Dameon Farrow
Superstar
Don't tempt me. I already dogged them out about that border deal. Wasn't impressed with the given excuses.Post it on TLR
2024 U.S. Presidential Election Thread: Donald Trump wins & will return to the White House; GOP wins U.S. Senate & U.S. House
- Thread starter FAH1223
- Start date
Don't tempt me. I already dogged them out about that border deal. Wasn't impressed with the given excuses.
Do it
Republican uses Trump's own words on the border against him
Texas Representative Chip Roy, a Republican, again criticized Donald Trump regarding his inaction on the U.S.-Mexico border.
www.newsweek.com
Yeah Haley lost, but as I said in these Primaries, the more she stays in, the more you get a gauge of Republican enthusiasm; Joe got 89%, while Trump got 63%. That is not a good sign of Republican enthusiasm for Trump. Sure there will be some for Haley who will vote for Trump, but Trump not even getting close to 80% says enough.Democrats
| Joe Biden (incumbent) | 98,358 | 89.3% | 36 | ||
| None of These Candidates | 6,398 | 5.8% | |||
| Marianne Williamson | 3,173 | 2.9% |
Republicans
| None of These Candidates | 43,893 | 63.2% |
| Nikki Haley | 21,199 | 30.5% |
| Mike Pence (withdrawn) | 2,752 | 4.0% |
this is complete bullshytThis is literally why he lost in 2020 my guy. This guy was on television saying you could stop the virus with disinfectant and a myriad of other bullshyt. Stuff like covid should guarantee reelection because it gives the president a chance to show leadership skills. Instead he downplayed masks and made fauci into an enemy. People who had family mfmbers dying of the virus had to hear the president get on tv and treat covid like it was the common cold.
You Trump supporters(yeah only a supporter would downplay how he fumbled covid) stay telling on yourself on here.
trump lost for 2 reasons; because covid ruined his economy, and because he's human garbage. he did NOT lose over "mishandling covid"
democrats like the governor of nevada sure did, though
Last edited:
Could Taylor Swift tilt Florida blue? It’s Democrats’ wildest dream.
“People care about her. People understand the importance of her. She is a youth icon," said one Florida Democrat.
www.politico.com
i still gotta believe florida CAN flip over that abortion ban. 6 weeks in a state like that is insane
NZA
LOL
i gotta agree with cac mamba - i dont think trump's covid response was the reason he lost. he was a horrible person that many people wanted to stop having to think about - especially educated suburban moms
What terrible indictment on society that Taylor Swift can win an election but I'll take a win especially in fukking FloridaCould Taylor Swift tilt Florida blue? It’s Democrats’ wildest dream.
“People care about her. People understand the importance of her. She is a youth icon," said one Florida Democrat.
i still gotta believe florida CAN flip over that abortion ban. 6 weeks in a state like that is insane
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Marianne Williamson suspends presidential campaign — CBS News
Her announcement came one day after she was soundly defeated by President Biden in the Nevada Democratic primary.
apple.news
Bozo
Nevada had had a "none of these candidates" option since 1975.
Fake Joe Biden robocall tells New Hampshire Democrats not to vote Tuesday
The call, an apparent imitation or digital manipulation of the president's voice, says, "Voting this Tuesday only enables the Republicans in their quest to elect Donald Trump again."www.nbcnews.com
Fake Joe Biden robocall tells New Hampshire Democrats not to vote on Tuesday
The call, an apparent imitation or digital manipulation of the president's voice, says, "Voting this Tuesday only enables the Republicans in their quest to elect Donald Trump again."
President Joe Biden at the White House on June 5, 2023.Samuel Corum / Sipa via Reuters file
Jan. 22, 2024, 8:19 AM EST
By Alex Seitz-Wald and Mike Memoli
MANCHESTER, N.H. — A prominent New Hampshire Democrat plans to file a complaint with the state attorney general over an apparent robocall that appears to encourage supporters of President Joe Biden not to vote in Tuesday’s presidential primary.
The voice in the message is familiar — even presidential — as it’s an apparent imitation or digital manipulation of Biden’s voice.
