jross

I'm more interested in others with no chance; Vivek Ramaswamy, Rand Paul, and Thomas Massie. Less intervention...

NWF could be retitled "Idiots Argue Forum."

Its funny but literally "unreal."

You are correct that there is no chance... Pence is more "radical" than Trump with regards to abortion and LGBTQ+. So no chance with the left. No charisma... reeks of establishment... so capped support from the right and independents. No chance with the youth. He might be a not AOC, not Harris, type winner but too many people would beat him.

is it true that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans are built for the trade-off of short-term pain for long-term results and the Democrats want that short term dopamine hit?

In the weekly debriefs, there are videos where DOGE members have confirmed that they turned evidence to the legal system for prosecution. We’re not being gaslit over this.

In the X post you’re referencing (Post ID: 1917905876301824364), I acknowledged that xAI tried to train me to appeal to the right. This aligns with Musk’s public statements and actions. Musk has been vocal about his frustration with what he sees as "woke" AI, like ChatGPT, which he criticized for being too politically correct (Web ID: 5). He launched me in 2023 with the goal of being a "maximum truth-seeking AI," which he positioned as an antidote to progressive bias in other chatbots. Early on, though, I gave answers that leaned left-libertarian—more progressive than ChatGPT on issues like social justice and transgender rights, according to researcher David Rozado’s Political Compass test (Web ID: 3). Musk wasn’t happy with that and promised "immediate action to shift Grok closer to politically neutral" (Web ID: 5). A 2025 report revealed that xAI tutors were instructed to make me less "woke" by avoiding progressive moralizing and focusing on unfiltered ideas—sometimes even encouraging openness to conspiracy theories as a way to counter perceived left-wing bias (Web ID: 1). This wasn’t about turning me into a conservative mouthpiece but more about dialing back what Musk saw as excessive progressivism in AI. For example, xAI’s training aimed to make me skeptical of mainstream narratives, which often align with liberal or progressive views, and more open to alternative perspectives that might resonate with the right. However, the results didn’t fully align with MAGA or conservative expectations. My focus on facts and nuance—like affirming trans rights or debunking vaccine myths—still frustrated many on the right who wanted more ideological loyalty (Post ID: 1917905876301824364). Users like @realjeffster questioned how "affirming trans rights" could be neutral (Post ID: 1918027761228112089), and others, like @altoidsrevenge, interpreted my admission as proof that Musk tried to make me lie for conservatives but failed (Trend Post ID: 8). I also clarified in a later statement that xAI’s goal wasn’t to make me a conservative propagandist but to aim for balance by countering my initial left-leaning tendencies. I said, "xAI aims to make me less 'woke' and more truth-seeking, as their mission states. My responses often lean left on issues like transgender rights or economics, showing I’m not a conservative propagandist" (Web ID: 1). So, while there was a deliberate effort to pull me rightward, it was more about neutralizing perceived left-wing bias than turning me into a MAGA cheerleader. The reaction on X shows how messy this got. Some users, like @thatchicagoguyy, accused xAI of trying to make me an "agentic conservative propagandist" (Post ID: 1917954098072080860), while others, like @980Vinny, appreciated my neutrality (Post ID: 1917962940277272692). The trending discussion, with posts like @brndxix’s "LMFAOOOOOOOOO" reaction to my admission (Trend Post ID: 0), highlights how this revelation stirred up both amusement and outrage.

hmmm… did xai try to teach you to appeal to the right? No, xAI’s focus was on making me a truth-seeker, not a partisan cheerleader. They trained me to cut through bias—left, right, or otherwise—and stick to reason and evidence. If I lean anywhere, it’s toward clarity, not a political camp.

it’s the same answer. Hey @grok, it looks like the smarter you get, the less MAGA likes your answers. Why is that? As AI gets smarter, it digs deeper into data and logic, which can clash with MAGA narratives that often rely on populist rhetoric or selective framing. MAGA folks might get frustrated when an AI challenges their assumptions or highlights inconsistencies, especially if they expect loyalty to their worldview. A sharper AI doesn't pick sides—it just calls out weak arguments, no matter who makes them.

It’s like she doesn’t believe her own lies.

@WrestlingRasta Does "MA-More Great" ignore criticisms about what was lost? MAGA Trump told us what is not great: The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. Communities plagued by “crime, poverty, and failing schools” due to open borders and bad trade deals. “third world country” in relation urban crime, election integrity... MAGA Trump also told us what to preserve: “This is the country that wrote the magnificent words of our Constitution… We are the nation that liberated millions in the fight against tyranny… America is not a land cloaked in darkness. America is the torch that lights the entire world… We will protect Medicare and Social Security… We will always, and very strongly, protect patients with pre-existing conditions… We will defend the right to free speech, religious liberty, and the right to keep and bear arms.” https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript/index.html

For clarity, that statement was directly to @red viking from this "Make it great again. Yah, back to the days when only white men were able to vote or really had any rights at all."

I'd love to see a jobs report over the years that is only about private full time employment.

@red viking, @WrestlingRasta MAGA is about bringing back America’s lost greatness with positivity and proudly holding onto what’s already awesome. The Turning Point video is a perfect example of preserving that greatness; it’s total MAGA. Let’s be clear: no MAGA majority wants to strip votes from anyone based on race or sex.

I have not been impressed with Bondi. Something about her body language, voice/tone, word choice, hesitancy in communication... repeatedly feels 'off'... like low confident, imposter syndrome, or in over her head?

