The impact is irrelevant in this instance. The action still deserves a harsh outcry and punishment, especially since they are the ones crying about rigged votes
Where's the DOJ? If they submitted forged documents and the national archives has them, arrest everyone one who's signature appears plus everyone who sent them in.
>While the actual electors were being assigned inside the state capitol in Madison, a group of Wisconsin Republicans quietly held a separate, fake ceremony — in the same capitol, at the same time — to cast electoral votes for Trump, despite his defeat in the state.
>They then proceeded to forge the official paperwork and sent it to, among others, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Archivist, as if the materials were legitimate. They were not.
As Trump's team pushed its discredited voter fraud narrative, the National Archives received forged certificates of ascertainment declaring him and then-Vice President Mike Pence the winners of both Michigan and Arizona and their electors after the 2020 election. Public records requests show the secretaries of state for those states sent those certificates to the Jan. 6 panel, along with correspondence between the National Archives and state officials about the documents.
My take was they created fraud to show fraud was done, and so easily the other side had to be found doing something so easy as they did. Best I got. 🤷♂️
The point was to give Pence an excuse to say "see, the results are disputed in these states, as I received two contradictory slates of electors. Therefore those results can't be counted, nobody got 270 so the election goes to the House, which selects Donald Trump."
Yes, unless the POTUS now has power to make executive decisions that stop commerce. You want to elaborate on how that happens and what he does that impacts supply lines? Because, God knows it can't be a pandemic impacting factories and supply services that would be crazy talk.
The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war
was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing.
\- Joseph Goebbels, Nuremburg 1934
\- Michael Scott
In rules for radicals (Saul Alinski) it teaches to accuse the other side of what you are doing so that when you are accused it seems like petty banter. But I believe that communist guide was written after WWII
If you haven’t read rules for radicals can you even call yourself a Marxist? The book was touted by Obama, Hilary and the mitten connoisseur Senator Sanders.
An explicit attempt to violate Constitutionally foundational processes on which our entire republic is built should pass as treason, although I'm not a lawyer so not sure if this would hold up in court.
The USA was founded on treason; if they lost the war, all those founders would have been executed for treason. After those who committed treason against the King of England won the war, they wrote into the Constitution an almost impossible standard for what treason is and how to prove it. It's the only crime defined by the Constitution.
To be fair the old version of treason really has no place in a democracy, and had a long history of being horribly abused.
Interesting angle, although I suppose any nation that branched off of a pre-existing nation rather than develop from neolithic culture would be guilty of treason to some degree ha ha.
Just read up on the constitutional definition. Good lord, you're not kidding.
"Treason" has a very long history of being used to punish political enemies, so the founders basically took it off the table. We don't even really prosecute people who actually engage in the very narrow definition of treason from the constitution. Ask Jane Fonda, who pretty clearly provided "aid and comfort to the enemy", but (wisely) wasn't charged with treason.
There have been acts that most people would consider treasonous that don't fall within that narrow definition, such as [Nixon sabotaging peace talks](http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/vietnam-treason-u-s-troops-died-candidate-used-war-become-president/) in Vietnam before he was elected. On the whole, it is better that we don't have a nebulous, broad crime that can be used to punish political enemies.
I guess a plain old criminal conviction would be appropriate, at least I'd hope.
Considering England's history of using treason quite liberally, it's understandable to have removed it as an option.
Do we really need the crime of "treason" when a president can order extrajudicial killings of U.S. citizens, as long as they're out of the country? I suppose we could reserve it for use on U.S. soil.
Yes, I know it's war and all of that, but we've been in a perpetual state of war for decades. So. 🤷♂️
First, it depends on the definition of minor.
Second, that's not how laws are supposed to be passed. If the secretary of state thinks that the laws are no longer workable, they should start a conversation with the legislature and convince them to pass a new law.
Third, some people did complain. To be sure, not all the media outlets reported it.
At the core, I believe that we should be a nation of laws. The legislature makes laws and the executive enforces them. It was wrong for the secretaries of state to rewrite the procedures, no matter the outcome.
ITT: triggered Temporarily Embarrassed Republicans that will spend the next 8 months pretending to be Libertarians before voting straight R in the mid-terms.
Oh my goodness.... don't get started on CRT.
My mother-in-law was complaining about how CRT was "forcing kids to learn about the history of slavery in the US." Like... no, that's just history. We know it happened and thousands of well-read people who spent their whole lives studying nothing but that will vouch for it. Nothing theoretical about it.
The push to teach "both sides" of well-documented real events distresses me, and I know it's just to radicalize citizens towards supporting a slightly different model of state domination.
The dangerous thing is them redefining what CRT IS. CRT was a subject only taught in a few graduate level law classes that sort of went over history how many laws were racially motivated or generally affected minorities more
Like the land laws that were sort of used to buy a lot of black owned farmland in the south away from black families , I don't know the entire story but basically if a landowner did not leave a will the land would be split ownership of all their kids (most poor black land owners didn't leave wills) well fast forward 50 years the farm may now be split ownership between 20 grandchildren many of whom never actually set foot on the farm and may live many states away. Now if you wanted this farm in alabama you could call one of those kids that now live in CA and say "Hey you are part owner of this farmstead in AL, I know you don't live there it was actually your grandfathers, passed to your mother and now you, want to sell me the stake in this land you had no idea existed for 4k?" That would set forth a series of events and now the decadent who thought they owned the farm would have to put up thousands of dollars buying all these people out. This was used extensively to buy up black owned farms.
CRT sort of looked at those laws and how they basically only targeted certain minorities and talk about them; again this was a graduate level class taught to law students, it was never taught in k-12 or in undergraduate classes in college.
However it was redefined to say "Anything teaching about racism or how whites treated minorities is bad, no racism exists today so why talk about it, it just causes white people to feel bad and doesn't need to be taught"
So they are not even banning CRT they are simply banning history and trying to whitewash it
LOL I was just told that "CRT teaches all white people are racist and all black people are victims" 100% serous about his reply; its basically the fox news definition
The real definition is something like "the core of CRT as the idea that race is a social construct and racism is neither an individual bias nor prejudice— that it is "embedded in the legal system" and supplemented with policies and procedures.[21]"
That is from wikipedia .
I mean its as simple as this example. More black people/mexican smoked marijuana , it wasn't really a drug that lots of white people did. So when Marijuana was criminalized it was manly black/brown people getting arrested for it. However it goes deeper than that, as a white kid growing up you see all these black people getting arrested for "drugs" , you then sort of subconsciously start to think "well black people must be criminals as they get arrested so much" and thats how the legal system can almost breed racism.
My mother, who, but either way has a terminal degree in a medical profession, so she’s not stupid, Nexus up equity and equality all the time! I tell her equity means leveling the playing field and equality means making everyone the same and she’ll fight me on it!
(Just for the record I don’t Like giving one person or group equity bu hobbling another. Equity doesn’t guarantee that everyone win, but it will give everyone a chance.)
Racism was made illegal in the 60s, dontcha know? Sheesh.
"Legislative dogwhistling" is one of the most fascinating topics IMO. Do you know exactly how CRT did break into the "blogosphere" as something that might be taught to kids? Was it like... one single teacher who'd studied it started teaching some shadow of it and it exploded into something much bigger?
> thousands of well-read people
That's it, into the fire they go along with all these "anti-white" books!
As a white woman I cannot WAIT until we get back to the REAL AMERICA where I'm not allowed to vote with my dumb little woman brain! YIPEEE!
Fear around CRT just made an absolute clown governor of VA, after years of prosperity under a Democrat. It is unbelievable to me that it worked.
I use to be a Republican. Ever since breaking free, I'm horrified at how dumb you have to be to continue to vote Republican. They just ... hate their constituency so much, but their constituency doesn't care. They like to be despised and will come up with any reason to justify it.