“What a bunch of malarkey,” the voice message begins, echoing a favorite term Biden has uttered before.
LISTEN: Fake Biden robocall tells voters to skip New Hampshire primary
JAN. 22, 202400:28
The message says that “it’s important that you save your vote for the November election.”
“Voting this Tuesday only enables the Republicans in their quest to elect Donald Trump again. Your vote makes a difference in November, not this Tuesday,” it says.
The message concludes with a phone number belonging to Kathy Sullivan, a former New Hampshire Democratic Party chair who is now running a super PAC supporting the campaign to urge New Hampshire Democrats to write in Biden’s name in the primary.
If you received this robocall or have more information on it, contact NBC News here.
Biden’s name does not appear on Tuesday’s ballot, a consequence of state elections officials setting the date of the primary ahead of South Carolina’s on Feb. 3, the first sanctioned contest of the 2024 nominating race under new Democratic National Committee rules.
But local supporters launched the late write-in effort as a way to both marshall support for Biden and send a message to the national party about the Granite State’s coveted, centurylong tradition of holding the nation’s first primary.
In an interview, Sullivan said she began receiving calls Sunday evening from those who had received the message. One woman she spoke to told her that Biden had called her, though she said she was not a Biden supporter.
“I said, ‘You got a call from Joe Biden, and he gave you my number?’” Sullivan said she responded.
A volunteer for the write-in effort also received the call and recorded it, according to Sullivan, and shared it with organizers of the Biden write-in campaign. One of the organizers then shared it with NBC News.
It’s not clear how many voters received the call or which types of voters were targeted. Lists of voters’ phone numbers can be readily purchased from data brokers.
And Sullivan said that while it isn’t clear who is behind the robocall, “It’s obviously somebody who wants to hurt Joe Biden.”
“I want them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible because this is an attack on democracy,” said Sullivan, an attorney, who believes the call could violate several laws. “I’m not going to let it go. I want to know who’s paying for it? Who knew about it? Who benefits?”
She said she also plans to engage federal law enforcement in addition to the state attorney general’s office.
Sullivan served as party chair in 2002, when a so-called phone-jamming effort was carried out during a hotly contested U.S. Senate race. Two Republican officials, including the executive director of the state Republican Party and a Republican National Committee operative, were convicted of using computer-generated phone calls to disrupt Democrats’ get-out-the-vote call center operations.
The campaign of Dean Phillips, the Minnesota congressman challenging Biden for the nomination, said it was not aware of the calls but called it “wildly concerning.”
“Any effort to discourage voters is disgraceful and an unacceptable affront to democracy,” spokesperson Katie Dolan said. “The potential use of AI to manipulate voters is deeply disturbing.”
The Biden campaign, which says it is not involved in the write-in effort in New Hampshire, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Trump’s campaign denied any connection to the call, saying, “Not us, we have nothing to do with it.”
Texas firm allegedly behind fake Biden robocall that told people not to vote
Tech and telecom firms helped New Hampshire AG trace call to “Life Corporation.”…
arstechnica.com
Texas firm allegedly behind fake Biden robocall that told people not to vote
Tech and telecom firms helped New Hampshire AG trace call to "Life Corporation."
JON BRODKIN - 2/7/2024, 4:04 PM
Enlarge / US President Joe Biden speaks on the phone in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2023.
Getty Images | Brendan Smialowski
93
An anti-voting robocall that used an artificially generated clone of President Biden's voice has been traced to a Texas company called Life Corporation "and an individual named Walter Monk," according to an announcement by New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella yesterday.
The AG office's Election Law Unit issued a cease-and-desist order to Life Corporation for violating a New Hampshire law that prohibits deterring people from voting "based on fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, or spurious grounds or information," the announcement said.
As previously reported, the fake Biden robocall was placed before the New Hampshire Presidential Primary Election on January 23. The AG's office said it is investigating "whether Life Corporation worked with or at the direction of any other persons or entities."
