Why isn't th federal government making a bigger deal out of the fact that an official political candidate was used in a deep fake ad saying non consensual words for political interference
Why haven't these people been charged? Or at least found?? This was a litmus test for more deepfakes of joe during the main election...and they got the approval
Does this mean that liberals can do the same thing with DJT?
Tbh, I'm not sure what liberals could deepfake Trump that would be worse than what he actually says haha
You're not thinking deeper enough. Imagine a deep-faked Trump saying "Actually, I like Mexicans. It was all a joke. Borders open for everyone! And to all of you who gave me money, thank you haha suckers!! I endorse Joe Biden."
His voters literally don't care what he says.
Trump is the President that signed an executive order restricting firearms, but it's apparently Obama and Biden that are coming after our guns.
Every time his mental stability or physical health is brought up, I go back to this. His supporters are so sycophantic that he could shit into his open palm and lob it into the crowd at a rally and they'd never question it.
You can also watch videos of Joe Biden and see his daily public schedule and see him getting shit done without much difficulty. He's obviously not how Republicans describe him but why convincing people not the believe what they can see with their own eyes is part of the Republican strategy.
"Don't look up!"
I’d amend that to say his followers don’t know what he says much of the time. Their information comes largely through filters and fables.
neither does biden's voters
if both of these candidates defecated on the constitution then wiped with it afterwards the people from both camps would still be clambering to lick those sphincters clean afterwards
I have no love for Biden. I think very few people are excited to vote for him.
But he's not literally a fascist wannabe dictator who sells classified data to our enemies, tried to overthrow the US government, and rapes women.
So yeah, I'm voting for Biden.
I don't like Biden. I wanted Bernie to be our president. But it's either him or Trump. And fuck Trump.
You're not thinking serious enough. Imagine the shit Trump has said on the campaign trail, but now he can tell his cultists directly on their phones. Lighting the kindling and seeing if it blows up or not.
You have to think so crazy you end up thinking normal
I'm not worried about liberals deepfaking Trump, I more worried about grifters deepfaking Trump to further take advantage of low intelligence/low cognitive function trump supporters. I already see it with freeze dried ration scams and such. I don't want grifters to get ahold of my inheritance.
You're correct, which is why the next best thing is just deepfaking him into a completely different personality.
DJT's base doesn't care. If there was video of Trump saying he'd make abortion mandatory, repeal 2A, increase taxes, and change labor laws so that only gay blacks could apply for jobs, they'd still vote for him. At this point, it's gone beyond politics, into religion. As long as liberals hate him, that's enough.
I don't think I'm being hyperbolic about this. His base has all the marks of sectarianism. The far left does, too, to a lesser degree; look at the behavior of Bernie Bros. I think the difference is that Bernie is sincere about what he works toward, whereas Trump does whatever benefits Trump, but hides it behind rhetoric that only coincidentally corresponds with his actions.
In any case, we on the precipice of a sectarian war in the US. We already see sectarian violence from the right, with several instances of conservative physical attacks on the non-believers. Sooner or later, there'll be a liberal response; the far-left is certainly capable of it, c.f. the ELF in the 90's, and although that targetted property and not people, the angry violence is there and it's not a large step to targetting people.
Why haven't these people been charged? Or at least found??
This happened 2 days ago at the time of your comment, it seems a bit early to claim nothing's being done
Because the U.S. government is incapable of enforcing rules and protecting its people, and is therefore illegitimate.
That's why.
Dean Phillips got right around 20% even with the fact that Biden did a write in. I'm honestly kinda surprised it's that low. I would have expected there to be more than that considering the write-in.
Not that it matters since the DNC took away New Hampshire's say in the matter by nullifying their delegates. It is kinda horrifying that a private organization (the DNC) can just decide who has a say in choosing which candidates of the 2 we get to choose between.
DNC doesn't need to even have primaries. The political parties aren't public organizations. If another candidate was more popular, they foundy still win.
Besides, NH could have had a primary if they obeyed the rules. But they wanted to stay super special important so they were disqualified.
NH literally had to break either their own state law to move the primary, or break DNC's rules to have a primary that counted. And their republican state legislature would not allow them to move the primary. So they literally had no choice in the matter.
How is it in any way fair that 2 private organizations get to decide if the American people even get a say in the 2 (realistic) choices they have?
P.S. I'm assuming you mean might where you put 'foundy'. I don't know how that got there but I'm guessing a phone keyboard.
The problem here is the state law having any say in an intra-party election. That shouldn't be a thing.
Then run it on private property with private workers.
In what way is it unreasonable for a state to set rules for a private organization? Especially one with a huge say in determining who gets into public office.
If a state passes a law saying "All ice cream must be free." don't be surprised if all ice cream producers refuse to do business in the state, leaving the people there with no ice cream. Some rules are just stupid and the legislature needs to be cognizant of the consequences. They brought it upon themselves.
Sure you could easily argue that NH rules that they be first is stupid. And I agree with that, but it is also a bad look to take away that state's say in the process for that reason. If your state political party said your votes don't count and we are ignoring them, wouldn't you get kind of perturbed? The people of NH have little to no say in what their legislature does. It's not really fair to them that their primary votes don't count because the DNC said so.
I wouldn't be perturbed at Ben & Jerry's for avoiding the state lol. I'd be perturbed at the people we elected to write those laws.
It's stupid that primaries aren't all on the same day. People would have a problem with a staggered general election, so why do the primaries get a pass?
Agree 100%.
It also effectively disenfranchises an awful lot of primary voters. If you are in One of the first handful of states, you probably get a full slate of candidates. But if you're in one of the last handful, most of them have already dropped out and you probably won't have the opportunity to support the one you wanted.
Making all primaries on the same day would effectively address that. I would prefer however to remove primaries entirely. Set a slightly higher bar to getting on the main ballot, but then say any candidate regardless of party who gets enough signatures can be on the final ballot. Then do ranked choice voting. That way you can vote for a lesser known candidate, without losing your abilities to support the more likely winner that you like and thus not losing your vote against the other guy.
The problem is your voting system, not that the parties control their own internal processes. Implement something that makes sense like ranked choice voting and these nomination shenanigans will barely matter, and you'll be able to support more than 2 national parties. Most smaller countries have a lot more parties in their government.
