- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
You know who I don’t feel bad for? The clerk flying a Trump 2024 flag after he tried to go against the will of the people, claimed a fraudulent election, and incited his supporters toward insurrection. And then for the next several years heard lie after lie about the thing that she had expertise in.
This is beyond leopards eating faces. This is still voting for the leopards eating face party after they’ve already been taking bites of your face.
Read the article. Fuck the bot. JFC.
Yeah I don’t get why someone would make a bot that removes 90+% of an article. It just spits out a disjointed mess of half thoughts leaving you more confused.
I’d rather there be a bot that just reposts 100% of it so I don’t have to click on the site.
She believed it only because she had experienced many similar revelations during the last few years, ever since she heeded Trump’s warnings about the “corrupt, lying mainstream media” and decided to disconnect her television. Her friends introduced her to far-right media platforms online like Mike Lindell’s Frank Speech and The Elijah List, where each day she listened to a rotation of self-proclaimed patriots, biblical prophets and also sometimes political figures like Lara Trump. They offered Zakas not only conspiratorial ideas but also the promise of a community that extended far beyond the loneliness of her house, with a grandfather clock ticking away in the living room and views out the window of an emptiness that stretched clear into California. Each day, something urgent was happening in the far corners of the internet — something big and dark and secret, and that knowledge fueled her days with both purpose and agency.
A major part of the problem is that a large portion of the population will always choose the lies that resonate with them over the truths that bother them. And while I would love to see legal consequences for fraud and defamation when possible, that can only reduce the damage being done, and force the bigger names in misinformation to stay in a gray area of half truth and innuendo while still misleading people for economic and political gain. They can still lead people to the wrong conclusion, they just need to phrase it as a question rather than a statement (Note: This is a massive oversimplification).
I don’t see a good solution to the problem. Any tool strong enough to stop media that isn’t just overtly committing fraud and slander is a tool that will also likely be used to silence dissent and legitimate free speech.
She came to believe, along with millions of others, that Covid was a creation of the federal government used to manipulate the public and steal elections; that two doses of the vaccine would make men infertile; that Trump had been anointed to lead a “government cleansing”; that fighting had already begun in underground military tunnels; that Trump’s election in 2024 was preordained by God; that he would return to power with loads of gold collected from other countries that had capitulated to his power; that, during his next term, Americans would have free electricity, zero income tax and “medbeds” powered by a secret technology that could harness natural energy to heal diseases and extend human life; and that the only thing standing in the way of this future was a deep state so malicious and vast that its roots extended all the way into tiny Esmeralda County.
But maybe psychiatric help would be a good place to start.
Social media is a medium for conformation bias, and arguably to blame for much of our extreme political polarization. The algorithms are designed to maintain engagement by sending you posts that are similar to the ones you spend the most time viewing. Your feed will inevitably paint a skewed picture of the world, and group you with other like-minded people commenting on the same narrative.
If I have to use innuendo, emoji, and code words to write “Come to my horror themed burlesque show, tickets in bio!” on IG without getting flagged and shadowbanned, they can deal with it too.
So what’s the over/under on whether she votes Trump anyway?
Not worth betting on when it’s a secret ballot, so we can’t know.
It was rhetorical. We all know she will.
And that’s so very depressing.
Because she likely believes that the “deep state” still exists, just not her.
She had served as the clerk without controversy for two decades as an elected Republican, and she flew a flag at her own home that read: “Trump 2024 — Take America Back.”
Seems it could go either way
Thanks for the article. It was a good read. I wish there was some way to combat misinformation, but it is flat Earth all over again. Ideas are welcome.
You shouldn’t be able to file a recall petition without some kind of evidence.
If you come in with “well, I believe it…” the correct response should be “Well, I believe you’re an idiot… go home.”
California requires you to officially state reasons when you ask for a recall. They just get filled in with a bunch of nonsense in cases like this.
Agreed. You have to state a reasonable case, otherwise no one will sign the petition. But if someone turns out not to be the person you thought you were voting for, and enough other people agree, then you shouldn’t have to be like “aw shucks, I guess they just get to keep doing their job until the next election.”
“Whoops, we made a mistake… and it’s you” is a very important part of democratic politics.
You should be able to file a recall petition for any damn reason you want (edit: if you are able to gather sufficient support/signatures, obviously. This isn’t The Office, no one is saying random people should be able to stand up and say I DECLARE A RECALL and then it happens).
“I don’t like you and most of the people you work for don’t either” is sufficient cause to ask for the removal of someone who works for the public. If enough people agree with you, that’s that. It’s called direct democracy. You should try it out.
You don’t need to commit a crime for people to not want you to serve or represent them, though I could see how the current state of politics might lead you to believe that. If you work for the people and enough of the people you work for no longer want you to work for them, there are mechanisms to remedy that. It’s basic democracy. Sheesh.