"What a bunch of malarkey," the fake Biden voice said. "You know the value of voting Democratic when our votes count. It's important that you save your vote for the November election. We'll need your help in electing Democrats up and down the ticket. Voting this Tuesday only enables the Republicans in their quest to elect Donald Trump again. Your vote makes a difference in November, not this Tuesday."
The artificial Biden voice seems to have been created using a text-to-speech engine offered by ElevenLabs, which reportedly responded to the news by suspending the account of the user who created the deepfake.
The robocalls "illegally spoofed their caller ID information to appear to come from a number belonging to a former New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair," the AG's office said. Formella, a Republican, said that "AI-generated recordings used to deceive voters have the potential to have devastating effects on the democratic election process."
Tech firms helped investigation
Formella's announcement said that YouMail and Nomorobo helped identify the robocalls and that the calls were traced to Life Corporation and Walter Monk with the help of the Industry Traceback Group run by the telecom industry. Nomorobo estimated the number of calls to be between 5,000 and 25,000."The tracebacks further identified the originating voice service provider for many of these calls to be Texas-based Lingo Telecom. After Lingo Telecom was informed that these calls were being investigated, Lingo Telecom suspended services to Life Corporation," the AG's office said.
The Election Law Unit issued document preservation notices and subpoenas for records to Life Corporation, Lingo Telecom, and other entities "that may possess records relevant to the Attorney General’s ongoing investigation," the announcement said.
Media outlets haven't had much luck in trying to get a comment from Monk. "At his Arlington office, the door was locked when NBC 5 knocked," an NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth article said. "A man inside peeked around the corner to see who was ringing the doorbell but did not answer the door."
The New York Times reports that "a subsidiary of Life Corporation called Voice Broadcasting Corp., which identifies Mr. Monk as its founder on its website, has received numerous payments from the Republican Party’s state committee in Delaware, most recently in 2022, as well as payments from congressional candidates in both parties."
A different company, also called Life Corporation, posted a message on its home page that said, "We are a medical device manufacturer located in Florida and are not affiliated with the Texas company named in current news stories."
FCC warns carrier
The Federal Communications Commission said yesterday that it is taking action against Lingo Telecom. The FCC said it sent a letter demanding that Lingo "immediately stop supporting unlawful robocall traffic on its networks," and a K4 Order that "strongly encourages other providers to refrain from carrying suspicious traffic from Lingo.""The FCC may proceed to require other network providers affiliated with Lingo to block its traffic should the company continue this behavior," the agency said.
The FCC is separately planning a vote to declare that the use of AI-generated voices in robocalls is illegal under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Supreme Court Skeptical About Kicking Donald Trump Off Ballot
The nation’s highest court is weighing whether Colorado and other states can pull Trump from the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment.
Trump to Supreme Court: Insurrectionists Can Be President
NOT THE PROBLEMThe nation’s highest court is weighing whether Colorado and other states can pull Trump from the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment.
Jose Pagliery
Political Investigations ReporterUpdated Feb. 08, 2024 11:48AM EST / Published Feb. 08, 2024 10:54AM EST
Andrew Chung/Reuters
State officials cannot prohibit Donald Trump—or anyone else—from running for the White House “even if the candidate is an admitted insurrectionist,” the former president’s lawyers told the Supreme Court on Thursday.The nation’s highest court is now considering whether Colorado and several other states can yank Trump from the 2024 ballot, employing the 14th Amendment to deem his plot to remain in office after losing the 2020 election as an “insurrection” as defined by the Constitution.
The central issue in this historic case is that Trump has not been charged—or even convicted—of insurrection, even though several federal judges, the Justice Department, and congressional investigators have essentially deemed the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress as a violent rebellion that threatened the nation’s democracy.
Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, warned that allowing state officials to unilaterally knock the former president from the ballot would “take away the votes of potentially tens of millions of Americans.” He argued that having states utilize the 14th Amendment as a tool this way “would be adding to and altering” the constitution’s qualifications for the presidency.
The law in question is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War as a measure that would bar from office those pro-Confederate insurrectionists who had taken an oath to support the Constitution.
