this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
113 points (95.9% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4665 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Top Republicans are putting conditions on accepting the outcome of the election in November.

Republicans apparently haven’t cast aside the possibility of overturning another election.

At least two top GOP lawmakers have felt the need to add caveats to statements affirming that they’ll embrace the outcome come November, including the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham.

“Will you accept the results of the 2024 election no matter who wins?” prompted MSNBC’s Meet the Press host Kristen Welker on Sunday.

“Yeah, I’ll accept them if there’s no massive cheating,” Graham said. In the same breath, Graham specified that he “accepted 2020” as a measure of his commitment to accepting election outcomes, even though he clearly hasn’t let go of the outcome enough not to buy in a little to his party’s election interference scandal.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

"If there is no massive cheating, then AdamEatsAss will easily win the nomination." More truer words were never not spoken.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Every American an ass eater.

- Huey Long (probably)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Every American has factually gaped their mom. True story.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

I was double fisting!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I just admire you being willing to take on the tough issues that other candidates ignore.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I speak for the people. And the people want one thing.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Adam is someone I can really identify with because he eats ass like me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Butthole lifestyle

[–] [email protected] 26 points 4 months ago

"If there’s no massive cheating" is such a meaningless phrase that they could use it to mean anything afterward. "Oh no, I heard someone say that their cousin was a cashier at a store where their coworker overheard a customer talking on the phone about a letter that their post office received from Russia on election day, so obviously there's massive cheating and Trump should just be in office."

That said, I don't know that this rises to the level of "outrageous" in modern political discourse, sadly. A "foolish" position, definitely. "Corrupt," perhaps. "Morally bankrupt." "Anti-democratic." But the position is much more reasonable than most Republicans are willing to grant these days, and that's what's truly outrageous.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Lindsay Graham needs to report to her Democracy Officer at once. These statements sound extremely antidemocratic, as if they're coming right from the speakers of a socialist bot.

In all seriousness, this is traitor to democracy behavior. These clowns should be exiled, or at least barred from public office and have their rights to participate in democracy revoked. If you push agendas to install anything less democratic than a republic or democracy, you are fucken out.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Just as a note, Lindsay Graham is a man.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

This is the politically correct tactic and why it was so hilarious to watch Tim Scott fall on his fucking face. If you're a politician and potentially want to deny an election you don't respond to "Will you accept the election?" with "No"... that's fucking dumb - you say "Yes, unless it's not a true election."

I was hoping the idiots would continue to repeat the dumbass non-committal response because it's obviously dumb... this line is harder to rhetorically attack since obviously nobody wants to accept a rigged election - in theory you don't even want to be seen doing that if you won... you always want to accept a fair election you won.

So, TL;DR this is the logical argument I expected them to reach much earlier - it is the stance that political operatives on the dem side should be preparing to refute and hopefully they can pick this bullshit apart by tying Graham's hands on what he considers cheating... it's a weak argument though and, honestly, we've just got to be prepared for one of our two major parties being a bad actor in this election.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

There were no negative repercussions last time they tried. Why wouldnt they do it again?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

The follow-up question should have been: "Does that mean you'll reject the results if there was massive cheating from your own side?"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

So America is now a conditional democracy?