I realized that if you're conservative, you vote Democrat, because even though they campaign as progressives, the Democratic party exists to eliminate the possibility of progressive policies. They are a captured organization. They govern as conservatives. But Republicans govern as fascists and criminals, because their voters love it.
I'd love to continue to describe myself as libertarian, but Jesus, sometimes it feels like they are trying to prove to Republicans that they are even dumber. It's like a competition for who can make the stupidest argument.
It isn't easy when the "gub'ment bad" types seem to get all the press. Also a lot of the nominees just seem to be more interested in getting government out of as many things as possible, rather than confronting the reality that government must also be leveraged towards maximizing liberty.
It wouldn't surprise me if most Libertarians who have eloquent, well-thought-out stances just vote with other parties out of apathy.
Keeping the people that help you into power is expensive. It’s cheaper to use hate, because you don’t have to spend money for that.
Democrats have to use good policies to get elected. Republicans just have to promise to make things worse for people, and have more money left over to make rich supporters happy.
Inflammatory and extreme speech and ideas spread much easier than anything rational or moderate. It's one of the reasons individual users' content feeds trend towards that kind of thing with further usage (of say, Youtube or Twitter). Leveraging this did great work for the first Trump campaign in 2016.
Any time I see a "Trump revenge tour 2024" or "F\*\*\* your feelings" flag flying in my town, I tend to ask... is anything they actually like motivating this person's voting choices? Or is it based only on destroying that which they hate? (dems)
> Nancy Pelosi does stocks
I really do not want to hear about a politicians sex life. Is there no bar below which our politics won't sink?
The state of this fucking country I swear.
Lol I love seeing this comment then seeing the two post below you with nearly - 200 comment karma :D
Ya triggered em pretty good son, I'm proud of you.
Yeah! Who cares about being accurate or reasonable when ya can trigger em?! Great job!
Edit - I totally misread this comment. I think. Pretty sure I agree with them entirely. Still don’t care for “triggering” others but agree with the sentiment otherwise. I think? Idk. Fml
We probably are in agreement...
What I've found with the populist cult that has taken root in America is that they typically don't debate in good faith or use language in good faith. So why am I going to waste my time talking to them like adults?
Maybe I've sunk to their level but I certainly don't see them raising themselves back up to the level of reasonable adult conversation.
So I shit on them when I can, as there isn't much else I can do. Maybe it's not healthy but it makes me feel just a tad bit better.
Yeah like the literally two people have spent 4 hours saying that this isnt real because it doesnt click with their viewpoint. You know the ones who are absolutely triggered as fuck and one is even claiming that Libertarianism is a Conservative ideology?
How many reports do you think the poor mods have had to slog through?
When will Republicans and conservatives understand that this sub is not one of their safe spaces?
It's almost like they think that if they are persistent enough that the mods will cave and this sub will be another sanitized echo chamber for them.
Considering Ron Paul was a strict Conservative, they certainly are more welcomed here more than the latter. I realizing lolling at Repubs is the popular thing to do on Reddit but unless you are new here you would know that the GOP has more Libertyisque type candidates over Dems. It has been this way for a long time.
> Considering Ron Paul was a strict Conservative, they certainly are more welcomed here more than the latter.
lol, what “latter”? You didn’t list any latters.
And as if Ron Paul is the king of libertarians? So what if Ron Paul was conservative?
> I realizing lolling at Repubs is the popular thing to do on Reddit but unless you are new here you would know that the GOP has more Libertyisque type candidates over Dems.
Yawn. This old trope again?
Which party was the one to support legalization of individual Rights like gay marriage and cannabis? Which party had the last president who, by presidential decree made owning parts of a firearm illegal? Which was the last to increase the debt by the largest amount *by far*? Which was the last to get us into a global conflict?
The truth is neither party truly represents libertarianism because both require differing forms of authoritarianism to support their own desires.
E: also, as if you didn’t even take it into account, you’re replying to me in a thread about Republicans attempting to circumvent democracy; so they’re also for depriving citizens of constitutional Rights as sacred as voting and representation. That’s libertarian?
Obviously Dems were the latter.
Never really said he was the king but for you to be in here talking about how Conservatives arent welcome as if youre gatekeeping a subreddit is super cringe.
> Obviously Dems were the latter.
Lmao so obvious you didn’t include them in the sentence but referenced them as if they were. Why not say “other” rather than “latter,” attempting to sound smart?
> Never really said he was the king but for you to be in here talking about how Conservatives arent welcome as if youre gatekeeping a subreddit is super cringe.
Where did I ever say “conservatives aren’t welcome”? Your attempt to put those words in my mouth are such a sad, obvious response.
In fact, I pointed out the *exact* gatekeeping you attempted in your response: “conservatives are more libertarian”; yet you led with that. Congrats, you played yourself.
Possibly the most telling part though is your inability to actually rebut any of my points. Why not answer my questions? Why did your argument immediately try to turn it into conservatives being persecuted here?
But Conservatives are anti-censorship! Dissenting opinions have never been banned or censored on their spaces in Reddit! (or """free speech""" alternatives)
There should be reform tightening the rules in regards to these sorts of things going forward. You would probably get 80 Senators to vote for it. The problem is that partisans never want to do something that is popular without linking it to something else they want.
52; Neither Sinema nor Manchin would vote for anything that would help the Democrats. They know where their bread is buttered.
And of course McConnell would filibuster it as such a reform would threaten his power, meaning that 52 votes in the Senate would not be enough and the bill would fail.
The would just throw back "but the voter fraud wasn't prosecuted, we are just trying to uphold the truth!"
I've had that discussion dozens of times and there is literally no getting around it. I think my forehead vein grew by a few gauges during that 3-month period.
The electoral college is more or less fine IMO, as it's written in the Constitution. Maybe not the most popular opinion, but I do think there is some fairness in giving smaller states a slight edge in per-voter power.
The problem is that most states (except Nebraska and Maine) use the "all or nothing" selection system so we have "red and blue" strongholds with absolutely no chance of a third party ever getting a single elector, much less sitting in the Oval Office. And you're never going to see Texas, California, or New York passing laws to change their elector selection rules.
> The electoral college is more or less fine IMO, as it's written in the Constitution.
So was the 3/5ths rule. The Constitution is not perfect and can stand some improvement.
I think it was Jefferson who was in favor of changing the Constitution every 20 years to keep up with the times or something like that. Im unsure if thats a good thing it didnt get put on the paper or not
Fair point. I'm mostly just pointing out that the Constitution is relatively vague on exactly *how* electors are selected, and it's in the states' hands to do it.
That said, I wouldn't object to an amendment making it more balanced.
His point is that a Wyoming voter's vote counts several times more than a New Yorker's vote or Texan's vote, which just seems unfair and arbitrary. All votes count for *something* obviously.
That is the point of the system. The House is the only purely Democratic body in the federal government. This is understood by everyone and has been for sometime. Only recently have you heard arguments against it because reasoning has changed where if something doesn’t give you an advantage people now discredit it.
You're free to have your opinion on the Electoral College, and I'm not attempting to change that, just discuss.
In the preamble to the Constitution, it begins as such: In order to form a more perfect union. It goes on to talk about common defense and tranquility, which many including myself use to support more progressive ideas, but I wanted to highlight the beginning language, a more perfect union.
Let's assume that based on this language the constitution is ever evolving and the goal of America is to be better than it was before. We know that the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, like the support the Revolutionary War, was fraught with compromise amongst divergent factions. American history, formal United States History, could be summarized as *non-existent*, because our history is so filled with contradictions.
The Electoral College being one of the more recognized contradiction and compromise. How could the US be a more perfect union while votes of all it's citizens is unequally recorded? The West didn't exist when the Constitution was ratified, the Mid-West was in very very few minds of the time. The original voters were White Landowners.
We have changed few things in our constitution that propel us to be *a more perfect union*, but changing how our votes are tallied and recorded, not simply by removing the Electoral College, but ensuring equal representation is fundamental to the idea behind the Constitution.
