• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The thread for stupidity from GQP politicians who don't have their own thread Part II

Norman Alexander said:
If Noem gets the flick, and Hegseth gets the flick...any bets on how soon RFK Jr. gets the memo?
Click to expand...
Trump doesn't seem as keen on firing people this term. He burned through a bunch of fairly qualified people in his first admin and in his second there seem to be a lot of loose cannons smashing into things, but if they're fired I don't think there is going to be a large pool of potential replacements. If he fires someone, he's tacitly admitting he was wrong to hire them and I'm not sure he's capable of that at this stage. Also even his big fans might be a little leery of attaching themselves to him at this point. They may love him to pieces but it's hard not to see the downside of a boss who changes his mind on major policy issues every 1-2 days and who is, even with Congress on his side, something of a lame duck. There are some cracks showing: The flip-flopping on tariffs, his stance on Russia/Ukraine, even his "Trump 2028" hats are alienating a few people. Not to the point where they regret voting for him, but enough to give some pause.
 
arthwollipot said:
Click to expand...
I'm extremely leery of media reports at this point. In my list of Trump's vulnerable points I didn't bring up the Signal thing because I don't see that many people grumbling about it on conservative forums. I am NOT saying that NPR is making it up, just that, we all have a bias toward believing what we want to believe. I'm sure they have good contacts, but it's not hard to get people to talk when you promise them anonymity.

I kind of hope it's true, but I'm not sure the next pick would be any better. If Trump wants Hesgeth out - I'll believe it when I see it.

ETA: Thanks for the post though. I want to stay informed but constantly trying to read the tea leaves is a little crazy-making.
 
Last edited:
Ya, Legal Eagle brought that up last year. 2 lawyers using AI to research and write documents to submit, citing cases and statutes that do not exist.

 
shemp said:
By that standard, she must be a member of three gangs!
Click to expand...
Carrying suspiciously large sum of cash. Associating with bag thieves. And how did the criminal get away when she was supposedly under protection? Shall we add abetting? Off to the gulag with her.

She's a citizen? Okay where's her driver's licence? No? Well then where's her passport? No?

Gulag.
 
Last edited:
shemp said:
Do they have any idea how they're going to define political memes or enforce this? Or is it just the usual performative stupidity?
Click to expand...
Like pornography, they'll know it when they see it. Anything that makes fun of liberals or minorities, anything that seems to be inciting violence against those groups, any slander against any out group is protected free speech.

Anything less than fully supportive of the MAGA project is a political meme and must be banned.
 
Trebuchet said:
There's only one amendment Republicans care about and it isn't that one.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, if you're referring to the 2nd Amendment, they don't really care about that one, either. Even the far right extremist perversion of it that they've been pushing for political reasons. From the start, black people's "right to bear arms" has been restricted, one way or another, after all, and Republican support of the 2nd Amendment, actual or perversion, suffers from much the same issues as all the rest of the "principles" that they claim to adhere to as a collective.
 
Last edited:
Noem claims "Immingrants hate us!"

Yeah, that's why they're risking everything to come here.

I saw another maga-idiot praising Donnie Diapers for saving her daughters from the raping immigrant hordes, and a recent CNN poll results confirm that Trump's incessant gaslighting of migrants as criminals has done its job, as a large majority of those polled believe all migrants should be deported.

Bull ◊◊◊◊ is king now, though both-siders will claim it was alway thus, but no, not like this.
 
Last edited:
ZiprHead said:
Before you all get your undies in a bunch you can read the bill here.
Click to expand...
Read it.
Am I allowed to bunch my undies?
It is so unconstitutional as to be anti-constitutional.

It outlaws political speech by whoever isn’t in charge of the “commission”

All elected or appointed republicans at the state or federal level are violent enemies of Americans and should face consequences that I’ll not mention here
 
autumn1971 said:
Read it.
Am I allowed to bunch my undies?
It is so unconstitutional as to be anti-constitutional.

It outlaws political speech by whoever isn’t in charge of the “commission”

All elected or appointed republicans at the state or federal level are violent enemies of Americans and should face consequences that I’ll not mention here
Click to expand...
I am wondering if we're reading the same bill. Or maybe I'm missing something. The bill linked appears to forbid AI generated or altered audio, video or images of candidates or office holders in order to influence an election, unless there is a distinct notice that the image in question is artificial. If it forbids political speech, I'm missing that part, I guess. I do think it an oversight, ambiguous at best, that the law does not state whether the ban includes caricature, cartoons, and the like. But for the rest, I am not sure what the problem is. What am I missing?
 
bruto said:
I am wondering if we're reading the same bill. Or maybe I'm missing something. The bill linked appears to forbid AI generated or altered audio, video or images of candidates or office holders in order to influence an election, unless there is a distinct notice that the image in question is artificial. If it forbids political speech, I'm missing that part, I guess. I do think it an oversight, ambiguous at best, that the law does not state whether the ban includes caricature, cartoons, and the like. But for the rest, I am not sure what the problem is. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
I was going to post the first section but it comes out in a funky format and I'm not sure it's allowed. But the issue I see is this is incredibly broad and subjective. It doesn't have to be "AI" generated. Just that it did not occur "in reality." To me it seems this would include some fairly innocuous editing practices such as "flipping" a picture - running a mirror image because it works better for your layout, for some reason. That's not, IMO, acceptable in journalism but it is done in advertising all the time.

In the newspaper business we'd code that in the credit: Instead of "Photo by ...." it would be labeled "photo illustration."

Photoshop an image to make you look a little better or your opponent a little worse? Hike up contrast to make something look sinister? Obama's blue-and-red-toned "Hope" poster from 2008? Anything animated, obviously, did not occur in reality. Anything with a filter applied did not occur in reality. A 30-second ad made of excerpts that shows someone lying 30 times? It didn't actually occur over a 30-second period. That

It appears to apply only to candidates and PACs. Individuals can circulate it, video services can air it, etc.

Add a disclosure and you're apparently off the hook.
 
shemp said:
Do they have any idea how they're going to define political memes or enforce this? Or is it just the usual performative stupidity?
Click to expand...
Anything that doesn't glorify the führer, gauleiter or the party is political.

So "ceiling cat is watching you" is strictly verbotten unless he's wearing a swastika armband.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom