Taylor Swift Endorses Kamala Harris In Response To Fake AI Trump Endorsement (theverge.com) 500
After tonight's ABC presidential debate, Taylor Swift announced her support for Vice President Kamala Harris in the upcoming presidential election after AI-generated images falsely depicted her endorsing Donald Trump. "Recently I was made aware that AI of 'me' falsely endorsing Donald Trump's presidential run was posted to his site. It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation," Swift wrote in an Instagram post. "It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter. The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth." The Verge reports: Her post references an incident in late August, in which Trump shared a collection of images to Truth Social intended to show support for his presidential campaign. Some of the photos depict "Swifties for Trump," and another obviously AI-generated image shows Swift herself in an Uncle Sam-type image with text reading, "Taylor wants YOU to vote for Donald Trump." The former president captioned the post, "I accept!" [...]
This wasn't the first time AI images of Swift were circulated on social media. Earlier this year, nonconsensual sexualized images of her made using AI were shared on X. That incident prompted the White House to call for legislation to "deal" with the issue.
This wasn't the first time AI images of Swift were circulated on social media. Earlier this year, nonconsensual sexualized images of her made using AI were shared on X. That incident prompted the White House to call for legislation to "deal" with the issue.
That, and cats (Score:5, Insightful)
The other motivation for her endorsement was a remark about "childless cat ladies" made by JD Vance. [npr.org]
That being said, I really wish we'd give less attention to celebrities' political endorsements. It's nice and all that the odds were in their favor when it came to their lot in life, but that shouldn't mean they get to cast extra votes by proxy. I'd prefer that people consider the issues (and if none of the issues directly affect you, think about how they affect your fellow Americans) and the direction we want our country to take, rather than who their favorite pop entertainer is voting for.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The main reason why I'm ok with this is the united states still has a legacy optional voting system and absolutely attrocious issues with voter-caging and voter-challenging types of corruption. If it takes celebrities to get young folks out to vote, then its better than the alternative.
Re: (Score:3)
The main reason why I'm ok with this is the united states still has a legacy optional voting system and absolutely attrocious issues with voter-caging and voter-challenging types of corruption.
For lack of being able to edit my comment, I'm just going to write another response.
The way I look at it is, if a meteorite fell on Trump tomorrow, I'm not going to praise it for fixing the flaws in our broken system. We shouldn't have to rely on celebrities or rocks from space to keep our country on the right track.
Re:That, and cats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That, and cats (Score:5, Insightful)
it has been said that to be young and not be a democrat is to have no heart while being older and a democrat is to have no brain.
I've always felt the meaning of that was that when you're young, you want the world to be a better place because you're going to be spending a lot more time living in it. Once you're older, survivorship bias means that you've probably gotten into a position in life where you just don't want anyone else taking what you've earned and you'd be a fool to give it away (assuming, of course, that you're not a billionaire who could certainly afford to still live a decent lifestyle with a few less bucks kicking around in your bank account).
Re:That, and cats (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with that line of thinking is that it's literally the slippery slope logical fallacy in action. It's just you making up some inevitability because it fits the political narrative you want to be true.
This may come as a shock for you but many people actually care about the fact that our middle class has been shrinking since the 70's and finds the fact that so much of new wealth created ends up in the hands of so few https://www.oxfam.org/en/press... [oxfam.org] to be counter productive in resolving this problem.
But really we dont care about the middle class or the future prosperity of the nation, we're just jealous of people with money, right?
Re:That, and cats (Score:5, Interesting)
No, life experience tends to kill naivety. You've already watched the parties switch a time or two and seen the idealistic policies destroy the economy and lead to general disaster and you then have to go to the heartless and practical conservative policies to get things back on track.
Let me know when we have a conservative party again. Conservatives pay their debt. Republicans rack up debt like children with zero financial sense and zero self-control who just got credit cards for the first time.
There are a few conservative Democrats out there. I'd argue that Clinton (either one) was more conservative than anyone the Republicans, with their trickle-down tax cut nonsense, have run at the federal level in this century. And the Republicans arguably haven't run a conservative for president since Eisenhower. Convince me I'm wrong.
