this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
104 points (83.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2295 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
 

Here you go, a "real" source. He said there were more bullet ballots than there likely really are, but there's still a really suspiciously high number of them. How is this not at least worth investigating?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DmMacniel 10 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Damn imagine if true, knowing that your US Government was illegally elected. This really should be investigated for the sake of the entire world.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 32 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well, we saw it in 2000 so that's nothing new...

[–] DmMacniel 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

according to that planetcritical post I shared, it seems that the public still doesn't know the actual results of the 2000 election? Doesn't seem democratic to me.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

It doesn't seem democratic because America is a corporate plutocracy masquerading as a democracy.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 3 days ago
[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Seems it's been investigated enough and no surprises, the numbers are off and allegations based on no evidence.

Remember when there was a bunch of idiots from the red camp, all bent on the idea Biden stole the election? Well, it's that and the blue camp has idiots too. This is something we'll have to get used to now, a bunch of idiots from X claiming Y stole the election.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Except for one MASSIVE difference, Harris isn't making the claims, calling for violence and to "stop the count"

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Remember when they demanded a hand recount, got it, and then kept lying about the results even after they were verified?

That's the difference.

[–] DmMacniel 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

but it can't be that off the margin. from 1% to 7.2% in the case of Arizona, thats highly suspicious. Also the theory shared by those computer scientists is too damn convincing so those ballots should be hand counted, imho.

https://www.planetcritical.com/p/cyber-security-experts-warn-election-hacked

Also I will never understand why USA insist on using Computers for voting.

Or how a winner-takes-it-all approach is in any way fair or reasonable to the people.

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The source you linked is referencing the claims that snopes is partially debunking

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

"partially debunking" here basically means "correcting numbers that were slightly too large and clarifying the explanation given is a hypothesis". This is still suspicious as heck, especially given all the other ways republican politicians and voters and funders have tried to influence and tamper with the election

[–] naught@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago

I mean this puts a bad taste in my mouth for the credibility of the letter:

In an email, North Carolina State Board of Elections spokesman Patrick Gannon told Snopes, "Without access to confidential data, there is no way that anyone could know what this individual claims to know about North Carolina's presidential election. North Carolinians cast secret ballots, and cast vote records and ballot images that could potentially provide this information are confidential in North Carolina. My first step in fact-checking this would be to ask the writer to show his work."

I welcome investigation & would fully believe if this is corroborated and true. I won't believe it until then especially when there are crucial discrepancies in tallies that invalidate some (not all) claims from the letter

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Their "theory" amounts to, "the Internet exists". They make no specific claim of a breach in election security and have no evidence of a breach. It's all purely, "somebody could have reprogrammed the machines at some unknown time and place."

They have no theory for how such a reprogramming would be distributed. Just fear mongering about how computers can be programmed to do anything.