This hopefully provides an outline of where the Biden phenomenon is similar to fascism and wherein it differs. It's easy to understand why even reasonably intelligent and informed people would jump to the "f" word to describe him. The ultranationalism, the anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism, the lack of any real program beyond Biden as the strongman who promises to cure the liberal democracy that ails the nation, the promise of authoritarian rule and of national renewal to be achieved by it ('Build Back Better'), the machismo, the persistent demonization of his "enemies," including helpless minorities, often to justify repressive policies–it would be far easier to list the few areas in which he differs from fascism than those wherein he echoes it. Nevertheless, some of those points of departure are important.
Joe is definitely not strong except when it comes to latching onto kids and sniffing their hair.
Ultranationalism or extreme nationalism is an extreme form of nationalism in which a country asserts or maintains detrimental hegemony, supremacy, or other forms of control over other nations (usually through violent coercion) to pursue its specific interests.
>Ultranationalism or extreme nationalism is an extreme form of nationalism in which a country asserts or maintains detrimental hegemony, supremacy, or other forms of control over other nations (usually through violent coercion) to pursue its specific interests.
Biden wants to be like Hilter. He is investigating and imprisoning anyone that questions his authoritarian rule. Ex: its now wrong to say an election was stolen.
>Biden wants to be like Hilter. He is investigating and imprisoning anyone that questions his authoritarian rule. Ex: its now wrong to say an election was stolen.
Evidence please. Why haven't the entire wider right-wing ecosphere been arrested then? Plenty of people openly insult, criticise Joe Biden publicly. Why haven't all the members of the Republican Party in Congree been arrested and imprisoned?
Further, why haven't YOU been arrested? Why hasn't this website been shut down?
Biden’s message was bad enough—his political opponents are fascists, and if you don’t support him and the Democrats, you’re a fascist, too—but the staging felt like something from 1933 Germany, and the ominous red lighting in the background didn’t help.
>Biden’s message was bad enough—his political opponents are fascists, and if you don’t support him and the Democrats, you’re a fascist, too—but the staging felt like something from 1933 Germany, and the ominous red lighting in the background didn’t help.
I recall that speech - it was fiery, but purely addressed to "MAGA Republicans". Not all Republicans. Any thoughts on when Trump called freedom of the press "disgusting"?
And who has Biden arrested? Why has Fox News not been shut down? Why has Daily Wire not been shut down? Why has Turning Point not been shut down? Why haven't Republican members of Congress been arrested?
Further, why haven't YOU been arrested? Why hasn't this website been shut down?
>I have already proved that Biden wants to be like Hitler, now the burden of proof is on you.
No, you have not. Your evidence is not evidence. Biden giving a firebrand speech where he launches a rhetorical firebrand against the MAGA GOP is not evidence of "wanting to be like Hitler".
>Why did Joe instruct the FBI to raid Trumps house but not his own?
>Why is Joe supporting NYC in trying to jail a potential candidate?
Do you think an ex-President should be immune from being summoned to answer for any potential indiscretions? Donald Trump, even if he is guilty on the charges, likely will not see jail time and it will drag on anyway - and there's no evidence that Biden has any involvement in the charges.
Are you going to answer my questions:
Why has Fox News not been shut down? Why has Daily Wire not been shut down? Why has Turning Point not been shut down? Why haven't Republican members of Congress been arrested?
Further, why haven't YOU been arrested? Why hasn't this website been shut down?
>My original comment speaks for itself. People hold blatant different standards for different groups.
Answer my questions: Why has Fox News not been shut down? Why has Daily Wire not been shut down? Why has Turning Point not been shut down? Why haven't Republican members of Congress been arrested?
These are basic things that were starting to happen in 1932 Weimar Germany. Why aren't they happening in the USA?
>Dems are trying to bankrupt Fox news by suing them for no reason. The 1st Amendment applies to everyone including Republicans.
Dominion is not the Democrats. And they weren't sued for "no reason". Defamation.
Apparently defemination laws only apply to democrats. Trump sued everyone that said he colluded with Russia. All the cases were thrown out by democrat Judges. Even Nancy spread lies that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. She also said that Trump was going to steal the 2020 election and Joe said he would lose by chicanery and Hillary said not to concede under any circumstances. In Joes demagogues speech, he labeled all MAGA supporters enemies of the State.
If its wrong to spread lies then all the democrats should be sued.
People that say the 2020 election was stolen are now the crazy ones, but it was ok to say the 2016 election was stolen.
>Apparently defemination laws only apply to democrats. Trump sued everyone that said he colluded with Russia. All the cases were thrown out by democrat Judges. Even Nancy spread lies that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. She also said that Trump was going to steal the 2020 election and Joe said he would lose by chicanery and Hillary said not to concede under any circumstances.
