• DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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?

    • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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

    • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Because the U.S. government is incapable of enforcing rules and protecting its people, and is therefore illegitimate.

      That’s why.

      • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.”

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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

  • j_roby@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    10 months ago

    The push to write in Biden on the ballot didn’t go completely smoothly. The weekend before New Hampshire’s primary, thousands of voters in the state received robocalls that used deep faked audio of the president in an attempt to dissuade them from turning out.

    Whatever your thoughts on electoral politics are, this shit right here is such a terrifying prospect for the future…

    • donuts@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m not sure if AI is going to revolutionize anything good, but it’s certainly going to revolutionize election interference.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        That, misinformation/propaganda, scam calls, etc. Shits gonna get wild real quick here soon, and I don’t think we as a species are remotely prepared for it.

        • jak@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I am fooled by imageai posts about 80% of the time. I don’t know how to not be, but it just makes me distrustful of everything

            • clgoh@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Judge Doom wouldn’t put himself, voluntarily, in the dip.

              • littleblue✨@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Judge Doom is what happens when you bip around in history like a hare-brained child with no regard for multi-universal consequences and the strain it takes on the squishy human psyche. Apparently, the loss of his dearest Clara and their children was enough to make the ol’ Doc snap right to his core.

    • Hoagie@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

  • Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    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?

      • Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        New Hampshire having a state law that they always get to go first, for a national election, that’s been around for 100 years, is dumb as fuck.

        It’s good this change is happening. The primary orders should shuffle around more often. No state declaring “we’re always first” within their state laws should be recognized at the federal level.

        • Null User Object@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Here’s a crazy idea. Every state has their primary on the same day so that no state gets to dictate who others get to vote for.

          Here’s an even crazier idea. Ditch primaries altogether and use Ranked Choice Voting.

          I’m sick and tired of other people deciding which lesser evils I’m allowed to choose between long before my turn to vote even comes around.

          • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            They should let the most populated states go first. I’m tired of having our votes count for nothing because half the candidates have already dropped out by the time they get to us, even though we outnumber the people in all the states that go before us. Those early wins and losses would really mean something if they represented a large and diverse population. Might make up a little for how underrepresented we are in the Electoral College.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              You as an individual are under-represented, but you as a populous state are too powerful. If California primaries first , no one else matters.

              When New Hampshire primaries first, you get a lot of meeting the candidates, an interesting survey result, but the result is still wide open.

              Either way, it’s all of us in the middle who get shafted. We don’t get an early say but our vote doesn’t count for much with the big guys coming soon.

              I’m torn about whether it is good to be a “safe”state. While it’s nice that we don’t get the nonsense or the robocalls or the mail or the ads, would it hurt to get some attention? Can we be treated like we matter?

  • centof@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • centof@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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?

          • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

        • Microw@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The problem here is the state law having any say in an intra-party election. That shouldn’t be a thing.

          • centof@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

        • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

          • centof@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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

    • cartoon meme dog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • Hello_there@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Because NH got their panties in a twist and decided that their miniscule state needs to be first? They can go fuck off.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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…

        • 𝔇𝔦𝔬@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

  • lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

  • eksb@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Democrats don’t just want a pro-genocide corporate shill, they want an 80-year-old pro-genocide corporate shill.

    • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      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?

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          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

            • Natanael@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                • Natanael@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  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.