this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
290 points (98.3% liked)

politics

25399 readers
2908 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 123 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Robert Zeidman, a computer forensics expert who voted for Trump twice, did just that

It’s heartwarming to see that there are still some Trump voters willing to set partisanship aside for the sake of personal greed.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 64 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Personal greed was probably why he voted for Trump both times anyway.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"look sure he says some mean tweets but taxes and immigrants, etc."

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yep. "All I know is my taxes are lower."

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 18 points 2 years ago

And probably can't comprehend that Trump's tax cut expiration was purposely set during the next administration as a political ploy

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

“And if the minorities, women, queer, immigrants are losing their livelihood in the process, that’s just icing on the cake”

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

That could be something they really want, that could be an added bonus for them or they could just not give a fuck about any of those people dying in a ditch.

It's a big tent party!

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 16 points 2 years ago

You can either get eaten by leopards or the capitalism machine. Sometimes one feeds the other.

[–] Bonehead@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is it greed, or the incessant need to prove someone on the internet wrong?

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Wrong, Bonehead!

/s

[–] macaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 2 years ago

“When I called the challenge Prove Mike Wrong, I wanted people to validate my own false opinions, not actually prove me wrong.” - Mike, probably

[–] Stelercus@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago

Sounds like Mike has the burden of proof all wrong. If he says that he has data that proves something, it's his job to present a representative sample of that data, to explain what it represents, and why it means what he thinks it means.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 27 points 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


In 2021, MyPillow founder Mike Lindell offered $5 million to anyone who could disprove his claim that he had data showing voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

Lindell, a prominent election denier and staunch supporter of former president Donald Trump, claimed to have data showing Chinese interference in the 2020 race.

If someone could “Prove Mike Wrong,” as the challenge was called, and show the data was unrelated to the election, they would get the payout, Lindell said ahead of an August 2021 “cyber symposium” held in South Dakota where contestants would review the files.

Robert Zeidman, a computer forensics expert who voted for Trump twice, did just that, a federal judge in Minnesota determined Wednesday, upholding a previous ruling from a private arbitration panel.

In recent years, Lindell has been embroiled in legal and financial troubles, including a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems over false election claims.

To receive the challenge’s $5 million prize, Lindell asked his symposium participants to prove that the data “unequivocally does NOT reflect information related to the November 2020 election.”


The original article contains 714 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why did the trump supporter prove him wrong? Or has his personal greed risen above his support, and the realisation that that support meant ignoring truth?

[–] Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 2 years ago

It sounds like that was his field so this was probably the equivalent to scratching a scratchie for them. And once you've found out you've won $5 million I suppose it's hard to pass up.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Again? I thought he already won the 5mil in court

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 17 points 2 years ago

He won 5 million in arbitration. This was a court saying that yes, it really is enforceable.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Good Lord. I wonder if it ever occurs to this guy that aligning himself with Rapey McTinyD was a bad idea...how much meth/crack did he do, anyway?