- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
In the spring of 2020, when President Donald J. Trump wrote messages on Twitter warning that increased reliance on mail-in ballots would lead to a “rigged election,” the platform ran a corrective, debunking his claims.
“Get the facts about mail-in voting,” a content label read. “Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud,” the hyperlinked article declared.
This month, Elon Musk, who has since bought Twitter and rebranded it X, echoed several of Mr. Trump’s claims about the American voting system, putting forth distorted and false notions that American elections were wide open for fraud and illegal voting by noncitizens.
This time, there were no fact checks. And the X algorithm — under Mr. Musk’s direct control — helped the posts reach large audiences, in some cases drawing many millions of views.
Since taking control of the site, Mr. Musk has dismantled the platform’s system for flagging false election content, arguing it amounted to election interference.
They weren’t wrong. There is a reason West is getting donations from conservatives like Harlan Crow that oppose his views.
The vote is counted for Cornell West. Not Trump.
Wheel of contrarianism turn turn turn, tell us the lesson that we should learn.
implying I’m a contrarian doesn’t change the truth of how votes are tallied.
Being obnoxiously pedantic doesn’t make you right either.
calling my position obnoxious and pedantic doesn’t falsify my claims
How can you expect yourself to integrate well into any conversation when you’re fixated on “well technically…”
If 99% of people colloquially agree that A = B, then it doesn’t really matter if ‘A’ and ‘B’ are really the same thing if everybody knows what we’re talking about. It’s the most obnoxious shit when someone tries to argue in this way, and you’re not convincing anybody or adding anything meaningful to the discussion.
if the entire country decided Israel isn’t doing a genocide, I’m not going to agree.
But they are wrong. If someone is in a solidly blue state like California, a vote for Cornell West literally means nothing because of the Electoral College. Arguably, if you’re in a safe state like that, why not vote with your conscience? (I’m not here to make comment on West’s politics, I don’t follow him, I’m making a point about the Electoral College and Presidential elections)
I can understand having the attitude of “Well, there’s not really a lot of safe options” when they’re a swing state or hell even a red state (not a bad thing to try to make a dent against them on their own home turf), but it seems to be really talking down to a lot of Democrat voters who live in Democratic strongholds whose vote basically is meaningless because of the Electoral College but despite this they’re being bullied into voting the Democrat choice for President.
Now, even in a blue state, voting matters locally and not just giving your vote out to just any Tom, Dick or Harry matters. But a Presidential election where we continue to use the Electoral College to decide the President and not the popular vote? That’s just dismissive of the reality of how anti-Democratic the Electoral College actually is.
If it takes three paragraphs and your specific voting location to explain why your vote “technically” won’t go to 45, maybe those people are right. The problem is that there are a LOT of people that don’t understand the nuance and we have to plan for the lowest common denominator, otherwise people in actual swing states will see posts like your first one (lacking any explanation) and run with it. For them, a third party vote actually is helping 45.
Additionally, there’s a decent argument to be made about total votes even though they don’t “technically” decide the president. That number still matters and a lot of weight is thrown around with it. For all we know, this whole thing could hit the courts and having every advantage may be necessary to save our future.
Removed by mod
They weren’t responding to the original comment, they were responding to yours; I guess you could take your own advice, perhaps?
That’s what they said. Maybe your reading comprehension needs some work, too, buddy. I didn’t have a “first one.”
Jesus you asswipes need to learn to fucking read.
Oh the irony of you telling us to read when you literally can’t figure out that yes, I was talking to YOU. When I said “your first post” it meant yours not the OP. Look in a mirror.
"first post’ implies more than one. at the time you originally responded to me, my response to you was my only response in the thread discussing anything related to third parties at the time.
So tell me please, why would you refer to “my first post” when the only one that referenced anything related to this subject was the one you were responding to?
Further, you say it “lacks explanation.” The only post I made about the subject included an explanation, dipshit, the explanation that you said “took three paragraphs.” That’s the only post I made on the subject of whether or not a third party counts as a vote for Trump.
Are you really this fucking stupid?
Show me where I made that post, please. Because literally I came into the thread to add my explanation which you shat all over and then said I had left out of a previous post I obviously didn’t make.
Because this:
Was not me, genius.
Jesus christ you fucking morons. I reiterate, learn to fucking read.
Can you see that my username is not the top-level comment here or are you stupid or just a gaslighter?
They are wrong. You can stamp your feet and insist otherwise because you’re scared of losing, but they’re wrong.