• kitnaht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    I believe the goal and intent is to get enough results into question that they kick it into Mike Johnson’s hands - and that mfer has almost no history at all. No bank account, nothing. He’ll do the thing, it’ll be contested, it’ll go to supreme court, where – surprise surprise, they’ll rule in favor of Donald J Trump and he will be elected our new Dictator. At which point he’ll be sworn in, because - Dems have never had any backbone - and then he’ll proceed to gut every institution which questions him, and turn this nation into an autocracy.

    What people don’t realize yet, is that the election doesn’t matter unless Kamala wins by such a large margin that they can’t pull this off. They require the veil of uncertainty for this all to work. But since we’re on razor-thin margins, it’s going to happen anyways.

    We’re already boned, and nobody realizes it yet. The playbook is out in the open and the media has stopped calling this out. They’re complicit in it, because they think the leopards won’t eat their face too. So they’re cozying up early.

    • kitnaht@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      20 days ago

      Bonus: I believe they’ll be doing something wild with Vance as well - probably temporarily making him president, while he pardons Trump for any past crimes, and then giving the presidency back to Trump.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        20 days ago

        Hmm, we learned in 2022 that the House can’t do anything until a Speaker is installed. And the new Congress is seated a few days before the EC votes are counted. What if Kamala wins the election, but the House declines to elect a Speaker? Can they even convene to count the votes? I hope so, since the VP president over the counting of votes, not the Speaker.

        Still, a Kamala win will be a lot more bullet-proof it it comes with a Democratic House and Senate, too. Then there is far less that Mike can do to fuck it up.

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          19 days ago

          I’d like to believe that the only reason 2020 got so ratfucked in the first place was that Trump was intentionally not putting the screws on anybody to do their jobs.

          A second Jan 6th won’t happen, at least not this year. A MAGA mob will show up at the capitol and be met by a fully prepared and well armed national guard, because Biden is the commander in chief and he’s going to take threats like that seriously.

          If the house declines to elect a speaker, Biden could in theory put pressure on them to pick one. The constitutional crisis can swing both directions - yes the Republicans will likely try to avoid certification, but then Biden could threaten to not step down unless the certification happens, or hand over the reigns to VP Harris anyway by resigning. I don’t see it working in their favor to try something like not certifying or not electing a speaker, because they don’t have the luxury of Trump in the white house to look the other way at their bad behavior.

          • dhork@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            19 days ago

            It’s quite apparent that the plan in 2020 was to organize these fake electors, who did everything the process called for except actually be certified by the states, and send their phony credentials into Congress so Pence could recognize them. When Pence didn’t go along, their plan pivoted to creating enough chaos at the Capitol to stop the certification altogether. Both plans failed because Pence wouldn’t go along.

            This time, they can’t plan on anyone in the Executive Branch to go along. So their plan must be either to make the House dysfunctional so it cannot act to certify, or pressure states to ignore their laws and certify for Trump.

            I am constantly amazed how far Trumpiats will go to maintain power – and how their voters reward them for it.

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      There is still something the American People can do in such an undemocratic maneuver. Its the single action that we’ve built all of this bureaucracy to avoid. But the SC should never decide the president in a Democracy and neither should the Speaker. It should be counted until the counting is done, thats it. I will be razing hell the moment they try to remove our own agency and place it into the hands of their cronies. I’ve got a megaphone ready and all the PTO in the world.

      Edit: raising, not raze. I’d rather not make it worse.

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        20 days ago

        I believe you meant “raising hell” as in bringing it too the surface of Earth and recruiting Satan’s legions to fight with you, not razing hell as in cutting it down, because how would that help?

    • qooqie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      20 days ago

      Only point of dispute is if she wins by a large margin they’ll just say the only way someone can win by such a large gap is through fraud.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 days ago

      So you just riding the wave, heading for the hills? Sounds like you are convinced this will happen, not arguing that it won’t. If this is your reality right now, curious what that means, if anything, for your day to day life at the moment? Extra locks on door? Stockpiling ammo? Or do you think it will be more of a slow professional “business” fascism as we all continue to boil in the pot?

