Republicans stole the election in 2000, they are just dialing it up.
Could you imagine the shitstorm if Democrats did this?
The problems with vaccines started with andrew wakefield. Republicans have been pushing for voter ID laws for decades.
none of this started with trump.
Yeah
2012:
2024:
95% of Republicans for voter ID hasn’t changed before/after Trump
Why are democrats not as supportive of ID laws? I would assume it’s obvious you need an ID to vote, or am I missing something here?
In general, if we have universal ID’s, then it makes sense… There are a segment of the poor that just don’t have ID, and it currently adversely affects one party more than the other.
Once you require ID, then republicans start adding roadblocks and requirements that make it tougher for classes of people.
On top of all that, it is an attempt to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Non-citizens are not attempting to vote.
This right here. It’s not a problem with voter ID. It’s a problem with getting the ID. Cost, accessibility, and prerequisites are all roadblocks. Those prerequisites all tend to be issues for the poorer people that tend to vote democrat. Right up there with refusal to make election day a holiday, making mail-in ballots a fight, reducing voting locations, making offers of water to people in long voting lines illegal…. Poorer people work maybe multiple jobs and can’t take the time off or spend time in long lines, so that’s all designed to reduce the democratic vote count.
IDs can be full of stupid bureaucracy to get. Eg if you are homeless, how will you get 2 pieces of mail with a home address? And in some places, IDs cost $50 or more. IDs are not the only way to identify someone - if you forget your ID before flying, there are alternative ways to identify you. The DMV has long wait times and IDs are often mailed to people, the delay could impact voting if done shortly before election day. And disabled people may not be able to wait in line at the DMV. The DMV has limited hours as well.
It’s more important to protect someone’s right to vote than to enforce an arbitrary ID rule.
So how would this system prevent people from voting multiple times or voting as someone they’re not? Could you elaborate on what you meant when you said “alternative ways”? I’m imagining something like fingerprints or retina scans, both of which take more time and money than a simple ID.
Also I’m not too familiar with the DMV, but isn’t that for driver’s licenses only? Surely that’s not the only way to get an ID in the US?
I guess my point is rather than allowing voting without ID, there should be better systems in place to provide everyone with an ID.
It’s the DMV or a passport in the US. Since nearly everyone drives in the US, the main form of ID is a drivers license. They tacked the non-driver ID onto the DMV as well because they were already doing most IDs.
There should be a better way to provide everyone with IDs. But that should be done first before tying such an important right to it.
The US as a country is carefully designed to not function properly. The federal government doesn’t issue IDs, so it’s up to the states (why even have a government if states have so much power? Nonsense.). State IDs aren’t always free, so instead of campaigning for that, Democrats instead claim that voter ID laws are racist.
deleted by creator
Wakefield was way late to the game.
This is from the 1890s.
Those were backed and funded by the Kremlin.
As was Trump.
Edit:
https://www.state.gov/russias-pillars-of-disinformation-and-propaganda-report/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/russian-misinformation-seeks-to-confound-not-convince/
…
do you have any evidence that andrew wakedield’s 1998 paper, in the lancet, was backed and funded by the kremlin? That doesn’t seem to be in any of the contemporary reporting on the paper?
blaming russia without evidence for all things is the one thing that did start during trump’s campaign.
None of these mention andrew wakefield, and they’re all from two decades after his study, that started the modern antivax movement, was published.
The modern anti vaccine movement was not started by russians. The fact that russians chose to join in two decades later does not make them responsible for its origins.
The diaper is an amazing touch!
I recommend that you do not touch the diaper.
Instantly thought of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjYePPvWYPU
The antivax crowd is not just trumpers. I’m not sure how much this has changed recently, but 10 to 20 years ago, I knew plenty of liberal college-educated suburban soccer moms who believed in that shit.
but 10 to 20 years ago, I knew plenty of liberal college-educated suburban soccer moms who believed in that shit.
And now they’re probably Trump voters.
It’s the crunchy to alt right pipeline and unfortunately it’s real.
And they were all vaccinated and they’re fine. Though if they’re Trump supporters the argument can be made that vaccines made them stupid.
They’re not all MAGAts, but they are all anti-empiricist conspiracy theorists, so it’s only a matter of time before they land on Trump or run straight past it to Nazism. Surely you’ve seen this for yourself.
We did have problems with vaccines before Trump
not to this scale, not even at the height of the pre-dinglebutt antivaxx movement.
