politics
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
What seems more likely: 1) a vast conspiracy between the Trump campaign, a collection of hackers, Elon Musk and various workers at his super PAC, and any number of other insidious actors all part of a shadowy cabal that conspired to hack the vote, and this one dude, who got almost every data point verifiably wrong and has demonstrated zero evidence for his other related claims, somehow "got it right. Or, 2) a small amount of Trump voters didn't give a shit about or know much of anything about any other offices/candidates and just voted for Trump and left?
Right.
It's so sad to watch people grasp at conspiracy theories like this. Conspiratorial thinking is highly correlated with feelings of insecurity, low agreeability, narcissism, intolerance of uncertainty, feelings of a lack of control, fear, and a tendency toward confirmation bias and proportionality bias. So I guess seeing people on the left start indulging this way of thinking just like Trump supporters did isn't shocking, but it's still sad to see.
Within every election, there is a certain number of bullet ballots to be expected. The norm falls around 1-2% or so, with an expected margin of error. Every swing state (and ONLY swing states). Hit around 5-12%.
There were 57 bomb threats that targeted ballot counting stations. All in swing states.
In pretty much every swing states, Trump won the Presidency, but Democrats won pretty much every other down ballot race?
The polls were pretty much correct for the swing states..... except for the Presidency?
There's coincidences and then there's fucking Looney Toons levels of improbability.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but considering all that, you don't think a single investigation should occur?
Right, you’re not a conspiracy theorist—you’re just “asking questions” and urging people to “do their own research.” Where have we heard that before? While you throw around baseless accusations about the Harris-Trump election, the reality is this: there’s no credible evidence to support claims of widespread fraud. Swing states have robust systems for verifying results, and the election process is overseen by bipartisan officials, including both Democrats and Republicans who vouched for its integrity. Demanding "just one investigation" isn’t about seeking the truth; it’s about refusing to accept the outcome.
I know you you're unlikely to read let alone comprehend this post—just like you didn’t read the article you’re twisting—but for anyone else stumbling across your nonsense, this is the reality: your claims are bullshit. They're not just wrong, they’re embarrassingly, demonstrably wrong based on the very data provided for you in the article to which you are responding. Let’s go through the numbers you’ve clearly ignored.
You say there were “5-12% bullet ballots” in swing states, but the data in no way supports that claim. Take North Carolina: out of 5,722,556 ballots cast, 5,592,243 included votes in the governor’s race. That means just 130,313 ballots didn’t—a mere 2.3%, not your laughable “5-12%.” Arizona? Of 3.4 million ballots cast, only 81,673 didn’t include votes for the Senate race—about 2.4%, again miles below your inflated, made-up conspiracy numbers. Nevada? The difference was 23,159 ballots out of nearly 1.5 million—a negligible 1.6%. Interesting. On average that's... basically right where you said it should "normally" be.
Bullet ballots in battleground states are rare, but they’ve always existed, especially in contentious elections. And they've always been higher in battleground states. Swing-state voters tend to focus on the presidency when the stakes are high, which is common knowledge to anyone who understands voting behavior. Your numbers? They don’t exist.
As for your implication that it’s “improbable” for Trump to win the presidency while Democrats do better down-ballot, I hate to break it to you, but racism and sexism is a much simpler, proven explanation with data to support it. Polling had consistently shown that Harris faced deep resistance, even among Democrats, with much of it rooted in gender and racial bias. Voters who rejected Harris while supporting other Democrats weren’t casting "impossible" ballots—they were reflecting prejudices that have been documented for decades. You don’t need a vast conspiracy to explain why Kamala Harris lost; you need to look at exit polls and confront the ugly reality of American history and culture
The bomb threats on Election Day, which you seem desperate to weave into your narrative, were investigated by the FBI and found to largely be hoaxes originating from Russian email domains. These threats, while reprehensible, had no impact on the election's integrity and were not linked to any domestic conspiracy. The idea that they were part of a grand scheme to disrupt the “chain of custody” or facilitate hacking is pure fantasy, unsupported by a shred of evidence. If anything, they reflect an attempt to intimidate voters and officials, not to alter outcomes. Clinging to this as proof of fraud is the hallmark of conspiracy theorists: taking unrelated incidents and spinning them into a baseless, implausible story when reality doesn’t fit their worldview.
And this is exactly where your conspiratorial thinking falls apart. Rather than accept straightforward, evidence-backed explanations—strategic voting in swing states, voter sexism, or even the simple fact that Trump remains popular among many, indeed a majority of, voters in this country—you leap to shadowy plots and grand conspiracies. This is textbook conspiracy logic: inflate normal patterns into anomalies, ignore the data that contradicts you, and demand investigations into “questions” you’ve invented yourself. It’s bad-faith reasoning at its worst.
Your entire argument isn’t skepticism; it’s denial. You’re not interested in the facts—if you were, you’d see how consistently they dismantle your claims. This isn’t about election fraud. It’s about your refusal to reckon with reality.
She lost. Get over it.
Didn't you know? If dems called out trump for stealing the election, they'd be no better than him 😇
/s yall need to get your heads out of your asses, the election was clearly stolen and pretending otherwise won't save you from trump or make you a superior person
Hey look! You expressed like five of the aforementioned psychological traits! I also like how you accuse me of not reading the article, but then try to buddy up with this idiot that actually didn't read it and is spouting numbers that directly contradict the actual data provided by the article you posted just because they're supporting your paranoid conspiracy. If only there was a term for that habit, like "confirmation bias" or something.
You seriously did a speedrun checking off those psychological traits. 🤣
He lost. Get over it :3
Does it feel good putting this much effort into defending Donnie? Do you feel superior to everyone else bc you ignore obvious signs of election fraud and tampering? Or are you under the impression if you start kissing ass now he won't deport or kill you?
I realize now that you have a mental disability that makes it very difficult for you to let things go and face new realities, so this is going to be with you for a long time. Living with constant anger about events of the past and the frustration and sense of helplessness it engenders can't be easy for you. That type of thinking is unfortunately very harmful and self-destructive. It often self-reinforces and compounds the issue, because an angry, frustrated person that feels helpless often acts in ways that reintroduce and repeat the behaviors that cause those feelings in the first place. It's a vicious cycle and a feedback loop.
I hadn't realized that this was a challenge you've talked about before and that you've had for your entire life and that it still consumes you to this day. I'm going to block you, but I truly do wish you the best, and I hope one day you are able to wrestle your demons. Breaking out of this cycle is going to be very hard work, but if you want to and when you're ready, I know you can do it. I'm sure you have more support around you than you realize.
My demons are trump and asshole like you who endlessly defend him and his fascism. I hope I get to do some wrestling too :3
You didn't read the article did you? Or even the snopes "correction" of it? Pls do that before discounting it as fake, being wilfully ignorant about this does nobody any good
🙄