They warned you: Someone allegedly used a politician's cloned voice to interfere with an election | It will most assuredly not be the last time this happens
They warned you: Someone allegedly used a politician's cloned voice to interfere with an election | It will most assuredly not be the last time this happens
The New Hampshire Attorney General's Office is investigating a robocall that went out to voters in the state telling them not to vote in the upcoming Democratic...
They warned you: Someone allegedly used a politician's cloned voice to interfere with an election | It will most assuredly not be the last time this happens::undefined
You're viewing a single thread.
"Interfere" with a primary election...
The DNC is very open about how primaries aren't real elections and they don't have to follow results.
And they already took all of NH delegates away because the Republicans who control the state house, Senate, and governorship wouldn't change the state law that says NH is the first primary...
So yes, the deep fake is concerning for democracy.
But not as much as the DNC taking the delegates away from an entire state because Republicans wouldn't listen to the DNC.
Especially since party favorite moderates have came in last in the last two NH primaries and the most progressive candidates came in first.
Imagine if Trump and the RNC did this in a state that routinely votes for a more progressive candidate in their primary...
We'd all (rightfully) be talking about the end of American democracy.
But when the DNC does it, it's frightening how many moderates defend it because it's good for moderates.
Not to minimize the 2016 or 2020 elections, which a lot of sources say there was not a level playing field in the DNC, but this year there is an incumbent president. This is how incumbent presidents are always treated. It's normal and fair and strategically sound.
The same thing happened when Donald Trump was incumbent and nobody made a fuss.
Edit for clarity:
normal - The incumbent candidate has preferential treatment within the party in every election cycle. There are various ways that this manifests, and is usually different depending on the exact circumstances. If one chose, they could drill down into specific details to make it seem exceptional e.g. "It's never been done in with this specific mechanism or in this particular state."
fair - If you want access to preferential treatment, become President. The President is the figurehead not only of the country, but arguably even more so of their party. It would be unfair for the party leadership to undermine them while in office.
strategically sound - Incumbent candidates win elections. There is something like a 65% advantage to incumbency. Moreover, a party has limited political, social, and financial capital. If they spend that capital in the primary race, then they start the general election at a disadvantage. There is evidence (and common wisdom) that a primary race actually generates more capital, but I've never heard any credible suggestion that it could be a net gain in any area. Running a primary means a less unified party, less financial resources, less voter confidence in the victor.
This is how incumbent presidents are always treated. It’s normal and fair and strategically sound.
Really?
I never heard of any party stripping a state of their primary delegates because of something completely out of control of the state party... Especially when it's a state that routinely votes against the party favorite.
Can you let me know some other times this happened?
In every election, the incumbent is given preferential treatment and generally treated as the de facto candidate. In which election are you thinking of that this was not the case?
Sure...
But when has the national party taken a state's delegates away?
Ideally for something outside of the states party control, because that's what just happened. And for a state that routinely votes against the national party's chosen candidate.
But I'll take any recent examples of a state losing their primary delegates because the national party yanked them away.
Welp, I guess I was right and this is totally unprecedented in modern American politics...
Still don't understand why so many people are ok with this tho
Also pretty sure I distinctly remember several people running against Trump in that primary.... So "nobody made a fuss" is a lie.
You're actually proving the point. The people who ran against him demanded funding and equal access to Party resources, but they were denied. The incumbent party will always tilt the field toward the incumbent president.
Except you literally said "nobody made a fuss." Several people did.
Because not everyone agrees it's "normal and fair and strategically sound."
Just because "this is the way things are done" is an awful argument. Slavery was legal once, too, and people argued "this is the way things are done" for that, too.
It's a weak argument to say "well this is normal." So was segregation until it wasn't? Lots of morally dubious things have been argued with the "well this is normal and how we've always done it" bullshit.
If you can come up with a better argument to support it than "this is how we do it and it just is and you need to accept it" then I will listen.
Yeah dude, it's not the actual fascists that are going to cause the end of our democracy. Let's keep blaming Democrats for shit that the GOP is doing.
When your options are:
-
Full blown fascism
-
Occasionally fascism and not fighting the other sides fascism
A lot more than the 1/3 that don't normally vote are likely going to not vote in the current election
That is a reality.
And the reality is if there's depressed turnout, Republicans win.
Pointing it out that it's likely to happen won't make it happen.
Getting mad at someone for pointing it out is the same as burning a medicine woman as a witch because she said someone was going to die of their illness and then they died.
