President Biden Calls for Ban on AI Voice Impersonations (variety.com) 145
President Biden included a nod to a rising issue in the entertainment and tech industries during his State of the Union address Thursday evening, calling for a ban on AI voice impersonations. From a report: "Here at home, I have signed over 400 bipartisan bills. There's more to pass my unity agenda," President Biden said, beginning to list off a series of different proposals that he hopes to address if elected to a second term. "Strengthen penalties on fentanyl trafficking, pass bipartisan privacy legislation to protect our children online, harness the promise of AI to protect us from peril, ban AI voice impersonations and more."
The president did not elaborate on the types of guardrails or penalties that he would plan to institute around the rising technology, or if it would extend to the entertainment industry. AI was a peak concern for SAG-AFTRA during the actors union's negotiations with and strike against the major studios last year.
The president did not elaborate on the types of guardrails or penalties that he would plan to institute around the rising technology, or if it would extend to the entertainment industry. AI was a peak concern for SAG-AFTRA during the actors union's negotiations with and strike against the major studios last year.
As always... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it would be enacted as a ban on using AI generated voice and video in the commission of fraud, election interference, voter suppression, etc. There likely will be a carve-out for parody and creative works with proper labeling of being AI generated.
You know, just like most other legal restrictions on speech and creative works that already exist.
Fraudulent Impersonation (Score:3)
Laws and regulations against fraudulent impersonation can be strengthened. Campaigns and business advertisements come to mind. AI may be an immediate source of concern, but any fraudulent impersonation can have the same impact.
I do not believe banning AI impersonation entirely would work, and it would need loopholes for fair use like parody.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing such a ban would immediately run into winnable lawsuits on 1st Amendment grounds.
Free Speech is pretty broad in what it covers these days.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1st amendment does not give free license to defraud people.
The 1st amendment does not give free license to suppress voter turnout through fraudulent AI-generated voice recordings.
The 1st amendment has long-recognized exceptions in jurisprudence for criminal conduct and public safety. This would be implemented in the same way, and would get the same legal results.
Re: (Score:2)
But a blanket ban on AI Impersonation generation would likely fail the 1st amendment test and it appears the blanket ban is what Biden is calling for, at least from my reading of the article.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a lot of people are letting "ban" do a lot of heavy lifting of assumption.
Legally, firearms are "banned" from being used to rob people. And if you use a firearm while robbing someone and you get caught, you get an "enhancement" on your sentencing for using a firearm in the commission of a crime.
I would imagine that an AI impersonation "ban" would be implemented in the same way. If you use AI impersonation to commit fraud, you get an extra 5 years on top of whatever you already would have gotten fo
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly.. We should give People a right to their Voice similar to Trademarks and prohibit Anyone else exploiting a Confusingly-similar computer-generated voice simulation To cause confusion about the Identity of the speaker, without a License, as a Civil violation.
And it should become a Felony when the confusingly-similar Simulated voice is used to generate or Induce a business engagement under false pretense, or a false record, Application, Approval/Authorization/Request, etc in the false name
Answering Machine (Score:2)
Make crime illegal! (Score:4, Insightful)
There are already laws criminalizing impersonation. Does AI change any of that apart from the ease of breaking existing laws?
It just feels like tapping into the AI hype while changing nothing.
image useage rights may need better laws SAG-AFTRA (Score:2)
image useage rights may need better laws SAG-AFTRA was able to get parts for UNION jobs.
Re:Make crime illegal! (Score:5, Interesting)
We've already seen Trump mixing with AI-generated black people as a campaign tool. Voice impersonations for false-flag political robo call campaigns will follow.
What is happening here isn't a new crime, it's a new tool making the crime trivially easy and that is making it enough of a risk for people to suddenly care.
So no, no new law required, but maybe a review of enforcement and penalties to ensure the resources to do something about it are available, and the sanctions severe. For EVERYONE. That includes political campaigns where 'an over-enthusiatic low-level volunteer made a mistake in judgement'.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me put your argument another way, with a good helping of reductio ad absurdum:
There are already laws criminalizing murder and willful destruction of property. Does using a nuclear bomb change any of that apart from the ease of mass murder and destruction?
Laws have to keep up with technology, and our laws have always had higher penalties for various "flavors" of infraction.
A little less hyperbolic: there is a criminal law difference in both what is charged, and the penalties applied, for many things. I
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because the means to achieving a end and the intent in the committing of an act are both factors very much taken into account in classifying a criminal act, the severity thereof, and punishments suitable if found guilty of committing them.