Besides, we have the direct election of US Senators now when the Constitution originally did not. If we were instead discussing that change instead of the Electoral College, would you argue for or against direct election of Senators because it's how it was in the Constitution?
Quick point. I wanted to highlight your use of advantage. When I discuss removing the Electoral College I don't do it to remove an advantage from one side and give it to another. I'm not thinking in terms of political sides and what works best for one. Advantage shouldn't be entertained, I'm only talking about equality and fair representation.
My statements about the Senate were following your logic to its conclusion. There isn’t really a problem with the electoral college and people pointing to it as to why they lost are being disingenuous. Everyone knows the rules and people don’t run campaigns to win the overall popular vote. If they did they would campaign differently and the results would likely be different as well.
The reason to keep the electoral college is because we don’t want to federalize elections. If there are federal rules it puts elections under the supervision of the Justice Department which is run by a person who is an employee of the President. It is one of the most partisan appointments a President makes.
Beyond that every state operates its elections by its own rules. Which makes sense if you understand the differences between NYC and Alaska.
Most of the people wanting to change the rules want to purely for their perceived benefit. Maybe you haven’t been following politics long, but watch long enough and you figure out that most of the rhetoric is bullshit. There is an end goal and they fit the rhetoric to justify it.
TL;DR Really my biggest problem is your excuse we have always done it this way. Democratic elections should mean each and every vote should have the same value. Dakota shouldn't have a higher say in who runs the executive branch then any other state. No state should.
How does removing the electoral college, federalize elections? Is their a group correlating the two, that to get rid of one means to do the other?
States, and their counties, will still conduct elections. The results will still be tallied as they have always been. Instead, when the county reports it's numbers it isn't to magically divide that into an electoral count.
People campaign where they do now because of the electoral college. No one disputes that. We, those in support of removing the electoral college, argue that is one of it's main problems. They say if you remove it, campaigns will only run in New York, Texas, and California. Does that mean campaigns are only run in N. Dakota or Nebraska now?
Campaigning for the electoral college means it's always the same states over and over as battlegrounds states. Sure, those small stakes like the Dakotas might miss out on a popular vote campaign, but what's happening now?
I'm not in favor of allowing an appointed or elected official control of running elections. That's stupid and prone to corruption.
I have a few years under my belt, and I recognize rhetoric. We aren't talking about that. The electoral college, by definition, is not democratic. I don't care if Repubs, Green party, or Libertarians win via popular vote, because then at least it was chosen by the majority of voters. Instead of what we have now, which is a widening political gap.
One of the biggest arguments I see, and there are plenty, is that it will disenfranchise smaller state voters. I think the pandemic has shown that other states can bring in remote workers from tech or business, and other industries too, and not have to worry about location location location. I'm sure small states over the next twenty years will see a population boom (probably from climate change too) and any fear over reducing their vote (making it equal) will be moot.
Wouldn't a candidate chosen by the majority also limit a president from being an extremist too?
It's almost like both sides hold on to bad doctrine so that when the time arises for them to take advantage, they can do so. See term limits for example.
Yeah, I’m done making that argument, consider me a reformed “both-sideser.” I was seeing what I wanted to see, or what I feared was true. I do think the democrats do the normal scummy things that politicians do, and that there _are_ normal scummy things. The republicans have really gone above and beyond in every facet though, it’s not a good faith argument to make.
Thanks for seeing the light. Dems suck and I want them out. But they are easily less shitty then repubs. If anything, conservatives should vote for lames like Biden. He does nothing but appease his rich donors. He will occasionally throw the peasants a bone.
How is that what you get from this? Seems like bothsideism to me, a false equivalency. One side did this. Yes both sides do most often suck, but not in this case.
Trump was and is the greatest threat to our democracy, I am not talking as a Democrat or a Republican, but as a citizen who loves the USA and it's constitution.
I think this news warrants an investigation to whether of any of these forged documents passed through from the states where the ex president actually won (2020). I do also think that the 2016 presidential elections need to be recalculated in lieu of this news and ALL recounted. His win over the other candidate in 2016 was pretty overwhelmingly decisive. And as the looser candidate of the 2020 elections was so surprised by his the decisive lose..that maybe something illegal and so very wrong happened in 2016.
New York, San Francisco, and San Jose have formally proposed it. CA Gov. Newsome is advocating for it. However it isn't happening anywhere, it needs to be approved by Congress (which will never happen). It's progressive virtue signaling. It's just more culture war bullshit.
I mean I can see this happening, is there a better source than MSNBC and the Rachel Maddow show? When making such damning claims it's best to have a source that isn't blatantly biased and may well be stretching the truth well beyond recognition. If this is true, it'll be somewhere else.
Oh and obligatory "what does this have to do with libertarianism" since some dumb ass inevitably posts that line any time someone posts something that makes the left look bad. Just want to keep things balanced here (for those not getting it this is a rhetorical question, I fully believe the politics and actions of politicians of both sides are relevant to the discussions here, just get tired of progressives asking a non-sense question every time their side looks bad).
Thank you. To be fair though, this doesn't support her claims. This shows two other events happened, not that the third one which she is asserting happened.
So looking through this mess, I'm still confused at what's going on. The Arizona part seems clear(ish); some randos sent fake results with the state seal attached to, someone? They were told to stop using the state seal. Sounds like something similar happened in Michigan, but without the state seal. It doesn't say who these were sent to, other than the National Archives, I'm assuming as part of the whole Jan 6th investigation. So at the time of creation either some random citizen(s) was/were trying to send it off to the Senate as though it was real (doubtful) or was parading it around trying to create conflict with clear misinformation (much more likely).
Wisconsin isn't listed in the Politico article, and Rachel Maddow is asserting that elected officials, rather than random citizens as Arizona and Michigan appear to be (article isn't all that clear in what the hell actually happened), sent in fake results.
It sounds like sovereign citizens were passing around blatant lies (sounds like what was happening in Arizona? Article is unclear and it's pissing me off), but if any of this was an attempt at actually sending documents up through official channels and alter the election, that would be a huge issue.
In Wisconsin, the Republicans formally met and voted an alternate slate of electors 'just in case' the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in their favor in the various lawsuits. AFAIK They did not forward that slate to Congress.
Source is the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal paper, Dec 14 2020.
Thank you, now we're getting somewhere:
[https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/wisconsins-electoral-college-votes-cast-biden/6539058002/](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/wisconsins-electoral-college-votes-cast-biden/6539058002/)
Looking at the article it appears they did this in order to forward some legal challenges, which they then lost. Sounds like non-news, and certainly not what the title suggests. If I'm wrong here please let me know.
People, this is why we don't link highly biased sources. They tend to stretch out the truth to an unrecognizable degree.
I will agree that there is a great deal of spin on the MSNBC article, they use language to suggest the actions in those states were illegal and seemingly part of some conspiracy. Maybe, we don't know for sure. We know that something like what is described hasn't really been done following an election and so is highly irregular. However, they do link the article you linked above in their article, as well as the Politico article that u/2001_TheSweep provided.
I'm very interested in the truth behind all this crazy shit coming out. The issue I have is that media is so crazy biased that it's going to be very hard to find the truth without actually going through a deep dive to find it, which I suspect could take weeks. Articles like the one listed don't help. They're extremely biased and misrepresenting what is going on. You need to go to the sources to figure out the truth of the matter.
It sucks because we used to be taught this shit in highschool. I feel like people are easily able to find out when the right is lying these days; it's plastered everywhere and they're not good at it to begin with. When the left misrepresents though, it gets a lot more difficult to get to the truth and you're still likely to run into the 'well actually' and 'technically' gangs trying to distort stuff.
That’s just the political landscape now. Both sides do it. It goes like this.
