I wonder whether he believed the lie that the election was rigged. If he justified it to himself by saying "well, the other side is doing it." Horrific.
Edit: I made a false assumption that this was 9 votes in the same election, where it was actually 9 different instances where he would have been allowed to vote, were it not for prior conviction. See the comment below (or the article- my bad) for clarification.
Edit 2: removed the piece in my edit about probation, it wasn't applicable.
RFTA. It's so short, FFS.
He didn't vote 9 times in the 2020 election (or since then). He was on probation in PA for a felony and couldn't legally vote in GA, but did anyway. I would assume in 9 different elections. He claims he thought it was legal for him to do so. Had he not been on probation in PA, all his votes would have been legal. (In fact, I believe he should have been able to vote, as I don't think being convicted of a crime should remove this fundamental right. But that's kind of besides the point here)
He broke the law and should be punished for it, especially for being one who claims that the people were voting illegally, but even guessing that he was doing this because he thought the 2020 election was stolen makes absolutely zero sense, because the bulk of these times (if not all of them) happened before then.
Thank you for the correction. I'll edit my comment.
NP, thanks for being nice about it despite me being a cock.
That being said, all of the voting happened before 2011 even, when the probation was actually up.
Ack, even after reading the article I misunderstood. So it would have been legal in one state but was illegal where he actually voted. That's complicated.
And I don't mind being corrected! It helps me learn. I hope you have a wonderful day.
To be honest, the headline is really misleading. Yes, people should definitely RTFA, but not everyone has the time to do that and a headline should be specific enough to avoid spreading misinformation.
The title is never going to be specific enough to remove all ability to misinterpret it. The title just tells you what the article is about. The article itself gives you all the necessary details. I agree that it shouldn't be misleading, and in the case I think it could be improved, but that doesn't change the fact that one should refrain from passing judgment about what happened based on a headline. If you don't have the time to read the article, you also lack the time to form an valid opinion about what happened.
Sure, I agree, but unfortunately the human mind is prone to jumping to conclusions, especially when they fit their narrative. One should always be sure of what happened before forming an opinion on it, but sometimes you “get the feeling you’re sure” even when you don’t have all the necessary information.
Just look at how widespread the “Biden doesn’t know the alphabet” thing got when the original was very clearly satire.
I understand that confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. But we are talking about just making sure you are even just mildly informed before forming an opinion you think is valid.
The thing is, a lot of times people think they’re informed enough even when they aren’t. There isn’t a clear indicator of “how informed” you are on any subject, and self-assessment is a faulty thing. The Dunning-Kruger effect probably plays a part in that too.
This is the basis for InfoWars: read a headline, make up a story to fit it
I wonder whether he believed the lie that the election was rigged. If he justified it to himself by saying "well, the other side is doing it." Horrific.
Edit: I made a false assumption that this was 9 votes in the same election, where it was actually 9 different instances where he would have been allowed to vote, were it not for prior conviction. See the comment below (or the article- my bad) for clarification.
Edit 2: removed the piece in my edit about probation, it wasn't applicable.
RFTA. It's so short, FFS.
He didn't vote 9 times in the 2020 election (or since then). He was on probation in PA for a felony and couldn't legally vote in GA, but did anyway. I would assume in 9 different elections. He claims he thought it was legal for him to do so. Had he not been on probation in PA, all his votes would have been legal. (In fact, I believe he should have been able to vote, as I don't think being convicted of a crime should remove this fundamental right. But that's kind of besides the point here)
He broke the law and should be punished for it, especially for being one who claims that the people were voting illegally, but even guessing that he was doing this because he thought the 2020 election was stolen makes absolutely zero sense, because the bulk of these times (if not all of them) happened before then.
Thank you for the correction. I'll edit my comment.
NP, thanks for being nice about it despite me being a cock.
That being said, all of the voting happened before 2011 even, when the probation was actually up.
Ack, even after reading the article I misunderstood. So it would have been legal in one state but was illegal where he actually voted. That's complicated.
And I don't mind being corrected! It helps me learn. I hope you have a wonderful day.
To be honest, the headline is really misleading. Yes, people should definitely RTFA, but not everyone has the time to do that and a headline should be specific enough to avoid spreading misinformation.
The title is never going to be specific enough to remove all ability to misinterpret it. The title just tells you what the article is about. The article itself gives you all the necessary details. I agree that it shouldn't be misleading, and in the case I think it could be improved, but that doesn't change the fact that one should refrain from passing judgment about what happened based on a headline. If you don't have the time to read the article, you also lack the time to form an valid opinion about what happened.
Sure, I agree, but unfortunately the human mind is prone to jumping to conclusions, especially when they fit their narrative. One should always be sure of what happened before forming an opinion on it, but sometimes you “get the feeling you’re sure” even when you don’t have all the necessary information.
Just look at how widespread the “Biden doesn’t know the alphabet” thing got when the original was very clearly satire.
I understand that confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. But we are talking about just making sure you are even just mildly informed before forming an opinion you think is valid.
The thing is, a lot of times people think they’re informed enough even when they aren’t. There isn’t a clear indicator of “how informed” you are on any subject, and self-assessment is a faulty thing. The Dunning-Kruger effect probably plays a part in that too.
This is the basis for InfoWars: read a headline, make up a story to fit it