Unintended consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Complete banning sounds nice in theory. The idea is to prevent ever-increasing fraud and criminal behavior that prey on people. Or maybe protect voice actors from having their voices ripped off by greedy production companies. I don't actually see how "banning" AI for voice impersonations would actually stop criminals from doing it. But that's never stopped a politician before.
And there are other uses of AI voice impersonation that are good and even desirable. There are numerous health conditions that can rob a person of their voice, often permanently. Having an AI that can generate their voice would be a powerful tool for helping these people retain their identity and ability to interact with friends, family, and others. This was possible before but AI makes it easier. Not allowing this sort of AI use to assist people would be tragic indeed.
Rules! We have rules here! -Sleepers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like banning indoor marijuana grows
.
No. It's more like having laws that allow for sentencing enhancements for using a firearm in the commission of a crime.
Use AI to defraud people? Have an extra 10 years in the crowbar hotel.
Re: (Score:2)
Murder is illegal too and that doesn't stop murder; but it discourages many murders...
Bans never completely stop anything; they discourage some of it by creating consequences after the fact. It's always reactionary unless it's a thought crime; even those punish AFTER you've been caught thinking about doing something.
People are jumping to extremes the laws are never simple and carve out loopholes and exceptions; then the courts carve out some more; including legislating from the bench as SCOTUS is big on doi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so you believe that there would be the same number of murders if there was no legal consequence to committing it?
that's ... quite stupid
Re: (Score:2)
People willing to break the laws do not regard them at. That they exist has no function in curbing that behavior. Keep in mind also that the average person is not a murderer.
Most civilized people aren't just play acting civilized because The Gubmint tells them to. There are some people who believe their individual rights do come before everyone else and they will enforce it at the b
Re: (Score:2)
" Murder is illegal too and that doesn't stop murder "
The number of mass shootings in this country tend to disagree with that statement.
It's akin to expecting a " No Guns " sign on the front of a Bank to deter bank robberies . . . . . .
People who are going to break the laws don't really care about the laws they're breaking.
people should own the rights to their own voice an (Score:5, Interesting)
people should own the rights to their own voice and no EULA are allowed to give that right.
Also you can not give up that right as part an job unless it's very clearly spelled out with an end date / can be voided by ether side at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't own sound.
Ahem. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:people should own the rights to their own voice (Score:4, Interesting)
actors are under union rules. Talking about non union jobs and non acting roles.
or do you want for say mcdonald's to own voice rights for life for all workers so say some one who worked at one for min wage later becomes an big star then MC's says we own the rights and you need to pay us to use your own voice!
Yeah, because... (Score:2, Insightful)
bans work! Sorry, but bad actors and criminals aren't going to care if AI voice impersonations are banned!
Bad actors already using it (Score:3)
NPR [npr.org], NYTimes [nytimes.com], APnews [apnews.com], NBC [nbcnews.com], The Guardian [theguardian.com].
I expect that when the deepfake Trumps start springing up, the other side will get on board.
Re: Bad actors already using it (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's already against the law. Not only is it illegal to impersonate someone, most states have additional laws around election interference that would be triggered. No need to futilely attempt to ban impersonators.
Re: Bad actors already using it (Score:4, Informative)
Likewise with this: ordinary state-level impersonation and/or election interference may be an insufficient statute; i.e., not commensurate with the harm caused, or vague in these circumstances. A federal law regarding this particular behavior may either be more appropriate, or have more substantial penalties, than existing statutes. IANAL, so I don't really know.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to all of the Elvis impersonators out there. There's so many of them in Vegas that the city requires them to have licenses for it.
I don't think so (Score:2)
When deepfake Trumps show up they will have to do a double-take and seriously wonder if it's not just another political suicide that has zero impact and which has already been handled by denying as fake, like they've been doing literally since day one when they were lying about clearly documented crowd sizes. We may not even know about the problem until they make an issue out of it... like Trump bragging about the video of him not realizing it's fake. That is very possible to happen, think about it.
Unnecessary (Score:5, Interesting)
Fraud is already illegal. Impersonating another person is already illegal. Appropriation of another person's likeness is already illegal. Copyright and trademark infringement are already illegal.
Pretty much everything else is covered by the First Amendment and the freedom to contract provided, of course, Congress has the legal authority to ban audio, which they don't.
