1005
submitted 9 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 16 points 9 months ago

RFTA. It's so short, FFS.

He didn't vote 9 times in the 2020 election (or since then). He was on probation in PA for a felony and couldn't legally vote in GA, but did anyway. I would assume in 9 different elections. He claims he thought it was legal for him to do so. Had he not been on probation in PA, all his votes would have been legal. (In fact, I believe he should have been able to vote, as I don't think being convicted of a crime should remove this fundamental right. But that's kind of besides the point here)

He broke the law and should be punished for it, especially for being one who claims that the people were voting illegally, but even guessing that he was doing this because he thought the 2020 election was stolen makes absolutely zero sense, because the bulk of these times (if not all of them) happened before then.

[-] Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago

Thank you for the correction. I'll edit my comment.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

NP, thanks for being nice about it despite me being a cock.

That being said, all of the voting happened before 2011 even, when the probation was actually up.

[-] Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Ack, even after reading the article I misunderstood. So it would have been legal in one state but was illegal where he actually voted. That's complicated.

And I don't mind being corrected! It helps me learn. I hope you have a wonderful day.

[-] Syrc@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

To be honest, the headline is really misleading. Yes, people should definitely RTFA, but not everyone has the time to do that and a headline should be specific enough to avoid spreading misinformation.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago

The title is never going to be specific enough to remove all ability to misinterpret it. The title just tells you what the article is about. The article itself gives you all the necessary details. I agree that it shouldn't be misleading, and in the case I think it could be improved, but that doesn't change the fact that one should refrain from passing judgment about what happened based on a headline. If you don't have the time to read the article, you also lack the time to form an valid opinion about what happened.

[-] Syrc@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Sure, I agree, but unfortunately the human mind is prone to jumping to conclusions, especially when they fit their narrative. One should always be sure of what happened before forming an opinion on it, but sometimes you “get the feeling you’re sure” even when you don’t have all the necessary information.

Just look at how widespread the “Biden doesn’t know the alphabet” thing got when the original was very clearly satire.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

I understand that confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. But we are talking about just making sure you are even just mildly informed before forming an opinion you think is valid.

[-] Syrc@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

The thing is, a lot of times people think they’re informed enough even when they aren’t. There isn’t a clear indicator of “how informed” you are on any subject, and self-assessment is a faulty thing. The Dunning-Kruger effect probably plays a part in that too.

[-] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

This is the basis for InfoWars: read a headline, make up a story to fit it

this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
1005 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19239 readers
1890 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