Why not both? But your right only having 2 functional parties gives them a quite a bit of leeway. Since you only have 1 (or maybe 2) other choices, you functionally have no choice.
It's 'fair' because you just accept that they're the only realistic choices and just sit there and take it. Americans did this to themselves. They do it to themselves again every election cycle.
But more than 80% of the Americans have little to no say in how the government works. There's a Princeton study that 90%+ of Americans have little or no impact on US Policy. It's very much a cop out to blame Americans at large because it minimizes the harsh fact that money and the people who use it are what influences our system.
The ruling party should have primaries every election. The person in the office isn't always who the people want to keep that position.
But the other potential candidates all died of old age, they're running out of boomers to elect!
the USA isn't really supposed to have political parties like you do now.
Washington and other "founding fathers" argued against a party system, and there are no references to parties in the Constitution or other original documents mandating how elections are conducted.
The reality is that in any other country a private organization (=a party committee) decides who is the candidate for their party, and therefore who the public can vote for
It's always been the way. Even if the plebs vote for someone not approved by the party (ie Bernie), they have super delegates that get to outvote the others to promote their choice.
You can run as an independent or make your own party if you want to.
You know that's only technically correct and not viable in practice
The sad thing is you're technically correct only because it's people with a similar mindset to you on the matter that perpetuate this idea.
No, it's technically correct because the math just doesn't work in favor of third parties. That can change, but you have to put in a lot more effort than just voting at every opportunity.
The point was, the only reason only two parties exist in this country has less to do with any mechanical reason why and more to do with the fact that a huge number of people, such as yourself, continue cementing into people's minds that any alternative choice is worthless. Effectively, by continuing to perpetuate this idea over and over again in peoples minds, you have effectively created a self fulfilling prophecy.
You are technically, right. A third option has little to no chance, but only because people, such as yourself, have continued to tell others that a third options had little to no chance.
The main reason is the first past the post voting system that heavily favors two party systems, mathematically.
Sure you can, but what you can do is irrelevant. Even if you do it is guaranteed not to have a say nationally because of our first past the post voting system locks out any competition. You have 2 meaningful choices, anything else is locked out by our voting system and rendered non meaningful.
With the right candidate you could trick both major parties into secretly funding them as a spoiler candidate for the other party. You just need to say things that make headlines that people will engage with and come up with three word zingers that people will chant. Just say ambiguous shit and people will interpret it however they want to. There's people winning elections as libertarians, so it's totally possible with a more appealing platform.
WTF is this part supposed to mean?
wasn't on the ballot, it was still chock-full of candidates like the boot-on-head-wearing Vermin Supreme, Rep. Dean Phillip, and Marianne Williamson
Are they calling Dean Phillip a vermin supreme or did someone named Vermin Supreme actually get on the ballot?
Dean Phillips could be the apositive to Vermin Supreme, or both Vermin Supreme and Dean Phillips could be separate items in the list.
Vermin Supreme is a person who literally wears a boot on his head and is in politics. I don't know what his platform his, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to vote for him.
Free ponies for every American. I'm not kidding, that's his platform. He won me over.
He also has a strong stance on oral hygiene.
You should watch the video where he throws glitter on one of the other candidates and yells that they're "turning gay". https://youtu.be/O5nj_aex3QA?feature=shared (then you'll want to vote for him)
Is it really fair to say he is “in politics” though? Seems more like he just runs in elections.
He’s the only person I actually want to vote for.
There's a guy who calls himself Vermin Supreme. He wears a boot on his head and iirc claims to be a libertarian. He runs for president every year and never comes even close to winning anywhere.
Edit: meant to say he runs for president every election. He obviously couldn't run every year.
That's really impressive and pretty encouraging.
I read too much b******* online, so knowing that he doesn't even have to be on the ballot and can still win a primary is a wowser for me.
Sarcasm?
No, all of the whiney conservative trolling online honestly led me to believe Biden wasn't very popular, so I was genuinely surprised that even without being on the ballot, he was able to win the primary.
I need to find a forum to balance out Lemmy. I appreciate the perspectives I get here, but I think it's fair to say that it's nowhere close to representative of reality.
I think it is close to representative of reality, and you aren't going to find an online social media platform that is less polarized, due to the inherent anonymous and somewhat monoculture the nature of any platform.
We're all reacting to the large but limited number of articles posted on here by a large but limited number of posters, and we're allowed to anonymously post what we think or what we really think, but most of it is based off of what's floating around in here already.
That's social media, but I do like this platform more than other social media i've frequented.
If you're looking for least biased material, you can join newsletters that give you just the most objective news articles, like join1440.com or someone mentioned the ground.news to me.
But you don't get all that fun rolling around in the mud that you do here, haha
Ha. I think you touch on a very good point, that I'm not going to find a less polarized platform than this. I guess I wanted to look for a place to balance out the bias from here, but I'm not even sure what that would look like. L.W is slightly more left than reality sometimes, but what exactly would be slightly more right then reality? There isn't isn't anywhere. Reddit is the same, just with 100% more meme bullshit and feel good language obscuring interesting kernels.
Perhaps it's best to simply be aware of the imperfections and keep them in mind.
If you're just looking for news without a slant, that 1440 newsletter I mentioned previously. It's pretty great for that, and it'll only take up 10 minutes a day and you'll be on top of pretty much everything significant happening in the world.
You might want to check out tildes, it seemed calmer relative to other social media. But I only used it for a day or something.
I joined Lemmy and tildes the same day, and sh.itjust.works let me sign up immediately, while tildes took 2 days, by which point I was already participating in Lemmy. But I liked the simplicity of tildes.
Tildes is entirely text-based, at least on the part that you're looking at, from what I remember, and I think just the absence of memes and bright colors is calming to the users haha, so you don't have as many explosive reactions.
I'll have to look into tildes, good shout
A meaningless win because the DNC is refusing to sanction the primary and is engaging in voter suppression in favor of their own internal power plays.
As per their letter:
● The event on January 23, 2024 cannot be used as the first determining stage of the state’s
delegate selection process and is considered detrimental.