Re:That, and cats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In America, anyone who raises taxes or reduces benefits gets voted out of office. The result is none of our representatives will do either. This is a perfect representation of America. It's what we collectively wanted.
We don't need someone to do either, necessarily. What we need is an executive that pushes for eliminating government waste. And you don't do that by choosing which department to slash. You do this by paying bonuses to people in the bottom couple of tiers for coming up with ideas that save money over time, even if they cost money in the short term. That way, you end up with a bunch of projects and goals that reduce expenses over time, and when you get the budget for one project, you execute it and in so
Re: That, and cats (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The young and the elderly. Least likely are in the 35-75 range.
Re: (Score:3)
>Or you can vote for Kamala and they'll rig things well enough we never get a whiff of how rigged our elections are again and likely anyone who mentions the possibility will end in gitmo.
It must feel bad to regurgitate talking points like this, don't you have any shame?
Re: (Score:3)
No, life experience tends to kill naivety. You've already watched the parties switch a time or two and seen the idealistic policies destroy the economy and lead to general disaster and you then have to go to the heartless and practical conservative policies to get things back on track.
Back on track? The only track they get back on is the one that gives to the wealthy by taking from those who are not.
There are number of variations but using modern terms it has been said that to be young and not be a democrat is to have no heart while being older and a democrat is to have no brain.
I've gotten way more liberal as I've grown older, mainly because I didn't know any better when I was young. To be conservative and young means you have no heart; to be conservative and old means you still have no heart. It has very little to do with how smart you are.
But now the stakes are higher, the uniparty we've always known meant our democracy was bogus was beaten a cycle and freaked the hell out.
"Uniparty": the claim that tries to make Democrats seem just as bad as the GOP, which then somehow excuses the GOP from all th
Re:That, and cats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
which reality is that?
Surreality.
Re: (Score:3)
It is against CA law to investigate the cause of death or question the mother's claims in relation to it. That means it is de facto legal for a woman to kill her baby in CA.
If this is even remotely true, you should have no problem pointing to the law in the California State Code [ca.gov]. Or pointing out a California judge's ruling establishing precedent saying as much.
I know it's absolutely brutal for me to expect you to support such wild claims with evidence, but here we are.
Re:That, and cats (Score:5, Interesting)
Recent years have shown that it is older voters who seem to be easily manipulated. Or perhaps it's just all voters.
Arguably younger voters have a better long term perspective on things, since they will have to live with the consequences. There are also very real economic problems caused by older voters feathering their nests, leading to stuff like runaway property prices and extreme NIMBYism.
Really the whole thing was a Ponzi scheme that has collapsed for gen Z, which is why their voting habits have not followed previous generations.
Re:That, and cats (Score:5, Insightful)
The evidence very much suggests that older voters don't care about long term consequences. They enjoyed all the benefits of cheap oil and emitting CO2, and are now unwilling to do much about it.
Same with things like housing costs. It suits them to keep things as they are, with no regard for the long term consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because they have no fucking time off to vote. Make it a mandatory public holiday that companies HAVE to give at least half a day off during voting time to vote otherwise it's a criminal charge and you'll see that change.
Re:That, and cats (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of that is the US elections having a fix date in the month meaning they can't be scheduled for weekends, and coupled with state govts refusing to put protections for employees that take time off for vote, it becomes very hard for lower income and younger voters to actually get out and vote. (Lets face it, us clerical IT workers aint gonna get sacked for going to vote, but the kid at the local suck-and-chuck fast food joint has no such protection. We are harder to replace)
On top of that a lot of Zs and Millenials feel abandoned by the system that seems to be dominated by very elderly politicians who want to fight stupid culture wars nobody cares about instead of things that might benefit young people like fighting inflation, housing inflation and student debts. Its made a lot of them believe theres nothing of value to be had by voting, when in fact if young people used their massive demographic weight to vote you'd see *very* different behavior from politicians
Coupled with that there are active efforts out to prevent them for voting. Especially the "vote challenger" system that was created during Jim Crowe to try and prevent black people from voting in a way designed to skirt constitutional protections (The constitution stops govts from doing this so..... get citizens to do it instead)
None of this corrupt nonsense happens in other western democracies, as they either have compulsary voting (ie *everyone* votes, a system that makes all the voter blocking nonsense moot) or have police that aggresively go after people trying that shit. Meanwhile in the US, not only is it legal, its widespread. The framers of the constitution NEVER wrote that document intending it to be use in such an antidemocratic way.