Re:Unnecessary (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to think that they want to try to legislatively put the genie back in the bottle, and they know that can't happen.
Yes, all of those things are already illegal. So is assault, robbery, etc. However, if you use a firearm while committing those crimes, there is MUCH heavier sentencing under the "enhancement" of using a firearm in the commission of a crime.
Why would this be any different than that long-established legal precedent?
Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Because I have a recording of him saying that he *doesn't* want them banned. ;)
Having solved all other problems... (Score:2)
Sorry, but this is WAY down on the list of priorities in the world today.
Free speech (Score:2)
Why do politicians insist on wasting our money arguing for unconstitutional laws?
Re: (Score:2)
In what conceivable way is faking someone's voice free speech, and not fraud, punishable by law?
everything (Score:2)
Everything not compulsory must be prohibited.
Followed by a ban on M&Ms (Score:2)
In case you have not noticed.... (Score:2)
Most politicians are would-be totalitarian dictators who mask every new power grab as a promise to make you "safer".
The United States Constitution is very short, very explicit, and says that any power not listed within it as belonging to the federal government is left to the states and to the citizens. To further clarify this idea, the founders tacked-on a "Bill of Rights" listing ten specific things the government was really REALLY not allowed to mess with.
Nevertheless, you will find politicians in BOTH pa
drugs (Score:2)
Correct response is for us own our likenesses (Score:2)
I want to impersonate a dalek (Score:2)
No more AI US Presidents? (Score:2)
Bummer. These really are entertaining in a strange way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He's frequently the brunt of these, so yeah of course his feelers were hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he gives a single shit about some troll faking his voice for parody after being in politics for decades, but projection is hardly new for the anti-Biden set, is it?
He very likely cares much more about the actual faking of his voice in order to suppress voter turnout in New Hampshire [nh.gov], and my guess is that is where the legislation would go - using AI voice replication in the commission of fraud would be what they would go after first - election interference, wire fraud, etc.
Or yeah, he might be a pett
Re: (Score:2)
In general though the most troubling aspect of 2020+ politics is you seemingly cannot have a conversation where Trump OR Biden is referenced without the other side bringing up "well one time your guy did this, so there. I win, and I'm very, very clever".
Of course, Biden was first elected to the Senate when he was 29, so there's been a lot of time (52 years) to accumulate bad/crazy shit on him. Trump's only been doing this for about 9 and there's (probably) an equal, if not higher, amount of bad/crazy shit. He even hit the ground running in his speech at the bottom of that escalator in 2015.
Re: (Score:2)
False equivalence.
Biden took the documents by accident, found them himself, confessed, and co-operated with the government to return them.
Trump, on the other hand, took the documents on purpose, denied he had them, was subpoenaed and then searched to retrieve them, and then claimed he had the right to keep them. Which he doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
that was my immediate conclusion.
Re: even as labeled parody (Score:2)
Probably the same shit they shot Trump up with.
You could see EXACTLY the same disparity with him while he was in office.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. https://www.latimes.com/opinio... [latimes.com]
But oh, no, TFG can't be demented, he says all the misogynistic, racist things you want to hear, because you're a loser.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: even as labeled parody (Score:4, Interesting)
If trump has rapid onset dementia it will be a very interesting campaign and no matter what happens he won't be able to hold office.
Perhaps, but look at what they did to Diane Feinstein. They were so intent on holding on to that seat they basically pulled a "Weekend at Bernie's" with her for several years, deflecting the very valid concerns about her failing mental and physical health as "misogyny". I can imagine them doing much the same with Trump by deflecting any valid concerns about his failing mental and physical health as "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
The guy has been having troubles stringing coherent sentences together for years and his base eats it up, so adding dementia into the mix won't really change things that much as long as he can be adequately controlled by his handlers and somewhat stay on script.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what they were hoping for last time, but I think he's more determined this time after that experience.
Re: (Score:2)
You're likely to remember due to the age of your account, but many others in here will not recall that George Bush Jr. was a horrific speaker as well.
The ability to speak to a crowd has never been very meaningful when it comes to US Presidents. :P
Re: (Score:2)
You're likely to remember due to the age of your account, but many others in here will not recall that George Bush Jr. was a horrific speaker as well.
Yes, but not because of dementia. Perhaps he was verbally dyslexic though.