● The NHDP must take steps to educate the public that January 23rd is a non-binding
presidential preference event and is meaningless and the NHDP and presidential
candidates should take all steps possible not to participate.
● No delegates or alternates shall be apportioned based on the results of the January 23,
2024 event.
● No scheduling of events related to the selection of delegates or alternates in New
Hampshire may be based on the January 23, 2024 event.
A candidate winning despite not being on the ballot is an impressive show of public confidence and voter preference regardless of the circumstances.
And yet I think they stood on some sort of principal. That should count for something, especially from a politician
I confess, I'm ootl here. Why was he not on the ballot?!
Essentially, the DNC decided to shake up the primary season by shuffling the traditional order of primaries, and had South Carolina as the first primary in February. New Hampshire has a state law requiring them to be the first primary, so they could either break state law or defy the DNC. (Keep in mind that parties are technically private organizations, so I don't know how state law can force them to do that, but American elections are weird, and I'm Canadian.) The Republican-controlled NH government decided on defying the DNC, so although they technically held a primary, it was not sanctioned or authorized, and thus the DNC disallows contenders from appearing on the ballot, which Biden complied with. I believe the DNC has also invalidated the electors as a result, so they might not even count them at the convention.
TDLR; DNC changes primary schedule, Republican NH says "by law we go first", DNC declares NH primary unsanctioned and tells candidates to stay off the ballot.
The DNC is not holding a primary so NH is just doing this on their own for fun, and to comply with it's own laws. Because there is no contest, there is no need to collect the signatures and hire the lawyers and volunteers to get into the ballot. Other candidates did, but the national democratic nominating convention will be uncontested and Joe Biden will be the nominee.
Dark Brandon wins 100% of the elections he doesn't run in. Fodder for the next ridiculous right-wing conspiracy theory, or a tasteful homage to the antique Chuck Norris memes of yesteryear.
Vin Diesel meme of yesteryear*
Oh, you sweet summer child...
? The Vin Diesel memes got edited to become Chuck Norris memes unless there was an even earlier person used.
Real talk: how high are you? 🤦🏼♂️
I was there, I know it was Vin Diesel and here’s some proof.
Edit: Or are you summer childing as the old SA meme? Because after GoT so many people say it now I didn’t even make that connection.
TIL; Chuck Norris is so strong he kicks a Vin Deisel meme to the curb. He stomped that meme so hard that no one ever heard of it. Chuck Norris kicked the Vin Deisel meme so hard you could hear as it sailed away “but muh 2fast2furious”
That’s how you do it Jack.
Who would win in a fight: Diamond Joe Biden or Dark Brandon?
For zero delegates...
Unless the DNC is going to retroactively change their mind and not strip NH of their delegates now that Biden won.
Which would be really shitty considering lots of people didn't vote because without delegates it was literally pointless.
Just because Republicans went full on fascist doesn't mean Dems need to start pulling this stupid shit.
Let’s make up a scenario in our head that never existed and get pissed off about it.
The party could ultimately decide to seat New Hampshire's delegates at the convention this summer, but as of now, none will be awarded in Tuesday's Democratic primary.
Last year, the Democratic Party moved to shake up its primary calendar and allow South Carolina to hold the first primary. New Hampshire Democrats said moving the date of their primary would require a new state law and couldn't be done in time.
The Democratic National Committee said the state violated the party's rules by holding its contest earlier than allowed, and thus none of the state's delegates would be up for grabs in the election. Mr. Biden also protested the primary date and withheld his name from the ballot, so anyone who wants to vote for the commander in chief will have to do so with a write-in vote.
Democratic candidates like Rep. Dean Phillips and self-help author Marianne Williamson will be on the ballot Tuesday, but Mr. Biden is still expected to win. The party could ultimately decide to seat New Hampshire's delegates at the convention this summer, but as of now, none will be awarded in Tuesday's Democratic primary.
In 2020, New Hampshire Democrats allotted 24 pledged delegates.
24 delegates, thrown out because the state party (who is in charge of primaries) didn't do what the national party asked, because that would require changing state law and there just wasn't time for that.
So the DNC and Biden threw a tantrum and tossed democracy out the window.
Are you aware that New Hampshire decided to unilaterally put themselves first in the primary schedule based on some nonsense in their state constitution?
"The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous," the law says.
But last year, the Democratic Party, supported by President Biden, announced it would be changing its primary calendar to prioritize South Carolina and move up battleground states such as Michigan and Georgia. New Hampshire's state government, controlled by Republicans, refused to comply with the DNC's new rules and scheduled the primary for Jan. 23, leaving it first.
As a result, Mr. Biden is not appearing on the ballot, although his campaign has launched an aggressive write-in campaign. Democratic candidates participating in the unofficial primary on Tuesday will not win any delegates, so any victory will be symbolic.
As I'm somewhat a fan of democracy, I think that South Carolina is a much better first primary state than New Hampshire for the simple reason that it better represents the demographic and ideological makeup of that party.
I agree with the commenter above, you've inventing shit to be mad at.
They stripped the state of their primary delegates...
Because the state party wouldn't violate state law...
I get why you added the "somewhat" to that end but tho.
And I don't think any exchange with somone so anti-demacratic will ever be productive in a political sub.
Yep, ya got me bro. Nothing says "i love democracy", or as you call it "demacracy", like advocating for a small state which is not at all representative of the broader voting base to unilaterally put itself first in line to the nomination process. 😂
With people like you around it's no wonder Socrates was put to death by popular vote. They also loved making shit up to get mad at back then.
I was with you until you added the ad hominem attack.
Fair. Totally fair.
That was wrong of me, I was just tired of constant bad-faith arguments over nothing.
The party could ultimately decide to seat New Hampshire's delegates at the convention this summer, but as of now, none will be awarded in Tuesday's Democratic primary.
Yeah, sounds like you're getting mad at hypotheticals. Maybe hold off on the pitchforks.
The pulled the delegates...
Biden won...
If they reinstate the delegates, that's not better, that's worse. Because the last two primaries the party favorite comes in last and the most progressive has won NH... Canceling it to only put it back in when the moderate party favorite wins is fucked
Which I didn't think needed explained, but this thread has shown me my expectations were a lot higher than they should be
Because NH got their panties in a twist and decided that their miniscule state needs to be first? They can go fuck off.
