ReallyActuallyFrankenstein

Yeah, honestly..."altered" in a headline is itself biased, when "corrected" is entirely plausible. The transcriber had no idea if Biden meant to have an apostrophe there.

Also, maybe spend the final week of what could be our final democratic election covering something of importance, AP.

I've not looked at 538 simulation predictions for the last month and a half until right now, and my anecdotal not-at-all-scientific feeling is pretty much exactly where the percentages fall. Slight edge to Trump thanks to the electoral college.

God I hope I'm wrong, but America is so propaganda-saturated and broken. If we would have imposed regulations on news media that would have reality-bound Fox News 4 years ago, maybe, maybe it wouldn't be close.

To be clear, we're not cooked yet, so please don't take this as a call to give up. I really hope everyone that's still sane and can vote is going to vote.

Why did I read this in Matt Damon's voice...

That's an excellent point, and since we know Musk has spent over $100 million so far trying to get Trump elected, it's a lot easier case to make (if there really was a quid pro quo promise made).

Also, have we talked yet about how RFK appears to have nearly - if not fully - admitted to illegal corruption?

Sorry to link to a PDF, but see p.8 of this government summary of corruption law: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44447/9

While supporting a candidate is not illegal, and nor is offering financially valuable support if within limits or through a super PAC, providing value in exchange for a government position - quid pro quo - is illegal. RFK's exchange of value is not merely supporting Trump, but actively trying to remove himself from the ballot in swing states to materially alter the election. Not illegal except it appears RFK has just admitted he was promised a position in Trump's administration.

So how do we know it's quid pro quo? We know leaks before RFK's endorsement were that he was shopping himself to the Harris and Trump campaigns. He didn't explicitly say "in exchange for," but it's almost certain that's what happened, and that there are witnesses to it who could testify or be subpoenaed.

Classic "the beatings will continue until morale improves" corporate energy.

I appreciate your dedication to skelposting the heck out of this Halloween season.

Pretty much every Trump supporter bite I've seen is the same: "The man has confidence. That's what we need, a confidence man."

Just as this article expressed my feelings about the election better than I've been able to, you've expressed my feelings about the article better than I've been able to.

Everything is so bizarre, just uncanny, like we're looking at the world with vertigo this election. Reading this article made me temporarily feel like I regained my balance.

From the article, the endorsement was apparently made Sept. 1st, but this story further contextualizes/reminds about the endorsement in light of the recent news.

Voters across the political spectrum said they've lied about their voting: 27% of Democrats acknowledged it, while 24% of Republicans and 20% of independents did so. The survey didn't ask exactly how, why or to whom they'd lied.

This is what I was looking for. It's not reliable data about which direction it may be influencing polling, but if a self-identified "democrat" is lying, presumably it is to conservative family or friends about conservative support (and vice versa). This would mean there is slightly more "shy" democrats than republicans, but with a very large "independent" black box.

"Oh, the obvious conman with thousands of documented, fact-checked lies and no loyalty to anyone but himself, who has previously helped my enemies, has now said he wants to help my electorally valuable demographic. I basically have to vote for him now!"

Why do people do this?