The ability to speak to a crowd has never been very meaningful when it comes to US Presidents. :P
Indeed. Many world leaders have had trouble speaking. Biden overcame a stutter. George VI struggled with one. Many other famous people as well. [wikipedia.org]
Having trouble getting the words out is not disqualifying when one chooses a leader. But a cognitive issue should give one pause.
Re: (Score:3)
THAT is a possibility.
That makes whomever Trump selects as his Vice President VERY important.
I think with either candidate, the VP will have a very high chance of becoming president.
And I would not want Kamala....
I mean, Biden and Trump both make speech mistakes and flubs
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The "whataboutism" when it comes to trump vs biden is just staggering. Okay trump says some wild and zany shit, no argument. But at least HE IS COGENT. Christ alive, see the footage of Biden being steered by a secret service agent dressed up as the easter bunny last year when he went out of pocket and actually started to answer some random presser's question. Any other context and you'd wonder if a patient escaped from the dementia ward.
The man is simply not there. It's like watching a real life version
Re: even as labeled parody (Score:5, Insightful)
"trump says some wild and zany shit, no argument. But at least HE IS COGENT. Christ alive, see the footage of Biden being steered by a secret service agent"
You're ignoring the footage of Trump speeches where he suddenly loses the thread and grunts out five or six non-words in the middle of a sentence. This has happened several times in each of his last few appearances. Then you want to attack others for pretending things aren't happen. We call that hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
" I'm sorry I've offended the Biden-internet defense task force -- my sincerest apologies. "
Had you said such blasphemy over on Reddit, they would have carpet bombed your Karma back to the Stone Age :P
and banned your account from posting in their sub-reddit.
Re: even as labeled parody (Score:2)
Biden is a piece of shit.
Your turn, simp.
Re: (Score:2)
Well alright, but I think the disagreement here is that when you spend virtually your entire adult life in front of cameras OF COURSE you'll have some gaffes, or make mistakes -- Biden and Trump both do this, and that's fine -- plenty of fodder for the late night comedians.
But, what it sounded like you were doing was equating Trump's gaffes on camera to Biden wandering around aimlessly, or trying to shake hands with invisible people, reading cue cards verbatim. Memery and shit talking aside, if you've bee
Re: even as labeled parody (Score:2)
I have spent time around people with dementia. Trump fits the bill at least as well as Biden. Neither one should be allowed to be on any ballot anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh my condolences, I didn't realize it was contagious. .. options, and their current state of decline. Cheers!)
(Kidding, just kidding. We can however respectfully disagree on the relative mental faculties of these two
Re: (Score:3)
trump definitely has many signs of dementia now. That is different than Biden who shows sign of aging. If trump has rapid onset dementia it will be a very interesting campaign and no matter what happens he won't be able to hold office.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure his base will notice or even care ...
Re: (Score:2)
trump definitely has many signs of dementia now. That is different than Biden who shows sign of aging. If trump has rapid onset dementia it will be a very interesting campaign and no matter what happens he won't be able to hold office.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure his base will notice or even care ...
Well I'm sure they won't. Goodness knows there's a shit-ton of other things they're ignoring.
Re: even as labeled parody (Score:4, Insightful)
No, this is Trump Derangement Syndrome-Syndrome where any and all valid criticisms are just written off as "TDS" so everything is functionally useless and the term means nothing anymore.
Just approach each argument on it's own and there are valid issues with each mans capacities. To call those of Trump just "TDS" is an unbelievably massive "fingers in ears" cope.
Re: (Score:2)
People who prefer Trump seem to see speaking loudly and confidently as an indication of strength, and making concessions or corrections as signs of weakness.
People who prefer Biden seem to see speaking with calm and dignity as an indication of strength, and making factual errors or losing your temper as a sign of weakness.
Re: (Score:2)
People who prefer Trump seem to see speaking loudly and confidently as an indication of strength, and making concessions or corrections as signs of weakness.
People who prefer Biden seem to see speaking with calm and dignity as an indication of strength, and making factual errors or losing your temper as a sign of weakness.
The "speak softly, but carry a big stick" tactic. I can see that. :-)
I mean were you more scared of your mom when she yelled or spoke sternly but slowly and very softly.
Re:even as labeled parody (Score:5, Insightful)
oh goodie, more "but but but he's OLD!!!!!" bullshit.
If that's all you have against him, you have fucking nothing. Trump could have gone to the same high school at the same god damn time as Biden, and is looking far worse from a mental perspective even before you start in on the rambling incoherent paranoid rants, possible treason, and the Supreme Court confirming him as an "oathbreaking insurrectionist" through omission of speaking to that finding from a lower court.