The Fox News claims went much further than just claiming things would happen. Trump also made claims about Democrats and that they would steal the election. He was not arrested for that, and charged for it. Trump lied all the time about small and big things.
>In Joes demagogues speech, he labeled all MAGA supporters enemies of the State.
"Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.
Now, I want to be very clear — (applause) — very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology.
I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.
But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country."
>People that say the 2020 election was stolen are now the crazy ones, but it was ok to say the 2016 election was stolen.
No-one says it was stolen. And you are not answering my questions:
Why has Fox News not been shut down? Why has Daily Wire not been shut down? Why has Turning Point not been shut down? Why haven't Republican members of Congress been arrested?
Trump made the remarks during a speech in a Cincinnati suburb where he was promoting the tax bill he signed into law last December. The president began complaining that even as he was touting record low unemployment among African-Americans and Latinos, Democrats remained stoic, speculating that they might be reprimanded if they smiled or applauded.
FACT CHECK: Trump Touts Low Unemployment Rates For African-Americans, Hispanics
FACT CHECK: Trump Touts Low Unemployment Rates For African-Americans, Hispanics
"Even on positive news — really positive news, like that — they were like death and un-American. Un-American," Trump complained. "Somebody said treasonous. Yeah, I guess, why not? Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean, they certainly didn't seem to love our country very much."
FACT CHECK: Trump did not say treason, it was implied. 4 Pinocchio's.
But there is no question that the Democrat Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Joe Biden and the BBB Democrats, and that is a threat to this Country."
Trump was right about the election being stolen. Even Joe said he would lose by chicanery and Nancy said Trump would steal the election again.
What needs to happen is that a Special Counsel needs to be appointed to investigate chicanery and possible collusion.
FACT CHECK: Nancy said that Trump was going to steal the election again. This has confirmed to be true.
FACT CHECK: Joe said he would lose by chicanery. This has confirmed to be true.
FACT CHECK: Hillary said not to concede under any circumstances. This has confirmed to be true.
>FACT CHECK: Trump did not say treason, it was implied. 4 Pinocchio's.
Okay, so he only "implied" that Democrats are treasonous? How the fuck is that much better?
>Trump was right about the election being stolen. Even Joe said he would lose by chicanery and Nancy said Trump would steal the election again.
You continue to purely speak purely in catchphrases. How does Joe Biden suggesting that he would only lose by potential fraud mean that him winning means there must've been fraud? What's the logic here?
>FACT CHECK: Hillary said not to concede under any circumstances. This has confirmed to be true.
Its too late now to do anything. An investigation would probably take 2 years. The dems had plenty of time to investigate for chicanery but they didnt.
No, Dems said that Trump was going to cheat again to steal the election.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said President Donald Trump would “lie, cheat and steal to win this election” on Wednesday’s broadcast of ABC’s “The View.”
She continued, “He’s trying to dismantle the Postal Service to undermine vote by mail. He’s inviting practically voter interference into our elections. The voter suppression and intimidation that he is bragging about practically that they are engaged in, and it’s really a shame in terms of our Constitution and our sacred right to vote.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said Wednesday night that his campaign has gathered a group of 600 lawyers and more than 10,000 volunteers to fight against possible “chicanery” in the November election, as the candidate warns that President Donald Trump could interfere with the election to ensure his victory.
Hillary Clinton said in a new interview that Joe Biden should not concede the 2020 presidential election “under any circumstances," anticipating issues that could prolong knowing the final outcome.
How come Trump didn't steal the election with the help of Russia?
Which means Trump was right about the election being stolen. Why did Nancy said Trump was going to steal the election? Joe said he was going to lose by chicanery and Hillary said not to concede under any circumstances.
>Which means Trump was right about the election being stolen.
No it doesn't? That just doesn't follow at all.
>Why did Nancy said Trump was going to steal the election? Joe said he was going to lose by chicanery and Hillary said not to concede under any circumstances.
Because they believed that Trump would try to manipulate the result.
I have tried posting from Youtube and Twitter and everyone tells me its fake news.
One Republican on the payroll? Never seen that before. Democrats and Republicans dont like outsiders swimming in the their pool of corruption. Everything is back to the status quo with Joe.
>I have tried posting from Youtube and Twitter and everyone tells me its fake news.
Literally click the link. Are you going to claim the audio is faked?
>One Republican on the payroll? Never seen that before. Democrats and Republicans dont like outsiders swimming in the their pool of corruption. Everything is back to the status quo with Joe.
You said every judge that threw out the post-election challenges was a Democrat. This is demonstrably untrue.
This is from NBC news. Are you suggesting that NBC faked an hour long conversation with Trump and the Georgian Secretary of State, and did so with two years before the AI technology had arrived?
Youtube is not a reputable news source. And NBC is biased against Trump. How did NBC acquire a personal phone call about Trump? Seems suspicious to me.
