The way I see it is that most actual citizens can't even be bothered to vote. Why would a non-citizen spend the time, effort, and (in their case) risk to do it?
I'm sure it's happened before, but only at a miniscule scale.
Everyone always talks about govt/buisnesses taking bribes from the rich, but never about the rich taking bribes from foreign companies/govts.
Pretty interesting alternative “political system” we’ve installed with our current economic system. Surely not a backdoor to ruin any current govt systems or hold them hostage
So in your opinion is DC Weekly (mentioned in the article) in fact a legitimate american news source? I want to understand more about what specifically they are projecting.
I mean that the NYT is and always has been a huge part of the misinformation and propaganda efforts of the White House. More generally I also can't take any "Russian propaganda" narrative seriously, given the context of the complete debunking of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and the fact that the US is for all practical purposes at war with Russia.
Americans should really understand that the real threat isn't Russia or China but their own politicians and capitalists. Richest nation on the planet etc.
Why are Ben Shapiro and other right wingers not rotting in a jail cell?
Why are democrats pushing for a xenophobic border bill when it's the same thing the so called Russian agent DJ Trump wanted in 2016? Are democrats capitulating to the support base of a Russian agent?
Yes and no. That story was bad for a reasons specific to that story that were uncovered and sourced from other credible reporting. You can't proceed from that to a blanket generalization over everything else in New York times reports without any additional supporting evidence.
Also it's sourcing and quoting other sources, so you'd have to explain if you believe that the New York times made up those sources.
The campaign, the experts and officials say, appears to involve remnants of the media empire once controlled by Yevgeny V. Prigozhin, a former associate of President Vladimir V. Putin whose troll factory, the Internet Research Agency, interfered in the 2016 presidential election between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Why are they "experts"? Experts are a nonsense term. There is no actual evidence presented in the article
There is no actual evidence presented in the article
You're so full of 💩.
For one example, they give examples of several websites, including one called DC Weekly, they explain that the sites use fabricated authors, lorem ipsum template text, files uploaded in Russian to sites presenting itself as an American site.
In their report on DC Weekly, they show that the IP address associated with DC Weekly is John Mark Dougan, who lives in Russia. So there's an example, for one.
In other ways, the websites are poorly constructed, even incomplete in parts. The “about” page for the Miami Chronicle, for example, is filled with Lorem ipsum, the Latin-based dummy text.
This could also imply laziness.
Russian IP addresses dont mean shit either, IPs are easy to spoof.
I see no mention of Dougan in the article itself.
Some of images on the site have file names from the original Russian
This is the most 'convincing' one but not very solid evidence either.
Regardless, what matters the most is that no one cares about this stupid site. If its propaganda, its the laziest type of it.
The purpose is not to fool a discerning reader into diving deeper into the website, let alone subscribing, Mr. Linvill said. The goal instead is to lend an aura of credibility to posts on social media spreading the disinformation.
You started out by saying was no evidence, except there was. Now you've moved the goalposts and are debating the nuances of the evidence instead of saying that none was presented.
You derailed with whataboutism, you made a blanket generalization based on an unrelated story. Are you just going down the playbook, one derailment tactic at a time?
Five posts from now you will be saying "well yeah, maybe they proved the IP was from Russia, but the guy from Russia generated a fake site with 17 fake authors because he cared so much about journalistic integrity!"
none of the so called propaganda made by Russia is very convincing. Who is it for? Republicans? They will vote Trump regardless. Democrats? They won't like for anti-establishment shit.
Is it to convince 'independents' to vote Trump? I think Democrats are doing that much better than Russia ever could.
what im saying is, if it is propaganda it is super mid. what should west do? censorship? go ahead. block those domains.
edit 2: i cant even find the site on google btw, so clearly there is some censorship from the private sector.
Okay, the next step in the playbook is "no one cares". I don't know, I think online disinformation has emerged as one of the major international issues characteristic of our time and will go down in the history books. So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that no one cares.
I'm sorry that calling you out on your 💩 means I'm a debate bro. But the flip side of the same coin is that you're the one spewing the 💩💩💩.
maybe US should solve domestic disinformation before going international, plenty of right wing (and liberal) newspapers reporting complete propaganda. also, maybe implement a GFW if you are that concerned about Russian disinfo.