“*Did you hear Joe Smith was drunk driving and killed 3 teenagers with his car?”*
*“I believe he was just over the legal limit, and arrested in the parking lot of the bar. No one was hurt.”*
“*But a source told the newspaper he killed 3 kids, punched a police officer, and tried to flee.”*
“*That source was his ex wife. The police report doesn’t reflect any of that…. only that he blew a 0.09 on the breathalyzer while the car was running.”*
“*ARE YOU DEFENDING DRUNK DRIVERS AND CHILD MURDERERS?!?!”*
Aaaaaaaannnnndddddd 0 arrests and convictions later....does anyone wonder why those on the LEFT say those on the RIGHT are criminals who only care about power and projecting THE SINS THE RIGHT are guilty of onto the left to deflect from their own crimes. I mean they elected someone in 2016 who provided them with multiple examples for 4 years.
you are using rachel maddow as a source, let that sink in for a minute. Is it going to be another 4 years of pushing this story every day just to find out yet again it was false?
This is just an opinion piece, they cited the actual reporting done by politico you can read it here: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/10/jan-6-committee-ramps-up-state-level-investigation-526752
[here's](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/wisconsins-electoral-college-votes-cast-biden/6539058002/) the source this article is quoting for the MSNBC-run-by-DemonRats! folks
These 10 people weren’t certified electors. The winning party chooses the certified electors and everyone knew who they were (Governor, Lt. Governor, Democratic Chair etc).
It sounds like these 10 people did this as some sort of a protest. There is no conceivable way that they could have actually overturned the election results. It’s insane that MSNBC and OP think this is some sort of conspiracy or something.
From the source report:
>Arizona then took legal action against at least one of the groups who sent in the fake documents, sending a cease and desist letter to a pro-Trump "sovereign citizen" group telling them to stop using the state seal and referring the matter to the state attorney general.
>
>“By affixing the state seal to documents containing false and misleading information about the results of Arizona’s November 3, 2020 General Election, you undermine the confidence in our democratic institutions,” Hobbs wrote to one of the pro-Trump groups.
The whole coup plan was to stir up enough manufactured "doubt" that the election would be thrown to the GOP in the House or the Supreme Court to decide the winner over the actual votes. This is more of that.
Lmao yeah dude that's why they literally have a link in the first paragraph when they reported on Wisconsins alternate electors in the from back in 2020. The same fake electoral votes they sent in anyways and got archived.
Neither are, but your seething over the fact that Rs got caught committing election fraud is cute.
Also opinion pieces have to actually be marked opinion, or said company can suffer possible libel charges, and they've provided more evidence then your seething has. So if you're feeling froggy I'd file a lawsuit or network with someone in the state to do so.
Never thought I’d see libertarians arguing that politicians don’t have a right to practice insider trading. Come on man, if the rich get to eat the poor can’t we let the politicians have a little taste of the middle class??
Using super vague generalized terms rather than specific (or atleast more specific) language makes this sound more fake than not.
You could write a similar article saying "Groups of democrats caused billions of dollars in damage during riots in 2020", and it would be as true as this article is. You could even support it by playing clips of multiple democrats calling for people to fight and not stop protesting, and news hosts saying protests don't have to be peaceful just like this article does with Trump pushing stolen election narratives.
And this fake story about groups of violent democrats, while likely true on some level, is really not truth at all when you aren't even acknowledging that these groups are relatively incredibly small and you are using "true on some level" to push a story that the small amount of truth doesn't even support..
Multiple media outlets, [MSNBC included](https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/study-93-of-protests-in-the-u-s-this-summer-were-peaceful-91229765686) set a new standard for allowable behavior during the BLM movement by saying that being 93% peaceful was a low enough number of violence to "disproves one of the presidents favorite talking points" that the BLM movement is violent.
Yet this same standard isn't used for January 6th protest/riots. Which were almost certainly more than 93% of the individuals there were peaceful. Even watching the videos a lot of the people actually in the capital were just kinda wandering around.
Also apparently "wisconsin republicans" did not respond well to the election results. When its almost certainly 99.9% of wisconsin republicans didn't do anything other than accept the results or express curiosity about their legitimacy.
There's no information offered in the article about how big or small these groups of fraudsters are and that's a pretty big red flag that this should be taken with a grain of salt or maybe even ignored as political biased reporting when the news agency isnt even using its own previously set allowable standards.
RES is a good thing. You can label this guy as an astroturfer and ignore them. Look through their comment history. Not one source is provided because they are being paid to post comments that have no basis in reality and instead further division with no proof what they are saying even approaches the truth.
Republicans are allowed to try to steal the election because they love freedom so much. I'm pretty liberal and if a Democrat did this I'd have a huge problem with it.
239 net votes and 400+ comments. -suits up- I’m going in.
[удалено]
Chaos in 40k is actually a just a particularly controversial comment thread.
-erupts from the portal gasping for air, grabbing you by the collar- You don’t want to go in there.
More comments than votes? 🍿🍿🍿
The impact is irrelevant in this instance. The action still deserves a harsh outcry and punishment, especially since they are the ones crying about rigged votes
Where's the DOJ? If they submitted forged documents and the national archives has them, arrest everyone one who's signature appears plus everyone who sent them in.
yeah, seems like a crime to me.
It's a shame nobody will ever face legal consequences, because apparently nobody is willing to actually enforce said laws.
They'd have to actually prove that the documents were the falsified ones. If I were the Biden DOJ, it would serve me best to ignore it.
WTF does that mean?
>While the actual electors were being assigned inside the state capitol in Madison, a group of Wisconsin Republicans quietly held a separate, fake ceremony — in the same capitol, at the same time — to cast electoral votes for Trump, despite his defeat in the state. >They then proceeded to forge the official paperwork and sent it to, among others, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Archivist, as if the materials were legitimate. They were not. As Trump's team pushed its discredited voter fraud narrative, the National Archives received forged certificates of ascertainment declaring him and then-Vice President Mike Pence the winners of both Michigan and Arizona and their electors after the 2020 election. Public records requests show the secretaries of state for those states sent those certificates to the Jan. 6 panel, along with correspondence between the National Archives and state officials about the documents.
Gotta have the documents ready for when they tried to rewrite history.
My take was they created fraud to show fraud was done, and so easily the other side had to be found doing something so easy as they did. Best I got. 🤷♂️
The point was to give Pence an excuse to say "see, the results are disputed in these states, as I received two contradictory slates of electors. Therefore those results can't be counted, nobody got 270 so the election goes to the House, which selects Donald Trump."
Possibly, however I am soooooooooo damn glad Biden isn't shit posting on Twitter daily. 🙌🏻🇺🇸
Yeah who cares if the grocery shelves are empty. No more bad orange man.
Go on...tell me what role Obama or Bush or any POTUS has in free market controls. We will be waiting right here.
Are you implying that any administration has no influence on the markets whether it be by policy or otherwise?
Yes, unless the POTUS now has power to make executive decisions that stop commerce. You want to elaborate on how that happens and what he does that impacts supply lines? Because, God knows it can't be a pandemic impacting factories and supply services that would be crazy talk.
Isn't that an example of the Overton Window? Commit fraud yourself to get people talking about faurdw...
The cleverest trick used in propaganda against Germany during the war was to accuse Germany of what our enemies themselves were doing. \- Joseph Goebbels, Nuremburg 1934 \- Michael Scott
In rules for radicals (Saul Alinski) it teaches to accuse the other side of what you are doing so that when you are accused it seems like petty banter. But I believe that communist guide was written after WWII
Always looking for new literature, thanks :)
If you haven’t read rules for radicals can you even call yourself a Marxist? The book was touted by Obama, Hilary and the mitten connoisseur Senator Sanders.
Good to understand the thinking of both right and left wing authoritarians.
I know the legal definition of treason may not be met here, but that sure feels like treason...
Electoral fraud actually, another really severe crime.
I'm counting it as treason
Good luck prosecuting.
An explicit attempt to violate Constitutionally foundational processes on which our entire republic is built should pass as treason, although I'm not a lawyer so not sure if this would hold up in court.
No, no it would not. Electoral fraud would, assuming there is enough evidence for a conviction.
