this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
169 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4573 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago (6 children)

If they observe unarmed and nonviolently (a lot to ask for, I know) then I actually don't mind this. One of the things that made Trump's initial fraud claims so effective is nobody really knew, so the conspiracy theories flourished in the unknown. But if there's tons of witnesses everywhere, then this just becomes harder to accomplish, not easier.

[–] czech@lemm.ee 27 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I hear that but ''witnesses'' who don't understand the process are bound to cry foul even when everything is running smoothly. We saw it in 2020.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

True. But they're still adding evidence. We can point to things like the mail worker delivering the mail-in ballots the other day. While sure, a whole bunch of people will see that and cry foul, those people were already lost. But a normal person can watch the video that was recorded and see with their own eyes a postal worker going about their day-to-day job.

I think that video hurt Trump's fraud claims in the long run, despite it initially going viral as some kind of nefarious plot. They shot themselves in the foot, as they so often do.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't think "normal" people are looking at any of the details. The big lie will be out there regardless.

Also you should consider voter intimidation any time proven violent gangs are hanging around polls, whether they are doing so "peacefully" or not.

edit:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-laws-against-intimidation-voters-and-election-workers

Intimidating conduct can take many forms. For example, courts have found the following conduct to constitute unlawful intimidation:

...efforts to closely follow, monitor, or surveil voters at polling places

and improper threats of potential criminal prosecution, arrest, or other legal action.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not so sure, things are easy to google these days. And yes, I did mention that unarmed and nonviolently was a lot to ask for.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

but there are even nonviolent ways they can intimidate people that is against the law.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-laws-against-intimidation-voters-and-election-workers

Intimidating conduct can take many forms. For example, courts have found the following conduct to constitute unlawful intimidation:

...efforts to closely follow, monitor, or surveil voters at polling places

and improper threats of potential criminal prosecution, arrest, or other legal action.

not to mention the mere presence of such a notorious group may be intimidating, it's like an unspoken threat. I certainly would not feel 100% comfortable with them there - would you?

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

Yeah that's a fair point.

load more comments (4 replies)