The Constitution lays out 3 main disqualifying provisions from holding the office of the Presidency: Must be 35 years old, Must be a natural-born citizen, and as the 14th amendment section 3 states, "No person shall...hold any office...under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath...as an officer of the United States...to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." (Removal of the bits that don't pertain specific to what is clearly the OFFICE of the Presidency)
Multiple Constitutional scholars have said it is self-executing. Therefore, the States should not have been allowed to even put Trump on any ballots based on the above.
I guess the country is still in danger. We'll have to see if half of the voting populace would rather have a 91-count-indicted probable-convicted felon as President who has literally called for authoritarianism, instead of the old and senile one. I fully expect Trump to win again because nearly half of the voters are fucking stupid, and the archaic electoral college will give it to him again.
What is it with liberals and not understanding the constitution? It's not that hard of a concept, the vocabulary is a little dated, but it's not complex. None of those disqualifications apply to Trump and unless you feel like BLM protestors should also be barred from holding office in the future, it's a weird hill to die on.
First, I'm not dying on any hill. Second, I'm less liberal than you might imagine. Third, I'm pointing out exactly what literal Constitutional scholars have pointed out. So, instead of personal attacks, perhaps you should sit down, because yes, the 14th Amendment does apply and has been shown that numerous times across numerous jurisdictions, and by much more educated minds than us idiots on Lemmy.
The Supreme Court doesn't always get it right. And they didn't, yet again. And, yet again, we the people will have to clean up the mess which could, and likely will, take decades.
And lastly, BLM protestors did not try to subvert an election and incite a literal insurrection on the Capitol, so enough with the logical fallacies, please. If you want to spout off that nonsense, take it to Reddit where it belongs.
I must have missed the part where Trump went to trial for insurrection, and was found guilty of insurrection. I'm pretty sure that many of the people that were literally there on your sacred day in January were not found guilty of insurrection either. So while they may or may not be felons, which may or may not disqualify them from voting, they would still be able to run for Congress and President. So if the people you call "insurrectionists" are still eligible to run for federal office, why would a citizen who wasn't involved in that, let alone brought to trial for that have anything to do with the 14th amendment?
This whole circus is basically "but her emails" for blue maga.
And there’s nothing in the Constitution that requires a trial or conviction either. And in fact Luttig and other scholars have said exactly that as well.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday restored Donald Trump to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to hold the Republican former president accountable for the Capitol riot.
The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states, without action from Congress first, cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots.
The outcome ends efforts in Colorado, Illinois, Maine and elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Trump’s case was the first at the Supreme Court dealing with a provision of the 14th Amendment that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.
Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois, but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.
They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his bogus claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.
The original article contains 845 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This is an overly simplified summary that doesn't describe the objection to mentioning Congress as the only body to enforce the amendment. It was 9-0, but 4 justices made a special declaration pointing that out.
While all nine justices agreed that Trump should be on the ballot, there was sharp disagreement from the three liberal members of the court and a milder disagreement from conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett that their colleagues went too far in determining what Congress must do to disqualify someone from federal office.
I wish democrats would start kicking conservative and Israel supporting dems out of the party. It is NOT ok to support Israel regardless of your other positions.
It's also not ok to splinter the coalition with purity tests. If someone is pro democracy, pro LGBTQ, pro women's rights, pro science, pro immigration, pro education, pro Ukraine, and pro Israel, I still want them in the fight.
As someone who grew up where it is absolutely normal to support Palestine and has been for 40 years (Ireland), women's rights are not on the list of why this is the case.
This explains the phenomena better than anything I ever read. I'm not being funny, I really mean it. I've seen both sides, this rings true. Rings LOUD and true.
I love this author. I hope people don’t write it off just because it’s on a comedy site - he’s very thoughtful. I read the monkey sphere a long time ago when cracked was popular and it really gave me a lot of perspective.
I didn’t realize David Wong was a pen name until your article. I recognized his style immediately.
I've read that article. It does to city culture what it claims city culture does to rural culture, IMO. I had a slightly more nuanced objection the last time someone posted it, but I'm not going to take the time to read it again now. IIRC It's worth a read, but that man paints with as broad a brush as anyone he criticizes in that article, and folks should go in knowing that.
Edit -
By coincidence, here's an article about a book that takes an opposing view, and the current Lemmy discussion about it. As of this moment I've not yet read more than the first para of the article:
In the popular imagination of many Americans, particularly those on the left side of the political spectrum, the typical MAGA supporter is a rural resident who hates Black and Brown people, loathes liberals, loves gods and guns, believes in myriad conspiracy theories, has little faith in democracy, and is willing to use violence to achieve their goals, as thousands did on Jan. 6.