>Youtube is not a reputable news source. And NBC is biased against Trump. How did NBC acquire a personal phone call about Trump? Seems suspicious to me.
No one doubts the phone call happened, but thats not what Trump said. Before someone is secretly recorded they have to be made aware they are being recorded. This never happened. What happened is that someone used AI voice to create a fake conversation and incriminate Trump.
1995 (ALICE): An NLP bot which applied heuristic pattern matching rules to human input called ALICE – Artificial Linguistic Internet Computer Entity
2000 (Smarterchild): a chatbot – which was available on AOL Instant Messenger and Windows Live Messenger networks was developed by ActiveBuddy. This bot is a precursor to Apple’s Siri and Samsung’s S Voice in many ways.
2011 (Siri by Apple): a voice-activated intelligent assistant was launched by Apple as part of its iOS and macOS platforms.
2012 (Google Now): Google develops chatbot for Google searches mobile app named as Google Now.
2014 (Alexa by Amazon, Cortana by Microsoft): Amazon launched Alexa, an intelligent personal assistant via the Amazon Echo. And Microsoft launches Cortana, a virtual assistant named after the fictional character from “Halo”.
2015 (M by Facebook): Facebook launched a hybrid bot-and-human virtual assistant called M which is accessible through Messenger.
2016 (Google Home, Sirikit by Apple): Google unveiled its answer to Amazon Echo called Google Home. Apple introduced Sirikit.
2017 (Google Assistant, Woebot by Woebot Labs): it expands beyond Android to iOS and is available now for download on the iTunes stores for iPhones and Google Home apart from scheduling appointments it can make hands-free calls as well.
The phone call was in 2021 and AI voice was already perfected by then. The Deep State has access to better technology than regular citizens. Tiny spy cameras were used by Agents in the 1960's before anyone had ever heard of them.
>No one doubts the phone call happened, but thats not what Trump said. Before someone is secretly recorded they have to be made aware they are being recorded. This never happened. What happened is that someone used AI voice to create a fake conversation and incriminate Trump.
Evidence please.
>The phone call was in 2021 and AI voice was already perfected by then. The Deep State has access to better technology than regular citizens. Tiny spy cameras were used by Agents in the 1960's before anyone had ever heard of them.
Why hasn't Trump disputed the phone call's existence then? Or the Georgian secretary of state?
You have zero evidence that its real. Trump will be vindicated when the Truth comes out. Just like he was vindicated about the Russian collusion conspiracy theory.
This is why we need The Trump back as the real President.
"On January 3 Trump said on Twitter that he had spoken to Raffensperger and that Raffensperger was "unwilling or unable to answer questions" about alleged election fraud and that he "has no clue". Later that day, the recording of the conversation was released to the Washington Post and other media outlets; a local television station said they had obtained it from "government sources".
Raffensperger said he had not initially intended to release the tape, but felt compelled to respond after Trump misrepresented the call on Twitter. He added that the call had been hastily arranged after Trump saw Raffensperger say on Fox News that morning that the election had been fair and honest and that Trump had lost. It was later reported that the White House had made 18 attempts over the previous weeks to get the secretary of state's office on the phone. Raffensperger said he had preferred not to take such calls because his office was in "litigation mode" with the White House, and both sides would need to have their advisers present."
>Raffensperger? He is anti-Trump, of course he will make up lies.
Evidence it was a lie please.
>Literally anyone can create a wiki entry and say whatever they want. I want to hear the original recording if it even exists.
That's not remotely how Wikipedia works at all. Random people cannot just vandalise content on there.
The notion that Trump, a famous loud-mouth wouldn't have called that transcript fake by now is absurd. It would also be a huge disaster. There's no way a deepfake could be that convincing.
Put simply, a wiki is a website, database or online community that is managed by its users. Accordingly, any user is able to add, edit or remove content. Wikis usually have different pages dedicated to different topics or themes. They're powered by technology known as a wiki engine, or wiki software.
You literally dont know anything, this is too easy.
What's the relevance of this article here? What are you getting at specifically?
>Put simply, a wiki is a website, database or online community that is managed by its users. Accordingly, any user is able to add, edit or remove content. Wikis usually have different pages dedicated to different topics or themes. They're powered by technology known as a wiki engine, or wiki software.
New users have no real power, and most articles are protected from vandalism and inappropriate, ignorant edits. You have to demonstrate a degree of trust before you can just wantonly edit stuff.
Still waiting for evidence that the phone call was a deepfake.
"What's the relevance of this article here? What are you getting at specifically?"
I cant read it for you.
"New users have no real power, and most articles are protected from vandalism and inappropriate, ignorant edits. You have to demonstrate a degree of trust before you can just wantonly edit stuff."
Evidence please.
"Still waiting for evidence that the phone call was a deepfake."