They are both fucking old.
But only one is running on a campaign of grievance and attempting to impossibly return to a past that never really existed to begin with, all the while removing rights from citizens.
Re:even as labeled parody (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find funny is that Trump's supporters called Biden too old four years ago. And now Trump is older than Biden was then.
Re: (Score:2)
We really should implement maximum age limits for both Congress and the Presidency.
The latter has a minimum age requirement of 35, while Senators are 30 and Representatives are 25.
If we can institute minimum age requirements without running afoul of discrimination laws, so too can we enact maximum age restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a finding of fact in the Colorado trial court that initially heard this case, that he met the definition of participating in insurrection, but bizarrely claimed that President of the United States is not an officer of the United States so he couldn't be disqualified under 14A3. This finding of fact was affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court when they overturned the trial judge's ruling on the "office" question, and that he should be removed from the ballot under 14A3. The dissent said NOTHING ab
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court didn't even allow the question of insurrection to be discussed in oral arguments or briefings, opting only to hear if the State of Colorado has the ability to
That is interesting... Since that is an Established legal finding that Trump committed insurrection against the United States, Then he Legally cannot be Elected to the office Because the US Constitution forbids it. It is indeed a strange ruling that a state cannot follow and Uphold federal law. As well, the Congress lacks
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Supreme Court did some rather interesting legal yoga to ensure Trump could remain on the ballot and that it would be difficult to remove him, even by Congress itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the next logical step would be for state regulators and others to file suit against Trump directly,
Since he seems to be raising funds while stating the purpose is a candidacy to become president; that is he is raising funds in pursuit of a candidacy which is for the Unlawful objective to hold an office while forbidden to do so.
In any event, a court judge has the power to sign Injunctions restraining a person from taking further actions that prevent harm and further an illegal act. And this would
Re: (Score:2)
And similar yoga was used to claim that he participated in insurrection. What's your point? That politicians try to abuse the law and even lie to beat their opponents when they can't win legitimately?
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court had enough foresight to understand that if they allowed the States the authority to remove Federal Election Candidates from the Ballot, that other States could and would do the same turning the entire election process into a bigger Circus than it already is.
Can you imagine the lunacy if all the Red States removed the Blue Candidate and vice versa ?
What would be the point of even having an election. . . . .
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court had enough foresight to understand that if they allowed the States the authority to remove Federal Election Candidates from the Ballot, that other States could and would do the same turning the entire election process into a bigger Circus than it already is
They would first have to prove that the candidates they wanted to remove from the ballots were guilty of insurrection.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they have or create a law that allows them to remove a candidate for other reasons, or have other reasons to remove a candidate. For example: engaging in corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump? Yep, I've seen him in a few speeches get people and places mixed up. I just don't see it to the extent we generally see with Joe.
Things like this [twitter.com] are making the rounds (Google: trump slurring [google.com]):
March 3, 2024: Montage of 32 clips from Trump’s two speeches yesterday where he mispronounced words, got confused, mixed up names, forgot names, and babbled insane nonsense.
Continuing ...
Supreme Court confirming him as an "oathbreaking insurrectionist"
I missed that one.
When was Trump charged with insurrection much less convicted again?
He was convicted by a district judge as a "matter of fact" in a Colorado trial, which Trump had ample opportunity to participate in and offer a defense. This finding of fact was included in the appeal to SCOTUS, but they declined to address it in their ruling, which means it stands as a matter of fact/law.
Re: (Score:3)
then on singular important times. *BAM* he's revved up, and acting like a different person, like a MUCH younger version of himself
How do we know they don't have a paid actor for public appearances?
I'm not aware of anything you could feed or inject an older person with to make them sound like a younger version of themself. Or even cause significant changes without major damage.. -- if there was an energy drink or medicine that could actually do that; the product would be quite popular.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if they do release it to the public, sign ME up and PLEASE TAKE MY MONEY!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Biden acted like an angry old man, like from the old Thorazine ads:
https://live.staticflickr.com/... [staticflickr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you're getting at, and do not disagree; but that would likely be illegal under federal age discrimination law.
It would require a Constitutional amendment in order to place another disqualification clause in place. And every one of the Congress Critters that vote in favor would need to not have aspirations to be President some day; extremely unlikely considering the average age of a United States Senator is 64 years old. [fiscalnote.com]
TL;DR: never going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Primary voters had their chance to do that, and they didn't.
