General Election 2024 Biden vs Trump (4 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

As we head toward the summer and the National Party Conventions, it might be handy to have a thread focused on the upcoming matchup of current President Biden vs Former President Trump.
As of April 28,2024 , CNN's poll shows Trump leading. Yet polls are not always accurate and they are constantly changing.
Feel free to use this thread for all things relating to Biden vs Trump.
*
*

CNN Poll: Trump maintains lead over Biden in 2024 matchup as views on their presidencies diverge

Donald Trump continues to hold an advantage over President Joe Biden as the campaign – and Trump’s criminal trial – move forward, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. And in the coming rematch, opinions about the first term of each man vying for a second four years in the White House...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

A major study of Donald Trump’s social media posts has revealed the scale of the former US president’s ambitions to target Joe Biden, judges and other perceived political enemies if he returns to power.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), a watchdog organisation, analysed more than 13,000 messages published by Trump on his Truth Social platform and found him vowing revenge, retaliation and retribution against his foes.

The presumptive Republican nominee has threatened to use the federal government to go after Biden during a second Trump administration 25 times since the start of 2023, the study found. These threats include FBI raids, investigations, indictments and even jail time.

He has also threatened or suggested that the FBI and justice department should take action against senators, judges, members of Biden’s family and even non-governmental organisations.

“He is promising to go after what he perceives to be his political enemies,” said Robert Maguire, vice-president for research and data at Crew. “He is promising to essentially weaponise the government against anyone he sees as not sufficiently loyal or who is openly opposed to him.

“He has constantly seeded this idea that the numerous charges against him are trumped-up charges and it seems almost to have given him licence to openly say, ‘You’ve done this to me, so I’m going to do it to you.’”……..

Its report, the first in a series, says his attitude can be summed up in one Truth Social post from August 2023: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” Indeed, last December Trump posted a word cloud based on his speeches: the biggest word was “revenge”.

Many of his threats to Biden reflect Trump’s now familiar tactic of reversing charges against his opponents, conjuring a mirror world in which he claims they are guilty of the very offence of which he is accused.


In one post about the special counsel Jack Smith, he warned that there will be “repercussions far greater than anything that Biden or his Thugs could understand” and, if the investigations continue, it will open a “Pandora’s Box” of retribution.

In another, Trump wrote that his federal indictments are “setting a BAD precedent for yourself, Joe. The same can happen to you.” In July last year Trump reposted rally coverage quoting him that “Now the gloves are off.”…..

Revenge: analysis of Trump posts shows relentless focus on punishing enemies

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington documents former president’s threats against perceived political opponents

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

This guy presents himself as a behavioral psychiatrist, but it’s the internet - so who knows for sure. He maintains that Trump is massively damaged psychologically by all of the recent events. His civil convictions and now his criminal conviction. He maintains Trump will never debate Biden, because he is incapable of it. I hope he is correct, but I am skeptical as well. Putting this out there in case anyone else is interested and wants to comment with their thoughts. I don’t personally ever watch an entire Trump event because he sickens me.

 

[fooferdoggie]

I know trump wont debate. the convictions clinched it for sure. he will have some excuse and I think that Biden wont take a drug test to get out of it. he is a coward at heart.

 

[faceman]

Article on AI and the election
====================
……….This would all be less concerning if the first big AI crisis were some hypothetical far in the future. But there’s one circled on the calendar: Nov. 5, 2024. Election Day.

For more than a year, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray has warned about a wave of election interference that could make 2016 look cute.

No respectable foreign adversary needs an army of human trolls in 2024. AI can belch out literally billions of pieces of realistic-looking and sounding misinformation about when, where and how to vote. It can just as easily customize political propaganda for any individual target.

In 2016, Brad Parscale, Donald Trump’s digital campaign director, spent endless hours customizing tiny thumbnail campaign ads for groups of 20 to 50 people on Facebook. It was miserable work but an incredibly effective way to make people feel seen by a campaign.

In 2024, Brad Parscale is software, available to any chaos agent for pennies. There are more legal restrictions on ads, but AI can create fake social profiles and aim squarely for your individual feed.

Deepfakes of candidates have been here for months, and the AI companies keep releasing tools that make all of this material faster and more convincing.

Almost 80 percent of Americans think some form of AI abuse is likely to affect the outcome of November’s presidential election. Wray has staffed each of the FBI’s 56 field offices with at least two election-crime coordinators. He has urged people to be more discerning with their media sources.

In public, he’s the face of chill. “Americans can and should have confidence in our election system,” he said at the International Conference on Cyber Security in January.

Privately, an elected official familiar with Wray’s thinking told me the director is in a middle manager’s paradox: loads of responsibility, limited authority. “[Wray] keeps highlighting the issue, but he won’t play politics, and he doesn’t make policy,” that official said. “The FBI enforces laws. The director is like, ‘Please ask Congress where the laws are.’”……..

I mean, they have been. It was Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg who initially dismissed the impact of Russian misinformation on the 2016 election as “pretty crazy.”

But a year later, Zuckerberg recognized he was wrong, kicking off what security people at Meta and other platforms, as well as officials in law enforcement, describe as something like Glasnost.

Each side acknowledged the stakes of failure and found a way to work together — often using their own AI software to detect anomalies in posting patterns.

They would then share findings and zap malicious content before it could spread. The 2020 and 2022 elections were more than proof of concept. They were a success.

But all of that collaboration preceded the boom in AI — and all of it ended last July. Murthy v. Missouri, a case brought by the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, claimed that federal communication with social media platforms to remove misinformation was a “censorship enterprise” that violates the First Amendment.