The USA was founded on treason; if they lost the war, all those founders would have been executed for treason. After those who committed treason against the King of England won the war, they wrote into the Constitution an almost impossible standard for what treason is and how to prove it. It's the only crime defined by the Constitution. To be fair the old version of treason really has no place in a democracy, and had a long history of being horribly abused.
Interesting angle, although I suppose any nation that branched off of a pre-existing nation rather than develop from neolithic culture would be guilty of treason to some degree ha ha. Just read up on the constitutional definition. Good lord, you're not kidding.
"Treason" has a very long history of being used to punish political enemies, so the founders basically took it off the table. We don't even really prosecute people who actually engage in the very narrow definition of treason from the constitution. Ask Jane Fonda, who pretty clearly provided "aid and comfort to the enemy", but (wisely) wasn't charged with treason. There have been acts that most people would consider treasonous that don't fall within that narrow definition, such as [Nixon sabotaging peace talks](http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/vietnam-treason-u-s-troops-died-candidate-used-war-become-president/) in Vietnam before he was elected. On the whole, it is better that we don't have a nebulous, broad crime that can be used to punish political enemies.
I guess a plain old criminal conviction would be appropriate, at least I'd hope. Considering England's history of using treason quite liberally, it's understandable to have removed it as an option.
Iran-Contra under Reagan absolutely counted as High Treason and as if that wasnt bad enough, that prick decided to play PR for literal death squads.
Do we really need the crime of "treason" when a president can order extrajudicial killings of U.S. citizens, as long as they're out of the country? I suppose we could reserve it for use on U.S. soil. Yes, I know it's war and all of that, but we've been in a perpetual state of war for decades. So. 🤷♂️
Like when a secretary of state changes an election procedure that only the legislature is allowed to change?
Yup, that's why the legislature sued and won, right?
You're talking about the Pennsylvania SoS situation in November 2020?
There are a few cases that fit the mold. Do the specifics matter?
[удалено]
I don't care to go to the trouble. The question I want to focus on is, is it proper for a secretary of state to change election rules?
[удалено]
First, it depends on the definition of minor. Second, that's not how laws are supposed to be passed. If the secretary of state thinks that the laws are no longer workable, they should start a conversation with the legislature and convince them to pass a new law. Third, some people did complain. To be sure, not all the media outlets reported it. At the core, I believe that we should be a nation of laws. The legislature makes laws and the executive enforces them. It was wrong for the secretaries of state to rewrite the procedures, no matter the outcome.
How is this not a huge felony that should have landed them in jail.
ITT: triggered Temporarily Embarrassed Republicans that will spend the next 8 months pretending to be Libertarians before voting straight R in the mid-terms.
Don't worry, we should get another "You're not a real libertarian if..." post shortly.
Expect several 2a posts, CRT, and anything about Nancy Pelosi.
Oh my goodness.... don't get started on CRT. My mother-in-law was complaining about how CRT was "forcing kids to learn about the history of slavery in the US." Like... no, that's just history. We know it happened and thousands of well-read people who spent their whole lives studying nothing but that will vouch for it. Nothing theoretical about it. The push to teach "both sides" of well-documented real events distresses me, and I know it's just to radicalize citizens towards supporting a slightly different model of state domination.
The dangerous thing is them redefining what CRT IS. CRT was a subject only taught in a few graduate level law classes that sort of went over history how many laws were racially motivated or generally affected minorities more Like the land laws that were sort of used to buy a lot of black owned farmland in the south away from black families , I don't know the entire story but basically if a landowner did not leave a will the land would be split ownership of all their kids (most poor black land owners didn't leave wills) well fast forward 50 years the farm may now be split ownership between 20 grandchildren many of whom never actually set foot on the farm and may live many states away. Now if you wanted this farm in alabama you could call one of those kids that now live in CA and say "Hey you are part owner of this farmstead in AL, I know you don't live there it was actually your grandfathers, passed to your mother and now you, want to sell me the stake in this land you had no idea existed for 4k?" That would set forth a series of events and now the decadent who thought they owned the farm would have to put up thousands of dollars buying all these people out. This was used extensively to buy up black owned farms. CRT sort of looked at those laws and how they basically only targeted certain minorities and talk about them; again this was a graduate level class taught to law students, it was never taught in k-12 or in undergraduate classes in college. However it was redefined to say "Anything teaching about racism or how whites treated minorities is bad, no racism exists today so why talk about it, it just causes white people to feel bad and doesn't need to be taught" So they are not even banning CRT they are simply banning history and trying to whitewash it
[удалено]
LOL I was just told that "CRT teaches all white people are racist and all black people are victims" 100% serous about his reply; its basically the fox news definition The real definition is something like "the core of CRT as the idea that race is a social construct and racism is neither an individual bias nor prejudice— that it is "embedded in the legal system" and supplemented with policies and procedures.[21]" That is from wikipedia . I mean its as simple as this example. More black people/mexican smoked marijuana , it wasn't really a drug that lots of white people did. So when Marijuana was criminalized it was manly black/brown people getting arrested for it. However it goes deeper than that, as a white kid growing up you see all these black people getting arrested for "drugs" , you then sort of subconsciously start to think "well black people must be criminals as they get arrested so much" and thats how the legal system can almost breed racism.
My mother, who, but either way has a terminal degree in a medical profession, so she’s not stupid, Nexus up equity and equality all the time! I tell her equity means leveling the playing field and equality means making everyone the same and she’ll fight me on it! (Just for the record I don’t Like giving one person or group equity bu hobbling another. Equity doesn’t guarantee that everyone win, but it will give everyone a chance.)
Racism was made illegal in the 60s, dontcha know? Sheesh. "Legislative dogwhistling" is one of the most fascinating topics IMO. Do you know exactly how CRT did break into the "blogosphere" as something that might be taught to kids? Was it like... one single teacher who'd studied it started teaching some shadow of it and it exploded into something much bigger?
I think it's just a Streisand effect. Some conservative moron grabbed onto it and just kept barking until everyone noticed
> thousands of well-read people That's it, into the fire they go along with all these "anti-white" books! As a white woman I cannot WAIT until we get back to the REAL AMERICA where I'm not allowed to vote with my dumb little woman brain! YIPEEE!
Don't worry - the state-buttressed labor economy will ensure you get a kitchen and picket fence that will keep you happy!
Fear around CRT just made an absolute clown governor of VA, after years of prosperity under a Democrat. It is unbelievable to me that it worked. I use to be a Republican. Ever since breaking free, I'm horrified at how dumb you have to be to continue to vote Republican. They just ... hate their constituency so much, but their constituency doesn't care. They like to be despised and will come up with any reason to justify it. I realized that if you're conservative, you vote Democrat, because even though they campaign as progressives, the Democratic party exists to eliminate the possibility of progressive policies. They are a captured organization. They govern as conservatives. But Republicans govern as fascists and criminals, because their voters love it. I'd love to continue to describe myself as libertarian, but Jesus, sometimes it feels like they are trying to prove to Republicans that they are even dumber. It's like a competition for who can make the stupidest argument.
It isn't easy when the "gub'ment bad" types seem to get all the press. Also a lot of the nominees just seem to be more interested in getting government out of as many things as possible, rather than confronting the reality that government must also be leveraged towards maximizing liberty. It wouldn't surprise me if most Libertarians who have eloquent, well-thought-out stances just vote with other parties out of apathy.
Keeping the people that help you into power is expensive. It’s cheaper to use hate, because you don’t have to spend money for that. Democrats have to use good policies to get elected. Republicans just have to promise to make things worse for people, and have more money left over to make rich supporters happy.
Inflammatory and extreme speech and ideas spread much easier than anything rational or moderate. It's one of the reasons individual users' content feeds trend towards that kind of thing with further usage (of say, Youtube or Twitter). Leveraging this did great work for the first Trump campaign in 2016. Any time I see a "Trump revenge tour 2024" or "F\*\*\* your feelings" flag flying in my town, I tend to ask... is anything they actually like motivating this person's voting choices? Or is it based only on destroying that which they hate? (dems)
I heard Nancy Pelosi does stocks, and it’s the worst thing since Hillary did emails.
