Randahl FinkThank you to Steve Bannon for giving away the game:
Step 1: Show the people that ICE can kill anybody.
Step 2: Have ICE show up at polling stations in areas where people vote against Trump, so those neighborhoods do not go vote.
Dmitry Borodaenko@randahl He's not giving away the game, this statement itself is voter suppression. Journalists and influencers amplifying this message are helping him scare people into not voting in November.
For the rest of the game, watch what #TulsiGabbard is doing. Gerry-mandering and voter suppression might not be enough this time, they're preparing to seize the ballots and voting machines under bogus national security pretenses and prevent certification of the vote by the states.
Ricardo HarvinThe point is that they ultimately don't care if people vote
Ricardo Harvin (@[email protected])
Why is anyone in the U.S. thinking in terms of "four years", or "midterms ", or "elections" (beyond typical authoritarian kinds)? Have people not been paying attention? Will these people continue to be "Shocked! Shocked!" with each new decision made by this administration? That anyone believes anything but the worst will happen is how he got re-elected. This time there are no obstacles to his enacting or enabling anything he chooses. Stop your willful ignorance, this is real. #USPol
@ricardoharvin Bullshit. If they really didn't, they wouldn't be pouring so much money and effort into making it harder to vote.
bjb 
An election with only one allowed outcome is not an election.
This "election" is performative, to make people think they can still vote so they will accept all these measures. If they get away with it, it will be the last one. This performative election is the last faint chance to object to fascism, that is why they are spending so much - to render any opposition to the current administration ineffective so that resistance will fail.
@dmitry *Ultimately*, they do not care because they mean to render all results moot, truth!
dragonfrog@dmitry @ricardoharvin If they only use one tactic to undermine the whole election, then people can point to it and say "see, if they hadn't done *that* then the election would have gone differently".
If they try ten different things, where no individual one on its own is sufficient to change the outcome, but any six would be - then any time discussion focuses on one tactic, they can deflect by saying "oh come now, any effect from that was too small to change the outcome anyway, get over it".
@ricardoharvin @dragonfrog We had exactly this discourse after 2016.
https://circle.lt/post/20200403-money-for-people-with-minds-that-hate/
"Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump, and lost the electoral college 0.23% in Michigan, 0.77% in Wisconsin, and 0.72% in Pennsylvania. Jill Stein pulled away more votes than that in each of these three states. The Comey letter has cost Clinton around 1% in the polls … voter suppression and the Russian troll farms … Take any one of these four factors away and Clinton likely would have won."
@ricardoharvin @dragonfrog The best way to counter all of that is to get more people to vote. All other paths lead to violence and much less certain outcomes.
That is why I always push back on the "voting don't matter" narrative. It will always matter, it will always be worth fighting for the right to vote.