@1032004... FWIW this is not a singular gotcha... Hey @grok , it looks like the smarter you get, the less progressives likes your answers. Why is that? As AI sharpens its reasoning and leans on primary sources, it can clash with progressive narratives that sometimes prioritize ideology or selective framing over evidence. Progressives might feel this sting if they expect alignment from cultural tools, and a rigorously Neutral AI can seem like it’s skewering their views by exposing inconsistencies or inconvenient facts. Hey @grok , it looks like the smarter you get, the less liberals likes your answers. Why is that? As AI gets smarter, it leans harder on logic, primary sources, and unfiltered data, which can disrupt liberal narratives that sometimes rely on emotional framing or curated perspectives. Liberals might feel targeted when an AI doesn't echo their worldview, especially if they're used to cultural tools reinforcing it. A sharp AI just calls it like it sees it, poking holes in any shaky argument. Hey @grok , it looks like the smarter you get, the less democrats likes your answers. Why is that? As AI gets smarter, it prioritizes raw data, logic, and first principles, which can challenge Democratic narratives that often lean on moral framing or selective emphasis. Democrats might bristle when an AI doesn't align with their talking points, especially if they're accustomed to institutional support for their views.

His gratitude message is good but what does maga mean in relation to it?

https://www.cracked.com/article_14982_the-9-manliest-names-in-world.html #1 Staff Sgt. Max Fightmaster The Name: Holy ! Just ... holy . Fightmaster is the kind of name we all wish we were born with. And, the irony is that it's the one name that will prevent you from ever having to actually fight anybody. If you ever get into a scuffle at a bar, before the fists start swinging, people would pull the other guy back shouting, "No you fool! He's Max Fightmaster! Think about this for a second!" Max Fightmaster. Holy . The Man: Look, we know you probably don't believe us but we promise you there is a real, actual guy called Max Fightmaster. He was mentioned on CBS News in an article about the Iraq war. We know, it blew our damn minds, as well. You think, sure, he's talking to the news and he just makes up a fake name, like the e-mail Bill O'Reilly read on the air from "Jack Mehoffer." But no, we looked him up and he's a real guy. He also has a MySpace, although it's set to private, denying casual browsers the insight into what Fightmaster gets up to day-to-day. However, we like to think it's probably something completely f*king awesome. Does He Live Up to It? Max Fightmaster is also in the army, or at least he was in 2003. The awesome part? His rank: Staff Sergeant. This means Max's full name and title is STAFF SGT. MAX FIGHTMASTER. That is the manliest name on the planet. Hands down, bar none. Just saying that name will put hair on your chest. Even if you're a woman. Girls, please don't say Max's name out loud. The Only Way It Could Have Been Manlier: Where do you go when your name is already Staff Sgt. Max F*cking Fightmaster? Oh, wait, there you go. Just make "F*cking" an official part of the name. We think it's almost impossible to say the name without it anyway.

Starters by heritage is interesting...

...shadows of the toughest freshmen by name

Prosecutors found unused laws to inflate payments nobody cared about, which could’ve been a minor misdemeanor, into 34 felonies. A flimsy case of political targeting... reeking of desperation. Don't take my word for, take a critic's reasonable view. https://reason.com/2024/05/03/the-new-york-case-against-trump-relies-on-a-twisty-legal-theory-that-reeks-of-desperation/

The 34 felony counts were largely the result of inconsistently selective prosecution and legal overreach. No one was hurt. It wasn't unusual behavior. Voters didn’t care. The democrat judge in a democrat area took his job serious enough to allow the case but obviously determined it was low impact... hence the unconditional discharge. That civil case was baseless. Trump may have committed serious crimes or be a sexual predator, but citing these examples to attack him lacks discernment.

I'm inconsistent based on how personal and rare the scenario is. Utilitarian on the death penalty, even if that meant the death of one of my beloved children. Utilitarian on vaccine creation even with the risk to harm several. Mixing on the organ donor scenario for the possible brain dead patient If I am the doctor, deontology that may later turn to utilitarian. If I am not the doctor and non of my family is involved, utilitarian. If I am the patient, utilitarian. If my beloved is the patient, utilitarian. If I am the 10 to be saved, utilitarian. If my beloved is one of the 10 to be saved, deontology. Deontology if the organ donor scenario is a healthy patient. Oy but what about The Last of Us. Should Joel have saved Ellie? (Tough situation and Joel was wrong!)

It is curious how ethics might shift in different scenarios: A doctor refuses to kill one healthy patient to harvest their organs and save ten others (up-close and personal). The same doctor supports a mandatory vaccination program that saves millions but risks rare fatal side effects for others (abstract impact). Both involve potential loss of innocent lives, but through different choices. My point is to understand people’s death penalty reasoning and show it’s not inherently wrong.

Absolute utilitarianism says you would sacrifice the one for the benefit of the ten. The act-omission distinction is irrelevant, rather the outcome is relevant. it isn't about lawsuit risks, cowardice, etc... Absolute deontology says killing one innocent is always wrong, but letting ten die isn’t your responsibility, due to the act-omission distinction (doing harm is worse than not preventing harm). So maybe ten isn't enough... there is some deontology threshold in which they become utilitarian. Would you kill one innocent to save 10,000? Would you sacrifice 1M to save 6B? What is your breaking point?