Nope.
Because there wasn't enough time for NH to change their state law...
DNC and Biden got so mad a state wouldn't violate state law to help him in an election, they stripped the state of their say in who the candidate was. And it's a total coincidence he got his ass kicked there last primary....
But it's cool, because he legitimately is still better than trump, and even though that difference keeps shrinking, no one is allowed to complain about Biden because trump exists....
Because there wasn’t enough time for NH to change their state law
They had a year's notice. The rulemaking process began last winter.
Do you think the leaders of the state democratic party are in complete control of the laws in NH?
I'd think of all people, Biden wouldnt expect politicians to rush into anything...
Or anyone to ever change a politicians mind on how to vote.
They had adequate notice. The state cannot cling to an imagined relevancy and hold a party hostage. The legislature chose not to act and therefore their constituents don't get to participate in the Democratic Primary.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Seems pretty straightforward to me
Republicans say that about all kinds of crazy rationalizations
Most people who are against democracy feel like democracy isn't very important as long as their team wins in fact.
But I've found engaging with that type of people is rarely productive, regardless of what they consider their team.
You're shouting in to a screeching void, haha. These degenerate buffoons don't care, or want, the truth and figure the down vote arrow is a sword and that it actually deters you.
It turns out 30 years of dragging the Democratic party to the left lost us as many voters as we gained, and now a bunch of "Democrats" act a lot like Republicans and share the same morals....
What's crazy is if they had stayed active in the Republican party, they could have actually kept the Republicans somewhat moderate.
Instead them leaving just concentrated the crazy, and turned 1/3 of the country away from voting.
The only ones that won from Dems courting Republican voters was conservative extremists. Everyone else lost.
Democrats don't just want a pro-genocide corporate shill, they want an 80-year-old pro-genocide corporate shill.
Get ready for next 11 months of “BoTh SidEs aRE thE SaME” bullshit.
If both sides are same, why not vote for pro-genocide corporate shill who is not a rapist, not a traitor, and not a criminal?
I mean, this is a primary, not the general.
Unfortunately the incumbent has a massive advantage. It's rare for a party to switch to a different candidate when one of theirs already has the seat.
Because you can vote third party and not endorse Nazism
Please name the third party candidate that has a reasonable chance of beating both Trump and Biden.
This is the primary. This is when we should be able to vote for candidates who more closely align with our views. (Like being anti-genocide.)
Primaries are when you vote for a candidate from a specific party. The person above me said to vote third party. You can't do that in a primary. It was obvious they were talking about the general election.
Both of the people you named commit genocide. Voting for them means you endorse genocide. I fail to see how percentages are relevant here.
The vote is to elect a president. If you are not going to vote for someone who has a chance of winning, what is the point of voting at all?
I will happily vote for a third party candidate that has a chance of winning. I have asked for a name many times and have yet to be given one.
I live in a state that is not even close to be competitive. Why should I not vote for the Green Party candidate?
Why bother voting at all?
In my state, the two major parties keep changing the rules to make it harder for other parties to get ballot access. If a party gets a certain number of votes in the general, they can keep their ballot access without needing to jump through a bunch of expensive hoops designed to keep them out. I vote to have more choice in future elections. Because that is all I can vote for.
Okay, that is, at least, a reasonable explanation of why to vote third party without having to name a candidate. You're literally the first person who has done this even though I have asked people who tell me to vote third party for a name for months now.
Here is another reason: because I would rather try for long-term improvements than to accept gradual worsening.
Voting for conservative Democrats will not improve anything. They do not want increased accountability for the rich. They do not want universal healthcare. They do not want to get away from fossil fuels (in the time frame required). They do not want to fix our car-centric infrastructure. They do not want to stop genocide. They do not want affordable housing. They do not want affordable education. They actively fight against those who do.
Voting for conservative Democrats is not about making things better, it is about stopping things from getting worse. The Democratic Party is not a big tent, it is a hostage situation: the liberals are told "stay with us and vote for us, or the fascists will kill you."
Long term, will voting 3rd party force the Democrats left? If the Democrats shift further right instead, will there be enough time for a liberal party to emerge and challenge before the county fails? I do not know.
I am not mad at anybody for voting for the lesser of two evils. It is a reasonable, defensible choice. I understand that many of the people making that choice are victims of our system, not the perpetrators. If their strategy works, and we keep getting the lesser evil, I cannot fault them for it.
But I would rather try for a long-term improvement than to accept gradual worsening.
The Greens have a 99% chance of winning if everyone stops acting like Biden is holding a gun against their heads to prevent them from voting differently.
I see, so if something that is almost certainly not going to happen happens, a Green candidate who you have not named has a 99% chance of beating Trump.
That's not what I asked. I didn't ask for special, very unlikely circumstances.
Name the third party candidate who has a good chance of winning as things stand now. Just give me a name.
Biden doesn't have a good chance of beating Trump either lmao. I'd give him 20% max.
Your wild guess percentages based on zero evidence are not a name. You still have not given me a name. Who am I supposed to vote for if you won't even give me a name?
Cornel West there you go.
I asked for a name that has a reasonable chance of beating both Trump and Biden. I see that West has 2% support. That is not a reasonable chance, so that name is not the name I asked for.
Also, you have contradicted yourself, because Cornel West is not a Green party candidate. Therefore, based on your previous post, he won't have that (evidence-free) 99% chance of winning.
Odd that this name for a candidate that can win is so hard for you to come up with.
"candidate X would easily win if everybody voted for them"
No shit, now who are they and how do you propose convincing people to vote for them?
By not voting for genocide and showing that there is support for the other party so people can finally jump ship. If their voting percentage stays at 2% forever nobody will ever jump ship.
Will you win in one election? Not likely. But continuing to vote for Democrat will only solidify America sliding into Fascism (though with the current Genocide I'd argue we've reached that point already)
Low turnout and high degree of votes for independents tend to favor Republicans in USA, and you have heard of their project 2025 right? A program literally designed to be a clone of nazism
After all the 2016 fearmongering I am genuinely flabbergasted anyone is still falling for it. Republicans aren't interested in overthrowing the plutocracy because the illusion of voting is the most effective way to keep Americans repressed and docile
They are literally telling you what they want to do. They want a republican president above the law and make a permanent legislative and judicial majority which can't be unseated through elections.
