• FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      109
      ·
      10 months ago

      No one is taking credit, but we all know which party they’re part of. Where is Roger Stone?

              • littleblue✨@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                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.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        That’s the fucked up part: they’ll be decried as ”lone wolves”, and, as such, no care will be given in investigation nor pursuit. Each and every time. Nor to the aggregate effect of the countless “love wolves” who are never pursued, nor the fascist, terrorist packs they will obviously, inevitably form because they were ignored, alone, fed a diet of Trump and YouTube, and Alex jones, and Xitter…

        But that’s the point.

    • donuts@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      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
        29
        ·
        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
          4
          ·
          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

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        It already has. But unfortunately the news is not in the business of reporting the news. It is in the business of advertising and engagement. And sensationalist/bad News drives engagement.

      • NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        10 months ago

        Even if it didn’t sound fake, you’d think common sense would preveil. Why would the president robo call you telling them not to vote for them.

        • Altofaltception@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          10 months ago

          My favourite quote attributed to Winston Churchill that he never said is:

          The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

      • jak@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It sounds like they’re talking exclusively from the front of the mouth. I used to talk like that when I was trying to conceal a tongue ring. I wonder why that is?

        Linguistics nerd stuff below: American English is spoken from the front of the mouth compared to lots of other languages (not this far forward, but still). I wonder if AI voices speaking Arabic would move Arabic forward by the same amount, all the way to the front, or further back (no human anatomy restrictions on AI voices).

        Basically, I wonder if this is a consistent artifact of AI voices or whether AI is just exaggerating unique features of a language.

        Edit: I found this, which sounds natural enough that I wouldn’t have thought anything of it (aside from the cuts and the actual things said), had I not been watching out for front of the mouth talk

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Well, the DNC also said that they weren’t giving NH any delegates at the same time Biden dropped…

      So unless the DNC doubles back and awards delegates after saying they wouldn’t, this means nothing.

      Why fight when they can just invalidate an entire states primary?

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-delegates-new-hampshire-primary-2024/

      Although, it’s a terrible look for Biden and the DNC. And it’s naive to think it won’t have a least a minor effect on turnout in a general where the polling numbers are already concerning.

  • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    91
    ·
    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?

      • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        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
          22
          ·
          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.

          • KnowledgeableNip@leminal.space
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

          • Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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

            • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

          • Zink@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

        • guacupado@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

    • 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
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

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

      That’s why.

    • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      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

  • centof@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    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
      42
      ·
      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
        29
        ·
        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.

        • Microw@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          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
            5
            ·
            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.

            • VoterFrog@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

              • centof@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                • VoterFrog@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  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.

        • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          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
            14
            ·
            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.

        • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          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
            5
            ·
            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.

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          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.

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

            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.

      • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        The ruling party should have primaries every election. The person in the office isn’t always who the people want to keep that position.

        • Noodle07@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          But the other potential candidates all died of old age, they’re running out of boomers to elect!

    • cartoon meme dog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      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.

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      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

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

          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.

          • Dr. Bluefall@toast.ooo
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

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

              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.

      • centof@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

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

          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.

  • Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    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?

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    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.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        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

        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.

        • donuts@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

          https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-new-hampshire-primary-first-in-the-nation/

          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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • donuts@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              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.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Yeah, if it was a single person, I’d agree with you…

                But your “party member” is the state party leaders who have no control over state law…

                And the NH state government, their House is Republican, their state Senate is Republican, and their Governor is Republican…

                So what the fuck was the state Democratic party going to do about NH State law in less than a year?

                And why does them failing to do that mean no NH Dem gets a say in who their candidate is?

                Seriously.

                How does this work out that you think the state party had any say?

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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

    • Hello_there@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      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
        11
        ·
        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…

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    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.

  • lolola
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    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
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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
      88
      ·
      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?

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Both of the people you named commit genocide. Voting for them means you endorse genocide. I fail to see how percentages are relevant here.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  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.

                • PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  “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?

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

                I live in a state that is not even close to be competitive. Why should I not vote for the Green Party candidate?

          • eksb@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.)

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          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
              2
              ·
              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
                1
                ·
                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
                  2
                  ·
                  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.

    • Hoagie@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      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.