      Genuinely curious what the folks who are 100% convinced today that we’re beyond fucked and society is crumbling in two weeks either way, are doing at this moment (when they can still “prepare” mentally, financially, etc.)

      • kitnaht@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        19 days ago

        I know enough history to see where this is headed. I hope it won’t be an immediate firestorm, and I feel as if there are a lot of people in a lot of high up places that won’t just let Cheeto-man arbitrarily take control like he wants. So it won’t be an overnight thing. I already stockpile ammo, Republicans don’t have a monopoly on gun rights, thankfully. If I gotta skedaddle, I have both a place in Canada I can stay, and a place over in the UK temporarily. I’m, unfortunately surrounded by these imbiciles - but I keep my head down enough that most of them think I’m one too. Family already has their passports sorted.

        Germany wasn’t an overnight thing either. It’ll start with rounding up political rivals and immigrants into camps. If that comes to pass, that’s my litmus test for getting the fuck out of dodge.

      • 31337@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 days ago

        IMO, the U.S. will become similar to Russia. It’s not some sudden societal collapse scenario; just an oligarchy with high levels of corruption and incompetence. Most people will conform or keep their heads down to avoid the consequences of stepping out of line. If you’re in a possibly targeted group, you may want a valid passport though. And it’s always been a good idea to keep at least a months worth of non-perishable food on hand in case of supply chain disruptions. Possibly stuff like emergency propane heaters and a propane tank could be useful too (they’ve been useful for me in the past already without an authoritarian government or social unrest). Knowing your neighbors and helping eachother out in little ways is probably the most powerful thing though.

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 days ago

    The scary thing about elections is that, by design, nobody can ever “prove” they won.

    Votes are designed to be anonymous. They have to be. If they’re not, they’re very vulnerable to manipulation. If someone can prove how they voted, then they can either be bribed to vote a certain way, or threatened to vote a certain way. If you can check that your vote was counted successfully for the candidate you chose, then someone else can check that you voted for the candidate they chose.

    That means that, by design, the only security that elections can have is in the process. In a small election, like 1000ish votes or fewer, someone could supervise the whole thing. They could cast their vote, then stand there and watch. They could watch as other people voted, making sure that nobody voted twice, or dropped more than one sheet into the box. They could watch as the box was emptied. Then, they could watch as each vote was tallied. Barring some sleight-of-hand, in a small election like that, you could theoretically supervise the entire process, and convince yourself that the vote was fair.

    But, that is impossible to scale. Even for 1000 votes, not every voter could supervise the entire process, and for more than 1000 votes, or votes involving more than one voting location, it’s just not possible for one person to watch the entire thing. So, at some point you need to trust other people. If you’re talking say 10,000 votes, maybe you have 10 people you trust beyond a shadow of a doubt, and each one of you could supervise one process. But, the bigger the election, the more impossible it is to have actual people you know and trust supervising everything.

    In a huge country-wide election, there’s simply no alternative to trust. You have to trust poll workers you’ve never met, and/or election monitors you’ve never met. And, since you’re not likely to hear directly from poll workers or election monitors, you have to instead trust the news source you’re using that reports on the election. In a big, complex election, a statistician may be able to spot fraud based on all the information available. But, if you’re not that statistician, you have to trust them, and even if you are that statistician, you have to trust that your model is correct and that the data you’re feeding it is correct.

    Society is built on trust, and voting is no different. Unfortunately, in the US, trust is breaking down, and without trust, it’s just a matter of which narrative seems the most “truthy” to you.

    • Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      You know how people outside the USA vote? They go there, show their ID, get a tick on the list of voters, and do the voting.

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      19 days ago

      They can tell who votes. Your entire premise is based on a belief that votes are anonymous. They aren’t. They are pretected from the public. If you have ever worked in election, which I have, you would know that. You have to cross reference if someone voted twice, are alive, or even registered in the county they voted in. There are computers that verify electronic bullets and there are batch audits. No one is ever allowed to be alone even with one ballet. Everything is done in a team. If your partner calls in sick, you’re the third wheel to another team.

