this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
66 points (84.4% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2618 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
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

What seems more likely: 1) a vast conspiracy between the Trump campaign, a collection of hackers, Elon Musk and various workers at his super PAC, and any number of other insidious actors part of a shadowy cabal all conspired to hack the vote, and this one dude, who got almost every data point verifiably wrong and has demonstrated zero evidence for his other related claims, somehow "got it right." 2) a small amount of Trump voters didn't give a shit about or know much of anything about any other offices/candidates and just voted for Trump and left?

Right.

It's so sad to watch people grasp at conspiracy theories like this. Conspiratorial thinking is highly correlated with feelings of insecurity, low agreeability, narcissism, intolerance of uncertainty, feelings of a lack of control, fear, and a tendency toward confirmation bias and proportionality bias. So I guess seeing people on the left start indulging this way of thinking just like Trump supporters did isn't shocking, but it's still sad to see.

[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 1 points 46 minutes ago

Within every election, there is a certain number of bullet ballots to be expected. The norm falls around 1-2% or so, with an expected margin of error. Every swing state (and ONLY swing states). Hit around 5-12%.

There were 57 bomb threats that targeted ballot counting stations. All in swing states.

In pretty much every swing states, Trump won the Presidency, but Democrats won pretty much every other down ballot race?

The polls were pretty much correct for the swing states..... except for the Presidency?

There's coincidences and then there's fucking Looney Toons levels of improbability.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but considering all that, you don't think a single investigation should occur?

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

You didn't read the article did you? Or even the snopes "correction" of it? Pls do that before discounting it as fake, being wilfully ignorant about this does nobody any good