If they wanted that they could have done it in 2020 when they controlled everything and Trump was president? We heard this story back then and aside from the looney parade on Jan 6, the Republicans did not try to keep him in power like some god ruler.
They tried but couldn't due to infighting, and because they didn't have a plan because they didn't expect to win. Now they have plans. See project 2025 to start with
They absolutely tried to keep him in power, all the lawsuits and other shenanigans was all about trying to block transfer of power when he lost. They literally tried to rig the vote by damaging the postal service, because they knew democrats would rely more on voting by mail with the pandemic going on. They're working on gerrymandering state maps to artificially give Republicans more winning districts, giving them a chance to win states where they lost the popular vote.
Why isn't th federal government making a bigger deal out of the fact that an official political candidate was used in a deep fake ad saying non consensual words for political interference
Why haven't these people been charged? Or at least found?? This was a litmus test for more deepfakes of joe during the main election...and they got the approval
Does this mean that liberals can do the same thing with DJT?
Tbh, I'm not sure what liberals could deepfake Trump that would be worse than what he actually says haha
You're not thinking deeper enough. Imagine a deep-faked Trump saying "Actually, I like Mexicans. It was all a joke. Borders open for everyone! And to all of you who gave me money, thank you haha suckers!! I endorse Joe Biden."
His voters literally don't care what he says.
Trump is the President that signed an executive order restricting firearms, but it's apparently Obama and Biden that are coming after our guns.
Every time his mental stability or physical health is brought up, I go back to this. His supporters are so sycophantic that he could shit into his open palm and lob it into the crowd at a rally and they'd never question it.
You can also watch videos of Joe Biden and see his daily public schedule and see him getting shit done without much difficulty. He's obviously not how Republicans describe him but why convincing people not the believe what they can see with their own eyes is part of the Republican strategy.
"Don't look up!"
I’d amend that to say his followers don’t know what he says much of the time. Their information comes largely through filters and fables.
neither does biden's voters
if both of these candidates defecated on the constitution then wiped with it afterwards the people from both camps would still be clambering to lick those sphincters clean afterwards
I have no love for Biden. I think very few people are excited to vote for him.
But he's not literally a fascist wannabe dictator who sells classified data to our enemies, tried to overthrow the US government, and rapes women.
So yeah, I'm voting for Biden.
I don't like Biden. I wanted Bernie to be our president. But it's either him or Trump. And fuck Trump.
You're not thinking serious enough. Imagine the shit Trump has said on the campaign trail, but now he can tell his cultists directly on their phones. Lighting the kindling and seeing if it blows up or not.
You have to think so crazy you end up thinking normal
I'm not worried about liberals deepfaking Trump, I more worried about grifters deepfaking Trump to further take advantage of low intelligence/low cognitive function trump supporters. I already see it with freeze dried ration scams and such. I don't want grifters to get ahold of my inheritance.
You're correct, which is why the next best thing is just deepfaking him into a completely different personality.
AKA: Sassy Justice
The Navy seal copy pasta
DJT's base doesn't care. If there was video of Trump saying he'd make abortion mandatory, repeal 2A, increase taxes, and change labor laws so that only gay blacks could apply for jobs, they'd still vote for him. At this point, it's gone beyond politics, into religion. As long as liberals hate him, that's enough.
I don't think I'm being hyperbolic about this. His base has all the marks of sectarianism. The far left does, too, to a lesser degree; look at the behavior of Bernie Bros. I think the difference is that Bernie is sincere about what he works toward, whereas Trump does whatever benefits Trump, but hides it behind rhetoric that only coincidentally corresponds with his actions.
In any case, we on the precipice of a sectarian war in the US. We already see sectarian violence from the right, with several instances of conservative physical attacks on the non-believers. Sooner or later, there'll be a liberal response; the far-left is certainly capable of it, c.f. the ELF in the 90's, and although that targetted property and not people, the angry violence is there and it's not a large step to targetting people.
This happened 2 days ago at the time of your comment, it seems a bit early to claim nothing's being done
Because the U.S. government is incapable of enforcing rules and protecting its people, and is therefore illegitimate.
That's why.
Dean Phillips got right around 20% even with the fact that Biden did a write in. I'm honestly kinda surprised it's that low. I would have expected there to be more than that considering the write-in.
Not that it matters since the DNC took away New Hampshire's say in the matter by nullifying their delegates. It is kinda horrifying that a private organization (the DNC) can just decide who has a say in choosing which candidates of the 2 we get to choose between.
DNC doesn't need to even have primaries. The political parties aren't public organizations. If another candidate was more popular, they foundy still win.
Besides, NH could have had a primary if they obeyed the rules. But they wanted to stay super special important so they were disqualified.
NH literally had to break either their own state law to move the primary, or break DNC's rules to have a primary that counted. And their republican state legislature would not allow them to move the primary. So they literally had no choice in the matter.
How is it in any way fair that 2 private organizations get to decide if the American people even get a say in the 2 (realistic) choices they have?
P.S. I'm assuming you mean might where you put 'foundy'. I don't know how that got there but I'm guessing a phone keyboard.
The problem here is the state law having any say in an intra-party election. That shouldn't be a thing.
Then run it on private property with private workers.
In what way is it unreasonable for a state to set rules for a private organization? Especially one with a huge say in determining who gets into public office.
If a state passes a law saying "All ice cream must be free." don't be surprised if all ice cream producers refuse to do business in the state, leaving the people there with no ice cream. Some rules are just stupid and the legislature needs to be cognizant of the consequences. They brought it upon themselves.
Sure you could easily argue that NH rules that they be first is stupid. And I agree with that, but it is also a bad look to take away that state's say in the process for that reason. If your state political party said your votes don't count and we are ignoring them, wouldn't you get kind of perturbed? The people of NH have little to no say in what their legislature does. It's not really fair to them that their primary votes don't count because the DNC said so.
I wouldn't be perturbed at Ben & Jerry's for avoiding the state lol. I'd be perturbed at the people we elected to write those laws.