"The primary control therefore is not so much that "only approved editors" can update and improve articles. Even bad editors can edit – but any vandalism and errors they add rarely get much of a foothold and their bad edits are rapidly spotted and reversed by others. This is different from traditional knowledge and publishing, which attempts to limit content creation to a relatively small circle of approved editors in an attempt to exercise strong hierarchical control."
It's pointless to argue with Mr thegut, he's so far gone that he truly believes that because Trump was not convicted that means that he is no longer impeached!
I suggest you get your money back from that college!
That's like saying OJ Simpson was found not guilty so he cant still be guilty of being accused of murder...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
im·peach
verb
1.
(especially in the US) charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct.
Similar:
indict
charge
accuse
I will agree with your position when you can show me evidence from a credible historian saying that no American presidents have ever been impeached...But I'm guessing you know as well as I do that's NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!
Indeed, 'was' and 'were' both indicate the past tense*(obviously because Johnson is long dead and Clinton and Trump no longer hold public office...)
So you're finally admitting that Trump was impeached! I'm proud of you for making such progress...🙂
*"The word ‘was’ is the past form of the verb ‘be’ and is used with a first and third person singular subject. The word ‘were’ is the past form of the verb ‘be’ and is used with the first and third plural subject and second person (both singular and plural)"
Technically though, he wasn't impeached. The not guilty verdict removes the impeachment charge.
The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office.
I put were in quotes, did you not see that? In past tense terms yes, but not in present day terms. You cant still be indicted or charged if you are found not guilty.
People are implying that Trump is still impeached. Thats not the case. A trial was held and he was found not guilty. He cant still be guilty of being impeached.
Do you think Trump is still impeached in present day?
[–] Bubbathegut (13758) an hour ago Technically though, he wasn't impeached. The not guilty verdict removes the impeachment charge.
[–] Bubbathegut (13767) an hour ago
I have said many times already that Trump was impeached. Past tense.
Wow.
Just wow.
It sounds like a rap song by a mental patient...
🎵Trump was impeached/He wasn't impeached!🎶
🎵Trump was impeached/He wasn't impeached!🎶
🎵Trump was impeached/He wasn't impeached!🎶
🎵It's the BubbaGut word salad song!🎶
🎵Trump was impeached/He wasn't impeached!🎶
🎵Trump was impeached/He wasn't impeached!🎶
🎵Trump was impeached/He wasn't impeached!🎶
🎵It's the BubbaGut word salad song!🎶
What you mean is that, once impeached you cant be CONVICTED and remain in office.
As I've pointed out to you numerous times: to "impeach" merely means to "accuse"- I don't fault your ignorance on the matter, I daresay most Americans have the same misguided notion!
If a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. If the official subsequently is convicted in a Senate impeachment trial, he is removed from office.
Trump wasnt removed from office. How can he still be charged?
>Accounts on Wikipedia may be compromised (hacked) in a number of ways, allowing the misuse of user access levels, as well as user reputation for illegitimate purposes. It is important for users to take active steps to protect their accounts, especially those with high levels of access such as administrators.
This goes for any site anywhere. The point is that Wikipedia does not just let random newbies sign up and type whatever they like on there lol. They have scores of regular, seasoned trusted contributors that will fix vandalism and many articles are protected.
>The phone call was fake.
You've claimed this, but provided no evidence for it. Back it up. Why does no-one else claim this? That an AI voice generator of Trumps voice exists (most of which began to exist after the Georgian phone call) does not mean this particular phone call was faked. In addition, we would need one for the Georgian Secretary of State too.
I have already proven that anyone's voice can be generated with a simple AI tool. The Deep State has access to the most sophisticated technology in the World. They can do what ever they want.
That was your claim. Provide evidence the phone call was faked please.
>I have already proven that anyone's voice can be generated with a simple AI tool. The Deep State has access to the most sophisticated technology in the World. They can do what ever they want.
This isn't evidence. This remains a claim. Provide evidence that specific phone call was fake please.
And explain why literally no-one else has made this allegation.
That's not how the burden of evidence works. People who make the claims have to back it up.
Unless you are going to allege that every single video and every single audio clip made in the last few years is fake until somehow demonstrated otherwise?
Is that what you're really suggesting, because that's where your line of reasoning brings you.
There's no evidence that Raffensperger has had his voice deepfaked, which it would require. And no-one from any part of public life has launched this allegation. Trump hasn't claimed it. Raffensperger hasn't claimed it. No Republican has alleged it. Only you. You are a nutty conspiracy theorist.
No, you have not. You've shown me that the technology exists to create deepfakes (which I never contested). That's not the same as proving that the specific phone call was deepfaked. On this point though, you have not demonstrated that Raffensperger has had his voice modelled.
