this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
716 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19634 readers
2932 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.

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

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accused Bernie Sanders of taking millions from Big Pharma during a heated exchange, but Sanders refuted the claim, stating his donations came from workers, not corporate PACs.

Kennedy repeatedly insisted Sanders was the top recipient of pharmaceutical money in 2020, but financial data shows no corporate PAC contributions to Sanders.

Meanwhile, Kennedy has profited from anti-vaccine activism, earning millions from lawsuits and speaking fees.

The debate ended without Kennedy answering whether he would guarantee health care for all as HHS secretary.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Anything where an election is manipulated is "rigging" an election. You're just splitting hairs.

https://www.giantbomb.com/a/uploads/scale_super/3/33013/2638039-election%20rigging.jpg

Notice that the image I just showed is named "election rigging.jpg"?

The Definition for "rig":

rig: manage or conduct (something) fraudulently so as to produce a result or situation that is advantageous to a particular person.

Having literal media organizations promoting the idea that the Super Delegates were all in the bag for Clinton and emails that showed they actively tried to hamstring him all falls under "rigging."

[–] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Are you suggesting a video game as a source for a definition of election rigging? Was there a better quality source you could use?

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

He doesn't need a better source. We're talking about how language is used in society, and it proves that point fine.

I might hate terms like "Rizz" but as long as people use them to refer to a certain context, there's no room to argue that "Technically, Rizz isn't a word!!11"

[–] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago

No, he does as not all sources are valid. I for one would argue a game designer and writer aren’t going to be sources I would rely upon to define matters related to elections. There are better sources that are reliable and valid this game is not one.

but influencing is not really manipulating or if you believe it is then any promotion or advertising becomes rigging. I think again the big thing here is fraudulently and what that means to folks. For me again its like changing votes, disenfranchisement, and jerry mandering would fit but getting one guy to be on your side publically over another with promises. Thats always gonna be a thing.