It's stupid that primaries aren't all on the same day. People would have a problem with a staggered general election, so why do the primaries get a pass?
Agree 100%.
It also effectively disenfranchises an awful lot of primary voters. If you are in One of the first handful of states, you probably get a full slate of candidates. But if you're in one of the last handful, most of them have already dropped out and you probably won't have the opportunity to support the one you wanted.
Making all primaries on the same day would effectively address that. I would prefer however to remove primaries entirely. Set a slightly higher bar to getting on the main ballot, but then say any candidate regardless of party who gets enough signatures can be on the final ballot. Then do ranked choice voting. That way you can vote for a lesser known candidate, without losing your abilities to support the more likely winner that you like and thus not losing your vote against the other guy.
The problem is your voting system, not that the parties control their own internal processes. Implement something that makes sense like ranked choice voting and these nomination shenanigans will barely matter, and you'll be able to support more than 2 national parties. Most smaller countries have a lot more parties in their government.
Why not both? But your right only having 2 functional parties gives them a quite a bit of leeway. Since you only have 1 (or maybe 2) other choices, you functionally have no choice.
It's 'fair' because you just accept that they're the only realistic choices and just sit there and take it. Americans did this to themselves. They do it to themselves again every election cycle.
But more than 80% of the Americans have little to no say in how the government works. There's a Princeton study that 90%+ of Americans have little or no impact on US Policy. It's very much a cop out to blame Americans at large because it minimizes the harsh fact that money and the people who use it are what influences our system.
The ruling party should have primaries every election. The person in the office isn't always who the people want to keep that position.
But the other potential candidates all died of old age, they're running out of boomers to elect!
the USA isn't really supposed to have political parties like you do now.
Washington and other "founding fathers" argued against a party system, and there are no references to parties in the Constitution or other original documents mandating how elections are conducted.
The reality is that in any other country a private organization (=a party committee) decides who is the candidate for their party, and therefore who the public can vote for
It's always been the way. Even if the plebs vote for someone not approved by the party (ie Bernie), they have super delegates that get to outvote the others to promote their choice.
You can run as an independent or make your own party if you want to.
You know that's only technically correct and not viable in practice
The sad thing is you're technically correct only because it's people with a similar mindset to you on the matter that perpetuate this idea.
No, it's technically correct because the math just doesn't work in favor of third parties. That can change, but you have to put in a lot more effort than just voting at every opportunity.
The point was, the only reason only two parties exist in this country has less to do with any mechanical reason why and more to do with the fact that a huge number of people, such as yourself, continue cementing into people's minds that any alternative choice is worthless. Effectively, by continuing to perpetuate this idea over and over again in peoples minds, you have effectively created a self fulfilling prophecy.
You are technically, right. A third option has little to no chance, but only because people, such as yourself, have continued to tell others that a third options had little to no chance.
The main reason is the first past the post voting system that heavily favors two party systems, mathematically.
Sure you can, but what you can do is irrelevant. Even if you do it is guaranteed not to have a say nationally because of our first past the post voting system locks out any competition. You have 2 meaningful choices, anything else is locked out by our voting system and rendered non meaningful.
With the right candidate you could trick both major parties into secretly funding them as a spoiler candidate for the other party. You just need to say things that make headlines that people will engage with and come up with three word zingers that people will chant. Just say ambiguous shit and people will interpret it however they want to. There's people winning elections as libertarians, so it's totally possible with a more appealing platform.
WTF is this part supposed to mean?
Are they calling Dean Phillip a vermin supreme or did someone named Vermin Supreme actually get on the ballot?
Vermin Supreme is a real person.
You're one of today's lucky 10,000!
For those that don't get the reference:
https://xkcd.com/1053/
I’m so excited that you get to learn about vermin supreme
Vermin Supreme have been in quite a few elections
There's a comma.
Dean Phillips could be the apositive to Vermin Supreme, or both Vermin Supreme and Dean Phillips could be separate items in the list.
Vermin Supreme is a person who literally wears a boot on his head and is in politics. I don't know what his platform his, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to vote for him.
Free ponies for every American. I'm not kidding, that's his platform. He won me over.
He also has a strong stance on oral hygiene.
You should watch the video where he throws glitter on one of the other candidates and yells that they're "turning gay". https://youtu.be/O5nj_aex3QA?feature=shared (then you'll want to vote for him)
Is it really fair to say he is “in politics” though? Seems more like he just runs in elections.
He’s the only person I actually want to vote for.
There's a guy who calls himself Vermin Supreme. He wears a boot on his head and iirc claims to be a libertarian. He runs for president every year and never comes even close to winning anywhere.
Edit: meant to say he runs for president every election. He obviously couldn't run every year.
That's really impressive and pretty encouraging.
I read too much b******* online, so knowing that he doesn't even have to be on the ballot and can still win a primary is a wowser for me.
Sarcasm?
No, all of the whiney conservative trolling online honestly led me to believe Biden wasn't very popular, so I was genuinely surprised that even without being on the ballot, he was able to win the primary.
I need to find a forum to balance out Lemmy. I appreciate the perspectives I get here, but I think it's fair to say that it's nowhere close to representative of reality.
I think it is close to representative of reality, and you aren't going to find an online social media platform that is less polarized, due to the inherent anonymous and somewhat monoculture the nature of any platform.
We're all reacting to the large but limited number of articles posted on here by a large but limited number of posters, and we're allowed to anonymously post what we think or what we really think, but most of it is based off of what's floating around in here already.
That's social media, but I do like this platform more than other social media i've frequented.
If you're looking for least biased material, you can join newsletters that give you just the most objective news articles, like join1440.com or someone mentioned the ground.news to me.
But you don't get all that fun rolling around in the mud that you do here, haha
Ha. I think you touch on a very good point, that I'm not going to find a less polarized platform than this. I guess I wanted to look for a place to balance out the bias from here, but I'm not even sure what that would look like. L.W is slightly more left than reality sometimes, but what exactly would be slightly more right then reality? There isn't isn't anywhere. Reddit is the same, just with 100% more meme bullshit and feel good language obscuring interesting kernels.
Perhaps it's best to simply be aware of the imperfections and keep them in mind.
