ChocolatePoopy
25084
1100
13
Jul 20, 2026 10:25 AM
ChocolatePoopy
25084
1100
13
Niagaran
For which the people lying about it should be charged for each constituent that's being defrauded
StraightOnThroughTheChompers
Surely the Fearless Leader is investigating this - he HATES election fraud!
thedarklord187
Of course it is why do you think Trump just fired all the election oversight committee staff after the supreme Court granted him the ability to remove non-political partisan governing bodies that the president has no right to interfere with.
STGxDante
Think about what Mitch McConnell would do if the roles were reversed. Dems need to grow some balls and stop being so damn complacent.
clonedeeznuts
You sure it's not just a typical Tuesday for the pedo protectors?
Sidewaysgts
Radical leftists need to stop spreading the lies that Mitch is dead. You can ask him yourself! Mitch- are you dead?!
Poppypoppoppop
Same problem every time. No people to enforce that law or justice.
Nathanyel
Isn't that what the Americans got the 2A for? /s
kjbopp
It's only fraud when democrats do it. Republicans have Supreme Court immunity :o(
SpectrumRabbit
No, shrink is what my department is trying to get under control.
Andersen81
It is only fraud when the right don't win.
mikeoquinn
Otherwise it's just sparkling 'Murica
Raisexplay
Reminds
vintagebroad
….and what else you got because nothing will be done about this
Telemapus
The thing is... it's Kentucky. As if the GOP isn't going to win the special election anyway. Mitch was starting to bore them and a punchy crazy racist new GOP senator would unify the vote. Or am I missing something? (I don't read Kentucky news).
BarryTheCyborg
The special election would allow Massie to run as a spoiler candidate, making it more likely that a Democrat would win. Then the real election would happen and the incumbent rarely loses reelection.
gablestout
No, you're right. A lot of folks are missing the point that, because senate rules require the senator to physically be on the floor to vote, they are currently down one republican senator. The frontrunner for the general election in November is a republican, even if they couldn't be sworn in until October. Calling a special election is far more likely to result in republicans regaining that vote earlier.
nihiltres
It being Kentucky means that Massie, an anti-Trump Republican who previously lost his House primary, could come back into play.
tantallous
What stops him from running in the normal election that wouldn't be a factor for the special election?
IronMagnus
IIRC, the candidates for the normal election are already locked in, but a special election would allow new names on the ballot.
tantallous
Ah, got it.
walterPPK
The day after the deadline they’ll joke about how he was dead all along, they knew it, yes they lied but so what?
They all know that there won’t be any consequences and they love taunting Americans.
ThatGuyFromJustSouthOfTheMiddleOfNowhere
Just gotta keep him "alive" until Aug 3
Andersen81
Man, he is going to stink in this heat.
brozac69
procrastinatorman
Giving the Senate seat to a dead senator's sister to avoid a special election is also election fraud
ragincanadian
Both sides do it, but it should be. Left wing, right wing, still the same bird.
GroverKerr
What a stupid fucking comment.
natabus
No. South Carolina has rules for special elections and primaries, and those rules are being honored. Appointing a vacancy for Lindsey in the short time before the next election (literally this November) is not wierd or out of the ordinary, and it's not fraud. Calling it fraud weakens and dilutes the word "fraud". Save that word for when it's real. There are and will be lots of actual fraud by Republicans, but when you dilute the word it makes real fraud easier for MAGA to dismiss.
MechKelly
Technically no. When a senator dies, standard procedure is for the governor of that state to appoint a replacement to serve the remainder of the term rather than holding a special election. The choice in this case is obviously questionable and weird. But no fraud or nothing illegal. Though there should be stricter guidelines or the state government should have to approve the nomination.
backrideup9
Just because they wrong a procedure on paper doesn't make it right. It was wrong last week, it was wrong last century, it'll be wrong next month.
NinjaBauer
Kentucky used to be the same way, but when a Dem won Governor, the Republican super majority state reps changed the rule to a special election to prevent Bashir from appointing a Dem. Now they want to avoid the special election to prevent Massie from running since he hates Trump and would again vote to release the Epstein files.
natabus
As per Kentucky and special elections: My own personal tn hat theory... its not about preventing a special election where they fear a spoiler like Massie. Its about the fact that the legislation they passed to strip the governor of the power to appoint is a direct contradiction to the existing Kentucky State Constitution. They are avoiding causing the court case that will overturn their legislation.
PorterPickUp
I dont disagree, but I'm not sure what those stricter guidelines would be. There are no real qualifications to be a Senator or Representative. You can even serve with a criminal record as long as you are a citizen and over 30.
georgejimmydoodle
Fraud is defined by the laws of the state. If SC allows the governor to choose the replacement, then the governor choosing the replacement isn't fraud. Does SC have a special election clock like KY does?
