166
US Senator Rubio says he won't accept election results if 'unfair'
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
166 points (95.6% liked)
News
23305 readers
3649 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It is not treason to question the results of an election. It is not sedition to contest an election. If there is evidence that an election not handled correctly in a way that is sufficient to change the outcome, those with a stake in the outcome should not accept it.
This idea that it is a high crime to question an election is genuinely dangerous. And it is especially bad coming from democrats, because tactics like voter suppression disproportionately benefit republicans.
No one should accept an unrepresentative election.
In principle yes, of course, but I think we all can be reasonably suspicious that Rubio is using this exact justification as a smoke screen to lay the groundwork of sowing doubt to manufacture a false "controversy" come election time. He's also being just vague enough that he can play both sides, too, depending on which option he finds most politically beneficial. I'm glad to have people scrutinize our electoral process, but not when they start from a predetermined conclusion. Which I know I'm also doing by assuming Rubio's intent, but it's not like we haven't been here before.
He answered the question without a pre-determined conclusion. He answered with a conditional statement. That is how you answer the question without a pre-determined conclusion.
That is the most reasonable way to answer that question. If an election is unfair, you should take reasonable actions to mitigate things, and accept the result otherwise, which is what he said. If anyone is trying to create a narrative its NBC for choosing to ask the question.
It is a crime to fabricate evidence and questioning the results of an election without at least a hint of evidence really should be a crime so that there's not an incentive for incredibly well funded questioners to bombard the public and courts with questions about elections they don't like.
So what part, precisely, of marco's answer was fabricating evidence?
I'm not sure if these people are propagandists or just dumb. It seems like a very obvious non story if you actually read what happened.
The 2020 election was questioned by republicans for months after it concluded. Many investigations were made and found ZERO evidence of interference. If anything, some republicans were charged in a handful of states for election interference crimes.
Questioning an election is one thing, but outright denying the results even after all the evidence suggests that no interference/meddling occurred sets a precedence for future candidates that they can cause chaos in the system by just constantly claiming elections are rigged, eventually causing distrust of the entire system by voters who will just assume that their votes don't matter because the decision has already been set.
I believe if you are attempting to discredit an election, not because of the potential for foul play, but because you are just upset that you or your candidate of choice lost, and you attempt to destabilize the democratic system in order to achieve your goal, that is treason/sedition and should be a crime that is delt with a severe penalty.
Have you already forgotten the shit show that was the last presidential election? Despite no evidence of any foul play, MAGAts still refuse to accept the results. Are you so obtuse you can't see that this is just another attempt to sow division and mistrust of an election system that by all accounts is very secure and fair?
Sounds like you're helping them, so I say to you, fuck off and suck a bag of molton dicks.
Did you forget the 2016 election when democrats accused the trump campaign of colluding with russia despite zero evidence? Accusing the opposition of undermining an election in every possible venue where there's no risk of perjury is not a uniquely republican strategy.
Elections should be robust in the face of criticism. If the process cannot even stand up to disingenuous scrutiny, there are far bigger problems.
There's plenty of evidence that Russia interfered in the past few elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections?wprov=sfla1
The charges were about collusion, and not about whether or not the Russians tried to interfere.