If you're just looking for news without a slant, that 1440 newsletter I mentioned previously. It's pretty great for that, and it'll only take up 10 minutes a day and you'll be on top of pretty much everything significant happening in the world.
You might want to check out tildes, it seemed calmer relative to other social media. But I only used it for a day or something.
I joined Lemmy and tildes the same day, and sh.itjust.works let me sign up immediately, while tildes took 2 days, by which point I was already participating in Lemmy. But I liked the simplicity of tildes.
Tildes is entirely text-based, at least on the part that you're looking at, from what I remember, and I think just the absence of memes and bright colors is calming to the users haha, so you don't have as many explosive reactions.
I'll have to look into tildes, good shout
A meaningless win because the DNC is refusing to sanction the primary and is engaging in voter suppression in favor of their own internal power plays.
As per their letter:
A candidate winning despite not being on the ballot is an impressive show of public confidence and voter preference regardless of the circumstances.
And yet I think they stood on some sort of principal. That should count for something, especially from a politician
I confess, I'm ootl here. Why was he not on the ballot?!
Essentially, the DNC decided to shake up the primary season by shuffling the traditional order of primaries, and had South Carolina as the first primary in February. New Hampshire has a state law requiring them to be the first primary, so they could either break state law or defy the DNC. (Keep in mind that parties are technically private organizations, so I don't know how state law can force them to do that, but American elections are weird, and I'm Canadian.) The Republican-controlled NH government decided on defying the DNC, so although they technically held a primary, it was not sanctioned or authorized, and thus the DNC disallows contenders from appearing on the ballot, which Biden complied with. I believe the DNC has also invalidated the electors as a result, so they might not even count them at the convention.
TDLR; DNC changes primary schedule, Republican NH says "by law we go first", DNC declares NH primary unsanctioned and tells candidates to stay off the ballot.
The DNC is not holding a primary so NH is just doing this on their own for fun, and to comply with it's own laws. Because there is no contest, there is no need to collect the signatures and hire the lawyers and volunteers to get into the ballot. Other candidates did, but the national democratic nominating convention will be uncontested and Joe Biden will be the nominee.
Dark Brandon wins 100% of the elections he doesn't run in. Fodder for the next ridiculous right-wing conspiracy theory, or a tasteful homage to the antique Chuck Norris memes of yesteryear.
Vin Diesel meme of yesteryear*
Oh, you sweet summer child...
? The Vin Diesel memes got edited to become Chuck Norris memes unless there was an even earlier person used.
Real talk: how high are you? 🤦🏼♂️
I was there, I know it was Vin Diesel and here’s some proof.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/chuck-norris-facts
Edit: Or are you summer childing as the old SA meme? Because after GoT so many people say it now I didn’t even make that connection.
TIL; Chuck Norris is so strong he kicks a Vin Deisel meme to the curb. He stomped that meme so hard that no one ever heard of it. Chuck Norris kicked the Vin Deisel meme so hard you could hear as it sailed away “but muh 2fast2furious”
That’s how you do it Jack.
Who would win in a fight: Diamond Joe Biden or Dark Brandon?
For zero delegates...
Unless the DNC is going to retroactively change their mind and not strip NH of their delegates now that Biden won.
Which would be really shitty considering lots of people didn't vote because without delegates it was literally pointless.
Just because Republicans went full on fascist doesn't mean Dems need to start pulling this stupid shit.
Let’s make up a scenario in our head that never existed and get pissed off about it.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-delegates-new-hampshire-primary-2024/
Welp, looks like you're wrong...
Edit:
I'll add the full context even
24 delegates, thrown out because the state party (who is in charge of primaries) didn't do what the national party asked, because that would require changing state law and there just wasn't time for that.
So the DNC and Biden threw a tantrum and tossed democracy out the window.
Are you aware that New Hampshire decided to unilaterally put themselves first in the primary schedule based on some nonsense in their state constitution?
As I'm somewhat a fan of democracy, I think that South Carolina is a much better first primary state than New Hampshire for the simple reason that it better represents the demographic and ideological makeup of that party.
I agree with the commenter above, you've inventing shit to be mad at.
They stripped the state of their primary delegates...
Because the state party wouldn't violate state law...
I get why you added the "somewhat" to that end but tho.
And I don't think any exchange with somone so anti-demacratic will ever be productive in a political sub.
Yep, ya got me bro. Nothing says "i love democracy", or as you call it "demacracy", like advocating for a small state which is not at all representative of the broader voting base to unilaterally put itself first in line to the nomination process. 😂
With people like you around it's no wonder Socrates was put to death by popular vote. They also loved making shit up to get mad at back then.
I was with you until you added the ad hominem attack.
Fair. Totally fair.
That was wrong of me, I was just tired of constant bad-faith arguments over nothing.
The bad faith arguments are infuriating
Yeah, sounds like you're getting mad at hypotheticals. Maybe hold off on the pitchforks.
The pulled the delegates...
Biden won...
If they reinstate the delegates, that's not better, that's worse. Because the last two primaries the party favorite comes in last and the most progressive has won NH... Canceling it to only put it back in when the moderate party favorite wins is fucked
Which I didn't think needed explained, but this thread has shown me my expectations were a lot higher than they should be
Because NH got their panties in a twist and decided that their miniscule state needs to be first? They can go fuck off.
Nope.
Because there wasn't enough time for NH to change their state law...
DNC and Biden got so mad a state wouldn't violate state law to help him in an election, they stripped the state of their say in who the candidate was. And it's a total coincidence he got his ass kicked there last primary....
But it's cool, because he legitimately is still better than trump, and even though that difference keeps shrinking, no one is allowed to complain about Biden because trump exists....
They had a year's notice. The rulemaking process began last winter.
Do you think the leaders of the state democratic party are in complete control of the laws in NH?
I'd think of all people, Biden wouldnt expect politicians to rush into anything...
Or anyone to ever change a politicians mind on how to vote.
They had adequate notice. The state cannot cling to an imagined relevancy and hold a party hostage. The legislature chose not to act and therefore their constituents don't get to participate in the Democratic Primary.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Republicans say that about all kinds of crazy rationalizations
Most people who are against democracy feel like democracy isn't very important as long as their team wins in fact.
