Ah, that makes me feel better. I’ve probably heard of it before, and just never looked into it.

The implication of this being that I am behind the times, stuck on outdated tech, and didn’t even know it is uncomfortable.

I’m confused, what Democrat politicians or campaign staff coordinated removing those communities from Reddit? And why would Democrats even need to? Those communities broke sitewide rules egregiously and frequently. Considering how long they were allowed to keep going, it seems more likely (though I’m sure not the actual case) that Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Reddit admins to keep The_Donald open.

That’s pretty crazy. Do you have examples of Reddit admins directly working with Democrat campaigns or politicians to remove content? I don’t think Hunter Biden’s dick pics count, as revenge porn is already illegal.

Edit: For anyone confused as to how my reply relates to the above post, the above used to be a claim that Reddit worked with democrats to remove content, but is now edited to say something completely different.

There’s not much to it. They simply believe that as the strife causes conflict over resources the factions will “naturally” align along racial lines. They also believe that people “naturally” cohabitate better within their own race.

This does require ignoring all of human history and the brutal conflicts that have occurred within racially homogenous regions. But I’d never accuse white supremacists of being intelligent or genuine.

It’s populism. You have to see if someone’s policy positions are consistent over time, that they have a specific ideal they are following, vs what they think is the most popular policies.

Granted, it’s a huge pain with new politicians when they don’t have that history, but I think Tulsi had a pretty clear history that showed she wasn’t progressive.

It’s called a “faithless elector” and what happens depends on the law of the state the elector is representing. Some states void the vote without penalty, some void it with some penalty, some allow the vote but with penalty, some allow the vote with no penalty, and some have no law at all (which seems like no difference from allowing with no penalty).

It’s entirely conceivable that enough faithless electors from states that do not void the vote could swing an election, though there’s never been enough to do so before.