 2020 is a “mob”. I wouldn’t trust a letter of that article until it’s verified from a alternative source. Man’s really out here arguing that an opinion piece from a left wing media outlet should be taken as fact. Get a grip FFS


[deleted] t1_itw4c54 wrote

Not only that but the hypocrisy from the left trying to call the right election deniers like there’s wasn’t fishy stuff going on is comical. Trump won without a controversy like this and they stilled rioted and looted. It’s like the left acts like election deniers are insufferable slobs who cry over a fair election while at the same time pretend they didn’t scream trumps not my president for the last 4 years. Again double standard irony


medforddad t1_itw51i1 wrote

> Not only that ...

Not only what? You didn't respond to anything I wrote.

A total non sequitur, and also completely wrong. so... cool.


Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_itr6rby wrote

No one cares about this stuff except for terminally online Reddit and Twitter dweebs.


medforddad t1_itr7di0 wrote

So 300 republicans running for office, and the people voting for them, and the "poll watchers" don't care about this stuff?


SLEEyawnPY t1_itra9w2 wrote

A problem is there are people who thought there was compromise with the GOP to begin with..


Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_itr9vu6 wrote

It seems like we only care about this stuff when it is politically beneficial to do so.


Sinman1982 OP t1_itrdc47 wrote

You are entitled to your opinions, not your own set of facts. GOP election deniers don't have any proof, just the orange savior repeating the lies.


Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_itre4bj wrote

My point is not that you are wrong, I agree there are a lot of loons running around about the election of 2020. My point is that it doesn’t matter, won’t move the needle to help progressives and will likely just galvanize the people you don’t like. Focus on a positive message that brings people to your side instead of creating binary traps that force people into feeling like you are trying to be morally superior.


bostonbananarama t1_itrhwxc wrote

> Poll: 61% of Republicans still believe Biden didn’t win fair and square in 2020

You can't possibly be foolish enough to think that 61% of Republicans believing the election was stolen isn't an issue. Can you?

What do you think happens when you erode confidence in elections? People resort to political violence or other illegal tactics. Government loses legitimacy as well. Election denial is catastrophic.


Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_itubl7b wrote

It is an issue but the take away of polls like that should not be to use it as some false binary idea that anyone who questions election integrity is a conspiracy theorist. The reason you have polls like that is many citizens don't trust the election process. With the growth of mail in voting, the labeling of common sense voter ID laws as somehow bad and the overplayed hysteria over state election laws like Georgia you have had a lot of change and turmoil over the election process. There are always winner effects with elections - Dems used "Russian Hackers" in 2016 as their version of the republicans "Stolen Election" of 2020 and i am sure the will be other trends. The key takeaway to this by both parties should be - lets work to make sure we address what we can around the integrity of our elections. Instead, we do what most people in Reddit world and Twitter world like to do - use it as a chance to create a false binary.


bostonbananarama t1_itue4v5 wrote

> With the growth of mail in voting

Vote by mail is safe and accurate. Oregon since 2000, and Washington since 2011 have been broadly vote by mail without issue. Absentee ballots are used everywhere. Questioning voting by mail is a political stunt by the right.

> the labeling of common sense voter ID laws as somehow bad

Voter ID laws were enacted to solve a problem that didn't exist. In-person voter fraud is incredibly rare. Proponents of voter ID laws have said that they are designed to disenfranchise. Stopping lawful voters from voting is bad, it's a poll tax with extra steps.

> and the overplayed hysteria over state election laws like Georgia you have had a lot of change and turmoil over the election process.

Yes there is a concern when voter laws are changed to be easier to rig in the future. When those who supported a failed coup change the laws to make it easier next time, that's concerning

> There are always winner effects with elections - Dems used "Russian Hackers" in 2016 as their version of the republicans "Stolen Election" of 2020 and i am sure the will be other trends.

No they absolutely did not. No one said the vote was rigged. It was alleged, and fairly conclusively proven that Russian agents created a web of disinformation to influence the election. It was not asserted that the vote was fraudulent, nor that Trump wasn't the rightful president in any meaningful way.

The majority of the Republican party is of the opinion that the election was illegitimate and that vote totals were changed. No evidence of this has ever been substantiated. Over 60 lawsuits were filed and dismissed.

> The key takeaway to this by both parties this should be - lets work to make sure we address what we can around the integrity of our elections.

Both parties? One party should stop being insurrection planning fascists. If Republicans didn't gerrymander and disenfranchise they'd never hold the executive branch again, nor a majority in Congress. They no longer have a platform because their ideas are wildly out of touch with the majority of Americans.

