Anyway, I posted this because multiple rightoids tried to argue with me and claim I was wrong and Sinema was totally fine and popular among Arizona dems.
I claimed Sinema was in a lot of danger, because she isn;t Joe Manchin. The DNC is gaining ground in arizona and can't ignore the left-wing activist bloc or they risk sinking turnout in the state.
Surprise surprise, this is the exact reasoning the state party is now rejecting Sinema:
But she faces political dynamics unlike the other Senate moderate thwarting Democratic ambitions, Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Representing a state that former President Donald Trump carried by nearly 39 percentage points in 2020, Manchin is unlikely to face a progressive challenger who would gain traction.
In Arizona, however, Democrats are ascendant. Joe Biden was the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state since 1996, and the party is eager to build on that success. That makes it harder for a Democrat to simply ignore the left here, particularly in a primary election.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Just two more weeks until democracy is destroyed!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I mean there's no way to argue the GOP did not try to steal the 2020 election.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Also, I'm 100% genuine when I say: if you believe the US democracy is in danger you should work on improving the way ballots are collected, handled and counted so that there isn't a shadow of a doubt about the results.
If this wasn't such a shitshow the Republicans wouldn't have been so successful at casting doubt on the legitimacy of the result.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They canβt even get the day off so non-layabouts can vote, you think dems can swing their peepee for better elections in general?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The ballots are already collected well and the process is incredibly clear, this is what you people don't fricking comprehend.
it doesn't matter, Republicans literally banned the counting of mail in ballots early in PA so they could drag it out and claim fraud, they were fricking warned about this well in advance, they did not care because it was fricking intentional and they know their base is too r-slurred to ever learn how the process works.
https://nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/decision-2020/mail-in-voting-what-to-know/pa-republican-lawmakers-remain-unwilling-to-allow-early-vote-counting/2567571/
I'm so fricking sick of this shit, take 5 minutes to learn something before you form opinions.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Florida counted 11 million votes in hours while states with 10 times less voters took days, mail in votes aren't enough to justify that level of incompetence.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
My fricking god, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN. Where does this ignorance come from?
FLORIDA FRICKING COUNTS VOTES EARL.Y.
https://sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/elections/fl-ne-election-2020-florida-fast-vote-reporting-20201105-4vecbsq2tffkfpzd25avu3zz4i-story.html
Why do you not bother to learn how things work before you make claims like this?
Like please man, why are you like this? Do you even know why it takes so long to count mail in votes in states without early counting?
Because you have to unbox, unfold, and sort millions of ballots.
Not only did Republicans in PA block early counting, They starved election officials of funding so the process would take even longer.
Now let me ask you this - why do you think they did these things? Think really hard.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ok, you've convinced me that not early counting mail-in votes is the main reason for the delays across most states, although I hope we both agree that stopping reporting the results in the middle of the night wasn't a good look.
Look I'm not saying republicans are angels and that there was no foul play at all. But the most plausible explanation isn't that they had an evil master plan to contest the results later, but that they were actually worried about fraud after 4 years of democrats trying to remove trump from power. I mean it's not exactly a secret that the political establishment hated trump, wouldn't you be worried about fraud too if you were a trump supporter?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Listen to me, this is malicious, it's not that they're worried about fraud, it's that they're intentionally lying to undermine democracy.
To prove this I will cite the California governors race, in which Larry Elder accidentally released his concession speech 2 days early and it said Benford's law had proven fraud in the recall election.
Now riddle me this unbroken, even if we were to believe Benford's law could be used to detect fraud (it can't) how exactly had Benford's law proven fraud 2 days before a single vote was counted?
How is this not smoking gun evidence for what they are up to?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I did literally 5 minutes of research and found out it's not a "concession speech", lt was a fricking fundraising email, trying to fleece republicans for money for muh fraud. Your claims that (((they))) are enacting a unified conspiracy to overthrow democracy are as deranged as the average q-tard.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
This "voting rights act" was going to fix election security by...
...allowing people to vote without registration or ID? Re-enfranchise convicted felons? Remove states' ability to regulate the process? And do it all by usurping a 250 year institution by unilateral party action?
Seriously in what world did any wingcuck think this wasn't going to backfire horribly on them?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The bill included a national federal voter ID, nice try though.
The bill actually just expanded mail in voting and put in place laws to crack down on states attempting to suppress voters.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Pizza did you even read it? These are all in it. Go back and look at the provisional ballot section. It was voting without ID and same day registration, contingent on literally any appointed/elected official saying you were βwho you say you areβ up to a week after the election.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It was not voting without ID, you're seemingly confusing bills here.
The election bill they shot down recently included a national voter ID system.
For example:
1
Literally nothing wrong with this, tons of states have it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thereβs 2 of them you dolt. Read the Freedom to Vote act and stop reading the news.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The one they recently declined is the one I am citing.
Either way, the GOP is against it because it makes their weird election theft schemes harder, no other reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Nobody that isn't a US leftoid believes that
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"The GOP" didnt but some of its radical elements clearly would have supported it if they thought there was a chance of success. Muh stop the steal!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Obviously but you can say that about the losing side in every election
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I agree. I sound really gay for not contributing anything other than that but it's just true and as the George Soros of rdrama I like to support criticism of rightoids
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
At least rightoids come up with new theories.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Sorry sweetie, you're only allowed to cast doubt on a federal election if you get Robert Mueller to do a report on it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The Mueller probe did not come from the election, it came from Donald Trump firing the director of the FBI and then going on live TV and saying he did it to end an FBI probe.
Even more absurd is it was Republicans that appointed him, and Mueller himself was a Republican.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It was a probe into russian interference/collusion in the 2016 election, casting doubts on its legitimacy. It would have been called the Comey report if he hadn't fire him. There was a question of obstruction of justice from that firing, but boomers like Mueller don't think the president can obstruct justice.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Mueller was his own investigation bud, you're confusing an FBI investigation with the Mueller investigation.
Also it's not only that boomers don't think the president can obstruct justice, they don't think a president can be charged with a crime period. This all comes from a bat-shit insane DOJ memo during the Nixon years.
The logic is "congress will hold them accountable" which in America seems incredibly dubious given the polarization, so essentially a president is above the law.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The probe was initially intended to uncover any financial ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, then it included obstruction after the firing. You're splitting hairs, Barr said they were two parts of the same report. Both were lead by Mueller.
How does that change the fact that they had a FBI investigation into the 2016 election to totally get it viewed as tainted by another global power? You're pearl clutching about tweets but not a multi year fishing expedition?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context