this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
361 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2540 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“We will see if this is a legal and valid election,” Stefanik, a member of House GOP leadership and a Donald Trump ally, said in an interview with “Meet the Press.”

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., on Sunday wouldn’t commit to certifying the 2024 election results during an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”

While interviewing Stefanik, who serves in House Republican leadership, host Kristen Welker asked, “Would you vote to certify, and will you vote to certify, the results of the 2024 election no matter what they show?”

Stefanik, who has boosted former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, said that she did not vote to certify the 2020 results in the state of Pennsylvania and several other states because there were “unconstitutional acts circumventing the state legislature and unilaterally changing election law.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 192 points 10 months ago (33 children)

“Today a Republican admitted she plans to help orchestrate another insurrection if Trump loses again in 2024... Now here’s Tom with the weather.” - NBC News, basically

load more comments (33 replies)
[–] [email protected] 71 points 10 months ago

The rolling insurrection continues. Rep. Stefanik needs to see some charges, be removed from office, and 14th amendment prevent her from hold any office ever again. Take the gloves off Joe. No negotiation with terrorists, no kit gloves for insurrectionists.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 10 months ago (4 children)

A smart liar (e.g. the ones who didn't end up in stories like this) would've just said yes and planned to do what they were going to do anyway. This is the low-hanging fruit.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago

We're to the point where fascists are comfortable saying shit like this.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Only the best anti-American racist idiots.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Right, but the point of her response was to tell Trump she is loyal and would make a good VP.

At this point nobody in the GOP cares what the public thinks. They know GOP voters will vote for the Trump ticket no matter what. And Democrats will be the first against the wall after the election.

So that leaves just one audience member.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

On one hand, definitely. But you and I aren't her target audience.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 months ago

I press in the sharpie very hard when I vote against her.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

On the face of it, it is manifestly reasonable to say that you'll certify on the condition that the election is free and fair- that is, after all, always the condition of doing so. But that's not what she's saying here- she's repeating claims that 2020 was invalid

In reality it's extremely unlikely that the election in 2024 will be unfair or rigged against the GOP, and she deserves all the opprobrium she has coming her way for creating the impression (for her audience) that an unfair election is likely to occur or that 2020 was rigged or illegal. After all, that's the rhetorical setup MAGA created in the run-up to 2020: if they lost, it was unfair (and therefore, time to do a treason/coup).

Her rhetoric here could simply be a prediction that 2024 will be an illegitimate election, or it could be a cue for her audience to prepare to accept or commit political violence in 2024- and as such, it is a textbook example of stochastic terrorism and should be understood as such. Also the media that declines to note this should be evaluated as enabling, vs. holding to account

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

ship of theseus arguments are their stock in trade. You start with a statement no one could disagree with, like "I will vote to certify the election if it seems like a free and fair election. If it seems otherwise, I will lead an investigation that will root out fraud and ensure the people's voices are heard." Then you start doing string substitutions:

"it seems like a free and fair election" gets subbed for "Trump wins"

"it seems otherwise" == "Trump loses"

"lead an investigation that will root out fraud" == "obstruct the proceedings"

"the people's voices are heard" == "Trump is installed as dictator for life"

Then you pretend you never made those substitutions, and you get to rhetorically hammer your opponents for being against free and fair elections and in favor of fraud. After all, everyone else heard the very reasonable "I will vote to certify the election if it seems like a free and fair election. If it seems otherwise, I will lead an investigation that will root out fraud and ensure the people's voices are heard." But the party faithful clearly heard: "I will vote to certify the election if Trump wins. If Trump loses, I will obstruct the proceedings and ensure Trump is installed as dictator for life."

Innuendo Studios has a great video about how the Christian Nationalist terrorists use their media pipelines to establish public vs private definitions of phrases, and then use those equivocated phrases to say one thing to the general public and another thing to their base.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

ship of theseus arguments are their stock in trade.

Yes, if they couldn't ship unpopular politics misleadingly as uncontroversial feel-good slam-dunks, they'd never get any support in politics. It's a pity that sort of rhetoric works as well as it does

Also Innuendo's work is fantastic

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago

Sure glad the centrist establishment media just gave her a multiweek bonanza on a non-issue. Good job guys! At least they performed the critical role of nationalizing an, at most, university-wide story at the behest of conservatives bent on destroying the country.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

She's obviously setting up for another attempt to overthrow the government.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

The first attempt has never ended

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago

It's really weird, disconcerting and discouraging that both sides accuse each other of stealing, both sides have rather ardent and vocal bases, both bases want to jail the politicians involved but only one side actually time and again gets caught cheating, lying and stealing, yet has the most loyal and fanatic base that actually want to murder those thst don't agree.

I get the average trump voter as they actually believe the nonsense they believe in, a lot can be said about gullibility, racism, etc, but as they are fed a steady diet of lies that include "the brown ones are coming to kill you" I get where they're coming from. They're mostly terrified because they're fed terror every goddamn day even though mostly nothing happens.

If the world survives this election (big if right there) can we please PLEASE do something about news providers in the US? Shut down oan, Fox News, etc. put laws in place requiring news organisations to be truthful. Yes, mistakes can be made but if a news organization sees that they publish untrue information, they must retract it and publish and equally big retraction. If they push too much to ignoring certain facts from whichever political isle, they must be punished, HARD. I don't care if it's left or right extremism, all need to be curved, news needs to be neutral facts to inform the general public.

With news changing to influencers, apply those rules to influencers as well. Yes, free speech must be a thing, but once you have an audience, you're not allowed to feed them bullshit that goes against the greater good. It's the same as yelling "fire!" in a theater. There are logical limits to free speech, this should be one of them.

This limitless lying that organisations like Fox News are allowed to do right now has caused possibly irreparable damage to so many things, it has destroyed lives and may end humanity altogether (hello, global warming "myth"!)

Cut the shit, stop the lying. We need to change how news and baseline truth and facts are given to the general population. If you lie, be it that you're a news organization, a company selling snake oil medications, a politician, an influencer, whatever it is, once you reach a group, you either are truthful or you get punished.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

If you allow us to cheat and just steal the presidency, I'll see it as legal and valid

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't know exactly when we stopped hanging traitors, but I'd like to return to that policy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nah, too gruesome and we're better than that.

Publicly exposing them for the liars they are, ejecting them from public offices for life, putting them on registries, etc. is better.

It requires though that we start defining a baseline truth in news and facts. I know that there are risks of fascism taking over through that through propaganda, but if we can ensure that news and facts are based on reality, science, etc, then we have a chance of getting it done right

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

How? There are flat earthers... Fact has nothing to do with it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

The republican traitor swine must be crushed under the heel of justice.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


After Welker pressed her again on the matter, Stefanik wouldn’t commit to certifying the election results and criticized efforts to remove Trump from the ballot in Colorado, Maine and other states.

And the Supreme Court is taking that case up in February — that should be a nine to zero to allow President Trump to appear on the ballot because that’s the American people’s decision to make this November.”

Stefanik also defended Trump’s recent remarks calling rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and remain in prison “hostages,” echoing that language herself.

During a rally in Iowa on Saturday, Trump urged President Joe Biden to release the rioters from federal prison: “I call them hostages.

When asked if she stood by the comments that she made on the House floor calling Jan. 6 a “truly tragic day for America,” Stefanik said, "I have concerns about the treatment of January 6 hostages."

Biden deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks responded to Stefanik in his own appearance on "Meet the Press," saying:  “I’m not sure that this 'I know you are, but what am I' situation is going to work when it comes to democracy."


The original article contains 853 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›