Republicans want to rig the midterm elections. Will they succeed? (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 month ago by psychothumbs@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

It really doesn't matter if they succeed or not.

The Republicans are no longer even bothering to pretend to be at all interested in fair and free elections. They've signaled clearly that they will do anything to take and hold power, and honesty, integrity and democratic principles count for nothing at all. So if they don't succeed this time, they'll just cheat harder next time.

This isn't some shadowy conspiracy theory - they're doing it openly and publicly.

Fair and free elections in the US aren't under threat - they're already dead. And that's not hyperbole - it's the explicit, official position of the Republican party.

The only direction from here is down.

[-] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Given that Kamela conceded in 2024 despite Trump openly admitting to Elon "being good with computers".... yeah they will

[-] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

https://thiswillhold.substack.com/p/ex-cia-whistleblower-the-nsa-audited

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Apologies if I'm not a regular reader of Jörmungandr, but I need this from a more reputable source. I want to take in whats being said, but recognize the importance of trust and how that applies to a modern information landscape driven by fraud, conspiracy and AI.

If this is real, its going to need to break through in a more traditional manner.

[-] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

You're not a reader. That's the name of a free book. How would you be a regular reader of a singular book?

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

So its not even a scientific journal under which claims undergo scrutiny and review?

Even less worth offering one iota more of attention.

[-] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You reread what you just typed and think about it. Scientific Journal. Wow.

40th phrack just came out. Seems relevant...

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Why would i offer someone promoting conspiracy theory drivel the principal of charity?

[-] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

Because your pathological need to seek validation and prove yourself right has you coming back wasting time talking to me, a person who thinks you're an arrogant armchair intellectual. And that's as much a waste of time as all the rest of your impotent bitchy posts.

Why not read instead?

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Because your pathological need to seek validation and prove yourself right has you coming back wasting time

They said as they returned back to the thread seeking validation and to prove themselves right.

The reason I won't engage with conspiratorial thinking is because I know better than to give bad faith arguers charity or space. If you don't have the ability to establish standards of quality for the material you promote, do us all a favor and don't promote any ideas or content, because the only thing impotent here is you while you try and have 8 arguments across different threads of people rejecting this.

arrogant armchair intellectual.

Sure but at least I own it. And I get it right, which is far better than whatever you are doing.

[-] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

I'm aware this is a waste of time and find you funny. Angsty grad student vibes mixed with an undeserved sense of superiority.

You know what the Dunning Krueger curve is I'm sure. I bet you think you plot on the right side for a dozen subjects you never studied.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

It really doesn't matter. You are promoting unfounded conspiratorial thinking and that needs to be pushed back on. Its a cultural disease to do so, and its even worse to promote it. Develop some rigor to your thinking instead of the slop you've asked people to "do their own research on" here.

[-] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

Cultural disease. lol /b/tard. Pretending to have a degree.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Saying someone is pretending to have a degree or is pretending to be educated seems to be a consistent method of personal attack for you. It must be tough, going around with an inferiority complex. And yes, some of us are highly educated, but few are as fortunate as I am, where I do get to dedicate my time to contributing intellectually. But at least you recognize the importance of education and critical thinking, even if you yourself don't seem to know how to apply it.

Conspiracies, or thinking born of such; are enemies of reason and the mind. A sloven, toxic habit of the brain; that must be rooted out where it is found.

[-] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

You're a snob and I'm 99% sure I hit multiple nerves. So yes, feels like tom about to play a rhapsody 🥸.

You keep pretending you're special and conspiracys don't exist, I'm gonna change a light bulb and refresh my MLK assassination history.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

You’re a snob and I’m 99% sure I hit multiple nerves. So yes, feels like tom about to play a rhapsody 🥸.

It’s pretty clear whose nerves are hit right here. And if you can't handle people pushing back on your lazy thinking, don't put it in the commons.

[-] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

The guy responding with quotes, paragraphs and images or the one on the shitter?

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Idk. You seem pretty triggered. Maybe it has to do with how you engage emotionally with ideas instead of intellectually.

[-] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

What emotion? What intellect? You're a master debator lol. Your argument is circularly arguing conspiracies are bad mmmkay. Dropout.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

What emotion

You the one out here promoting conspiracy theory without evidence then telling people to "do their own reading". You determine truth by how it makes you feel, emotionally, rather than based on what we have evidence for or a lack of evidence for. That's what children and under-developed adults do.

Its also why we're here; its why I drug you down deep into the thread where people will have to click through multiple threads to see whats going on: most wont bother.

Conspiratorial thinking is an emotional response to uncertainty. We as people don't like living with not knowing; we're not wired for it. We'd rather an emotionally pleasurable story rather than uncertainty.

But its really just laziness. There is no actual excuse for it.

[-] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 month ago

Go back to 4chan, cunty.

[-] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

Gross. No. Certain phrases are popular in certain communities. This guy has used a couple common on the chans. He may not be a btard but his writing style smells like it.

[-] zd9@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Yeah, stop sharing this bullshit. It's such a random claim out of left field with no actual evidence. Until he brings real evidence, it's all just the same as MAGA 2020 election denial stuff.

There are some interesting analyses by ETA and SMART, but even those are pretty lacking still.

this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025

22 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25870 readers

17 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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.
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