• n1ckn4m3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It doesn’t matter what Trump says or does at this point, him getting the votes isn’t the plan.

    Johnson will refuse to certify the results of the election that will put Democrats in the House, claiming some kind of bullshit irregularities with no proof, leaving the House controlled by the Republicans. They’ll then claim irregularities in the presidential election and force a contingent election where they have a 100% chance of electing Trump no matter what the public votes.

    More people need to be made aware that this is 100% legal for them to do, and more people need to be aware that it is almost certainly what they will try. The only thing that can possibly stop it is significant awareness by the mass population of Americans and significant publicity (similar to how mass awareness of Project 2025 turned it into a poison pill).

    EDIT: Oh look, they’ve already started making it super-legal in battleground states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/06/georgia-local-election-boards-allowed-withhold-vote-certification

  • Maeve@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The bot is an annoyance, especially since mbfc is actually biased.

      • Hegar@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s not sufficient.

        A biased fact checking bot should not be allowed to operate in a public forum, giving weight to it’s opinions as though it were a neutral source of truth.

        If you want its services, you can go to their website and use it. It shouldn’t be here.

        • yesman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I think you’ve inadvertently demonstrated the problem with calling out media “bias”.

          as though it were a neutral source of truth.

          I would be interested to lean what, if anything, you’d say meets this description.

      • Maeve@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        No. I’ll deal with it in the way that seems appropriate for the moment.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago
    Raw Story Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

    Raw Story is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

    Bias: Left
    Factual Reporting: High
    Country: United States of America
    Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/raw-story/

    Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News


    Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
    Please consider supporting them by donating.

    Footer

    Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

    Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
    If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.