Same as happened in 2000, we’ll get 8 years of the guy who lost.
We already had four years so technically we would only get another four.
Until SCOTUS says the constitution isn’t constitutional and gives him a literal crown.
That’s the scary part. They’ll gladly approve his term limit extension.
I mean it’s literally right there in the Constitution without room for interpretation. If the Supes pretend to just throw that out then we’ll have an actual civil war on our hands.
He’s been saying that if he wins, nobody will ever need to vote again.
deleted by creator
I’ve been saying this exact same thing. Trump is a raging moron and I fear the intelligent demagogue that follows him more than I fear a second trump presidency (although a second trump term might guarantee the former)
It’s not much consolation, but I do take a little solace in the fact that nearly all of the Trump-wannabes have crashed and burned on the ballot. So far, it seems like only Trump can pull of Trimpism. His ego won’t let him name a successor, so when he goes, there will be a MAGA void to fill and it might be difficult for a single person to fill it.
Will Trump’s natural death free us from right wing extremism? Absolutely not. But will one savvy politician gather all the support trump has? Not immediately, that’s for sure. When he’s gone, I bet 40% of his base will believe he’s still alive and the deep state is hiding him somewhere while Desantis-Cruz-Vance, etc are false prophets. I mean, Vance was supposed to be the savvy MAGA guy, and look how well liked he is.
He doesn’t need to name a successor. His followers just need to be convinced that he named one.
I’d bet any amount of money that within the next few elections a republican will fly a flag with an obscure white supremacist rune on it
Don’t threaten me with a good time!
I’m hoping it’s a painful death, it’s already slow as fuck. he’s such an ugly person, deep inside.
And then Jared Kushner touring with Democrats in 2040.
The scary thing about elections is that, by design, nobody can ever “prove” they won.
Votes are designed to be anonymous. They have to be. If they’re not, they’re very vulnerable to manipulation. If someone can prove how they voted, then they can either be bribed to vote a certain way, or threatened to vote a certain way. If you can check that your vote was counted successfully for the candidate you chose, then someone else can check that you voted for the candidate they chose.
That means that, by design, the only security that elections can have is in the process. In a small election, like 1000ish votes or fewer, someone could supervise the whole thing. They could cast their vote, then stand there and watch. They could watch as other people voted, making sure that nobody voted twice, or dropped more than one sheet into the box. They could watch as the box was emptied. Then, they could watch as each vote was tallied. Barring some sleight-of-hand, in a small election like that, you could theoretically supervise the entire process, and convince yourself that the vote was fair.
But, that is impossible to scale. Even for 1000 votes, not every voter could supervise the entire process, and for more than 1000 votes, or votes involving more than one voting location, it’s just not possible for one person to watch the entire thing. So, at some point you need to trust other people. If you’re talking say 10,000 votes, maybe you have 10 people you trust beyond a shadow of a doubt, and each one of you could supervise one process. But, the bigger the election, the more impossible it is to have actual people you know and trust supervising everything.
In a huge country-wide election, there’s simply no alternative to trust. You have to trust poll workers you’ve never met, and/or election monitors you’ve never met. And, since you’re not likely to hear directly from poll workers or election monitors, you have to instead trust the news source you’re using that reports on the election. In a big, complex election, a statistician may be able to spot fraud based on all the information available. But, if you’re not that statistician, you have to trust them, and even if you are that statistician, you have to trust that your model is correct and that the data you’re feeding it is correct.
Society is built on trust, and voting is no different. Unfortunately, in the US, trust is breaking down, and without trust, it’s just a matter of which narrative seems the most “truthy” to you.
This makes me think we are on the same path as many countries who routinely have significant civil conflict every election cycle.
Not a great look for a country. Not a great group to join. Yet here we are.
They can tell who votes. Your entire premise is based on a belief that votes are anonymous. They aren’t. They are pretected from the public. If you have ever worked in election, which I have, you would know that. You have to cross reference if someone voted twice, are alive, or even registered in the county they voted in. There are computers that verify electronic bullets and there are batch audits. No one is ever allowed to be alone even with one ballet. Everything is done in a team. If your partner calls in sick, you’re the third wheel to another team.
Just because the public doesn’t know doesn’t mean the government doesn’t know.
Votes are anonymous. You can tell who voted, but not what they voted for. It’s crucial for the fairness of elections that a vote cannot be definitively connected to the individual who cast it; if you could, you could coerce or retaliate.
And all of the things you mention are the trust OP is talking about. You were a trusted person in that situation. The process increases and validates trust.
That’s basically what was being said and it’s not functionally different because the vast majority of the public does not work in elections or their verification. In essence if 99% of the population does not have access to data or cannot interpret said data, trust is needed.