Re: That, and cats (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of a republic is that you don't have to stay informed. Instead you appoint a representative who shares your values but is smarter and more well-informed than you to make important decisions.
If people think Taylor Swift represents their values, then what's wrong with voting with her?
Re: That, and cats (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of a republic is that you don't have to stay informed.
The electorate usually doesn't have to decide every single issue by vote (some initiatives do make it to the ballot, for example in Florida we'll be voting on an abortion-related amendment at the state level), but they absolutely should be informed about the platforms of the representatives up for election.
If people think Taylor Swift represents their values, then what's wrong with voting with her?
Elections aren't supposed to be decided by whichever political group has the most influential celebrities - we're running a country not a fashion show. Furthermore, her support for issues is simply a matter of how she personally feels about things; she's wealthy enough to be completely insulated from the outcome of any changes in our country's leadership. She isn't personally a LGBTQ+ person in fear of potentially losing their right to be married, or a woman that can't afford to leave her red state to have an abortion, she's just a rich person with an opinion that happens to be louder than yours or mine due to her wealth and social status.
Re: That, and cats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That, and cats (Score:4, Insightful)
but that shouldn't mean they get to cast extra votes by proxy.
Most people cast votes by proxy. There's a reason the majority of households vote in a similar way. The function of how people are brought up and the role models they keep leads them to have similar / matching behaviour.
If my father were a gun trotting freedom fighting anti-government nutjob, there's very little doubt I would probably be aligned republican because the situation of my life and my upbringing would bend me in that direction. But instead my life is surrounded by people who lean center of left and by proxy their views shape my world view and thus my potential votes because...
I'd prefer that people consider the issues
... the issues we see are the ones that are presented to us by the people who closely influence us, popstars, father figures, friends and family.
Re:That, and cats (Score:4, Funny)
Re: That, and cats (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:That, and cats (Score:4, Insightful)
> That being said, I really wish we'd give less attention to celebrities' political endorsements
A healthy position to take, I'd say. However, in this case she was used without her knowledge as a pawn in a political campaign, and so has been 'drawn in to the conflict'. I think she's responding in a responsible and level-headed fashion.
Before anyone goes all "oh but you're just bashing my favourite team" on me, think it through:
1) If she was a Trump supporter, she'd still have to react to the AI version of herself endorsing Trump. Only the truly stupid think any candidate is 100% perfect, and so she'd have had to say _something_ about it, if only to limit the scope of her "endorsement", or to say "I never said that, but I broadly agree". Either way, she's saying _something_, although possibly Trump could have come out on top.
2) If she was a Harris supporter, then she has to react. Being misquoted in that way (about a divisive campaign) is about as bad as it gets, and she has a lot of 'followers' that she can speak to. Had Trump been a moderate, then she might not have said quite so much.
So IMHO, the stable genius brought this on himself. Had he been more careful, and perhaps checked with her first, he could have just been quiet and she (most likely) wouldn't have said anything about either candidate. As it was, she _had_ to say _something_ - and it turns out that's bad for Trump.
All that said, I'm sure not many of us really should give two hoots about the voting choices of pretty much anyone except maybe our family and close friends - and even then with a pinch of salt. You're supposed to vote your own conscience, not to try and gauge the mood of the population and vote with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course she has a history of backing democrats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. but dont let that slow you down.
Re:That, and cats (Score:4, Insightful)
So much blatant hypocrisy here. Do you people even listen to yourselves?
Newsflash: Your own dear leader got there by being a celebrity and leveraging that fame. But you don't bitch and tell him to shut the fuck up and know his place, do you? No, that invective is reserved for the other celebrity. How, precisely, is Taylor Swift's pop music celebrity lesser than than a reality show star's?
Re:That, and cats (Score:4, Insightful)
She is also an actual self-made billionaire business woman who hasn't declared bankruptcy even once, never mind six times.
