The reposts and expressions of shock from public figures followed quickly after a user on the social platform X who uses a pseudonym claimed that a government website had revealed “skyrocketing” rates of voters registering without a photo ID in three states this year — two of them crucial to the presidential contest.
“Extremely concerning,” X owner Elon Musk replied twice to the post this past week.
“Are migrants registering to vote using SSN?” Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, an ally of former President Donald Trump, asked on Instagram, using the acronym for Social Security number.
Trump himself posted to his own social platform within hours to ask, “Who are all those voters registering without a Photo ID in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Arizona??? What is going on???”
…
Yet by the time they tried to correct the record, the false claim had spread widely. In three days, the pseudonymous user’s claim amassed more than 63 million views on X, according to the platform’s metrics. A thorough explanation from Richer attracted a fraction of that, reaching 2.4 million users.
The incident sheds light on how social media accounts that shield the identities of the people or groups behind them through clever slogans and cartoon avatars have come to dominate right-wing political discussion online even as they spread false information.
Some of these are clearly wedge-driving divisive trolls posing as leftists. Especially those touting voting 3rd party or not voting.
You know electoral system is truely garbage when voting for 3rd party is considered “bad”. Not a lot of freedum going on in the US.
Additionally have you also considered some people dont agree with your political view, so not everything has to be a conspiracy
Yep I do agree it’s bullshit. The FPTP combined with Electoral College has utterly fucked our country. I really wish we could vote for independents or 3rd party and not totally fuck everything. Unfortunately that won’t happen until changes most probably comes through Democrats as it has historically worth most other issues.
To your second point, don’t know, it just seems extremely self-defeating to the point that one has to wonder…
Some of these are clearly wedge-driving divisive (sic) trolls posing as moderates. Especially those hectoring voters that vote with their conscience now that attitudes toward a current genocide is making it impossible to vote for either of the frontrunners.
- What’s funny is I’m not even a moderate
- I’ve just done the comparative analysis in knowing that (a) the election outcome is inevitable where 1 of these 2 candidates will be in office whether you vote or not, and (b) one would commit MORE genocide than the other guy.
- You thus can still vote your conscience.
Let me crystal clear. I do not think that your position or attitude are moderate either. Haranguing people to vote against their conscience is a bad look. Big genocide, small genocide, both are genocide. If that overloads some people’s ‘election calculus’ it’s a reasonable and engaged reaction. If anything talking down to them is more likely to turn them off voting at all.
Normally I’d agree to each their own but I truly cannot grasp how anyone can come to the conclusion that when the two options are inevitable, they would choose more genocide over less genocide. It quite literally means less people dying. It’s the only logical and ethical choice.
Voting for big genocide or voting for small genocide is irreconcilably voting for genocide for some people. It’s a morally cognizant choice for some to not want to put the endorsement of their vote on either.
I’ll never not believe that is logically and ethically-flawed thinking, sorry. A vote doesn’t mean “I Endorse Genocide,” it just means, “I am doing the thing between two inevitable choices whether I vote or not that will help Palestinians, Ukrainians, and women’s rights more than the other option.”
If merely one less child dies, then it is clearly worth it to vote — right?
It is ‘rational’ attitudes such as this that MLK bemoaned in his Birmingham jail letters. Order above justice. An order in which the boot is not on your neck. So you minimize its dehumanizing brutality in relation to the maintenance of the day-to-day comforts you enjoy.
Hypothetically: if Biden was sending weapons and financial support to Russia in support of their war efforts but mildly denouncing Putin when pressed; and Trump was pledging full throated support of Putin and offering to nuke Kyiv; would you still feel so enthusiastic about voting for Biden or for your moral calculus? Might you lament the electoral system that has put this decision before you. Might you protest this mockery of democratic choice. Even if you internally still cede to moral calculus, might you continue to make your displeasure known and apply whatever pressure was within your purview as a voter to make. Might you be offended by people demanding you not only vote for Biden regardless your rightful concerns about Putin and the sovereignity of Ukrainians but also try to insinuate that you are part of some foreign operation to undermine the election for voicing your concerns?