These problems all existed as fringe coalitions before Trump came along. He just brought them to the forefront of the GOP platform because they were convenient for him and his cult instantly assimilated them.
Yeah, OP is simply ignorant. Jenny McCarthy posts are strewn through the comments, and here’s a bunch of democratic leaders talking about election results:
https://youtu.be/OjnX4IUt_eo?si=c30DDGdNXSZ9HRHF
Trump definitely made everything more extreme, though.
Here’s an article on the history of anti-vaccination movements with sources.
- “The Leicester Demonstration March of 1885 was one of the most notorious anti-vaccination demonstrations. There, 80,000-100,000 anti-vaccinators led an elaborate march, complete with banners, a child’s coffin, and an effigy of Jenner.”
- “…surveys of medical providers in the UK in the late 1970s found they were reluctant to recommend the immunization to all patients.”
- “Although the time periods have changed, the emotions and deep-rooted beliefs—whether philosophical, political, or spiritual—that underlie vaccine opposition have remained relatively consistent since Edward Jenner introduced vaccination.”
80,000-100,000 anti-vaccinators led an elaborate march, complete with banners, a child’s coffin, and an effigy of Jenner.
Kylie or Kendall?
since Edward Jenner introduced vaccination."
Ah ok… I bet his sisters helped, though!
This is a joke headline, right? Jenny McCarthy and hanging-chads.
I absolutely blame Jenny McCarthy for this, and maybe Oprah (I think Oprah gave her the platform to speak), but Jenny never came out and said “I was wrong about this and the doctor totally lied about his results and this has all been debunked” and now the US is in shambles because she’s a fucking idiot.
hanging-chad was not about election integrity really.
Throwing out ballots because of hanging chads is ABSOLUTELY an issue with election integrity. How much integrity can an election have if votes are thrown out arbitrarily so an unpopular candidate wins???
And that election would’ve changed things today. People drowning in Japan, Spain, North Carolina to these crazy floods. AMOC collapse has begun. We are so fucked and that was like, our chance. And Republicans and oil suckers decided to kill us all and Noah’s Ark us… in the 70s. When they were told this would happen.
They did not throw them out it was a question of counting the particular part of the ballot. The big issue was the state was not using consistent procedures.
The following day, the Democratic Party in Palm Beach filed suit to contest the vote count due to mistakes using the “butterfly” ballot. They argued that the structure of the butterfly ballot had caused many voters to mistakenly punch out the hole for Buchanan when they meant to vote for Gore. These, plus the ballots not read by the machines because the holes were not completely punched out, they claimed, created a significant “under vote.” They pointed to thousands of ballots having two holes punched out (often for Buchanan and Gore) and many more with holes only partially punched, held on by one corner—quickly labeled the “hanging chad.” They wanted those doing the manual recount to examine each ballot to determine the intention of the voter and to count the hanging chads. Later they successfully argued that other chads, including those only showing signs of being pushed—the “dimpled” and “pregnant” chads—also should be counted. Florida’s votes now appeared to depend on manual recounts and the nature of the chads. Counting chads was complicated and controversial, but it was nothing compared to the legal battles about to break.
The celebration lasted a day as the US Supreme Court issued a 7-to-2 decision in Bush v. Gore ordering a halt to all Florida recounts and calling for arguments to reconsider the Florida court’s decisions. The oral arguments showed that the Court was divided along ideological lines. Bush’s lawyers argued that the method of the recount was “arbitrary,” did “irreparable harm” to his candidacy, and violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, the Florida court’s decision violated Article 2 of the Constitution, which states that electors must be selected by a method chosen by the legislature. Gore’s lawyers responded that the recount did not injure Bush and it was best to let the people decide by counting all their votes. Most observers noted that the arguments had little chance of changing the views of the members of the Court. On December 12, the Supreme Court announced its controversial 5-to-4 decision that effectively ended all attempts to recount Florida votes and allowed Harris to ignore the already submitted recounted ballots. The decision determined that the vote certified by Harris previously (537) was correct and, above all, final. Gore conceded defeat on December 13, and five days later, George W. Bush was officially elected forty-third president of the United States as the electors cast their ballots: Bush received 271 electoral votes, one more than needed; Gore received 266.
Hanging chads were a tiny blip on the radar in the general story of the 2000 election. Trump’s had 100 scandals more noteworthy than hanging chads.
SCOTUS gave the election away because of them and the entire recount situation was manufactured to make it seem like there could be no consensus.