Or blaming a meteorologist for the snow storm they predicted.
It doesn't make any rational sense. And you should be happy someone is trying to warn you, instead of getting mad and telling them if they don't mention the issues, they'll go away.
Get mad at the reason for it. In this case, Bidens actions.
If you have a better plan for getting Biden to stop doing all this stupid shit that hurts his chances and help trump besides complaining about it...
Well, I'm all ears.
Because as bad as Biden is, trump is far more dangerous
-
Come talk to me when either party has an ethical leg to stand on. Nobody has a high horse to stand on, and until you admit that your side is just as shit, nothing will change and you'll continue propegating single issue policies that degrade democracy for everyone.
We have two options in our political system...
Not being able to criticize the better party because the other is even worse just results in a race to the bottom.
Something that's been happening for decades and instead of slowing down is just happening more and more.
When the main reason to vote D is "they're not Republicans" the Dem party continually acting more like Republicans every year ain't going to help Dems get elected.
Nobody has a high horse to stand on, and until you admit that your side is just as shit, nothing will change
I'm literally complaining about "my side"...
And you're telling me I can't because Republicans are worse...
I don't even know why I try with folks like that. These idiots are as thoughtless as Trump voters, but get their knickers in a twist when you point out they're arguing for the electorate to "be quiet and not ask questions" as if that's not what Trump asks of his voters.
They immediately jump to accusing you of being a plant, as if that's not as conspiratorial bullshit as Trump voters take part in. They just know, right?? /s Give me a break, fucking whiney babies who can't handle a different opinion.
I've blocked a shit ton of them...
The problem is once you do that, you start getting replies from accounts that have sat inactive for months and lots of your comments get multiple down votes immediately.
Because some apps make it very easy to switch between multiple accounts. And they really really really think people talking about this stuff is worse than the problem.
They want us to bury our heads in the sand and never criticize anyone with a D by their name.
Which is probably the worst thing we could do in a two party system.
I'm a masochist. I don't block them.
Because their arguments are really easy to dismantle, even if they're too fucking stupid to understand that.
The problem is once you do that, you start getting replies from accounts that have sat inactive for months and lots of your comments get multiple down votes immediately.
They really don't see how they act just as badly as Trump voters, do they? Is it "the ends justify the means" or are they just stupid or are they paid to act this stupid? It's not like Correct the Record ever went away and it's still totally legal to hire masses of people to post paid political speech online in the US, because nobody is making laws to make these people have to admit they're being paid, kind of like advertisements have to. No, they flood the zone with this bullshit just as badly as the right-wing does and then cry big fat loser baby tears when it doesn't work out.
Blocking doesn't really work on Lemmy like it does on other platforms. You can mute people but it doesn't limit them from interacting with you.
How about you stop assuming what people's political affiliations are simply because they have the audacity to question the people they plan on voting for?
Imagine if Trump and the RNC did this in a state that routinely votes for a more progressive candidate in their primary…
I would think this line alone shows that this person doesn't think highly of conservatives, yet here you are making the crass assumption that this must mean they're Republican and "continue propegating single issue policies that degrade democracy for everyone."
Can you get your fucking head out of your ass for a minute and instead of making an assumption try talking to someone to find out?
Because I agree with everything they said, but I also plan on voting Democrat down-ticket, because Republicans are nuts, and the only people who run Independent around here are trying to hide that they're actually Republican.
You people really sound like fucking jackasses when you accuse likely democrat voters of being fucking Republican/Russian plants because they have the audacity to want more and better from Democrats.
How about you come with an actual rebuttal instead of acting like "It doesn't matter because you're clearly Republican!!!"
Like, give me a fucking break, you don't know that, you're just pulling that out of your ass based on how you feel. Grow the fuck up, this kind of attitude is no better than the Trumpers. Do you want us to be compliant, non-questioning voters like them? Isn't the primary season when we're supposed to make our desires for our political representatives known?
Because it sure as shit seems like all you people want us to do is be exactly like Trump voters and sit down, shut up, and not ask questions of Dear Leader.
I don't know how to break this to you, but we want an informed, involved, and educated electorate, and all you fucking idiots demanding that we instead be cowed, quiet, fucking idiots who never question anything just like Trump voters are missing the fucking point, I'd wager.
Do you want an informed, involved, educated electorate? Or do you want them to "Shut Up" because they had the audacity to critique "Your Team" because you can't be fucked to think for yourself?
Grow up. Fucking children. Exactly like Trump voters.