BigDaddysMeatWagon
No... It isn't. The Mitch thing is but "Widows Succession" is literally written into the law. That makes it not fraud.
anhope
Mark Kelly, Mary Bono, Katharine Byron, Andre Carson, Julia Letlow to name a few. It's called window's succession and it ain't new. And often times, like the cases I've mentioned, involves people who were ELECTED to replace their family member. Meaning quite simply, perhaps there would be less fraud and bad politicians in general if we had a more educated electorate.
ingridwebb88
Consume all of them
phalanxausage
The GOP are obviously in favor of dynastic power. Much less messy than democracy and it doesn't involve the risk of the wrong people having a voice.
CouldntCakeLess
Hopefully times will change and something will happen after the midterms.
custardandfishfingers24
This process has been the same as long as I have been aware. I'm 71, and got interested in politics when I was 4.
IlluminaBlade
Problem is "They drop the facade of democracy and take everything at gunpoint" is one possible change.
TacoPoweredHelicopter
It's not, its perfectly legal under the rules of the state.
Because you don't like it, it does not make it fraud..
It's stupid beyond all reason. But it's not fraud.
CommodusLeitdorf
Depends on the state rules. In South Carolina its ok for the Governor to appoint someone. In Kentucky it WAS okay for the Governor to do the same but the Kentucky legislature changed the rules to prevent Bashear from doing that.
geekstudios
Well it’s not clear that they did. They passed a law, but didn’t change the state constitution where that is indeed still under the governors prevue.
CommodusLeitdorf
Fair, I'm still of the opinion the Governor should call their bluff and appoint someone. If Mitch isn't dead he can come out and say so himself.
crazyspelling
That WOULD be hilarious.
shitheadtookmyname
??? How old are you? This is so common it has a name: widows succession. It's done in dozens of countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widow%27s_succession
delecti
Eh, it's weird, possibly corrupt, and should never happen, but it's not fraud. There's no deception involved.
GroverKerr
No it isn't and you're fucking ignorant. It's shady and monarchal and 100% legal and following proper processes.
Jesus Christ you people are even more ignorant the conservative puppet masters running circles around you. If you want to fight corruption maybe you should start getting educated about how these systems work. First stop using social media outrage posts to learn about government.
Gelaticat
I wish I could upvote this more than once. I’m so tired of trying to explain this shit to people and hold their hands through their utter lack of understanding.
whereismymind86
I mean, you’re just straight up wrong man, none of us agree with it, but a quick google shows it happens relatively frequently
GroverKerr
I think you may have misread me? You are correct, other than saying I am wrong. :P
AdrianDunne
Apparently, political offices being inherited after their holders' deaths are not unheard of in the US. Of course, much like stricter rules on insider trading, it'll never pass a vote.
ImmaCatImmaSexyCat
Because neither side wants to actually stop it. Some individuals might want to, but not the larger party apparatus.
whereismymind86
Yeah I recall a democrat dying recently and their spouse taking over. It’s weird and shouldn’t happen but it’s somewhat common
shitheadtookmyname
Japan, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, etc. Google widows succession.
AdrianDunne
I was under the impression a TD can't have their seat inherited in this manner in Ireland; they have to be voted in as a candidate in their own right.
Chunkybaxter
Senate seats going to family instead of electing a new senator reminds me of hereditary monarchy.
natabus
Look into the history of how many Dead Senators were replaced by their Wives. Family appointments to death-vacancies aren't new. They're no that weird, and they're not specific to Republicans.
Thorketil
It is reminiscent of feudalism in the European Middle Ages, in which power and control over the land lay with the nobility and the church.
SalmonTheWise
They're going to elect a new senator in November, as regularly scheduled. It's probably going to be republican anyway because it's South Carolina.
proxykalevra
It's cool it is not that deep she inherited the bribes and the admin is too cheap to bribe someone new so she got sworn in for the remainder since she is already bribed... Additionally with how old the voters likely are might try to be on the ballot as sen. Graham and see if the realize it is a different one.
layinginbedfeelinglikeaquesarito
This is nothing new. It is very common for the governor to appoint a family member as a placeholder until the special election
KillingTlme
Which is fucking insane! At least promote someone who was elected by the people for something similar
gronzilla
So, bad things are common
natabus
Do you want the real answer? Appointments to elected office are always considered less legitimate than a vote. but sometimes a special election is not practical. A careful governor will appoint someone who will be seen BY VOTERS a suitable proxy for the original office holder. Sometimes is a protegee. Sometimes its a wife.
gronzilla
See, your statement didn't change any part of the equation. It just explained the status quo. We already concluded the status quo isn't optimal.'