I read certain phrases from what they wrote and it infers that people do not know who voted for who or what. That just isn’t the mechanism. It’s done by computers. It has to be tabulated for a multitude of reasons. It’s not anonymous to the mechanism. It is anonymous to the public. Which is not what the original statement. It was that the trust is built from no one at all ever knowing or being to tell.
First, I’m writing about a person who’s watching and doesn’t know if they can trust the system. My point is that there’s no alternative to trust in the system, the system is built on trust.
Second, if you’re inside the system, if you’re an election worker or a government authority, you can tell who voted. But, you can’t tell who that voter cast their votes for – at least in a functional democracy.
The authorities can, and should, have all kinds of checks and balances to make sure that all the votes are being handled safely and counted correctly. But, if the public doesn’t trust the authorities, there’s nothing that the authorities can realistically do to convince the public that everything is above board. You can’t “prove” that the system isn’t rigged.
Oh you can tell. But it’s not going to be easy to report it without getting caught. Part of the process is auditing. We would take certain stacks that had incomplete marks and try and figure out who or what they meant. But it’s just hi ho hum work because it’s a madhouse. Remembering that Betty Smith voted for Prop 17 by the end of the day would be really difficult without being very obvious that was who you were looking for.
Then there are verifications on who voted at all that were registered to the right polls. All their answers are on their ballots. Security is what keeps it secret and a precise way of dealing with it. In a big room with many eyes. Kind of like a casino’s money vault.
Oh man are you confused. For everyone else this person doesnt know how voting works.
Voting in the states is 100% anonymous across the board. The data trail stops after a person is signed in at the polls. There is zero information on a ballot to identify you.
You do know I worked in an election? For everyone else this person is grandstanding!
🤦 no you havent or your state has some weird laws. which state are you need lets go look at their ballot. this is easily disproved.
I am not giving you personal information. Especially since you seem like some unhinged troll. I worked in an election. It’s easily proven. How else would they know that 15 Bob Smiths didn’t vote in every adjacent county. And for every issue? How do you think they verify if they are alive? Just magic and pixie dust?
sigh, child… bless your heart. you have to check into a book, a book that you had to prove who you were and where you live to be entered into. all that records is that you showed up. there is no record of who you voted for, unless of course you’re one of the idiots who walks into the polls in full on trump billboard mode. if you worked polls you would know this or if you had any basic level of critical thinking skills.
The only indication of your inclinations that are recorded is if you’re registered for a particular party as well.
Now as for voting in multiple places:
- requires multiple residents in multiple locations to pull off.
- you need to sign into two books before getting a ballot.
presto: this dumbass voted in two locations. they don’t need to know who you voted for to know you committed a crime.
at this point its very clear you’ve never worked a booth or are incredibly handicapped on reasoning ability.
In France we get an anonymous code and we can plug it into a website and it tells us if our ballot was counted or not, and if it wasn’t counted why. (markings on ballott, multiple candidates selected for one spot, etc.)
Right, but no way to verify who you voted for.
And, you have to trust that the website is telling you the truth. You have no way of verifying that it always gives the same answer to everybody. I guess someone could test that there’s some connection to their real ballot by intentionally screwing up their ballot. But, that doesn’t mean that there’s any way to prove that when it’s counted that the actual tally for the person / people you voted for are going up not down.
If we’re saying “Trump won” what do we mean? The election is certified and he gets to be sworn in? If that’s the case then there is absolutely nothing that can be done. We’ll have PBS and 60 minutes stories about what happened and we’ll just have to suffer the reality that they got what they wanted.
If he claims to have won on Tuesday, but the results aren’t in completely then there is room to argue. It would just be bluster, it wouldn’t be officially recognized as a victory. When he does that it will be to ensure he can cry foul if the final results don’t go his way. He 100000000% will be doing this.
I have just watched the Legal Eagle video about the various law-related things that happened around the 2020 election.
It served as a reminder that the plan had apparently been to claim to have won before all the votes were counted - something about doing so in the interim between two sets of votes being counted (I want to say mail-in versus in-person, but I might have misunderstood) and then act as if Trump had actually won at that point, thus giving legitimacy to any later cry of foul that was almost sure to be needed.
Which is precisely what Trump did.
… my point being that it would be foolish to assume it wasn’t in the play book for this time around as well.
What I’m interested in seeing is if fox news will be willing to cast off any remaining semblance of fairness in favor of calling the election for him as well.
They won’t.
It’s like MLK said - the white liberal will always prefer “a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”
That’s the whole reason they didn’t bat an eyelid when Neo-Nazis and KKK-boys were marching under open police protection back in 2016 but collectively lost their shit when antifa showed up to physically confront them.
This is a dumb question but how do people get in touch with people in Antifa or Qanon because I highly doubt they have like a dedicated website or email?