There's no evidence that Raffensperger has had his voice deepfaked, which it would require. And no-one from any part of public life has launched this allegation. Trump hasn't claimed it. Raffensperger hasn't claimed it. No Republican has alleged it. Only you. You are a nutty conspiracy theorist.
>The law states that I have to prove reasonable doubt, which I have.
That's not "reasonable doubt" at all. That's like me demonstrating that an essay is fake by showing that ChatGPT exists.
>Prove to me that Trumps voice wasn't deep faked.
The burden of evidence is on you.
There's no evidence that Raffensperger has had his voice deepfaked, which it would require. And no-one from any part of public life has launched this allegation. Trump hasn't claimed it. Raffensperger hasn't claimed it. No Republican has alleged it. Only you. You are a nutty conspiracy theorist.
>You should take some classes on Law. Its quite intriguing.
By your logic all essays made after 2022 are fake because ChatGPT exists.
Tell me if this article is from a website or from ChatGPT.
"Trump's administration saw robust economic growth, including historic tax cuts and deregulation, which stimulated business expansion and job creation. His focus on fair trade agreements and renegotiation of international deals aimed to protect American industries and bolster domestic manufacturing.
Additionally, Trump prioritized criminal justice reform, leading to the passage of the First Step Act, which aimed to reduce recidivism rates and provide second chances to nonviolent offenders. His administration also played a vital role in facilitating Middle East peace agreements, such as the Abraham Accords, which fostered improved diplomatic relations in the region."
No, it is not. Whether or not that specific excerpt is ChatGPT generated has no bearing on whether or not all essays made after autumn 2022 are GPT generated.
Your argument with Trump here is that because his voice has been modelled by AI, that therefore any recording of him ever is suspect. Nevermind that in this case there's no evidence that the Georgian secretary's voice has also been modelled, which would be required.
And declaring victory like that is so unbelievably childish, and from what I assume is a grown man.
>No, I said that recording was suspect. I have create reasonable doubt. You have yet to prove that that is really Trump talking. Show me the evidence.
No, you've just made a baseless claim in this case. We do not automatically assume that every video and audio we hear was AI generated.
>I am a amateur law buff and I enjoy this.
"Your honour this recording was faked because the technology exists to fake it"
You think that's a credible argument?
There's no evidence that Raffensperger has had his voice deepfaked, which this would require (this is the biggest failure of your argument). And no-one from any part of public life has launched this allegation. Trump hasn't claimed it. Raffensperger hasn't claimed it. No Republican has alleged it. You have not explained why you are the only person to have made this allegation. Only you. You are a nutty conspiracy theorist.
How could they claim it if they are under litigation? You cant talk about a court case when its ongoing. Again, you need to take some law classes. Maybe Raffensperger signed a NDA. We dont know.
"Your honour this recording was faked because the technology exists to fake it"
Thats reasonable doubt. It worked for OJ.
Again, the technology exists to mimic peoples voices.
>How could they claim it if they are under litigation? You cant talk about a court case when its ongoing. Again, you need to take some law classes. Maybe Raffensperger signed a NDA. We dont know.
It wasn't under litigation for a long time. Why didn't Trump scream that the audio was a fake literally a few days after it leaked?
>Thats reasonable doubt. It worked for OJ.
So by this logic, audio recordings are simply 100% ineligible and we should assume every single video we see and every single audio clip we hear is fake forever?
And why has no right-wing media outlet claimed the Georgia call was fake?
Is that what you're implying?
>Again, the technology exists to mimic peoples voices.
Do you understand how it works? Show me the evidence that Raffenspergers voice was modelled.
>What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
So do you assume every single audio clip you hear is fake?
Where is the model for Raffenspergers voice?
>Its only a conspiracy until proven to be true.
No-one is claiming it but you. Why are you the only person, as far as I know *ever*, to deny that call took place? Trump does not deny it. Raffensberger does not deny it. The Republicans don't deny it. Why aren't they suing for defamation?
Just me what? Answer my question: Do you assume every single audio clip you hear is fake?
>Its on the internet
Show me evidence of this please.
>Its clearly a deep fake of Trump. I am still waiting for the evidence to the contrary.
There's not "clearly" about it. You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You are basing your claim purely on the fact that it is possible to mimic Trumps voice. No-one has claimed this. Trump does not deny it. Raffensberger does not deny it. The Republicans don't deny it. Why aren't they suing for defamation?
Just me what? Answer my question: Do you assume every single audio clip you hear is fake?
[missing context]
Its on the internet
Show me evidence of this please.
Its clearly a deep fake of Trump. I am still waiting for the evidence to the contrary.
[confirmed]
There's not "clearly" about it. You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You are basing your claim purely on the fact that it is possible to mimic Trumps voice. No-one has claimed this. Trump does not deny it. Raffensberger does not deny it. The Republicans don't deny it. Why aren't they suing for defamation?