Re: (Score:3)
She is also not a 34-time convicted felon, and also not indicted in 3 other jurisdictions on numerous felony charges. I mean, while we're listing differences.
Re:That, and cats (Score:5, Insightful)
"what we really need are generals" is... scary talk.
Military Juntas do not have a very good track record of actually governing very well.
Re: (Score:3)
In many countries, the military is a kind of political power center itself outside the government. It's quite natural for people who in essence rule an independent kingdom inside a country to seize control of the whole country, and it's probably not a good idea to vote for such a person because of divided loyalties. Often rising to the top of such a military is an exercise in corruption and favortism.
In democracies where there is a strong tradition of military serving civilian authority and where promotio
Re: (Score:3)
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With Reagan, it was his "media coordinator", Michael Deaver, who made him into a TV personality rather than a serious candidate. And Reagan went right along with it. Reagan also brought in Lee Atwater who excelled in dirty tricks. When George Bush senior was running the first time, it was Atwater who fielded the Willie Horton attack ad, which was very misleading. At the end of Atwater's life due to cancer, he admitted that ad was misleading and apologized for it.
Roll the tape forward and former alleged pres
JUST AS THE BRAINROT PROPHECY FORTOLD! (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure there was some brain-damaged QAnon conspiracy mindshart recently involving an imminent Taylor Swift endorsement of Harris or Biden (won't matter who exactly), so I should probably get the popcorn ready...
Good! We need more "people that count" against AI (Score:5, Interesting)
It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation," Swift wrote
Nobody gives a shit about the misery AI is about to unleash on ordinary citizens, but when highly visible people like this singer voice their opinions, it has more impact.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah. Bland lyrics predate ChatGPT. Even a very small shell script writes you a successful song. Here's the source code for this one [youtube.com] for example:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
for l in $(seq 21); do
echo -n "Motherfuckers"
if [ $l == 13 ]; then
echo ", motherfuckers"
else
echo " gonna drop the pressure"
fi
done
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they didn't have time to optimize it before releasing the single. But now that it's been fully reverse-engineered, you're welcome to improve it. That's the power of open-source!
Oh, you Babylon Bee! (Score:3)
Woman Who Made Career Singing About Her Bad Choices Endorses Kamala [babylonbee.com]
Re:I don't like both. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care WHO you vote for as long as you vote. Every ballot in November has many more candidates seeking local office that will have much more impact on your life and well being than the Presidential election.
Voting for a Presidential candidate will select the direction the nation takes. Voting for your representatives in Congress will decide what laws get enacted. Voting for your local politicians will affect you, your neighbors, your city, and state much more directly.
Re: (Score:2)
And if you don't know them it won't matter which of them you vote for either.
Re: I don't like both. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: I don't like both. (Score:5, Funny)
I got the leaders my neighbors deserve...
Re: I don't like both. (Score:4, Informative)
I wouldn't bet on trump getting that right, he was the one that ended the agreement with Iran on nuclear, he was the one that said Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel (which is part of why we have the problems with Gaza right now), he was the one who dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in recent history (2017) and he was the one who killed Qasem Soleimani. You might agree with him on some of those, but I doubt if you look into them that you would think these are the things which will get less war.
Re: I don't like both. (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't bet on trump getting that right, he was the one that ended the agreement with Iran on nuclear, he was the one that said Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel (which is part of why we have the problems with Gaza right now), he was the one who dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in recent history (2017) and he was the one who killed Qasem Soleimani. You might agree with him on some of those, but I doubt if you look into them that you would think these are the things which will get less war.
He also released 5,000 Taliban prisoners [time.com] which allowed the Taliban to overrun Afghanistan, as well as removed sanctions from higher level members of the Taliban.
At the same time, the United States will immediately and substantially reinforce the Taliban by seeking the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners by March 20. Even worse, the United States further agreed to a goal of “releasing all remaining prisoners over the course of the subsequent three months.” It will do this at the same time that it commits to the “goal” of removing sanctions from members of the Taliban that include travel bans, asset freezes, and an arms embargo.