Was the suit an act of political vengeance motivated by the misperception that social media leans left? You bet. But you don’t have to be a partisan to imagine how a back-and-forth between a social media platform and, say, a president with narcissistic personality disorder could turn coercive.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty sided with the plaintiffs and issued a temporary injunction that was affirmedby the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

In March, Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, revealed the consequences of that decision: eight months of total silence between the feds and social media companies regarding misinformation. “That ought to scare the hell out of all of us,” said Warner.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on Murthy v. Missouri next month, and there are at least preliminary indications the justices are skepticalof the lower court’s ruling……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/30/misinformation-interference-artificial-intelligence-2024-election/

Scotus should be skeptical. Social media platforms are privately owned. They are not a government agency denying free speech.
It's the same thing with Andrus on our main site. He can remove anyone our our postings and there is nothing we can legally
do about it.

SFL has trouble understanding this for some reason.

 

[SFIDC3]

It is possible that Trump's conviction will not change many voters plans as to who they will vote for...
*

'Speechless': Swing state voters react to Donald Trump's guilty verdict

Across the battleground states, voters reacted to Trump's guilty verdict with a mixture of surprise, joy, anger, indifference and a few expletives.

www.yahoo.com

I've always thought the Dobbs decision by our christian wacko led SC was going to determine the election anyways.....Unless you are hiding under a rock, it's hurt the R party in pretty much every election since....it's the woman's vote that will save democracy in this country IMO....

 

[faceman]

I've always thought the Dobbs decision by our christian wacko led SC was going to determine the election anyways.....Unless you are hiding under a rock, it's hurt the R party in pretty much every election since....it's the woman's vote that will save democracy in this country IMO....

100% agree and the woman's vote will keep Georgia blue as well

 

[SystemShock]

On related note, since it'll have an impact on US-MX relations, "the most important elections in MX history" are happening today. MX will have its first female president ever... it's practically a 2 horse race and both are mares I voted early and often.

 

[MT15]

I think this does come across as a threat. It’s just empty saber-rattling but still it shows you how bad off MAGA really is.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Scotus should be skeptical. Social media platforms are privately owned. They are not a government agency denying free speech.
It's the same thing with Andrus on our main site. He can remove anyone our our postings and there is nothing we can legally
do about it.

SFL has trouble understanding this for some reason.

Exactly. If the government asks a social media platform to remove disinformation and the social medium platform voluntarily does it, then it's not a violation of the First Amendment. It's right there in the amendment, "Congress shall make no law..."

A request or suggestion by the government is not Congress making a law. The government can ask or suggest anything they want to anyone. The Constitution does not forbid that. It exclusively forbids passing a law or enforcing a law in a way that prevents someone for freely speaking or punishes them for freely speaking.

The government did not do that when it coordinated with social media platforms to protect us from disinformation. The government did not force the social medium platforms to remove anything and they did not punish the social media platforms that didn't remove disinformation.

The people behind the lawsuit are not trying to protect free speech, they are trying to protect their efforts to use disinformation to fool people into voting for Trump, so they can take away all of our constitutional rights, not just the right to free speech.

That's the ultimate hypocrisy and insult of the lawsuit. They are dishonestly using a distorted interpretation of one of our constitutional rights as a tactical move to get into a position to take away all of our constitutional rights.

 

[bird]

I think this does come across as a threat. It’s just empty saber-rattling but still it shows you how bad off MAGA really is.

Clay Higgins is an azzhat.

 

[faceman]

Exactly. If the government asks a social media platform to remove disinformation and the social medium platform voluntarily does it, then it's not a violation of the First Amendment. It's right there in the amendment, "Congress shall make no law..."

A request or suggestion by the government is not Congress making a law. The government can ask or suggest anything they want to anyone. The Constitution does not forbid that. It exclusively forbids passing a law or enforcing a law in a way that prevents someone for freely speaking or punishes them for freely speaking.

The government did not do that when it coordinated with social media platforms to protect us from disinformation. The government did not force the social medium platforms to remove anything and they did not punish the social media platforms that didn't remove disinformation.

The people behind the lawsuit are not trying to protect free speech, they are trying to protect their efforts to use disinformation to fool people into voting for Trump, so they can take away all of our constitutional rights, not just the right to free speech.

That's the ultimate hypocrisy and insult of the lawsuit. They are dishonestly using a distorted interpretation of one of our constitutional rights as a tactical move to get into a position to take away all of our constitutional rights.

There was another poster on the EE board claiming FB with directions from the government was censoring him by removing his Ivermectin helped me posts. We could never convince him he was wrong.

 

[MT15]

This post just reminded me - MAGA is a pretty small minority of people in the US. They are amplified by several far right media outlets, and covered as if they are more numerous than they actually are by legitimate news outlets because controversy sells. They are not that numerous.



That is not to say they couldn’t wreak violence as in terroristic acts, they could. But, IMO, they cannot win the election.

 

[fooferdoggie]

ll the right wing news outlets blindly help MEGA but at the same time dont show the real trump the one that forgets words and time and calls Biden Obama and all the other crap he does.

 

[MT15]

Can he do this? Are there any guardrails on replacing military leadership with cronies?

 

[MT15]

 

[faceman]

Can he do this? Are there any guardrails on replacing military leadership with cronies?

Yes, the POTUS is the supreme commander of the military and can fire any officer he wants to. I said the following
in 2016. It's what scared me the most about Trump.

 

[MT15]

Yes, the POTUS is the supreme commander of the military and can fire any officer he wants to. I said the following
in 2016. It's what scared me the most about Trump.

But he would have to pick from current military officers, correct? He cannot just, for example, make Bannon a general?

 

[faceman]

But he would have to pick from current military officers, correct? He cannot just, for example, make Bannon a general?

The most famous firing was Harry Truman relieving Douglas McArthur of his command.

From what I'm reading MT,they would be replaced by other military men or women,but they would
be his boot lickers and let him do as he pleases.