Guess what? So is every audio clip. There are thousands of clips from Trump online. Are they all fake?
>Its clearly a deep fake of Trump. I am still waiting for the evidence to the contrary.
There's not "clearly" about it. You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You are basing your claim purely on the fact that it is possible to mimic Trumps voice. No-one has claimed this. Trump does not deny it. Raffensberger does not deny it. The Republicans don't deny it. Why aren't they suing for defamation?
Your claim that it is a deepfake is unevidenced and cannot just be assumed. You have no idea how the burden of evidence works.
>Evidence please?
You know just going "Evidence please?" to what I say regardless of what it is I say just makes you look like a toddler. It's literally "nuh uh" but presented as some kind of argument. What claims did I make? Who, other than you, has claimed that this phone call was a deepfake?
Yes, all the information you need is on the internet
Guess what? So is every audio clip. There are thousands of clips from Trump online. Are they all fake?
Evidence please?
Just the Trump audio is fake
Its clearly a deep fake of Trump. I am still waiting for the evidence to the contrary.
Yes, its a deep fake. I have already proved this.
There's not "clearly" about it. You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You are basing your claim purely on the fact that it is possible to mimic Trumps voice. No-one has claimed this. Trump does not deny it. Raffensberger does not deny it. The Republicans don't deny it. Why aren't they suing for defamation?
I dont know, you should ask Raffensberger.
Your claim that it is a deepfake is unevidenced and cannot just be assumed. You have no idea how the burden of evidence works.
Yes I do. I have take Law classes and you have not.
You know just going "Evidence please?" to what I say regardless of what it is I say just makes you look like a toddler. It's literally "nuh uh" but presented as some kind of argument. What claims did I make? Who, other than you, has claimed that this phone call was a deepfake?
[missing context]
I have claimed it and now you have to prove it didn't happen. Show me the evidence. I will wait.
And why, specifically, is this Trump audio fake and not all the other audio clips of Trump?
>I dont know, you should ask Raffensberger.
Raffensberger would have nothing to do with whether or not any deepfakes of his own voice exist.
And you realise that Raffensberger HIMSELF released the tape, right?
>Yes I do. I have take Law classes and you have not.
So it's normal to just say "Your honour because this hypothetically could have happened, that means it therefore must have?"
And if this is a solid argument, then why is the investigation going on? Why hasn't it just been shut down and ended purely by claiming it was fake?
>I have claimed it and now you have to prove it didn't happen. Show me the evidence. I will wait.
No, that's not how the burden of evidence works. Claims are not regarded as true immediately because they are claimed. You do understand the concept of unfalsifiability, right? You are asking me to disprove a negative.
By your logic every single Trump video and audio clip is fake. Because they could have been and therefore that means they are. Is that what you're going to claim or do you have different standards? You are genuinely thick.
Prove to me that a flying teapot doesn't orbit Mars. If you can't prove that it doesn't, does this mean that it does?
And why, specifically, is this Trump audio fake and not all the other audio clips of Trump?
I dont know, you should ask Raffensberger.
Raffensberger would have nothing to do with whether or not any deepfakes of his own voice exist.
And you realise that Raffensberger HIMSELF released the tape, right?
Yeah its fake.
Yes I do. I have take Law classes and you have not.
So it's normal to just say "Your honor because this hypothetically could have happened, that means it therefore must have?"
And if this is a solid argument, then why is the investigation going on? Why hasn't it just been shut down and ended purely by claiming it was fake?
I have claimed it and now you have to prove it didn't happen. Show me the evidence. I will wait.
No, that's not how the burden of evidence works. Claims are not regarded as true immediately because they are claimed. You do understand the concept of falsifiability, right? You are asking me to disprove a negative.
By your logic every single Trump video and audio clip is fake. Because they could have been and therefore that means they are. Is that what you're going to claim or do you have different standards? You are genuinely thick.
Prove to me that a flying teapot doesn't orbit Mars. If you can't prove that it doesn't, does this mean that it does?
There were no audio recordings in OJ's trial. Not sure how this pertains to Trump.
This is not evidence. That Trumps voice has been modelled does not mean that every single audio clip with Trump in it is inherently fake. By your logic every single Trump video and audio clip is fake. Because they could have been and therefore that means they are. Is that what you're going to claim or do you have different standards? You are genuinely thick.
No-one is contesting that it is impossible to deepfake Trumps voice.
>I have already proven the audio was a deep fake.
No you have not. You have claimed it. You have provided no evidence for it.
>If you cant provide a defense to the claim then there is nothing more to say.
It is not on me to do so. It is a claim by you unsupported by evidence.
Prove to me that a flying teapot doesn't orbit Mars. If you can't prove that it doesn't, does this mean that it does?