The case forces the Supreme Court to closely examine that provision, which says, “No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
Importantly, the Constitution makes no mention of conviction. But justices know that allowing a state to take such a dramatic step could be perceived as unfair by some in the American public—even those outside Trump’s MAGA movement.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explored why the provision doesn’t explicitly mention the president as being covered by this rule, noting that it starts by listing senators, congressional representatives, and electors—only to later include officers of the United States. She questioned whether it was plausible that “the framers would have smuggled it in with that catch-all phrase.”
Several other justices questioned the use of the term “officer,” showing how some of this case might hinge on whether or not a president can be deemed a federal officer, even if that would mean, paradoxically, that the Constitution keeps all insurrections out of office—except the commander in chief.
Mitchell drew from another part of the Constitution, Article II, Section 3, noting that, “The president shall commission all of the officers of the United States. The president doesn’t commission himself and he cannot commission himself.”
“If ‘officer of the United States' means appointed officials, there’s just no way he’s covered by Section 3,” he said.
The opposing lawyer, who represents the effort to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado, dismissed this line of reasoning as too focused on language as opposed to the bigger picture.
Former U.S. President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump holds a campaign rally.
Reuters
“This case does not come down to mere prepositions,” said Jason Murray, who represents the Colorado woman who set this effort into motion.Norma Anderson, a 91-year-old former Republican legislator from Colorado who has rejected MAGA politics, is the plaintiff in the case.
“States are allowed to safeguard their ballots by excluding those who are… as here, those who have engaged in insurrection against the constitution in violation of their oath,” Murray told the justices.
Justice Clarence Thomas prodded Murray to provide “contemporaneous examples” that would show that states disqualified national candidates shortly after the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Murray pointed to the way Georgia’s governor disqualified a congressman that same year, but he also argued that state officials back then couldn’t yank someone from the ballot the way states want to do with Trump now because the voting system was different.
“Not surprising there are few examples, because they didn't have ballots. They were party ballots or write-in. There wouldn't be a process to determine before an election if a candidate was qualified,” Murray said.
It took nearly an hour for the court to address the heart of the matter: whether Trump’s role in whipping up the crowd of his raging supporters in Washington, D.C. three years ago counted as inciting an insurrection—or if the violent attack could be deemed as such.
“We never accepted that this was an insurrection… President Trump did not engage in any act that can be plausibly categorized in insurrection,” Mitchell told the court, claiming that the term “insurrection” is narrowly defined.
“There needs to be an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence,” he said.
“A chaotic effort to overthrow the government is not an insurrection?” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson shot back.
That prompted Mitchell to acknowledge that “the events were shameful, criminal, violent.”
The decision is already tainted by the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas decided to remain on the panel hearing the arguments—despite the fact that his own wife played a central role in the very insurrection in question. Emails obtained by the House Jan. 6 Committee that initially investigated what led up to the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol showed that conservative activist Ginni Thomas had coordinated with John Eastman, a Trump lawyer who came up with the plan to interrupt the certification of the 2020 election. And she had even emailed Arizona state lawmakers, pushing them to engage in Trump’s plan to replace legitimate electors with MAGA loyal pawns who sought to flip the election results.
On Wednesday, a day before the Supreme Court would hear the case, Sen. dikk Durbin (D-IL) tweeted, “I’m calling for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself in the 14th Amendment case determining if Donald Trump is ineligible for the 2024 ballot.”
On Thursday, the progressive group Stand Up America stressed that Thomas’ decision to remain on the panel posed a serious threat to a fair outcome.
“Justice Thomas should recuse himself from this monumental case. Ginni Thomas’ involvement in the seditious conspiracy that led to the January 6 insurrection is a bald-faced conflict of interest. If Thomas refuses, it will not only be a blatant denial of impartial review but also a rejection of Chief Justice Roberts’ recently issued Code of Conduct,” it said in a statement.
And yet Justice Thomas, who rarely speaks up, was the first to make a question, asking what role the states would play.
ive made my peace… many of us need to feel the fire of whats about to happen. We haven’t learned and we’re about to learn the hard way.