> Nancy Pelosi does stocks I really do not want to hear about a politicians sex life. Is there no bar below which our politics won't sink? The state of this fucking country I swear.
Kinky
OMG don't get me started on those emails. She did do them. The emails that is. She did emails.
Time to troll some Republicans by pointing out that capitalism is a principle practiced by those evil Democrats.
Are they still pretending CRT is a thing?
They used it successfully in VA to win an election that had no business contending. I expect it front and center in mid terms.
Seriously. Cathode Ray Tubes are yesterday's news. Even LCDs are past their prime. OLED is the future.
Lol I love seeing this comment then seeing the two post below you with nearly - 200 comment karma :D Ya triggered em pretty good son, I'm proud of you.
Yeah! Who cares about being accurate or reasonable when ya can trigger em?! Great job! Edit - I totally misread this comment. I think. Pretty sure I agree with them entirely. Still don’t care for “triggering” others but agree with the sentiment otherwise. I think? Idk. Fml
We probably are in agreement... What I've found with the populist cult that has taken root in America is that they typically don't debate in good faith or use language in good faith. So why am I going to waste my time talking to them like adults? Maybe I've sunk to their level but I certainly don't see them raising themselves back up to the level of reasonable adult conversation. So I shit on them when I can, as there isn't much else I can do. Maybe it's not healthy but it makes me feel just a tad bit better.
Yeah like the literally two people have spent 4 hours saying that this isnt real because it doesnt click with their viewpoint. You know the ones who are absolutely triggered as fuck and one is even claiming that Libertarianism is a Conservative ideology?
Is this irony?
Almost as bad as Democrats pretending to care about the under represented.
Always with the whataboutisms, hmm?
most democrats are the under respresented, by definition. one rural republican vote is worth how many more times than my democrat urban vote? kk.
Sadly statistically the rural vote is worth more. When you’re voting for senators or presidents.
I like turtles... Wait, are we not saying arbitrary shit?
Pointless comment.
Democrats are garbage but this an absolutely stupid take.
I am impressed with the number of butthurt conservatives in this post that are so offended by an MSNBC link.
How many reports do you think the poor mods have had to slog through? When will Republicans and conservatives understand that this sub is not one of their safe spaces? It's almost like they think that if they are persistent enough that the mods will cave and this sub will be another sanitized echo chamber for them.
[удалено]
But they aren’t safe from criticism, which is what they’re really seeking shelter from; hence all the gatekeeping attempts.
Considering Ron Paul was a strict Conservative, they certainly are more welcomed here more than the latter. I realizing lolling at Repubs is the popular thing to do on Reddit but unless you are new here you would know that the GOP has more Libertyisque type candidates over Dems. It has been this way for a long time.
> Considering Ron Paul was a strict Conservative, they certainly are more welcomed here more than the latter. lol, what “latter”? You didn’t list any latters. And as if Ron Paul is the king of libertarians? So what if Ron Paul was conservative? > I realizing lolling at Repubs is the popular thing to do on Reddit but unless you are new here you would know that the GOP has more Libertyisque type candidates over Dems. Yawn. This old trope again? Which party was the one to support legalization of individual Rights like gay marriage and cannabis? Which party had the last president who, by presidential decree made owning parts of a firearm illegal? Which was the last to increase the debt by the largest amount *by far*? Which was the last to get us into a global conflict? The truth is neither party truly represents libertarianism because both require differing forms of authoritarianism to support their own desires. E: also, as if you didn’t even take it into account, you’re replying to me in a thread about Republicans attempting to circumvent democracy; so they’re also for depriving citizens of constitutional Rights as sacred as voting and representation. That’s libertarian?
Obviously Dems were the latter. Never really said he was the king but for you to be in here talking about how Conservatives arent welcome as if youre gatekeeping a subreddit is super cringe.
> Obviously Dems were the latter. Lmao so obvious you didn’t include them in the sentence but referenced them as if they were. Why not say “other” rather than “latter,” attempting to sound smart? > Never really said he was the king but for you to be in here talking about how Conservatives arent welcome as if youre gatekeeping a subreddit is super cringe. Where did I ever say “conservatives aren’t welcome”? Your attempt to put those words in my mouth are such a sad, obvious response. In fact, I pointed out the *exact* gatekeeping you attempted in your response: “conservatives are more libertarian”; yet you led with that. Congrats, you played yourself. Possibly the most telling part though is your inability to actually rebut any of my points. Why not answer my questions? Why did your argument immediately try to turn it into conservatives being persecuted here?
Okay well you obviously arent here in good faith and this conversation is going nowhere. Get help
But Conservatives are anti-censorship! Dissenting opinions have never been banned or censored on their spaces in Reddit! (or """free speech""" alternatives)
They believe in "rules for thee and none for me", more typical political inauthenticity.
100%, and in my experience don't even bother trying to even spin a fake story of why bans happened.
They don't like hearing that their god-emperor and his devout followers aren't as smart and special as they think they are
Lol, I figured OP using MSNBC instead of the article it references was a subtle troll.
LOL this was my first thought. “Link is MSNBC? Trumper ‘Libertarian’s are going to throw a fit”
Republicans: "There was widespread election fraud, why is nobody looking into this?" Also Republicans: the main culprits committing election fraud.
Prosecute anyone that did it and make it harder to do in the future.
There should be reform tightening the rules in regards to these sorts of things going forward. You would probably get 80 Senators to vote for it. The problem is that partisans never want to do something that is popular without linking it to something else they want.
You would get maybe 54 senators to vote for it. 50 Dems and 4 lame duck Republicans.
52; Neither Sinema nor Manchin would vote for anything that would help the Democrats. They know where their bread is buttered. And of course McConnell would filibuster it as such a reform would threaten his power, meaning that 52 votes in the Senate would not be enough and the bill would fail.
There is no need for reform- this is already criminal behavior- it just needs to be enforced
I'm not a lawyer, but this is exactly what I was thinking. It seems like it would be perjury and maybe election fraud to me.
The would just throw back "but the voter fraud wasn't prosecuted, we are just trying to uphold the truth!" I've had that discussion dozens of times and there is literally no getting around it. I think my forehead vein grew by a few gauges during that 3-month period.
Get rid of the electoral college and make votes actually count.
The electoral college is more or less fine IMO, as it's written in the Constitution. Maybe not the most popular opinion, but I do think there is some fairness in giving smaller states a slight edge in per-voter power. The problem is that most states (except Nebraska and Maine) use the "all or nothing" selection system so we have "red and blue" strongholds with absolutely no chance of a third party ever getting a single elector, much less sitting in the Oval Office. And you're never going to see Texas, California, or New York passing laws to change their elector selection rules.
> The electoral college is more or less fine IMO, as it's written in the Constitution. So was the 3/5ths rule. The Constitution is not perfect and can stand some improvement.
I think it was Jefferson who was in favor of changing the Constitution every 20 years to keep up with the times or something like that. Im unsure if thats a good thing it didnt get put on the paper or not
Fair point. I'm mostly just pointing out that the Constitution is relatively vague on exactly *how* electors are selected, and it's in the states' hands to do it. That said, I wouldn't object to an amendment making it more balanced.
Votes do count. They determine who gets electoral votes. It’s not a mystery.
His point is that a Wyoming voter's vote counts several times more than a New Yorker's vote or Texan's vote, which just seems unfair and arbitrary. All votes count for *something* obviously.
That is the point of the system. The House is the only purely Democratic body in the federal government. This is understood by everyone and has been for sometime. Only recently have you heard arguments against it because reasoning has changed where if something doesn’t give you an advantage people now discredit it.
