Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Looks logical and sensible to me. It’s a huge problem and they’re proposing a solution that is potentially viable.
The problem here is who are the 'Subject Matter Experts' that will determine what constitutes 'Hate Speech'? If AI is set up to remove all instances of political parties other than, say, The Republican Party and the Conservatives, there would be an outcry. If it was set up to do the opposite, there would also be an outcry. So who makes the rules? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so any automated censorship will always be at the behest of the people with the 'power,' in whatever form that might take.
Oh of course. But AI already does much of the legwork with policing social media. What’s being proposed here is a method of refining and improving that. Which is sensible. It certainly doesn’t make an organisation ‘truly evil’ unless your careering down a rabbit hole.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
That mindset is the same one that led to communism, which in turn led to millions of deaths worldwide.
Putting this much power in the hands of a centralised authority will inevitably lead to the power being abused. Imagine the damage it could do.
Last edited:
In the aftermath of the search of Trump's property, a Trump supporter has attacked an FBI field office, armed with an AR-15. Doesn't appear anyone was injured there, but the suspect got into a standoff, and was shot and killed by police.
Said suspect:
Truth Social, where those posts reside, happens to be Trump's (largely failed) social network.
Said suspect:
You must log in or register to see media
Truth Social, where those posts reside, happens to be Trump's (largely failed) social network.
Last edited:
Holy ****.
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1557880239287455744?s=21&t=IRFEmqJwuMbHbVaqeF8KcQ
https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1557880239287455744?s=21&t=IRFEmqJwuMbHbVaqeF8KcQ
You must log in or register to see media
One's normal reaction is that he was going to sell nuclear secrets or something. But because it's Trump, there's like a 90% chance that it's because he wanted to brag to people in the Mar-A-Lago dining room that he had a box of nuclear secrets in his basement.
Other than I would love to se him slammed up for the rest of his days, I agree that's the most likely scenario, it's just mind-boggling that he is still supported by millions of US citizens (not all rednecks) and we also have hordes of swivel eyed loons still purporting tha Bonko was the best PM we ever had....I despair.
Which part would be the games? As I understand it the bar for getting such a warrant signed off would have been very high.
Well the AG that signed it off was the same AG that covered up Jeffrey Epstein for a start.
To be honest there’s a massive chance that this swings more people in favour of Trump as he has always talked about legacy politicians (the swamp) hating him.
Plus they have history of bringing fake charges against him - the Russia collusion stuff all got thrown out
Trump has the warrant and the property receipt and can release them if he wants.
They have now been unsealed and will be released anyway. It will be interesting to see how close they are
As to Epstein - I’m not clear how that is relevant to this. Is it?
"Fake". "Thrown out" Far from it. Trump trumps Johnson in the misinformation and deceit stakes.
See https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/ for more myth debunking.
"When we joined other legal experts earlier this month to testify before the House Judiciary Committee regarding lessons from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, it became apparent from the questioning that a number of misconceptions continue to exist regarding Mueller’s findings. The narrative was shaped by Attorney General William Barr, who issued his description of Mueller’s conclusions three weeks before the public saw the full 448-page report. In a letter to Barr, Mueller complained that Barr’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature and substance” of his team’s work and conclusions, and created “public confusion.” Here is our effort to dispel some of those myths."
"Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”
Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents."
Myth: Mueller found no obstruction.
Response: Mueller found at least four acts by Trump in which all elements of the obstruction statute were satisfied – attempting to fire Mueller, directing White House counsel Don McGahn to lie and create a false document about efforts to fire Mueller, attempting to limit the investigation to future elections and attempting to prevent Manafort from cooperating with the government. As Mueller stated, “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Mueller declined to make a “traditional prosecution decision” about obstruction of justice. Because he was bound by the Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, he did not even attempt to reach a legal conclusion about the facts. Instead, he undertook to “preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,” because a president can be charged after he leaves office. In fact, out of an abundance of fairness, Mueller thought that it would be improper to even accuse Trump of committing a crime so as not to “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,” meaning impeachment.
I am no big Trump fan but it’s obvious that this could be politically motivated.
If he is found guilty of a crime I’n fairly certain that he can’t run for President again. Plus this whole thing could tie him up in court etc. It’s in the Dems interests to throw **** at trump until it sticks.
Let’s face it, the Dems have shown time and time again that they are willing to use any tactics necessary to gain political capital.
If he is found guilty of a crime I’n fairly certain that he can’t run for President again. Plus this whole thing could tie him up in court etc. It’s in the Dems interests to throw **** at trump until it sticks.
Let’s face it, the Dems have shown time and time again that they are willing to use any tactics necessary to gain political capital.