You thus can still vote your conscience
Not if my conscious isn’t ok with voting for a genocide-doer at all
Then you risk letting the person who will commit genocide even more.
How is more genocide better than less genocide for your conscience?
Then you risk letting the person who will commit genocide even more.
Wrong, as I don’t live in a swing state. You know, like the majority of Americans?
I can safely not vote for either knowing that my state isn’t going to go to Trump. I even personally know 2 people who voted Trump last election who are going third party this time around, so I’m DOUBLE-covrred.
I just love seeing people online automatically assume people are in swing states (or that the EC doesn’t exist) and try to guilt trip people. It’s hilarious
Wait, was it your conscience or is it because you don’t live in a swing-state…? Because you dodged the question:
How is more genocide better than less genocide for your conscience?
If you live in a firmly blue state that will vote for Biden, then sure your entire point is moot. But just like how red states have turned blue or at least purple (Arizona), blue or swing-states can turn red (e.g., Ohio). So it might be worth voting just to ensure that trend continues.
Because Republicans love this messaging you’re now promoting; for it only weakens blue state strongholds as you expect other voters to do the work for you.
Can’t read, or unfamiliar with how US elections work?
Because I don’t live in a swing state my lack of voting for Biden does not support Trump
So my vote is for no genocide but my state will force it to become some genocide through the EC
If you want to pretend like a Californian not voting Biden is somehow giving the election to Trump: that’s a you problem and I find it hilarious
But Republicans love this messaging
And? Maybe the Dems shouldn’t put forth garbage options then. don’t blame voters for the DNCs inability to do basic shit to win elections.
Oh, cool, a well researched article on right-wing disinformation campaigns. Can’t wait to watch the Lemmy liberals accuse leftists of being a part of this without any evidence.
Can’t wait for the liberals in power to try and expand the surveillance state using this as a pretext.
Can’t wait for these supposed “leftists” who-are-totally-not-righties-hiding-behind-anonymity to take for granted literally all the historical and modern day progress that came through none other than — you guessed it — the liberal legislature and liberal Justices.
From child labor laws to the civil rights act to same sex marriage — thank a liberal.
(Disclaimer: I’m further left than liberal on the political spectrum)
Lmao, yeah, thank the well known liberals and liberals only, like MLK and Malcolm X, for civil rights they were forced to acknowledge or face race riots.
Definitely wasn’t the liberal establishment that assassinated them either. And liberal is the opposite of conservative btw 🤣
Isn’t it funny that civil rights activists of the time from John Lewis to Clyburn joined the liberal Democrats?
But yes two things can happen simultaneously: there can be activists, and then there can be liberals who actually passed the Civil Rights Act. You know, liberals.
Sure wasn’t confederate conservatives now was it?
Don’t bother, I just wasted a full day arguing with this guy on exactly this topic, and he just kept doubling down. I even quoted the portion of Letter from a Birmingham Jail about white moderates and his response was, “But then white moderates passed the Civil Rights Act a year later! How curious!” There is no amount of information that will convince him that moderate Liberals weren’t responsible for the victories of the Civil Right movement.
Edit: See what I mean? Guys desperate for my attention 2 days later.
This confidently-incorrect fellow, who:
- Increasingly deflected,
- resorted to more personal attacks and,
- ultimately ran away from the discussion after I started citing primary sourced quotes like:
the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus
and:
Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.
and:
You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] “we’ll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]” . . . We shared their views, and we’d love to do it their way.
From https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/civil_rights/cloture_finalpassage.htm and https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act
For which he could not even respond to let alone refute — Truly believed the 1963 Birmingham letter was some smoking-gun when — checks notes — those same white moderates MLK Jr. was talking about wound up passingthe Civil Rights Act 1 year later.
Yes, you read those quotes correctly: Liberals were pushing to strengthen the Civil Rights Act while conservatives were trying to water it down.
Smh.
Don’t tell him which ideology such surviving activists from John Lewis of the Edmund Pettus Bridge march or Jim Clyburn, both of the civil Rights era joined under.
Edit: See what I mean, guys? Still has nothing substantive to respond with. Truth can hurt sometimes. I’m still floored he tried to claim that conservatives supported the Civil Rights Act more than Liberals lol.