Re: I don't like both. (Score:5, Insightful)
... conveniently neglecting to mention that the deadline to withdraw was negotiated by Trump, and then his administration did no planning for it, leaving the mess in Biden's lap
This is like blaming Biden for the economy in 2021 because Trump screwed the pooch on the pandemic response, or the 2009 economy on Obama which was the result of banks imploding before he was in office (after republicans loosened the bank regulations)
Re: (Score:3)
The botched Biden withdrawal is what allowed the Taliban to retake Afghanistan. Trump was out of the picture for that one.
Doha sealed the deal on Afghanistan's fate before Biden ever took office.
Imagine you ran a military and your most important ally, the one who helped more than anyone to train and supply your military not only cuts a deal with the enemy behind your back in anticipation of completely abandoning your ass but in doing so actively betrays you handing over thousands of enemy prisoners while removing sanctions on the enemy.
Simply picking up our shit and leaving would have been better than needlessly and callously
Re: (Score:3)
Amen, brother. To my mind the big problem is that Harris is a war monger. If you want peace in the world, then you have to root for Trump. That is really sad.
The “war on terror”, raged for twenty fucking years. Let me know why you think you can point to any Democrat or Republican and label them NOT a warmonger.
When President Eisenhower gave his farewell address to the American people warning them about the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex, that five-star General didn’t bother with using terms like “Democrat” or “ Republican”.
Re: I don't like both. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I don't like both. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kamala made this same point about him with regards to immigration. He lobbied Congress to kill an immigration bill because he would rather "run on the issue than solve a problem." Nobody can influence Russia so I don't think Trump could do anything about the war except maybe somehow force Ukraine to surrender (which is quite the awful outcome). But, if he could end the war, yes, it's likely that Trump would prefer to "run on the issue" than solve a problem.
That seems to be a metastasized cancer within the Republican party. Look how many Republicans want to run on the healthcare issue but no Republican other than Mitt Romney has ever done anything to improve healthcare once elected. The Democrats passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and we've been hearing "repeal and replace" ever since but zero attempt to actually make any meaningful improvement.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The pre-existing condition stuff was purely because they were sunsetting everyone's plan. They had to. The pre-existing condition thing was only for a year anyway. After a year you were covered, even before the ACA.
Bullshit. My previous partner was self-employed and had a personal policy. She was diagnosed with a breast cancer in 2006, just a couple of months before the renewal date. And her insurance company just dropped her. She then went through her savings to pay for the treatment, and almost had to declare bankruptcy.
Only a few states mandated the coverage. I'm familiar with two: Massachusetts that had an ACA-like plan passed by Mitt Romney, and New York. And New York allowed people to buy insurance once they w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I don't like both. (Score:3)
Trump gave an interview about a year ago with what his plan was:
1. tell Zelinskyy that he had to negotiate with putin or he would cut off US help to them
2. tell putin that he had to negotiate or the US would send in troops
Of course, this is coming from the guy who said that trade wars were easy to win, that he believed putin over what the CIA was reporting, and that he knew more about ISIS than generals.
Re: I don't like both. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
An enemy country launched a fucking ballistic missile barrage at us, and we took it like a bitch.
Why? because we didn't really have the balls to fight a war there. And for good reason. It would be a fucking nightmare. Iran is unfortunately not the quasi-failed state that Iraq was. They have actual military hardware.
I don't know if I'd classify it as a failure, but that base being hit by those missiles was the result of a fucking moron doing fucking moron shit, and we
LOL. Of course he doesn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just about every "I'm above voting - none of the candidates reach my lofty standards" non-voter, is really someone who is too lazy and content with society to do so. Just trying to hide it, and does so badly.
I mean it's not exactly evil to be too lazy to vote. But if you are one of those people, at least don't lie about it, or worse - put on airs about how superior you are to everyone else for not giving a shit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it is the new strategy of the paid trolls. Trying to spread apathy in sanity-leaning communities.
Re: I don't like both. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Because the risks are different, because the threats, bad outcomes and context are all different. You need to wear a safety belt in a car but not on a train, because the risks are different.
For example, the bad outcome we are concerned about with voting at polling stations are (nominally) in-person impersonation fraud. At political conventions, there's many other types of bad outcome that a bad actor could achieve.