      Just because the public doesn’t know doesn’t mean the government doesn’t know.

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        Votes are anonymous. You can tell who voted, but not what they voted for. It’s crucial for the fairness of elections that a vote cannot be definitively connected to the individual who cast it; if you could, you could coerce or retaliate.

        And all of the things you mention are the trust OP is talking about. You were a trusted person in that situation. The process increases and validates trust.

      • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        That’s basically what was being said and it’s not functionally different because the vast majority of the public does not work in elections or their verification. In essence if 99% of the population does not have access to data or cannot interpret said data, trust is needed.

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          19 days ago

          I read certain phrases from what they wrote and it infers that people do not know who voted for who or what. That just isn’t the mechanism. It’s done by computers. It has to be tabulated for a multitude of reasons. It’s not anonymous to the mechanism. It is anonymous to the public. Which is not what the original statement. It was that the trust is built from no one at all ever knowing or being to tell.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 days ago

            First, I’m writing about a person who’s watching and doesn’t know if they can trust the system. My point is that there’s no alternative to trust in the system, the system is built on trust.

            Second, if you’re inside the system, if you’re an election worker or a government authority, you can tell who voted. But, you can’t tell who that voter cast their votes for – at least in a functional democracy.

            The authorities can, and should, have all kinds of checks and balances to make sure that all the votes are being handled safely and counted correctly. But, if the public doesn’t trust the authorities, there’s nothing that the authorities can realistically do to convince the public that everything is above board. You can’t “prove” that the system isn’t rigged.

            • GladiusB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              19 days ago

              Oh you can tell. But it’s not going to be easy to report it without getting caught. Part of the process is auditing. We would take certain stacks that had incomplete marks and try and figure out who or what they meant. But it’s just hi ho hum work because it’s a madhouse. Remembering that Betty Smith voted for Prop 17 by the end of the day would be really difficult without being very obvious that was who you were looking for.

              Then there are verifications on who voted at all that were registered to the right polls. All their answers are on their ballots. Security is what keeps it secret and a precise way of dealing with it. In a big room with many eyes. Kind of like a casino’s money vault.

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    19 days ago

    They won’t.

    It’s like MLK said - the white liberal will always prefer “a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”

    That’s the whole reason they didn’t bat an eyelid when Neo-Nazis and KKK-boys were marching under open police protection back in 2016 but collectively lost their shit when antifa showed up to physically confront them.

    • Don_Dickle@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      This is a dumb question but how do people get in touch with people in Antifa or Qanon because I highly doubt they have like a dedicated website or email?

      • TheRedSpade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        18 days ago

        You don’t get in touch with “people in Antifa”, because there’s no such thing as being “in” Antifa. It’s the idea of being against fascism, not a group of people.

      • aaa999@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        19 days ago

        qanon is, as the name suggests, anonymous, so you don’t contact qanon, qanon posts some dumb shit and you have no real way of identifying whether it was the real dipshit or a fake dipshit. there is no national qanon organization, only cult weirdos looking for secret codes on facebook, who you can talk to, I guess

        generally the best way to contact antifa is to form your own group and then talk to them. second best is probably praying that you have a local group that isn’t a scam and has a PR side that you can instagram. there is no national or world antifa org; if you’re doing antifa shit then you’re antifa now

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    20 days ago

    I mean, Biden has the power to do whatever he wants now and could potentially overturn the results in the interests of national security or whatever. He won’t, but it’s nice to think that he could do something to avert a fascist takeover. Democrats will take the high-road into letting democracy die.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    20 days ago

    If there is another jan 6th it will be a tragedy.

    There will be many more casualties.

    The incumbent office won’t hesitate to act like Trump did, tactfully. It will be a massacre.

    That’s all I know.

  • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    20 days ago

    How would he win it through fraud? If he wins, he’ll win legitimately.

    Claiming that it’s fraud if he wins is exactly what Trump did in 2020.

    • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      20 days ago

      You have not heard of the “contested electors” delegates his party attempted to send in place of the actual delegates last time around?