Re:It's not the age, it's the mileage (Score:5, Informative)
For all the bad things you can say about Trump, he's still active, personable, and can carry on a conversation with people. Biden, not so much.
In what universe are you living? President Biden rides his bike and does other exercises to stay fit and healthy. The con artist sits his fat ass in a golf cart and regularly eats junk food. Presient Biden smiles and talks to essentially everyone he meets. The con artist glowers like a three year old who shit his pants and demeans anyone who disagrees with him. President Biden has coherent conversations with the usual slip ups we all have. The con artist's coherency brings into question his mental stability. Here are just a few of his "conversations":
Two years ago [snopes.com], this is what he had to say when asked what he would do to help Ukraine in its fight against Russia:
Well what I would do, is I would, we would, we have tremendous military capability and what we can do without planes, to be honest with you, without 44-year-old jets, what we can do is enormous, and we should be doing it and we should be helping them to survive and they're doing an amazing job.
This is what the con artist had to say [businessinsider.com] about himself [truthsocial.com]:
"And on June 14, 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, 'I need a caretaker.' So God gave us Trump,
This is what he said about magnets [imgur.com]:
"They had a $900 million cost over on these stupid electric catapults that didn't work. They had almost a billion dollar cost over on the magnetic elevators," he said. "Think of it, magnets. Now all I know about magnets is this: Give me a glass of water, let me drop it on the magnets, that's the end of the magnets."
Completely and totally coherent.
And this is what he had to say about windmills [metro.co.uk]:
"I never understood wind, you know I know windmills very much. I've studied it better than anybody." They’re made in China and Germany, mostly. They’re manufactured, tremendous fumes, gases, are spewing into the atmosphere.
Trump continued: ‘We have a world. the world is tiny compared to the universe, so tremendous amount of fumes and everything.
‘You talk about the carbon footprint.
‘Fumes are spewing into the air. spewing. Whether its China or Germany fumes are going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything.’
The words speak for themselves.
While we're at it, here's a doozy [twitter.com] from 2016:
“Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ag
Re: (Score:2)
Person, woman, man, camera, TV.
The best example of how unstable he is.
Re: (Score:2)
In what universe are you living? President Biden rides his bike and does other exercises to stay fit and healthy. The con artist sits his fat ass in a golf cart and regularly eats junk food.
You forgot "and whines about things being unfair" and "blames everyone else rather than himself for his problems" for the latter.
But, to be fair, excepting the golf bit, which of those two universes do you think most of his base lives in?
Re: (Score:2)
If you make an arbitrary cutoff point, then you're depriving yourself of perfectly capable candidates in the future.
Perhaps. I agree it's possible. However, I think the value of the rule would be worth the potential miss you're bringing up here.
If you really want a ban of over 75, then let the rule take effect 12 years from now. Then you won't be called out for partisanship against one candidate.
Well, if that had a better chance of becoming reality, I'd take it. However, I'm not partisan now, either. I'm saying scrap both of them, not just Biden or Trump. However, perhaps those who think one candidate has a better chance will feel l'm being political. I assure you I'm not.
I'd be open to banning anyone that can't pass a cognitive ability test, but there's no way - absolutely no way - that this could be administered fairly.
I agree with you. However, I'd cite this difficulty as further reason to have an arbitrary age to sim
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want a ban of over 75, then let the rule take effect 12 years from now.
So we would have to endure 12 years (a.k.a. 3 presidential election cycles) of damage before doing anything about it?
Fantastic solution.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the age
No it's the age. We've got a starting of 35, we can have a cutoff at 75, and even then I would say that's too far out.
If you make an arbitrary cutoff point, then you're depriving yourself of perfectly capable candidates in the future
Yeah we do that on the front end as well. 35 is quite literally an arbitrary number that the people founding this country felt was needed. That's quite literally how this works, we draw arbitrary lines and if they don't work we redraw them. That's why when it comes to the law nothing is set in stone. You can literally hear the people who created this country echo that in pretty much eve
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points right now because your last paragraph is 100% spot on.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How many times are you going to post this same horseshit?
Once was more than enough. Take your Fox Noise talking point, and shove it up your ass until you can taste it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it something pharmaceutical ?
Probably leftover drugs, including large amounts of fentanyl [newsweek.com], from the con artist regime when everything was handed out like candy [rollingstone.com] without any oversight and money stolen [reuters.com].
Re: (Score:2)