But I've found engaging with that type of people is rarely productive, regardless of what they consider their team.
you
You're shouting in to a screeching void, haha. These degenerate buffoons don't care, or want, the truth and figure the down vote arrow is a sword and that it actually deters you.
It turns out 30 years of dragging the Democratic party to the left lost us as many voters as we gained, and now a bunch of "Democrats" act a lot like Republicans and share the same morals....
What's crazy is if they had stayed active in the Republican party, they could have actually kept the Republicans somewhat moderate.
Instead them leaving just concentrated the crazy, and turned 1/3 of the country away from voting.
The only ones that won from Dems courting Republican voters was conservative extremists. Everyone else lost.
Democrats don't just want a pro-genocide corporate shill, they want an 80-year-old pro-genocide corporate shill.
Get ready for next 11 months of “BoTh SidEs aRE thE SaME” bullshit.
If both sides are same, why not vote for pro-genocide corporate shill who is not a rapist, not a traitor, and not a criminal?
I mean, this is a primary, not the general.
Unfortunately the incumbent has a massive advantage. It's rare for a party to switch to a different candidate when one of theirs already has the seat.
Because you can vote third party and not endorse Nazism
Please name the third party candidate that has a reasonable chance of beating both Trump and Biden.
This is the primary. This is when we should be able to vote for candidates who more closely align with our views. (Like being anti-genocide.)
Primaries are when you vote for a candidate from a specific party. The person above me said to vote third party. You can't do that in a primary. It was obvious they were talking about the general election.
Both of the people you named commit genocide. Voting for them means you endorse genocide. I fail to see how percentages are relevant here.
The vote is to elect a president. If you are not going to vote for someone who has a chance of winning, what is the point of voting at all?
I will happily vote for a third party candidate that has a chance of winning. I have asked for a name many times and have yet to be given one.
I live in a state that is not even close to be competitive. Why should I not vote for the Green Party candidate?
Why bother voting at all?
In my state, the two major parties keep changing the rules to make it harder for other parties to get ballot access. If a party gets a certain number of votes in the general, they can keep their ballot access without needing to jump through a bunch of expensive hoops designed to keep them out. I vote to have more choice in future elections. Because that is all I can vote for.
Okay, that is, at least, a reasonable explanation of why to vote third party without having to name a candidate. You're literally the first person who has done this even though I have asked people who tell me to vote third party for a name for months now.
Here is another reason: because I would rather try for long-term improvements than to accept gradual worsening.
Voting for conservative Democrats will not improve anything. They do not want increased accountability for the rich. They do not want universal healthcare. They do not want to get away from fossil fuels (in the time frame required). They do not want to fix our car-centric infrastructure. They do not want to stop genocide. They do not want affordable housing. They do not want affordable education. They actively fight against those who do.
Voting for conservative Democrats is not about making things better, it is about stopping things from getting worse. The Democratic Party is not a big tent, it is a hostage situation: the liberals are told "stay with us and vote for us, or the fascists will kill you."
Long term, will voting 3rd party force the Democrats left? If the Democrats shift further right instead, will there be enough time for a liberal party to emerge and challenge before the county fails? I do not know.
I am not mad at anybody for voting for the lesser of two evils. It is a reasonable, defensible choice. I understand that many of the people making that choice are victims of our system, not the perpetrators. If their strategy works, and we keep getting the lesser evil, I cannot fault them for it.
But I would rather try for a long-term improvement than to accept gradual worsening.
The Greens have a 99% chance of winning if everyone stops acting like Biden is holding a gun against their heads to prevent them from voting differently.
I see, so if something that is almost certainly not going to happen happens, a Green candidate who you have not named has a 99% chance of beating Trump.
That's not what I asked. I didn't ask for special, very unlikely circumstances.
Name the third party candidate who has a good chance of winning as things stand now. Just give me a name.
Biden doesn't have a good chance of beating Trump either lmao. I'd give him 20% max.
Your wild guess percentages based on zero evidence are not a name. You still have not given me a name. Who am I supposed to vote for if you won't even give me a name?
Cornel West there you go.
I asked for a name that has a reasonable chance of beating both Trump and Biden. I see that West has 2% support. That is not a reasonable chance, so that name is not the name I asked for.
Also, you have contradicted yourself, because Cornel West is not a Green party candidate. Therefore, based on your previous post, he won't have that (evidence-free) 99% chance of winning.
Odd that this name for a candidate that can win is so hard for you to come up with.
"candidate X would easily win if everybody voted for them"
No shit, now who are they and how do you propose convincing people to vote for them?
By not voting for genocide and showing that there is support for the other party so people can finally jump ship. If their voting percentage stays at 2% forever nobody will ever jump ship.
Will you win in one election? Not likely. But continuing to vote for Democrat will only solidify America sliding into Fascism (though with the current Genocide I'd argue we've reached that point already)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
18.9% wasn't enough either
Maybe if we gerrymander hard enough
Again I ask you, who do you propose we vote for instead?
Low turnout and high degree of votes for independents tend to favor Republicans in USA, and you have heard of their project 2025 right? A program literally designed to be a clone of nazism
After all the 2016 fearmongering I am genuinely flabbergasted anyone is still falling for it. Republicans aren't interested in overthrowing the plutocracy because the illusion of voting is the most effective way to keep Americans repressed and docile
They are literally telling you what they want to do. They want a republican president above the law and make a permanent legislative and judicial majority which can't be unseated through elections.
If they wanted that they could have done it in 2020 when they controlled everything and Trump was president? We heard this story back then and aside from the looney parade on Jan 6, the Republicans did not try to keep him in power like some god ruler.
They tried but couldn't due to infighting, and because they didn't have a plan because they didn't expect to win. Now they have plans. See project 2025 to start with
They absolutely tried to keep him in power, all the lawsuits and other shenanigans was all about trying to block transfer of power when he lost. They literally tried to rig the vote by damaging the postal service, because they knew democrats would rely more on voting by mail with the pandemic going on. They're working on gerrymandering state maps to artificially give Republicans more winning districts, giving them a chance to win states where they lost the popular vote.
Because I won't vote for genocide.
Instead I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.
Can't wait to watch this doofus not reply to anyone
Ok.