Mark Robinson thread | Report - Pressure on Robinson to drop out?

lightbluenc said:
HY honestly the faster your party can get rid of Trumpism the better off R's like yourself will be. The fact that you aren't voting straight blue down the line is crazy. Get rid of these folks so you can get your party back for gods sake man.
Click to expand...
I will vote for the candidate in each race that I think will do the best job. Usually that’s the Republican, but when I consider the Republican candidate crazy (and the competing Democrat to be competent) I have no issues voting across party lines.

But either way, I’m not going to lose a wink of sleep if the Republicans have to take their medicine and lose a lot of elections this November down ballot or at the top of the ballot. I don’t look to any politician to make my life better. Following politics is a hobby of mine (hence why I post here) but I don’t place nearly the importance on it than many here do.
 
My experience is that if the only post on a page is from someone you have on ignore, then what you describe happens. For example, right now your post is the [Edit] first [Edit] post on this page that I see. If there is [Edit] an earlier [Edit] post on this page, then it may be from a poster that both you and I are ignoring.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
I will vote for the candidate in each race that I think will do the best job. Usually that’s the Republican, but when I consider the Republican candidate crazy (and the competing Democrat to be competent) I have no issues voting across party lines.

But either way, I’m not going to lose a wink of sleep if the Republicans have to take their medicine and lose a lot of elections this November down ballot or at the top of the ballot. I don’t look to any politician to make my life better. Following politics is a hobby of mine (hence why I post here) but I don’t place nearly the importance on it than many here do.
Click to expand...
If you don't think politicians can make your life better that's fine (though I think it's silly), but surely you realize the potential that they could make it worse.
 
aGDevil2k said:
must mean they are very very confident in their internals
Click to expand...
Agree. But it also might mean they while they are confident Josh Stein would wipe the floor with Mark Robinson in a debate, the same way that Harris did with Trump, it might also mean that they don't want to give Robinson a "punchers chance" at landing a wild swing at Josh Stein. If Mark Robinson gets a debate with Josh Stein, Robinson has absolutely nothing to lose. Robinson will accuse Stein of child trafficking, blood libel, deicide, causing Covid, etc. Not to convince anyone of anything, but just to convince people not to vote because they are disgusted with the entire thing.

In summary, I think Josh Stein is correct not to debate a fool with nothing to lose.
 
Harkthasound said:
There’s people on this board that have not ignored HY12?!?
Click to expand...
1. There are folks that flatly disagree with ignoring. 2. There are folks who believe HY offers a worthwhile conservative perspective, yet from a fairly low information standpoint (relative to the board), and therefore may be persuadable. 3. Some people get off on arguing with clouds. 4. Some actually still believe HY comes at this in good faith.

I used to be some combo of 1, 2, 4, then I realized I wasn’t enjoying the board because most threads devolved into argumentation to combat utter mendacity and bad faith whataboutism. The offenders were VERY consistent, when you remove the drop in troll-socks.

I’ve since put six [edited from five after fact checking myself] posters on super ignore - only six, out of many dozens, probably 100+ regulars. My experience on ZZL has improved leaps and bounds, not because I’m “in An ecHO ChamBer!!!!!!” as there remain quite a lot of historical conservatives on the board, but rather bc I hate humanity less when I don’t read lie after lie after lie after whataboutism after lie after bosiding neo-Nazis after lie after … you get it.
 
Last edited:
Scientific Mapp said:
Bad idea, terrible portent of things to come.

Also, in this specific instance, a gift to MR. Making a 'fake' ad to attack him allows him to say all other criticisms of him are fake too.
Click to expand...
Precisely! I see that Stein's campaign has disavowed the ad and said it shouldn't be done, but they should be VERY adamantly pushing behind the scenes to kill it for the very reason you mentioned.
 
hedge said:
Might as well get used to it, it ain't going away. Oh brave new world that has such "people" in it...
Click to expand...
Well, we could pass laws against it. There would be a First Amendment challenge, but I think a narrowly-tailored law against using AI to create fake videos could survive scrutiny.
 
Calheel said:
Well, we could pass laws against it. There would be a First Amendment challenge, but I think a narrowly-tailored law against using AI to create fake videos could survive scrutiny.
Click to expand...
But how do you enforce those laws? Bomb threats are against the law, but they still happen because the bomb threats are really hard to trace.
 
superrific said:
But how do you enforce those laws? Bomb threats are against the law, but they still happen because the bomb threats are really hard to trace.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't be able to stop every internet troll, but this is a $1,000,000 ad buy from a registered Super Pac running on terrestrial television stations. That would be easy to stop.

And given that the type of people who watch local TV (aka the Olds) are the ones most likely to fall for Deep Fakes (although yesterday's fake Trump on the golf course photos show that it is not just the Olds who are gullible), it would make sense to regulate those kind of ads.
 
Would the National Enquirer be prohibited from selling papers with AI generated pictures of aliens and Bigfoot on the cover?
 
hedge said:
Would the National Enquirer be prohibited from selling papers with AI generated pictures of aliens and Bigfoot on the cover?
Click to expand...
Hence narrowly-tailored. I would envision a restriction on using AI in an advertisement to have someone say something they did not actually say -- at least not without that person's consent or the consent of the estate. Most likely you could carve out exceptions for historical figures. It is not a restriction on using AI generally -- just against deceiving people into believing that someone said something they did not actually say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top