PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Bamaflyer on December 14, 2024, 11:30:01 AM
-
Nancy Pelosi Hospitalized With Dangerously Low Blood Alcohol Level
LUXEMBOURG — According to eyewitnesses at the Grand Duke's palace, Nancy Pelosi was rushed to the hospital earlier today after her blood alcohol level plunged dangerously.
Sources say that the Democrat representative is now in stable condition, having downed several vodka tonics and three glasses of wine since the incident.
"We almost lost her," said Dr. Johann Warstein, who has been caring for Pelosi since she was hospitalized earlier today. "Ms. Pelosi skipped her usual four morning screwdrivers, then accidentally drank too much water over lunch. Her blood alcohol levels, normally around 50%, plunged to almost legal levels. If not for the quick actions of our emergency personnel to get a fifth of vodka in her bloodstream, we may be having a different conversation. It was touch and go."
Condolences and caskets of alcohol have poured into the Luxembourg hospital where Pelosi is staying overnight, in a heartwarming effort to keep Pelosi safely sloshed. Initial reports note that the doctors have graciously tried some of the gifts themselves so that they can make sure the alcohol content is high enough for Rep. Pelosi.
At publishing time, doctors had outfitted Pelosi with one of those beer hats to ensure she always had a steady supply of alcohol at the ready.
Visit California, and get a little glimpse into the future of any socialist nation!
If anyone cares here’s an update on the witch.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/12/update-nancy-pelosi-reportedly-undergoes-successful-surgery-after/
-
You don't have to tell me that's from the Bee.
-
Why can't these old relics please go away. Granny Winebox and the Turtle are determined to die in office.
-
Why can't these old relics please go away. Granny Winebox and the Turtle are determined to die in office.
Until we have term limits they won’t.
-
They both look dead.
They’re both stupid like the dead.
-
They both look dead.
They’re both stupid like the dead.
There’s more than these two, Biden in that group too.
-
Until we have term limits they won’t.
Solves nothing. On one hand term limits say the voters can't be trusted to vote the incumbent out of the office. On the other hand term limits are an alleged solution to a crooked voting system.
But if voters can't be trusted what stops them from electing someone just like the last incumbent?
And if the voting system is crooked what is expected to be accomplished by term limits?
Maybe part of the problem is a too malleable electorate, in which case the solution is more involved and time consuming than most people care to dedicate to the problem.
-
Solves nothing. On one hand term limits say the voters can't be trusted to vote the incumbent out of the office. On the other hand term limits are an alleged solution to a crooked voting system.
But if voters can't be trusted what stops them from electing someone just like the last incumbent?
And if the voting system is crooked what is expected to be accomplished by term limits?
Maybe part of the problem is a too malleable electorate, in which case the solution is more involved and time consuming than most people care to dedicate to the problem.
We need a major war or catastrophe to wake people up to pay attention to who they’re voting for. We are so complacent we are now voting for things like trans bathroom rights.
-
Solves nothing. On one hand term limits say the voters can't be trusted to vote the incumbent out of the office. On the other hand term limits are an alleged solution to a crooked voting system.
But if voters can't be trusted what stops them from electing someone just like the last incumbent?
And if the voting system is crooked what is expected to be accomplished by term limits?
Maybe part of the problem is a too malleable electorate, in which case the solution is more involved and time consuming than most people care to dedicate to the problem.
I don't care. Term limits are a start. Your philosophical ramblings aside......
-
Solves nothing. On one hand term limits say the voters can't be trusted to vote the incumbent out of the office.
Exactly. Half the voters are below average and we are not allowed to make them take a knowledge or literacy test so they vote for a name they recognize. And the perks of office guarantee that incumbents will have more pubic exposure at our expense (franking privs) and party funding than challengers. That is why we wind up with 90 yr old millionaire Senators who never worked a real job in their lives. They have a lot of experience gaming the system but very few, if any, actually represent you or me.
-
Solves nothing. On one hand term limits say the voters can't be trusted to vote the incumbent out of the office. On the other hand term limits are an alleged solution to a crooked voting system.
But if voters can't be trusted what stops them from electing someone just like the last incumbent?
And if the voting system is crooked what is expected to be accomplished by term limits?
Maybe part of the problem is a too malleable electorate, in which case the solution is more involved and time consuming than most people care to dedicate to the problem.
I guess doing nothing is another of those libertarian priciples.
-
Only Male, Property Owners should be able to vote. ;D
Congress should be part time and with a limited term, and Senators should be appointed by State Legislatures.
-
Only Male, Property Owners should be able to vote. ;D
Congress should be part time and with a limited term, and Senators should be appointed by State Legislatures.
What a concept. I'll bet if we did that, we'd become the most safe, secure, and prosperous nation on earth.
I wonder if that's ever been tried before ...?
-
Only Male, Property Owners should be able to vote. ;D
Congress should be part time and with a limited term, and Senators should be appointed by State Legislatures.
I'd add to the list veterans or active service personnel. They truly have "skin in the game".