According to a new book, White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy, these aren’t hurtful, elitist stereotypes by Acela Corridor denizens and bubble-dwelling liberals… they’re facts.
The authors, Tom Schaller, a professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and Paul Waldman, a former columnist at The Washington Post, persuasively argue that most of the negative stereotypes liberals hold about rural Americans are actually true.
They do not mince words about what this means for the future of democracy in America. “Rural voters—especially the White rural voters on whom Donald Trump heaps praise and upon which he built his Make America Great Movement—pose a growing threat to the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”
And Schaller and Waldman bring receipts.
In a book filled with reams of data to back up their arguments, Schaller and Waldman show that rural whites “are the demographic group least likely to accept notions of pluralism and inclusion” and are far less likely to believe that diversity makes America stronger.
Edit: I’m a dumbass and I did not read your comment very well so feel free to ignore this rant. It probably has nothing to do with your post but it’s too late meow. I’m not deleting it.
Hey I know it's kind of late to reply to things in this thread but I was just thinking about this article again today and I wanted to see what other people had to say about it.
It does to city culture what it claims city culture does to rural culture
Yes, my friend, this was the point of the article. You yourself may not feel like you stereotype folks who live in rural areas but there are plenty of people who do. Some of the folks who stereotype rural people feel they are justified for doing so because they DO see rural folk as "less-than", and admittedly it's sometimes hard not to absorb this view due to the perceived ignorance of these rural people. It is a broad brush, but it's an appropriate brush. He's not saying it's correct, he's putting the shoe on the other foot.
I work in customer service in a very unique part of the country (Near Chicago but not inside) so I interact with a lot of different people with very different backgrounds. Some people take the train to visit my workplace and rarely drive or visit our part of the state unless they're showing up where I work. Some people don't leave their hometown of literally 500 people unless they're visiting my workplace which is a mere 40 minute drive for them.
I almost never hear open racism where I work (though I'm certain there are plenty of legit racists, they just keep it quiet). We occasionally have to describe people by their appearances, and "basic-ass old white dude" has been both a physical description and a personality description I have heard and nobody pressed back against. It's a stereotype, people hold it. And, my coworkers are left-leaning (me too) so it does just become shorthand for "this guy probably voted for Trump and is scared of my nosering". It isn't a healthy way to view your neighbors, nor is it an assumption you can make about people.
I noticed your last quote:
In a book filled with reams of data to back up their arguments, Schaller and Waldman show that rural whites “are the demographic group least likely to accept notions of pluralism and inclusion” and are far less likely to believe that diversity makes America stronger.
It's not a race to see who holds the least stereotypes or the least offensive stereotypes. It's important to identify your biases, which is what this article is asking you to do. It's not an us-vs-them thing.
The authors, Tom Schaller, a professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and Paul Waldman, a former columnist at The Washington Post, persuasively argue that most of the negative stereotypes liberals hold about rural Americans are actually true.
Most? Okay which ones are wrong? Does it mean all rural people are closed minded bigots? There probably is at least one rural american who isn't a close-minded bigot, but it doesn't matter because they're mostly all the same right?
Don't think for a minute I think rural folks are justified for their ignorant and fearful bullshit, I'm just pointing out that stereotyping people doesn't actually do anything but hurt the people who don't suck.
I’m a dumbass and I did not read your comment very well so feel free to ignore this rant. It probably has nothing to do with your post but it’s too late meow. I’m not deleting it.
It actually seems like a mostly reasonable rebuttal from someone who might have different opinions than I do, but I'm not going to argue with you about most of it because of this disclaimer. 🙂
I’m just pointing out that stereotyping people doesn’t actually do anything but hurt the people who don’t suck.
Which is why I object to, or at least would want people to be aware of, the fact that the article promotes stereotypes of (for lack of a better word) 'city folk.' Writing an article about the dangers of stereotyping, but predicating it on stereotyping a different group, seems firmly in the "two wrongs don't make a right" category to me. Especially because, with as often as I see this article referenced, I'm sure plenty of the folks he's trying to "explain" for the rest of us have read this article and found within it someone who "gets" them - and so will be primed to accept every one of his swipes at urban dwellers as confirming exactly the stereotypes they already had.