If you want an example of actual hypocrisy along these lines: the GOP wants guns in school but
Re: I don't like both. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it that Democrats insist that you should be able to vote without an ID but at the same time you absolutely must have an ID in order to even come close to the DNC convention? Are they not concerned about people who cannot afford an ID in all cases?
The answer to this is easy, hypothetically at least.
You have no right to enter the DNC convention. It's a private event hosted by a private organization. Thus, erroneously refusing peoples attendance is generally harmless, from a public perspective.
Voting, not the same deal. You do have a right to vote.
In fact, every person who is erroneously prevented from doing so is a very big problem, even to the courts.
And that's why Voter ID laws have difficulties- because if you can prove there's some dude with a right to vote, but may have a significant percentage chance of not having an ID, due to conditions somewhat in control of the state, then you can't require an ID.
I.e., it's perfectly acceptable to be concerned about people who cannot afford an ID when it comes to your constitutional right to vote, but not entry to your private event.
Is it hypocrisy? Sure, at some level. But it's also not an unreasonable one.
The Government cannot restrict your speech. But when you're in my living room, you better fucking believe I can restrict your speech.
Re:I don't like both. (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile we have the GOP actively taking steps to make voting harder. Does that make everyone who supports the GOP cunts because surely stoppping people voting is considerably worse than hoping some won't, and if so have you been making that point as forcefully...
Re:I don't like both. (Score:5, Informative)
Which steps are they taking to make voting harder?
1. Closing polling places in minority neighborhoods
2. Purging voter rolls of people who didn't vote in the last few elections. Democrats are more likely to vote intermittently.
3. Prohibiting felons from voting or opposing the repeal of such prohibitions.
4. "Exact match" laws that reject voter registrations for any mistake or spelling deviation. Democrats move more often and are statistically more likely to use name spellings that don't match their IDs, such as anglicizing Spanish names.
Even a one or two-percent voter suppression is enough to swing an election.
Republican consultants ran computer simulations on these changes to measure the result and fine-tune the policies. They moneyballed racism.
Republican voter suppression [npr.org]
Re:I don't like both. (Score:4, Informative)
Here in Houston (Harris County Texas) they go the other way from your first example. In primarily Republican precincts they don't send enough ballots to the locations and drag their feet getting them more on election night.
The investigation by the Texas Secretary of State-- who was a Republican-- of the malfunctions in the Harris country voting did not attribute the screw-ups in the county as being partisan. Basically, Harris county voting was simply badly run.
The full report is here: https://www.sos.state.tx.us/el... [state.tx.us]
Re:I don't like both. (Score:5, Insightful)
Felons can go fuck themselves and I don't care if they can't vote, own guns, or in many cases even breath.
So with this publicly stated - are you voting for a felon in November?
Re: (Score:3)
Felons can go fuck themselves and I don't care if they can't vote, own guns, or in many cases even breath.
So with this publicly stated - are you voting for a felon in November?
Of course they will vote for the felon. It would be perfectly on point.
Re: (Score:3)
2. This is a good thing. If you want to vote, make sure you are on the voter roll. Purging rolls every few years to clean it up is good for election integrity.
Except it is not on the lawbooks in many places that your registration is automatically cancelled if you as a voter decide to skip voting in an election.
4. I don't see how hard it is to make sure to match your ID when it comes time to voting. Not sure how this is a bad thing. Its again good for election integrity.
The issue is not Joe Smith is trying to vote as Michael Johnson with Michael Johnson's ID. The issue is they are trying to disqualify Nathan's vote because his ID says "Nathaniel" [youtube.com] by saying those are not the same name. Or Mary Smith-Johnson is clearly not the same person as Mary Smith because she could not have possibly changed her last name slightly when s
Re:I don't like both. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you parsimonious pinheaded pillock, one of the candidates has a plan to dismantle the whole concept of free and fair elections should they be re-elected to their throne.
Ordinarily, vote for whoever you want-- and I don't care. But this particular instance, we have someone who wants to replace all so-called civil servants with devoted Trump fanatics who will turn the DOJ into Trump's personal law enforcement agency, and in the words of the candidate himself "we'll fix it so you never have to vote again".