-
I guess doing nothing is another of those libertarian priciples.
I stated what the likely problem was and that it should be solved, but the solution can't be reduced to a simple meme or paragraph. I believe effort should not be wasted on a solution that wont work, not that nothing should be done.
Term limits don't work, and here's evidence:
California has term limits on its governor (two 4-year terms), its assembly (three 2-year terms), and its senate (two 4-year terms). Yet the Democrats have held the governor's office since 2011, the senate since 1975, and the assembly since 1997.
Scroll down on this page and check out the solid blue across ALL elected CA offices from 2011 on and compare to earlier years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_California)
A lot of states have term limits, yet many can stay solid blue or red for decades, indicating the problem is with the electorate and getting them educated would address the fundamental problem.
Just FYI, for anyone who wants to research the subject more deeply, here's a list of states that have term limits on their legislative seats:
https://www.termlimits.com/state-legislative-term-limits/ (https://www.termlimits.com/state-legislative-term-limits/)
And here is a list of states with term limits on their governors:
https://www.termlimits.com/governor_termlimits/ (https://www.termlimits.com/governor_termlimits/)
A complete analysis would probably compare ideological turnover between term limited states and term unlimited states. California just seemed a simple counter-example for this forum.
-
Term limits combined with serious voter ID enforcement always works.
Pretending doing nothing is a good solution is just bullshit packaged differently, that apparently soothes your ego.
-
Term limits combined with serious voter ID enforcement always works.
Pretending doing nothing is a good solution is just bullshit packaged differently, that apparently soothes your ego.
Ah, so the voters who vote socialist will change their beliefs to vote conservative once US congress critters are term limited. Amazing.
-
California has term limits on its governor (two 4-year terms), its assembly (three 2-year terms), and its senate (two 4-year terms). Yet the Democrats have held the governor's office since 2011, the senate since 1975, and the assembly since 1997.
So, we proved that California is a mostly blue state, nice. ::)
-
Term limits don't work, and here's evidence:
California has term limits on its governor (two 4-year terms), its assembly (three 2-year terms), and its senate (two 4-year terms). Yet the Democrats have held the governor's office since 2011, the senate since 1975, and the assembly since 1997.
California is a poor example. First, California elections are some of the worse in the country. It takes them weeks to count votes. Also, California has ballot harvesting, which is nothing more than ballot fraud.
Interior California is very conservative, but the LA basin, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento are radical leftist and control the vote.
-
California is a poor example. First, California elections are some of the worse in the country. It takes them weeks to count votes. Also, California has ballot harvesting, which is nothing more than ballot fraud.
Interior California is very conservative, but the LA basin, San Diego, San Francisco and Sacramento are radical leftist and control the vote.
Ballot harvesting just needs to be outlawed and heavily enforced. I still remember the video in 2020 of a ballot harvester in a nursing home telling an old demented person what to check on the ballot.
It’s a fact that old demented people are widely used to get fraudulent votes. Or votes that aren’t technically fraudulent but you know they were coached. We experienced this first hand with our mother. At a certain point she got so unable to think for herself she just asked, “Well who should I vote for?” Like the way she could no longer decide what she wanted for dinner or what to wear, somebody else has to make ALL the decisions.
Being ethical people, my family at that point simply stopped taking her to vote. But you KNOW DAMN WELL there are many people, and I’m guessing way more Democrats, who would simply tell the old lady who to vote for.
There’s not much we can do about that. There is no constitutional way to deprive a person of the right to vote because of age or mental status. I think we have to accept that a family member is going to abuse that, however, it should be very illegal to go into a facility and “help” a bunch of Alzheimer’s patients to fill out ballots.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jimmy-carters-son-says-never-210059106.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/jimmy-carters-son-says-never-210059106.html)
"The former US president, who broke records by becoming a centenarian on October 1, has cast his vote for Kamala Harris like he wanted. His loved ones recently confirmed his loyalties have always been with the Democratic Party."
President Jimmy Carter was non compos mentis (many say he never was) when he "voted" in 2024.
-
Have fun getting a constitutional amendment passed that adds term limits to congress critters - against their wishes. If you want to "do something" have at it.
-
Have fun getting a constitutional amendment passed that adds term limits to congress critters - against their wishes. If you want to "do something" have at it.
Article V Convention of the States.
-
Have fun getting a constitutional amendment passed that adds term limits to congress critters - against their wishes. If you want to "do something" have at it.
Again…
“Whatever you do, don’t do anything!!!!”
It must be more of that libertarian policy.
-
Again…
“Whatever you do, don’t do anything!!!!”
Straw man argument. Please indicate the post where I said nothing should be done. I merely argue that term limits wont accomplish your desired goal. I'm not obliged to offer an alternative.
Now if someone wants to do something about assholes staying in congress forever, how about working specifically to oust them by working to influence their constituents? It's time consuming and seems to require expertise and finesse but is likely to yield longer term benefits.