You don’t get in touch with “people in Antifa”, because there’s no such thing as being “in” Antifa. It’s the idea of being against fascism, not a group of people.
qanon is, as the name suggests, anonymous, so you don’t contact qanon, qanon posts some dumb shit and you have no real way of identifying whether it was the real dipshit or a fake dipshit. there is no national qanon organization, only cult weirdos looking for secret codes on facebook, who you can talk to, I guess
generally the best way to contact antifa is to form your own group and then talk to them. second best is probably praying that you have a local group that isn’t a scam and has a PR side that you can instagram. there is no national or world antifa org; if you’re doing antifa shit then you’re antifa now
generally the best way to contact antifa is to form your own group and then talk to them.
Did you just tell them to talk to themselves? 😭 I mean you weren’t wrong about th first part but man…
You find antifa by being antifa. Thats its power. Suit up, show up, punch some Nazis, drop some sweet drugs, get laid.
Its a fun a group good people.
Pick one or the other. Antifa and QAnon are polar opposites
First, don’t panic. Harris and her staff, and Democrats around the country, they have planned for many shady actions on Trump’s part. Details are scarce because they don’t want Trump staff to have a heads up.
And then everything depends on the details.
But remember, anything that looks like a coup d’etat could easily get the military or spy agencies involved. And if they move, it doesn’t matter what SCOTUS says. As a result, it’s very hard to predict what would happen in various extra dramatic situations. There is no precedent; precedent wouldn’t mean anything anyway.
Source? First I’ve heard of anything like this. I’d imagine a lot of things would have to be settled in court given the US’s strange laws giving states so much leeway in how they conduct federal elections.
Remember Bush v Gore?
Just like that.
Nope, I was 3
deleted by creator
The premise here is that Trump loses but refuses to back down, attempting to forcibly claim victory. If Trump legitimately wins, there is a different path. Then…
Assuming multiple systematic failures occur simultaneously, including any of: actual voter fraud, fraudulent electors, congress refusing to certify, a captured supreme court acting in favour of Trump, or actual insurrection on or before Jan 6th.
I actually expect the US Military to step in. Every member is sworn to uphold the constitution. But if the constitution has been discarded, then I’d expect them to step in to restore it.
Failing that, the US likely fractures and we leave the Republic phase.
I actually expect the US Military to step in. Every member is sworn to uphold the constitution. But if the constitution has been discarded, then I’d expect them to step in to restore it.
Have you met the Oathkeepers?
If shit goes down, assume anyone with a uniform is going to throw in with the authoritarian despot.
See I wouldn’t be to sure. There’s plenty of left leaning people who would fight to help restore the US. In the armed forces and by in large they have higher positions. Not necessarily higher as in commander positions but just non grunt ones. At least from what I hear from the friends and family I have in the various branches of the armed forces.
You are very confused regarding the rank and file vs. officers.
Maybe so. But keep in mind that part of being a good officer is making sure you are not put in a position where you have to issue orders your men are not going to follow.
Do you feel lucky?
depends how close it is and which state acts like shit
If Trump wins through fraud Liberals will find a way to blame third party voters and continue to blame them for the next four years, other then that they might complain.
If somehow there is fraud, then it won’t be like Jan 6.
If trump wins
He will simply have his detrackters… Eliminated
Bruh you can’t even spell detractors. Cease the political hottakes lol
Through fraud? Are u saying if he wins it will be through fraud?
You don’t remember the alternative delegates they attempted to send last time? That’s fraud, and there’s no reason they won’t try it again this time
Yes. Yes we are. On account of the massive amount of fraud that’s been coming out of his corner for 8 years and counting.
That Trump is committing voter fraud is a given guarantee, whether it lets him win or not is what’s up in question.
Thats one hell of an accusation. U got any proof cos i see people making this claim but i never see anyone with any actual evidance of it.
Well, I’m glad you asked.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fact-check-trumps-georgia-call-raffensperger
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia.html#
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-indictment-fulton-suitcases-pipe-654281257169
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/georgia-presidential-election-results.html (note that this is another, different, illegal call to the Georgia reps from the one listed above)
These were the quick easy ones I found on the first page of search, there are more.
These are trump claiming voter fraud has occurred. And stuff related to 2020. This isnt vote fraud this is claiming the other side has committed fraud and him questioning results of the elections that he believes where fraudulent. This is not him using illegal methods to change votes in the current election. Russia does vote fraud by threatening violence ballot stuffing and pre marking ballots this is what voter fraud looks like i see zero evidance of this currently happening.
Did you miss the two separate articles in which he’s on tape calling the representatives of Georgia and threatening them to “find” more votes?
In 2020? After the election had taken place while contesting the ruling?
So you’re saying that if they had comed up with more votes that had gotten “lost” and the result of the election was changed post-facto by those newly found votes that would not be fraud?
If creating fake votes to change the result is fraud, surely asking someone to do it is attempted fraud.