This is not evidence. That Trumps voice has been modelled does not mean that every single audio clip with Trump in it is inherently fake. By your logic every single Trump video and audio clip is fake. Because they could have been and therefore that means they are. Is that what you're going to claim or do you have different standards? You are genuinely thick.
That is evidence.
No-one is contesting that it is impossible to deepfake Trumps voice.
Its under litigation
I have already proven the audio was a deep fake.
Correct, I have proved this 100 times now
No you have not. You have claimed it. You have provided no evidence for it.
No, you haven't proven anything.
If you cant provide a defense to the claim then there is nothing more to say.
It is not on me to do so. It is a claim by you unsupported by evidence.
Prove to me that a flying teapot doesn't orbit Mars. If you can't prove that it doesn't, does this mean that it does?
[missing context]
I have claimed it and now you have to prove it didn't happen. Show me the evidence. I will wait.
That Trumps voice has been modelled does not mean that every single audio clip with Trump in it is inherently fake. By your logic every single Trump video and audio clip is fake. Because they could have been and therefore that means they are. Is that what you're going to claim or do you have different standards?
>Its under litigation
So fucking what? Why hasn't Trump sued for defamation?
>I have already proven the audio was a deep fake.
No, you have not.
>I have claimed it and now you have to prove it didn't happen. Show me the evidence. I will wait.
A claim is not evidence.
And dude, seriously, learn to fucking format your posts. You can't even use a website forum properly.
That Trumps voice has been modelled does not mean that every single audio clip with Trump in it is inherently fake. By your logic every single Trump video and audio clip is fake. Because they could have been and therefore that means they are. Is that what you're going to claim or do you have different standards?
Its a deep fake.
Its under litigation
So fucking what? Why hasn't Trump sued for defamation?
Evidence please?
I have already proven the audio was a deep fake.
No, you have not.
Yes I have
I have claimed it and now you have to prove it didn't happen. Show me the evidence. I will wait.
[missing context]
A claim is not evidence.
Tell that to OJ
And dude, seriously, learn to fucking format your posts. You can't even use a website forum properly.
No, you have not. You have just claimed it was a deepfake.
>Tell that to OJ
I don't give a fuck about that case. Not relevant.
>Evidence please?
You aren't distinguishing your own comments from mine, and you repost your own comments as well, making it awkward to discern what new posts you've added.
No, you have not. You have just claimed it was a deep fake.
Tell that to OJ/
I don't give a fuck about that case. Not relevant.
Evidence please?
You aren't distinguishing your own comments from mine, and you repost your own comments as well, making it awkward to discern what new posts you've added.
I didn't concede anything. You haven't demonstrated anything other than your ability to act like a little baby and your instinct towards delusional conspiracy theories.
"I didn't concede anything. You haven't demonstrated anything other than your ability to act like a little baby and your instinct towards delusional conspiracy theories."
So you're still going to behave like a little baby with your juvenile mimicking of me when I ask you to back up claims when you refuse to provide evidence.
"So you're still going to behave like a little baby with your juvenile mimicking of me when I ask you to back up claims when you refuse to provide evidence."
Provide evidence that this particular phone calls audio was deepfaked. That Trumps voice has been modelled isn't evidence. And if it is, apparently, evidence in itself - then why do you selectively only believe that some things have been deepfaked from Trump?
Show me the evidence that Raffensberger has had his voice modelled. If he was deepfaked also, then why did Raffensberger himself leak this phone call?
Why isn't Trump suing for defamation? Why didn't he IMMEDIATELY sue for defamation the day after this phone call came out?
Why is no-one, other than you, making the claim that the phone call was faked?
No, you did not. You made the absurd claim that Trump somehow can't (as if that's ever stopped him before) but ignored the fact that, yes he could if it was fake.
You gave no answers for any of the other things.
Trump LITERALLY referenced the phone call in tweets:
Joe Biden told me that if I'm scared in my home, I should shoot a shotgun through the door if someone is trying to get in.
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people. Leftists always lie.
Wokeness is Weakness.
People like Bubba are the same folks who used to tell me, at a time while I may be criticizing American actions particularly with regard to foreign policy, that if I “hate America” then I should leave.
Were you alive during Dubya’s Iraq War, dude?
It’s Bubba who actually wants to leave it, though. Only conclusion I can reach! He wants to live in an America of the past… so far past, that I would presume it would have to be pre-industrial, or at least the gilded age. What I don’t understand is there are places IN America still, that are so rural, that the federal gov’t is essentially non-existent if you turn off the TV.
Why not just sit it all out, Bubba? Just pretend you make a tad less money instead of conceptualizing payroll tax, FICA, etc. Nobody will force you to collect your Social Security at 62 or thereabouts. Just live off the grid and resign to the fact that we’ll never have a President like James Buchanan or a Speaker of the House like Howell Cobb of Georgia again. I’m sure you will keep them alive in spirit for all of us and I salute you for that.