And yet in terms of lives lost, the 2000 election going to Bush killed pretty much 8 billion people plus most megafauna. Climate change had the last laugh after all.
I like how the diapers are on the outside
Is OP young or are they deliberately ignoring US history?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-sanders
https://daily.jstor.org/the-deadly-bilibid-prison-vaccine-trials/
The long and tortured history of bad American medicine and crooked elections is a reminder of the crimes of privatization, eugenics, and white nationalism.
The irony is how often these crimes are invokes as an excuse to deny health care provision via public institutions, to encourage further eugenics policies, and to facilitate white nationalist control of the country.
How many times am I going to see a MAGA Republican denounce Medicaid on the grounds that its too nice to black people or obstruct ballot access to college voters, on the grounds that these systems are corrupt?
How many times am I going to see liberals insist “This is just what people want” as they tear up another health care public option and let the GOP further stack the SCOTUS?
This is like like pointing out how bad the drizzle was before the hurricane hit.
Yeah, it’s kinda like we didn’t fall out of a coconut tree, and everything exists in context. It’s kinda like these past incidents inspired modern day people to abuse these loopholes. And btw, Gore losing the election killed 8 billion people due to climate change, so it was significantly worse that what Trump did in terms of impact.
Removed by mod
Are you able to have reasoned discussion or are you only able to parrot reactionary speech when you get tilted?
Who said I was angry? You are projecting your own emotions into a perfectly reasonable assessment. Russian bots have been proven to interfere in the past elections just as you are now. Asking if you are puts it front and center.
It’s not reasonable, it’s just an easy talking point you go to when you get upset. Like it’s pretty thought terminating, right? And do you ask every commenter if they are a Russian spy, or are you not asking because you disagree with what I said? You claim I’m “interfering in elections,” - how? How am I, as a voter who is exercising her right to free speech to criticize the government, doing anything that would interfere in an election? Please elaborate how that’s not a baseless accusation.
Also, don’t you see how it’s a stretch to say that “Russian spies interfered in elections,” and then jump to claiming I’m somehow interfering in an election and ALSO then a Russian spy? Many other countries interfere in elections. What’s your evidence I’m Russian specifically and not, say, Chinese? Yet again showing this is based on reactionary rhetoric and not anything in reality or with evidence.
Also PS - I voted for Kamala. Criticizing Clinton is not the same as saying we shouldn’t vote for Kamala. Stop sucking Dem boots
You don’t know any sort of research I have done or anything about my background. There is actual proof that Russians used social media, paid for by Cambridge Analytica funded by Trump’s inner circle.
Creating such discourse was their tactic to manipulate fringe undecideds to lean towards Trump. But don’t let facts get in your way when you know so much about so little.
Yes, there is proof that in 2016, Russian agents did that. I haven’t disputed that.
The reason I dispute the application of this knowledge to me is that its wrong. Like I’m a literal US voter with an Only Fans that connects to my US issued ID. It’s pretty clear I’m not Russian. And given how antitrump and for democracy I am, I’m not on the Trump pay roll either.
They didn’t create this discourse. The democrats DID IT. Like Clinton literally rode on Epstein’s plane. That’s his fault. They literally had a conflict of interest with their donations to the DNC and running as candidates. That’s genuine issues they did. Criticizing that, engaging in the definition of critical thinking, is part of the democratic process so we can stop it from happening again. That Republicans brought up the factual things the DNC did as issues is just normal campaigning. Abnormal campaigns were the disinformation the Russian bots put forward which later directly resulted in American deaths when it came to COVID.
Do you like, talk to real people irl about politics? Most people irl aren’t diehard DNC or RNC bootlickers. Most people are somewhere in between. That you refuse to tolerate other political opinions besides DNC bootlicking shows how “informed” you are alone.
why tf you think putin bought him?
Trump’s been bought and sold more times than a vintage Pokemon trading card.
For some reason, people love to fixate on Putin while ignoring MBS, JP Morgan, and Elon Musk.
It has always been amazing how the Trump crowd are actively going about victimhood culture and never catch on their leader always being the victim in every situation he is in.
Every accusation is projection.
Why is he so bizarrely thin and with gigantic hands?
Because this is an existing unrelated graphic very lazily edited to be Trump instead.
Are you Putin me on?
Not true, we had anti-vaxxera long before Trump, of both the vaccines cause autism and crunchy hippy varieties. The former just mutated into an aggressive new form after being exposed to a novel virus and consequently a novel vaccine.