Trump has been arguing that talk show hosts who are critical of Trump are "campaign contributors" to the Democrats, and wants them locked up, along with political enemies.
This is not a normal election. And even if Trump loses (like he did in 2020), he's going to claim that he didn't, and around 75 election officials across the country will almost certainly try to (illegally) delay, distort, or destroy, any votes that aren't in favor of Trump.
Pull your head out, and pay attention to something besides your own petty ego for once.
Re:I don't like both. (Score:4, Informative)
Wow is right. Again, exercising the choice is not as important as the choice itself.
Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. Our nation will survive until the next election if Trump voters take a break, or not vote for him but vote for local or state candidates. That opinion doesn't make me a cunt. And I give not two shits if my opinion offends you.
Re: (Score:3)
Were you not around under the Trump admin? It was a circus disaster. He winged everything, never planned. He ignored all his advisors, the "best people" that he hired were dumped when they refused to break the law for him or perform unethical actions. His ass kissing attorney general recused himself from a case, rightfully, which made Trump demand his resignation. In 4 years Trump treated the presidential office as his personal privilege rather than treating it as a solemn patriotic duty to serve others
Re:I don't like both. (Score:4, Funny)
Even a pigeon could have demolished Trump last night; the pigeon would have been more intelligible.
I heard immigrants are eating all the pigeons.
Re:I don't like both. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kamala Harris is a prosecutor and has a heart.
Taylor Swift is a icon for artist's rights.
Re: I don't like both. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's actually the same reason that Donald Trump is popular. He also expresses and puts into words feelings that people aren't able or willing to express. The only difference between the two is that Taylor's work normalizes a wide range feelings and improves well-being while Donald Trump normalizes racism and misogyny.
Re:I don't like both. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't like both. (Score:4, Insightful)
More country and pop country than pop I reckon. I certainly don't mind a bit of Taylor Swift. And metal. One can like both, but no obligation either way
Re:Trump has an out. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is false. /50 on who would win the debate, and of the participants in the poll, there were 6% more Republican voters than Democrats.
CNN is posting a story now that says that 67% of viewers thought Harris won the debate. Before the debate the voters were split 50
https://www.cnn.com/ [cnn.com] politics/ live-news/ trump-harris-debate-abc-09-10-24#h_bf0713ded98fb1867a0770a9cf09dddf
This is the exact opposite of the Biden-Trump debate in June.
Face it, even Trump voters thought Harris performed better. That won't change their votes because by and large they are in a cult, but that's beside the point
The facts are that the facts of who people believe won are different than what you believe.
Re: (Score:3)
That won't change their votes because by and large they are in a cult, but that's beside the point.
After four years and a pandemic, Trump actually had more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. The only reason he still lost was that enough people who'd presumably sat out the 2016 election, decided they'd had enough.
About the only true thing Trump has ever said was that line about being able to shoot someone and not lose any votes. He's completely self-aware of the fact that no matter what he does, his supporters will continue to adore him.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Trump has an out. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is false. CNN is posting a story now that says that 67% of viewers......who were almost all assuredly Kamala supporters because they were responding to a CNN poll. I can safely assure you that 100% of the Trump supporters thought that he won.......
Yes, if you've brainwashed yourself to believe everything Trump says, and disbelieve anything that contradicts Trump, then it would be impossible in that brainwashed brain for Trump to lose any debate. It could be about nuclear physics with a PhD nuclear physicist, and you'd believe Trump over the physicist. It could be about public health with a PhD public health expert with decades of experience in multiple public health pandemics, and you'd believe Trump and discount the public health expert. It could be about christianity, and have Jesus Christ himself preaching the Beatitudes, and you'd go with Trump's version that wealth is good and righteous.... No one in a cult ever believes they're in a cult... "you're in a cult"... "No, you are!!!"
Re: Trump has an out. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Even Fox news commentators acknowledge Harris won. https://www.foxnews.com/opinio... [foxnews.com]
It means she won by a landslide.
Re: (Score:3)
It actually means Fox can be honest. I dare you to find a liberal news outlet doing the same. Ever.
You must be living under a rock. Pretty much all the so-called liberal media said that Biden lost the debate against Trump.