It must be more of that libertarian policy.
I consider myself a pragmatic anarchist who happens to vote libertarian only to keep the party viable. My opinions are my own and don't alway agree with libertarians. This rather long article discusses what libertarians think of term limits (mostly for them):
https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/term-limits (https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/term-limits)
Edited to add: the link gives a brief historical background of term limits through history and the US specifically.
-
Straw man argument. Please indicate the post where I said nothing should be done. I merely argue that term limits wont accomplish your desired goal. I'm not obliged to offer an alternative.
Now if someone wants to do something about assholes staying in congress forever, how about working specifically to oust them by working to influence their constituents? It's time consuming and seems to require expertise and finesse but is likely to yield longer term benefits.I consider myself a pragmatic anarchist who happens to vote libertarian only to keep the party viable. My opinions are my own and don't alway agree with libertarians. This rather long article discusses what libertarians think of term limits (mostly for them):
https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/term-limits (https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/term-limits)
Edited to add: the link gives a brief historical background of term limits through history and the US specifically.
I asked Grok to tell me what my political ideology is and it said I am a classic liberal, libertarian, conservative and I’m pragmatic, and it provided examples of things I’ve said to support those points.
I guess that boils down to right-leaning libertarian.
AI bothers me very much. I can see it used for very malicious purposes and by that I mean by the government.
-
AI bothers me very much. I can see it used for very malicious purposes and by that I mean by the government.
AI doesn't bother me, probably because I teach it. The problem is when people rely on AI instead of using their brains. AI as implemented by Grok, etc. is very knowledgeable as it has access to our entire Internet knowledge base. But it's not very smart. It can't put facts together other than in a very simplistic way. All other AI boils down to a bunch of if-then-else. It's great for a quick and dirty answer. But for a real dependable answer, you'll have to do the digging yourself. I like it to initially narrow down the search area to something manageable. Then go from there.
What you did was a great example of how to use AI. It used examples to give you an answer. Then you did what others rarely do... ask yourself if that answer makes sense. Take a look at what it used as input. Does that accurately represent your political ideology? If I only commented on X that FJB should be removed from office it would probably identify me as an anarchist. If it took all my comments here it might have a better idea of my political leanings.
-
AI doesn't bother me, probably because I teach it. The problem is when people rely on AI instead of using their brains. AI as implemented by Grok, etc. is very knowledgeable as it has access to our entire Internet knowledge base. But it's not very smart. It can't put facts together other than in a very simplistic way. All other AI boils down to a bunch of if-then-else. It's great for a quick and dirty answer. But for a real dependable answer, you'll have to do the digging yourself. I like it to initially narrow down the search area to something manageable. Then go from there.
What you did was a great example of how to use AI. It used examples to give you an answer. Then you did what others rarely do... ask yourself if that answer makes sense. Take a look at what it used as input. Does that accurately represent your political ideology? If I only commented on X that FJB should be removed from office it would probably identify me as an anarchist. If it took all my comments here it might have a better idea of my political leanings.
It made total sense and was mostly true about my political position. The one thing that bothered me was the example it used to prove I was conservative was my posts against transitioning children. So being against cutting healthy body parts off minor kids who cannot possibly consent with full understanding of the consequences is strictly a conservative position? Isn’t that just fucking common sense? There are ways I’m very conservative, like low taxes and being against socialist wealth redistribution so it was correct, but I found that example just weird. It concerns me that Grok thinks transitioning little kids is not a non-partisan issue. Either Grok is biased, or worse, Grok is right and the entire liberal half of the country is fine with chopping off kids’ dicks and boobs.
What you say about AI’s access to the entire internet knowledge base IS what I’m concerned about. It will be able to piece together an incredibly complete profile of an individual and that will be used to target people for political persecution or just to control the population.
They can do this already manually but takes a lot of time and resources. Consider the data the NSA keeps on all our cell phone calls and texts for example, but NSA doesn’t look at it without a warrant (supposedly) and when it does it takes resources to comb through it.
With AI, in minutes, it will examine all of that, plus all your bank and purchase transactions, all your medical records, every social media post, location tracking information, all available information on your family and every person you have a close relationship with, all your job activities and more, to paint a picture of your entire life that represents you better than you even know yourself. You think this won’t be used by government against us all?
In this interconnected world our privacy is already badly compromised but the extent it can be used to abuse us is limited by manpower realities. AI erases that limitation, but adds onto it the very stupidity you mention. So maybe the picture it paints of you is distorted and unfair but will human eyes really account for and correct that?
-
When a supposedly unbiased AI outcome starts with making political any position that doesn't dovetail with the lunatic left, you already know the outcome was preplanned, not discovered.
The problem arises when shallow minded people use those fake conclusions to discriminate against anyone not babbling their bullshit.
insurance companies have started using flawed questions to prove stupid things.
Banks and funding agencies are doing the same stupid shit.
government agencies like the useless fema are doing it constantly and getting away with it because many people are tired of fighting their ignorant bullshit.