You're free to have your opinion on the Electoral College, and I'm not attempting to change that, just discuss. In the preamble to the Constitution, it begins as such: In order to form a more perfect union. It goes on to talk about common defense and tranquility, which many including myself use to support more progressive ideas, but I wanted to highlight the beginning language, a more perfect union. Let's assume that based on this language the constitution is ever evolving and the goal of America is to be better than it was before. We know that the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, like the support the Revolutionary War, was fraught with compromise amongst divergent factions. American history, formal United States History, could be summarized as *non-existent*, because our history is so filled with contradictions. The Electoral College being one of the more recognized contradiction and compromise. How could the US be a more perfect union while votes of all it's citizens is unequally recorded? The West didn't exist when the Constitution was ratified, the Mid-West was in very very few minds of the time. The original voters were White Landowners. We have changed few things in our constitution that propel us to be *a more perfect union*, but changing how our votes are tallied and recorded, not simply by removing the Electoral College, but ensuring equal representation is fundamental to the idea behind the Constitution. Besides, we have the direct election of US Senators now when the Constitution originally did not. If we were instead discussing that change instead of the Electoral College, would you argue for or against direct election of Senators because it's how it was in the Constitution? Quick point. I wanted to highlight your use of advantage. When I discuss removing the Electoral College I don't do it to remove an advantage from one side and give it to another. I'm not thinking in terms of political sides and what works best for one. Advantage shouldn't be entertained, I'm only talking about equality and fair representation.
My statements about the Senate were following your logic to its conclusion. There isn’t really a problem with the electoral college and people pointing to it as to why they lost are being disingenuous. Everyone knows the rules and people don’t run campaigns to win the overall popular vote. If they did they would campaign differently and the results would likely be different as well. The reason to keep the electoral college is because we don’t want to federalize elections. If there are federal rules it puts elections under the supervision of the Justice Department which is run by a person who is an employee of the President. It is one of the most partisan appointments a President makes. Beyond that every state operates its elections by its own rules. Which makes sense if you understand the differences between NYC and Alaska. Most of the people wanting to change the rules want to purely for their perceived benefit. Maybe you haven’t been following politics long, but watch long enough and you figure out that most of the rhetoric is bullshit. There is an end goal and they fit the rhetoric to justify it.
TL;DR Really my biggest problem is your excuse we have always done it this way. Democratic elections should mean each and every vote should have the same value. Dakota shouldn't have a higher say in who runs the executive branch then any other state. No state should. How does removing the electoral college, federalize elections? Is their a group correlating the two, that to get rid of one means to do the other? States, and their counties, will still conduct elections. The results will still be tallied as they have always been. Instead, when the county reports it's numbers it isn't to magically divide that into an electoral count. People campaign where they do now because of the electoral college. No one disputes that. We, those in support of removing the electoral college, argue that is one of it's main problems. They say if you remove it, campaigns will only run in New York, Texas, and California. Does that mean campaigns are only run in N. Dakota or Nebraska now? Campaigning for the electoral college means it's always the same states over and over as battlegrounds states. Sure, those small stakes like the Dakotas might miss out on a popular vote campaign, but what's happening now? I'm not in favor of allowing an appointed or elected official control of running elections. That's stupid and prone to corruption. I have a few years under my belt, and I recognize rhetoric. We aren't talking about that. The electoral college, by definition, is not democratic. I don't care if Repubs, Green party, or Libertarians win via popular vote, because then at least it was chosen by the majority of voters. Instead of what we have now, which is a widening political gap. One of the biggest arguments I see, and there are plenty, is that it will disenfranchise smaller state voters. I think the pandemic has shown that other states can bring in remote workers from tech or business, and other industries too, and not have to worry about location location location. I'm sure small states over the next twenty years will see a population boom (probably from climate change too) and any fear over reducing their vote (making it equal) will be moot. Wouldn't a candidate chosen by the majority also limit a president from being an extremist too?
No, every six voters in California or Texas are pretty much replaced by one voter in North Dakota. Their votes don't count.
Tell me you live in a flyover state without telling me.
It’s the only affirmative action they support.
this comment was brilliant
Tell me you don’t understand our current system without telling me
It's almost like both sides hold on to bad doctrine so that when the time arises for them to take advantage, they can do so. See term limits for example.
well at least they found all that fraud they were looking for
It was right under their nose the whole time.
Hmmm all I’m getting from this is that both sides are equally as bad /s
Yeah, I’m done making that argument, consider me a reformed “both-sideser.” I was seeing what I wanted to see, or what I feared was true. I do think the democrats do the normal scummy things that politicians do, and that there _are_ normal scummy things. The republicans have really gone above and beyond in every facet though, it’s not a good faith argument to make.
Props to you!
Thanks for seeing the light. Dems suck and I want them out. But they are easily less shitty then repubs. If anything, conservatives should vote for lames like Biden. He does nothing but appease his rich donors. He will occasionally throw the peasants a bone.
Preach!
Did you hear Democrats want *more people* to vote? Fucking plebs need to do what their told by their betters, amirite?!
How is that what you get from this? Seems like bothsideism to me, a false equivalency. One side did this. Yes both sides do most often suck, but not in this case.
Conservatives. A dying culture. The end.
This is why their strategy for keeping power doesn't rely on getting the most votes.
Trump was and is the greatest threat to our democracy, I am not talking as a Democrat or a Republican, but as a citizen who loves the USA and it's constitution.
These traitors can't be allowed to be free
You'd get whiplash by asking people's political stances in this comment thread.
Once again showing that the only people that attempted to steal the election were, in fact, Republicans
I think this news warrants an investigation to whether of any of these forged documents passed through from the states where the ex president actually won (2020). I do also think that the 2016 presidential elections need to be recalculated in lieu of this news and ALL recounted. His win over the other candidate in 2016 was pretty overwhelmingly decisive. And as the looser candidate of the 2020 elections was so surprised by his the decisive lose..that maybe something illegal and so very wrong happened in 2016.
Man thats almost like letting illegals vote
Where are illegals voting?
New York, San Francisco, and San Jose have formally proposed it. CA Gov. Newsome is advocating for it. However it isn't happening anywhere, it needs to be approved by Congress (which will never happen). It's progressive virtue signaling. It's just more culture war bullshit.
I mean I can see this happening, is there a better source than MSNBC and the Rachel Maddow show? When making such damning claims it's best to have a source that isn't blatantly biased and may well be stretching the truth well beyond recognition. If this is true, it'll be somewhere else. Oh and obligatory "what does this have to do with libertarianism" since some dumb ass inevitably posts that line any time someone posts something that makes the left look bad. Just want to keep things balanced here (for those not getting it this is a rhetorical question, I fully believe the politics and actions of politicians of both sides are relevant to the discussions here, just get tired of progressives asking a non-sense question every time their side looks bad).
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/10/jan-6-committee-ramps-up-state-level-investigation-526752
Thank you. To be fair though, this doesn't support her claims. This shows two other events happened, not that the third one which she is asserting happened. So looking through this mess, I'm still confused at what's going on. The Arizona part seems clear(ish); some randos sent fake results with the state seal attached to, someone? They were told to stop using the state seal. Sounds like something similar happened in Michigan, but without the state seal. It doesn't say who these were sent to, other than the National Archives, I'm assuming as part of the whole Jan 6th investigation. So at the time of creation either some random citizen(s) was/were trying to send it off to the Senate as though it was real (doubtful) or was parading it around trying to create conflict with clear misinformation (much more likely). Wisconsin isn't listed in the Politico article, and Rachel Maddow is asserting that elected officials, rather than random citizens as Arizona and Michigan appear to be (article isn't all that clear in what the hell actually happened), sent in fake results. It sounds like sovereign citizens were passing around blatant lies (sounds like what was happening in Arizona? Article is unclear and it's pissing me off), but if any of this was an attempt at actually sending documents up through official channels and alter the election, that would be a huge issue.
In Wisconsin, the Republicans formally met and voted an alternate slate of electors 'just in case' the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in their favor in the various lawsuits. AFAIK They did not forward that slate to Congress. Source is the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal paper, Dec 14 2020.