Fox News is one of the most dishonest media in the free world.
Re:Trump has an out. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, the Trump supporters have the opposite opinion and think Trump won the debate handily.
Both Chris Christie and Lindsey Graham said whoever prepped Trump for the debate should be fired. So, not even close.
Re: (Score:3)
There were reports that Trump refused to prepare for the debate with Biden, so he probably didn't for this one either.
Re: Trump has an out. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Trump has an out. (Score:5, Interesting)
You do realize that modern elections are decided not by Democrats or Republicans, but independent voters?
What did Trump do to "allay" their concerns about a national abortion ban, or women not being treated at an ER for fear of being prosecuted by the state DA?
Do we really want to risk another repeat of the 1/6 Insurrection attempt to steal an election? Do we want to risk a "Project 2025" agenda changing our government?
Do we really want to remove ourselves from NATO, or let Russia militarily invade NATO adjacent border nations?
Do I want a PotUS that admires Victor Orban? (or Putin?)
How does forcing tariffs solve our deficit spending problem or make things cheaper for the American people to buy stuff?
As an independent voter, do I really want to go back to Trump's circus in 2016 or move on?
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that modern elections are decided not by Democrats or Republicans, but independent voters?
This isn't really correct. Elections are decided by the voters who actually turn up. Turnout is not high, if Democrats or Republicans en masse are motivated to vote or demotivated from voting then that can also decide an election just as much as swing voters.
Re: Trump has an out. (Score:3)
You say three days before Putin started his vanity project and invaded Ukraine? Donâ(TM)t be an idiot: nobody was stopping Putin at that point. He does what he wants and the consequences be damned. He doesnâ(TM)t negotiate in good faith, he does it only to put off others and buy himself more time.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, delusional.....Kamala was there talking to Zelensky and Putin and then three days later Putin invades.....
Putin first invaded Ukraine on 12 April, 2014. Kamala Harris was in Ukraine in February 2022. I guess her mistake was being there eight years too late? Yes, somebody's delusional.
Re: Trump has an out. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Trump has an out. (Score:3)
Re: Trump has an out. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You’re in a cult.
Re: (Score:3)
She is:
- not an old, white man,
- slightly experienced in the biggest issue of the day: Reproductive rights,
- more experienced in the priorities of other countries and negotiating with them,
- very experienced in practicing the law,
- on paper, closer to the socialist principles most US-ians like, than anyone in the GOP.
That's better than the choices available 2 months ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I could only stand to watch for a few minutes (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I could only stand to watch for a few minutes (Score:5, Interesting)
Then you missed a show! Harris is not a compelling orator, or intellectually outstanding, but she totally tweaked Trump to destroy his campaign live on TV. Basically Trump obsessed about how the 2020 election was "stolen" from him and defended the 1/6 insurrection, he chose to waste his time saying what a "great" leader Victor Orban was, when Harris was arguing the country needed to defend itself from autocrats which Trump admires, he looked like a fool on the abortion issue, tried to blame Harris for everything in the Biden administration (i.e. recycle his Biden attacks, but Harris is the candidate. Any voter with a brain understands how much "power" a US VP has to effect policy.). Meanwhile, Trump did not give a persuasive response when it was brought up that he killed the border bill that was crafted by Republicans (everyone knew that issue was going to come up). Basically, Trump was serving up his "greatest" hits, while Harris was suggesting that people want "to move on from the past 8 years of B.S.".
Unfortunately, it does require to have a level of intellectual discernment, because no one is saying aloud " *bam* Trump blew that response" during the debate. So basically people gullible enough to believe Trump is not going to see anything wrong with his responses. Fortunately, what is going to decide this election is not the Democrats or Republicans, but independents, who have enough intellectual discernment to hate both candidates. Trump has a lock on his base, but his base is not the majority of voters in the country. So guess who's probably not going to win (again) in November? Trump didn't have a problem with "energy" or understanding his speech. But he did look too old (or stupid) to realize he was single-handedly destroying any rationale for an independent voter to vote for him.
Re:I could only stand to watch for a few minutes (Score:4, Interesting)
Whether you like it or not, abortion is a PRIVATE matter and has nothing to do with the STATE.
FTFY