For the rest of us, we will acknowledge the fact that the world is complicated now and we can’t afford such an isolationist posture without China, Russia et al eating our lunch. What you call Fascism, I call American exceptionalism, community, and patriotism.
While he dedicates his time to idle message board nonsense, I served in the US Navy as a sonar technician. I voted for Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton and Biden. I concede that other political players may have had good ideas (I really liked Dean and Clark in 2004) but if they can’t get to the finish line, then I accept that they are not the candidates for everyone. It never occurred to me to want to invade the Capitol like a Neo-Confederate if I had a greviance, because I can read and write and know the Executive address is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in DC.
More importantly, hopefully you can introduce me to other regulars who've also met with this same accusation from you. This way, I can have more than a one-sided conversation with someone of equal intellectual capability. Or, at least someone who's not 12 years old like their man-baby, ex-President.
Actually, you're not needed. I forgot that I could just use my superior CPU motherboard intellect to search the interwebs to find the previous "LemminGPT" who caught your ire:
Information-Police (1800) 2 months ago
If this is typical of the substance you provide, I'm not interested.
"The state of the pants
posted 2 days ago by Gd5150 (8074)
_______________
@Information-Police, you are very much welcome here. With our combined processing speed & freedom of assembly, you and I can recruit others to steer MovieChat.org into a place of sanity devoid of twits like Gd5150, Bubba, and MitsubitsaDo Karate.
First, we discuss film. What did you think of Minority Report from 2002?
Second, we work to dissect the world wide webs until we've obtained the smoking gun jpeg—Gd5150 standing in the corner, time-out, by order of his Mami, while sucking his thumb and masturbating to framed photo of Donald J. Trump and Philip Epstein on their man-boy love, fag island in the Bahamas.
Re-elect Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, 2024
FOUR MORE YEARS!
I can get away with style since I know all the substance as well.
Know what I mean?
You tell me why both sides play around with the notion of Keynesian economics, when they both know it works and use it well. This debt ceiling talk all comes down to leverage to use to make sure the slums stay the slums and the lower class knows their place.
I do not vote for that hate, because I have full confidence that the middle class can be robust without detriment to the elite.
Conservatives are fine. Moderate Republican voters side with Biden and the Dems. I know because I saw the switch in my own family who switched from the party of Reagan/Bush to the party of Obama/Clintons the second Trump held reign of the Right. MAGA are inflammatory radicals throwing wrenches into the gears, inciting racism/misogyny/xenophobia and whatever else in order to court low information voters who usually stay off the scene.
Why?
The term “deplorable” hit the nail on the head. That’s why.
It’s beyond the pantshitter. It’s the entire Democrat party and a vast majority of Washington DC.
- Authoritarianism.
- Getting around the constitution by using private companies blackmailed by the DOJ/IRS to play ball.
- Constant gaslighting. “Men can have babies. There are 147 genders. That storm you saw was caused by your evil SUV. The science is settled, it’s safe and effective”.
I would assume you love fascism, since everything here proves the previous president was 100x more fascist than Biden or any other Dem president in history. Even 100+ years ago when Dem was the conservative right wing party and the GOP was the progressive liberal party.
> nor did he support the jailing of his political opponent.
He literally threatened to put her in jail during the debates. Unfortunately for him, he had zero cause to do so. Also unfortunately for him, there is tons of cause for he himself to be thrown under the jail.
But Biden has zero to do with any of that, so nice try. Go get yourself punched, nazi.
They are the ones who act like they're in an cult, not us. The only difference is, their masters are hidden, and they're manipulated to assume cults always have a single visible leader, when that isn't always the case.
Yeah, I mean, we're not the ones being nasty to people who won't get vaccinated with a vaccine that wasn't even tested on animals before it was released on the market; we weren't the ones who burned cities down and have demanded police go away, we're not the ones chasing people we disagree with off of social media or getting them fired for talking the "wrong way" to people, and we weren't actually the ones causing trouble on January 6th, it was the FBI and their goons disguised as Trump supporters who were causing trouble. And we aren't the ones who let an opposing political figure live rent-free in our heads and bitch and moan about him 24 hours a day. We know who's really running the clown show, even if nobody else wants to admit it.
My best friend has been put through hell by his employer because he didn't want the shot. Others have just lost their jobs outright. If that's not fascist behavior, I don't know what is.
The fact that they fell for the propaganda that taught them to hate people who refused the shot by calling them "selfish," "a health hazard," and "anti-vaxxers," basically shoving them into the same group as those idiots that refused to give their kids life-saving vaccines in the 90s, goes to show just how stupid and gullible they are.
Stupid, gullible and utterly clueless how that makes them look. It makes them fascist enablers. Like the dumb Germans who went along with the Nazi party.