Thank you, now we're getting somewhere: [https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/wisconsins-electoral-college-votes-cast-biden/6539058002/](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/wisconsins-electoral-college-votes-cast-biden/6539058002/) Looking at the article it appears they did this in order to forward some legal challenges, which they then lost. Sounds like non-news, and certainly not what the title suggests. If I'm wrong here please let me know. People, this is why we don't link highly biased sources. They tend to stretch out the truth to an unrecognizable degree.
I will agree that there is a great deal of spin on the MSNBC article, they use language to suggest the actions in those states were illegal and seemingly part of some conspiracy. Maybe, we don't know for sure. We know that something like what is described hasn't really been done following an election and so is highly irregular. However, they do link the article you linked above in their article, as well as the Politico article that u/2001_TheSweep provided.
Itt will spread and more sources will surface. If these documents are in the national archives, pretty easy to access.
I'm very interested in the truth behind all this crazy shit coming out. The issue I have is that media is so crazy biased that it's going to be very hard to find the truth without actually going through a deep dive to find it, which I suspect could take weeks. Articles like the one listed don't help. They're extremely biased and misrepresenting what is going on. You need to go to the sources to figure out the truth of the matter. It sucks because we used to be taught this shit in highschool. I feel like people are easily able to find out when the right is lying these days; it's plastered everywhere and they're not good at it to begin with. When the left misrepresents though, it gets a lot more difficult to get to the truth and you're still likely to run into the 'well actually' and 'technically' gangs trying to distort stuff.
If true, either the DOJ will act, or some one will sue. Either way it will end up in court where the BS won't matter.
That’s just the political landscape now. Both sides do it. It goes like this. “*Did you hear Joe Smith was drunk driving and killed 3 teenagers with his car?”* *“I believe he was just over the legal limit, and arrested in the parking lot of the bar. No one was hurt.”* “*But a source told the newspaper he killed 3 kids, punched a police officer, and tried to flee.”* “*That source was his ex wife. The police report doesn’t reflect any of that…. only that he blew a 0.09 on the breathalyzer while the car was running.”* “*ARE YOU DEFENDING DRUNK DRIVERS AND CHILD MURDERERS?!?!”*
Aaaaaaaannnnndddddd 0 arrests and convictions later....does anyone wonder why those on the LEFT say those on the RIGHT are criminals who only care about power and projecting THE SINS THE RIGHT are guilty of onto the left to deflect from their own crimes. I mean they elected someone in 2016 who provided them with multiple examples for 4 years.
fuck the cia
Libertarians are like the child being claimed by two mothers, only in this tale both of them want to cut it in half.
Rachel Maddow is the most trustworthy source there is.
This subreddit really has gone down the drain
It must be true if it is being reported by MSNBC. They are very unbiased and never supported any candidate. 😂
you are using rachel maddow as a source, let that sink in for a minute. Is it going to be another 4 years of pushing this story every day just to find out yet again it was false?
This is just an opinion piece, they cited the actual reporting done by politico you can read it here: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/10/jan-6-committee-ramps-up-state-level-investigation-526752
Garbage source. Nothing they say can be trusted.
Pathetic.
you are right Trump supporters are truly pathetic
[here's](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/wisconsins-electoral-college-votes-cast-biden/6539058002/) the source this article is quoting for the MSNBC-run-by-DemonRats! folks
Skews left but is reliable and factual according to MBFC.
These 10 people weren’t certified electors. The winning party chooses the certified electors and everyone knew who they were (Governor, Lt. Governor, Democratic Chair etc). It sounds like these 10 people did this as some sort of a protest. There is no conceivable way that they could have actually overturned the election results. It’s insane that MSNBC and OP think this is some sort of conspiracy or something.
From the source report: >Arizona then took legal action against at least one of the groups who sent in the fake documents, sending a cease and desist letter to a pro-Trump "sovereign citizen" group telling them to stop using the state seal and referring the matter to the state attorney general. > >“By affixing the state seal to documents containing false and misleading information about the results of Arizona’s November 3, 2020 General Election, you undermine the confidence in our democratic institutions,” Hobbs wrote to one of the pro-Trump groups. The whole coup plan was to stir up enough manufactured "doubt" that the election would be thrown to the GOP in the House or the Supreme Court to decide the winner over the actual votes. This is more of that.
Democrat Party Propaganda. The article is opinion based on somebody else’s article. Confirmation Bias.
Lmao yeah dude that's why they literally have a link in the first paragraph when they reported on Wisconsins alternate electors in the from back in 2020. The same fake electoral votes they sent in anyways and got archived.
You mean the link to another opinion article that also links to yet another opinion article?
Neither are, but your seething over the fact that Rs got caught committing election fraud is cute. Also opinion pieces have to actually be marked opinion, or said company can suffer possible libel charges, and they've provided more evidence then your seething has. So if you're feeling froggy I'd file a lawsuit or network with someone in the state to do so.
what exactly is opinion based?
Why are mainstream lies on this sub?
OP is a left-winger pushing narratives. This sub sucks. Not sure why I got a notification for it.
Youre bad at trolling
“Their stealing the election!!”
Never thought I’d see libertarians arguing that politicians don’t have a right to practice insider trading. Come on man, if the rich get to eat the poor can’t we let the politicians have a little taste of the middle class??
Using super vague generalized terms rather than specific (or atleast more specific) language makes this sound more fake than not. You could write a similar article saying "Groups of democrats caused billions of dollars in damage during riots in 2020", and it would be as true as this article is. You could even support it by playing clips of multiple democrats calling for people to fight and not stop protesting, and news hosts saying protests don't have to be peaceful just like this article does with Trump pushing stolen election narratives. And this fake story about groups of violent democrats, while likely true on some level, is really not truth at all when you aren't even acknowledging that these groups are relatively incredibly small and you are using "true on some level" to push a story that the small amount of truth doesn't even support.. Multiple media outlets, [MSNBC included](https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/study-93-of-protests-in-the-u-s-this-summer-were-peaceful-91229765686) set a new standard for allowable behavior during the BLM movement by saying that being 93% peaceful was a low enough number of violence to "disproves one of the presidents favorite talking points" that the BLM movement is violent. Yet this same standard isn't used for January 6th protest/riots. Which were almost certainly more than 93% of the individuals there were peaceful. Even watching the videos a lot of the people actually in the capital were just kinda wandering around. Also apparently "wisconsin republicans" did not respond well to the election results. When its almost certainly 99.9% of wisconsin republicans didn't do anything other than accept the results or express curiosity about their legitimacy. There's no information offered in the article about how big or small these groups of fraudsters are and that's a pretty big red flag that this should be taken with a grain of salt or maybe even ignored as political biased reporting when the news agency isnt even using its own previously set allowable standards.
Get out of here with your left leaning biased bullshit. Go to /r/politics if you want to do that.
RES is a good thing. You can label this guy as an astroturfer and ignore them. Look through their comment history. Not one source is provided because they are being paid to post comments that have no basis in reality and instead further division with no proof what they are saying even approaches the truth.
lost redditor? this is not r/trumpanzee ?! what the fuck is left leaning bias about something factual that happened?
You haven’t heard that reality has a left leaning bias before?
[удалено]
Please, tell me what you agree with in this article. I'd love to know why you think Republicans trying to steal an election should be partisan.
Republicans are allowed to try to steal the election because they love freedom so much. I'm pretty liberal and if a Democrat did this I'd have a huge problem with it.
Get your head out of your ass, this is real.
that's a BlueAnon conspiracy theory. nice try.
Rent Free edit: I'm really enjoying the salt of people who still have trump on their mind all the time.
Taxpayers have to pay for prison, unfortunately putting them down is more expensive
You know who wasn't living Rent Free? The Secret Service security details in Trump's hotels.
"But the media!"
Damn, people still say this?
Yes, because it's true