Perhaps you’re confusing political democracy with corporate contractualism? She doesn’t work for a private company. She’s an elected official. You don’t have to be convicted of a crime to be recalled. You really don’t have to do anything except lose the political support of your constituency to be threatened by a recall in most democratic governments.
Perhaps you’ve heard of George Santos? Or snap elections?
Mod of Politics, everyone. Take a bow, @[email protected]
“Not liking someone” isn’t a reason for a recall. A recall should be done for cause, otherwise, vote against them, or hell, run against them.
If a sufficient amount of people that the person works for don’t like the person, that’s called the “will of the people.” If you can describe the reasons you don’t like someone and get sufficient support for your position to file a recall, that is quite literally what a recall is for and what democracy means.
You’re under the impression that if someone you’ve elected starts governing in ways you don’t appreciate, and a majority of the constituency for that person feels similarly, then it’s just “too bad, wait for the next election?” Aside from it largely not being the case, why would you want that to be the case?
I understand what you mean, insofar as it seems capricious, but if someone is duly elected, a recall is unlikely to pass merit or muster.
But in a democracy, you can and should be able to recall anyone that was elected. It’s basically the control-Z of democracy, and it’s actually a very important facet of a well functioning democracy that holds its public officials to account to the will of the people.
The article, which perhaps you didn’t finish, is precisely about this fact. You can start a recall petition, but you can’t just make stuff up and make up voters in order to do it.
You might disagree with various democratic processes, but this seems silly for someone as wise as you to have a problem with. And I mean that. I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and even-handed moderation sensibilities. I imagine we agree on a lot of things, but recalls are politics not business.
Will of the people is called “an election”.
If you don’t like someone, vote them out.
It there’s active malfeasance, that’s when you don’t wait for an election and run a recall, or an impeachment if a recall is not an option.
But “I don’t like you” should never be the reason. Otherwise every election would end in a recall.
A recall petition is precisely “voting them out.” It’s a mechanism for doing it before an election cycle.
“I like you” and “I don’t like you” are exactly, for better or worse, how elections work. A recall is simply the demand of the people to run an election off-cycle if there is sufficient support. You aren’t going to get a recall petition certified if the only reason you don’t like someone is “you don’t like them,” but there are many reasons to recall a politician that don’t need to reach the level of malfeasance.
Again. Politics not private business?
I’m honestly struggling to understand why you wouldn’t support that idea.
Many states require recalls be run for cause, I personally believe ALL recalls should be run that way.
If you don’t have a reason for a recall beyond “feelings” then there is no reason for a recall.
See how it works in Washington as a good example, this prevents frivolous recalls.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_recall_in_Washington
“Article I, §33 of the Washington Constitution states that a recall can only occur if the targeted public official has “committed some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office.”[1]”
Show the evidence, run the recall.
No evidence? GTFO. See you next election.
Misfeasance quite literally means, in this statute and in a legally denotative sense, you did something someone deems inappropriate or wrong, but not necessarily harmful or illegal. I.e., you did something someone(s) didn’t like.
You’re literally arguing against your own point now. And honestly, I meant it and still mean it when I say I have so much respect for you. I don’t understand what’s happening right now.
Anyone else getting serious “religious nutjob from The Mist” vibes from the zakas lady? Like wow yup, nobody should be listening to you yet here we are.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
According to polls, a third of U.S. congressional representatives and more than 60 percent of all registered Republican voters continue to believe President Biden was falsely elected, and even Elgan had wondered about the potential for fraud in other swing states like Georgia or Ohio.
Zakas started sending emails to Esmeralda County commissioners about what she considered “potential vulnerabilities” for fraud heading into the 2024 election: fragile machines, faulty electronic counters, signatures that could be forged and poll workers who might be compromised.
Her friends introduced her to far-right media platforms online like Mike Lindell’s Frank Speech and The Elijah List, where each day she listened to a rotation of self-proclaimed patriots, biblical prophets and also sometimes political figures like Lara Trump.
They offered Zakas not only conspiratorial ideas but also the promise of a community that extended far beyond the loneliness of her house, with a grandfather clock ticking away in the living room and views out the window of an emptiness that stretched clear into California.
When their allegations weren’t forcing her out of bed with nausea late at night, or inducing another panic attack, or prompting her husband to search for real estate in California, Elgan sometimes found herself laughing at the sheer absurdity of the county’s transformation.
She had been working in an administrative job for the county during the 2020 election, and she listened to her family members spread conspiracy theories about Dominion machines and read a friend’s false Facebook posts about the thousands of dead people voting in Nevada.
The original article contains 3,931 words, the summary contains 255 words. Saved 94%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Not today autobot.
