this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
223 points (99.6% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3608 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

How do you not get arrested for this? We just report on this like its no big deal to intentionally sow mistrust in our electoral process? If you can't trust the process, then the rest of the system is easy to take down.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

“I guess they are trying to prepare for the 2024 elections? I don’t see how this stands – if the [board of elections] has no choice but to certify an election, then why require them to vote to certify the election?”

How can you be this stupid? The law says "Shall Certify" (at least for now...)Certification is simply signing off that you've done your job and added up the numbers for your county correctly. The law is not saying you can choose to not certify the election if you think something is wrong. It is saying to get your damn job done by November 12th or you are in violation of the law.

All these people want to do is tie things up long enough that the SCOTUS feels that they can step in and choose a winner, just like in 2000.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 22 hours ago

All these people want to do is tie things up long enough that the SCOTUS feels that they can step in and choose a winner, just like in 2000.

^^ THIS! ^^

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Emails obtained by the Guardian reveal a behind-the-scenes network of county election officials throughout Georgia coordinating on policy and messaging to both call the results of November’s election into question before a single vote is cast, and push rules and procedures favored by the election denial movement.

The emails were obtained by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) as a result of a public records request sent to David Hancock, an election denier and member of the Gwinnett county board of elections. Crew shared the emails with the Guardian.

Crazy how our enormously expensive and exhaustively lauded domestic intelligence network missed this, but six volunteer watchdog reporters in trench coats picked it up.

Beginning to think the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigations aren't quite worth their multi-billion dollar budget lines.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago

All hands on deck. Vote so it won't matter.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

No. They didn't do anything because they are ok with it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Doesn't harm the moneyed interests, so the NSA and the FBI can't give a single shit about it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

Sounds like RICO charges are in order.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Harris and her campaign need to pick up on this and start blasting it across all platforms.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 day ago

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/18/trump-election-georgia
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support