Please stop with your dishonest framing and false equivalency. If you think both sides are to blame you simply aren't paying attention.


Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_ituq1pz wrote

It is not really a matter of which side is to blame or who is right or wrong. If you feel like you hold some kind of moral righteousness over people due to the points above then fine, you are a truly good person and the people who disagree with you are really bad. Enjoy your reddit victory.

All I seek to point out is that maybe, framing it as moral superiority when you don't like the behavior and then dismissing the behavior when the "right side" engages in it might actually be part of the reason why these populist movements sometimes gain momentum. \


bostonbananarama t1_itvqh41 wrote

> It is not really a matter of which side is to blame or who is right or wrong.

One side has advanced clearly fabricated claims and then attempted a coup. It truly is a matter of one side being wrong.

> If you feel like you hold some kind of moral righteousness over people due to the points above then fine, you are a truly good person and the people who disagree with you are really bad. Enjoy your reddit victory.

Never said anything like this, you're just deflecting at this point.

> All I seek to point out is that maybe, framing it as moral superiority

Haven't done this.

> when you don't like the behavior and then dismissing the behavior when the "right side" engages in it might actually be part of the reason why these populist movements sometimes gain momentum. \

WTF are you going on about? Behavior I don't like? They're not wearing white after Labor Day or putting pineapple on a pizza, they're trying to violently overthrow the government and install a Christian Authoritarian government. I'd say you're an idiot but you know precisely what you're doing and it's disgusting.


Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_itvs88n wrote

ok, sorry, didn't know i was dealing with a progressive QANON type. moving along.


techiemikey t1_itzgixz wrote

No offense...but what part do you believe was QANON-esque there?


Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_itzu0kl wrote

Generally, anytime I am dealing with people from either side of the political aisle, I judge their commentary based on their level rigidity and their impression of the scale of the problem. I'm basically trying to determine whether they come at problems from the perspective of Religion/Moral Righteousness or Pragmatism.

In this case, I readily admit there is a population of people who can be bucketed as election deniers but the scale and impact these people have is such that they are best categorized as a small level concern. The poster above is elevating their scale to such that they are a large enough threat to equate to overthrowing the government and installing an authoritarian government. No serious person thinks this is reasonable, the same way that its not reasonable to think the Biden admin is going to force us into a communist government. When you realize you are dealing with people that give too much weight to nonsense ideas, it is just time to cut your losses. They exist on the extreme edges of conservative and progressive viewpoints and when you dig into their mindsets, they really are not very different.


techiemikey t1_iu00hcc wrote

> No serious person thinks this is reasonable

Can you clarify what you mean by "no serious person thinks this is reasonable?" Because if "by serious" you mean "people who should be taken seriously" I agree. But people who are in position to win their election believe this, and unfortunately that means we have to take that risk seriously. As a currently example Kari Lake is running for Governor of Arizona, "I will win and I'll accept that result" to the question of "If you lose, will you accept the result", and she currently leads by 11 points in polling. Also, if she wins, she will be involved int he election certification process in 2024. Why should we not take this person seriously?

>The poster above is elevating their scale to such that they are a large enough threat to equate to overthrowing the government and installing an authoritarian government.

Two things: first, you realize that was attempted, right? The over throwing of the government?

Also, are you aware that there are members of congress saying things like “We need to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian Nationalists.”?


Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_iu0chu3 wrote

I was referencing the fact that the chance of an authoritarian government in the US is very slim, to the point that it is not worth worrying about regardless of whether a small handful of loons get elected. We have them on both sides of the House right now and they generally don't have any real power aside from being useful idiots to the media.

Regarding the attempted overthrow - you are right, there was an attempt. Learn a lesson from it - keep giving these movements oxygen by pushing an us against them ideology, binary thought on every issue, and picking away at the trust of our institutions and we will have to deal with some of the stuff you are concerned about. Instead of continuing to stoke divide, start being more pragmatic, look to strengthen trust in institutions and things will get better.


IrishTempa420 t1_itr179m wrote

Why is the end of the world if/when trump does it but when it’s your side. You have excuses or it’s different ?


ladybug1259 t1_itr2n9h wrote

Please tell me which Democrats stoked a violent rebellion in the Capitol that threatened the vice president and Congress. I'd also like to know exactly when you think that happened. 🤔


IrishTempa420 t1_itr5i4s wrote

So because of Jan 6 is why it’s “different” Ok I can understand that.