He closes by implying anyone who disagrees with him "have gotten angry, feeling this gut-level revulsion at any attempt to excuse or even understand these people. After all, they're hardly people, right? Aren't they just a mass of ignorant, rageful, crude, cursing, spitting subhumans?"
My father grew up on a single-family private farm, lived in a farmhouse with a partial dirt floor that used the same fireplace for heating and cooking, attended a one-room schoolhouse, and had to walk to the outhouse to take a shit. To this day I doubt there are even five thousand people living in the town he grew up in. The author is not the only one who has had a foot in both camps, he doesn't speak for everyone who has, and I think it's reasonable to point out that he was at pains to paint a very fair picture of rural folks while doing absolutely nothing but promoting stereotypes of urban folks.
Bottom line - we're pretty far past it mattering on a personal level why maga is tearing down our democracy, rolling back anything resembling equitable treatment of LGBTQ+, rolling back women's rights, suppressing education about slavery and diversity, etc. They are doing those things. I might care about their plight, but I care about stopping them from further fucking up the country more.
There was a great article called The Sociology Of Brexit that discussed how Britain made the choice to leave the EU. The TLDR was that it was because for many years, despite some prosperity, there were large parts of the country, especially white, uneducated, working-class people that felt things weren't going well. A strong economy didn't translate to a better life for them, and all they saw was others in a totally different world prospering.
The reason I mention it is because it was written before Trump came to power, but it accurately predicted that Trump would beat Clinton. It said that there were similar groups in the US that felt the same, and that they are often a much larger demographic than you'd think. The main point of the article is that these people don't care if the radical in charge will fuck the economy, or do things "incorrectly", because those things are so detached from their life that it won't change anything. It's the political equivalent of giving yourself chemotherapy to get rid of a cold.
While many of these people are justifiably criticised for their extreme views and actions, they've been radicalised through inaction. If you ignore a problem like the racist assholes that moan about foreigners taking their jobs, in several years someone will combine those voices and have a platform to exploit.
Exploitation is the right word here, because what many conservatives are now finding is that the shift towards the right is often at odds with their parties core beliefs. In the UK, Boris Johnson gutted the party of anyone that disagreed with one of the core tenets of the party (unionism) to push Brexit along, and if that party loses the next election, they will arguably have no one left outside of right-wing nutjobs. The US will likely find the same, in that MAGA have replaced what their party stood for, with none of these leaders planning for the future. If you are a traditional conservative in the Republican party, you'll probably struggle for the next 5-10 years, and a presidential campaign is highly unlikely. If Trump loses to Biden, it might mean a generation of inaction and inability from the Republicans, in the same way that Conservatives around the world are being wiped out
I mean, when the dictator is in-office that's not usually what they do after they line up the dissidents. Those folks should feel lucky they just got the preview.
It takes two to tango. Moderates steamrolled the primaries and got a geriatric establishment candidate elected knowing full well progressives and leftists would have a problem with it. Moderates backed Biden while he shredded the BBB. They backed Biden when he reverted on his campaign promise for $50k in student loan forgiveness. They backed Biden when he increased the defense budget. They backed Biden when he blocked the rail strike. They backed Biden when he told federal workers to return to the office. They backed Biden as he tasked Powell and Yellen with going to war with American workers. And they continue to back Biden as he continues sending weapons to Israel.
You could possibly make a case that both moderates and the farther left movements are to blame. But the fact is moderates are the majority and thus they hold the majority of the responsibility. Plus it's a bit absurd that moderates accuse farther left movements as being unwilling to compromise when the compromises made by the moderates have been immaterial.
the idea that we’ll potentially lose democracy altogether
Would you rather lose Democracy or use the reconciliation bill as a bargaining chip to get the BBB passed?
Would you rather lose Democracy or follow through on the promise of $50k student loan forgiveness?
Would you rather lose Democracy or reduce the defense budget?
Would you rather lose Democracy or stay out of the rail strike?
Would you rather lose Democracy or allow federal workers to continue working remotely?
Would you rather lose Democracy or stop sending weapons to Israel?
When the former is chosen time, and time, and time, and time again the question has to be asked. Is Democracy all that important to you? Because all of these choices sound like a bargain to me.
Which is why there is zero point for Democrats to try to appeal to Trump voters. They are a lost cause, stuck in a cult. When they decide to get out of that cult, sure, we'll welcome them back into sanity.
Politics
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 4 day(s) ago). Subscribe to start receiving updates.