IrishTempa420 t1_itr39p7 wrote

Hillary literally said it a bunch of times.


HaElfParagon t1_itrbbli wrote

Hillary was bitching about how the electoral college was a sham.

When she lost, she gave up like she was supposed to.


Kissfan07 t1_itrjnj7 wrote

So because she won the popular vote, the EC is a sham?? Dems carried on for months about abolishing the electoral college, something that has elected every president outside of assassinations. .


alongfield t1_itrmkox wrote

> So because she won the popular vote, the EC is a sham?

Yes, that's why it's a sham. In an actual democratic system, the most votes wins.

> Dems carried on for months about abolishing the electoral college

Yes, that's because it's a terrible idea that only serves a very vocal minority. None of them are saying "Let's storm the Capitol, execute the people we don't like, and then get rid of the EC.". That's just Republicans.


Kissfan07 t1_itshy62 wrote

Oh well, that’s how we elect presidents.


alongfield t1_itsppz3 wrote

Oh well, guess women and black people can't vote. Oh wait, they can, because you can change things that sucked in the original. Like the Electoral College and allowing political parties to exist.


Kissfan07 t1_itucj3u wrote

They do exist.


alongfield t1_itudp72 wrote

Yes, that's literally what I said. If you actually knew anything about the Constitution, you would've already known that.


HaElfParagon t1_itroeao wrote

The electoral college is a sham because it allows the president to be chosen by a small number of "elites" instead of the people, which is what should exist. Now, of course that's a matter of opinion. But to pretend Hillary tried staging an insurrection by bitching about the electoral college is intellectually dishonest.


Kissfan07 t1_itsi2m7 wrote

It’s not dishonest. All I heard for a year was how she won the popular vote, and how she should be president.


disco_t0ast t1_ittd4a4 wrote

That you are literally trying to equate an armed raid on the Capitol incited by the loser of the election with the express intent of disrupting a constitutionally mandated process (and harm elected officials) with someone being vocal about a corrupt and inequitable system if voting is fucking mind blowing.

Where can i get whatever the fuck you are smoking.


Kissfan07 t1_itucmkm wrote

You guys make it out like it was the civil war. A bunch of nut jobs went to the capitol. Wow.


disco_t0ast t1_itucxb0 wrote

You're attempting to normalize and excuse sedition.



Kissfan07 t1_itw4nky wrote

Not really. Just saying it’s done and over with.


disco_t0ast t1_itw4wf3 wrote

So is 9/11. So is the Holocaust. Should we act like they weren't significant events in history because they're "done and over with"?


Kissfan07 t1_itw556k wrote

Likes it’s even close in comparison.


disco_t0ast t1_itwafyj wrote

It doesn't need to be close. They are all significant in their own ways.

Jfc I am wasting my time and energy with you, little fucking pandemic-denying, anti-science MAGAt-fueled pissant.


HaElfParagon t1_itxgq13 wrote

You're right, at least with 9/11 the organizer got what he had coming to him. Trump is unfortunately still walking a free man.


HaElfParagon t1_itxgnl1 wrote

To execute the vice president and violently force a despot to maintain power.

Finished that for you.


HaElfParagon t1_itxgk9y wrote

Right, all you heard for a year was bitching. Did anyone attempt an insurrection? No, only republicans have done so.


Kissfan07 t1_iu1x1t5 wrote

Not a big deal. Nothing was going to happen. You act like they were goi g to bring down DC.


HaElfParagon t1_iu47icq wrote

You've been really drinking the fox coolaid huh?

You realize they set up gallows specifically to publicly execute the vice president, right? just because they were horrifyingly incompetent doesn't mean they weren't trying to overthrow the government.


DumbshitOnTheRight t1_itr3u6w wrote

^[citation ^needed]

And assuming there are actual truthful sources for it, people didn't storm the capitol to kill Congress members, did they?


IrishTempa420 t1_itr5mo6 wrote

Just because you’ve down voted this ☝🏻 doesn’t mean it didn’t happen 🤣


alongfield t1_itrba24 wrote

I noticed that you STILL haven't provided any proof. You should try providing proof instead of crying about the well deserved downvotes.


IrishTempa420 t1_itrj5ux wrote

Go on YouTube and type it in. Many videos.


alongfield t1_itrm0hl wrote

OK got it, you have no proof and it never happened.


677536543 t1_its2aqt wrote

Yes, it's (D)ifferent when the left does it.