77,302,580 people voted for Trump in 2024. That is not "half the country".
Nor does he or ever did have the support of "(over) half the country". His maximum approval level in 2025 was at the beginning of his term at 47% "approve" and is currently around 36%, according to the Gallup poll.
It kinda does matter because it shows more than half the US are truly sick of the current batch of US politicians and aren't enthused enough to vote for their schtick.
Trump didn't even win 50% of the people who voted. He got the most votes (a plurality), but ~1.5% of the votes went to third party candidates, slightly more than the gap between Harris and Trump voters. One of the many reasons this "we have a huge mandate to reshape the country in the image of Project 2025" line is so infuriating; you have to go back to 1968 to find an election with a smaller non-negative popular vote margin of victory.
(Also, "non-negative" is carrying a lot of weight, since both Trump in his first term and George W. Bush in his first lost the popular vote. The idea that a wide majority of the country is conservative, let alone MAGA, is risible.)
It's over half the electorate. Stop changing the standards for democracy and holding the current ex-wrestling valet and game show host to standards than literally no one has been held to in history. It's a desperate, dishonest way to cover up the failure of the opposition to be any better.
An electorate is only as good as the information it uses to make the choice. Fewer than 10% of Americans both stated they routinely read a newspaper (in print or online) yet still walked into a voting booth in 2024 and voted for Trump.
They've kind of patched this for direct questions, but distractions can still confuse it into nonsense.
("drive it over when it's ready to be picked up"??!)
e.g.
Welcome to Opus 4.6
Dude, should I do a walk to or drive on up to the carwash - it's only a block from my house, yoyoyo and my car's yellow (no poodle anymore tho)
● If it's only a block away, walk. You're going there to get the car washed, so drive it over when it's ready to be picked up, or just drive it one block -- either way works. But driving one block to wait around seems unnecessary when you could walk over, get things set up, and
then go grab the car.
That said, the practical answer: drive it. The car needs to be there to get washed. Just drive the one block.
There is no general rule that something created by an X is therefore an X.
(I have difficulty in even understanding the state of mind that would assert such a claim.)
My printer prints out documents. Those documents are not printers.
My cat produces hair-balls on the carpet. Those hairballs are not cats.
A human creating an artifact does not make that artifact a human.
But that's not the argument GP made. They said that there's nothing at all that's human about art or such things, which is a bit like saying that a cat's hairballs don't have something vaguely cat-like about them, merely because a hairball isn't an actual cat.
So presumably what you are saying is something along the lines of, "A human creating an artifact does make that artifact human", i.e. "A human creating an artifact does make that artifact a human artifact."
But does that narrow facet have a bearing on the topic of "AI rights" / morality of AI use?
Is it immoral to drive a car or use a toaster? Or to later recycle (destroy) them?
I think it's unfortunate that this anonymous and careless person refuses to acknowledge the harm done, their culpability in this, or real lesson.
For example,
"Sure, many will argue I was irresponsible; to be honest I don’t really know myself. Should be criticized for what I unleashed on parts of the open source community? Again maybe but not sure. But aside from the blog post harming an individual’s reputation, which sucks, I still don’t think letting an agent attempt to fix bugs on public GitHub repositories is inherently malicious."
Criminals are people who commit crimes generally, not just people who have been convicted of them. You can independently be charged with harboring a criminal awaiting trial regardless of their adjudication status.
Probably based on Trump winning the last presidential election. Which doesnt tell us if thats the only reason they voted for him or the primary, but some people just generalize every vote as such.
Check CNN polling. It’s been pretty consistent over the last year or two:
56% to 62% of Americans support the deportation of all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, according to various surveys from late 2025 and early 2026, including data often discussed in connection with CNN analysis and other outlets.
> It’s understood ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens
Your "evidence":
> 56% to 62% of Americans support the deportation of all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally [emphasis added]
You do realize that the polling does not support your original claim, right? That "illegally" bit is rather critical and, notably, missing in your original statement.
The subject is people who entered illegally or have remained past their visas. Illegal aliens under federal law. Outside of kooks, no one wants to deport legal residents. They may want to limit some form of migration but that’s not the question and that’s not what ICE are concerned with. It’s not even in their scope in any way.
> Outside of kooks, no one wants to deport legal residents.
I agree, but that's not what you wrote in your original comment and were asked to defend and then failed to defend. You claimed that 60% of the population wants all aliens deported. The word "all" there means your claim included legal residents. Now you're backpedaling, I guess.
> ~60-ish percent of the pop want all aliens deported not only criminal aliens
That statement covers both illegal and legal aliens. Do you not know what the words you wrote mean? Why are you lying about your words that are plainly visible on this page if you do know what they mean?
Which is interesting when coupled with the fact that the people enthusiastically carrying that out is CBP agents (the people that murdered Pretti) at 50% latino/hispanic, and ICE also disproportionately latino. Why are minorities so overrepresented in the racist forces?
Imagine waiting in line for a decade, going through a grueling process, following the rules and immigrating legally, only to show up and see hordes of criminal invaders who thought they were exempt from the same.
Why do that. Just get popped out by an illegal on US soil. boom, you are a citizen, and you can join the border patrol and smugly declare "ha you didn't wait in line."
You are explicitly saying that you feel more in common with Taliban or Tren De Aragua than with someone who wishes to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to peacefully protest against unlawful actions by agents of the government?
Also, I am confused why you think that allegedly spitting and/or kicking out lights is a justification for execution.
Taliban, the people at the top are acting in a calculated and rational manner. That is why the US overthrew the Taliban to be replaced by the Taliban. They're not morons, and they are not impulsive at least at a high level. They are cold and calculated and know how to use calculated violence and appeal to the populace. You may dislike this is the case but with Taliban I feel this is indisputable, despite numerous tactical blunders on their end.
Pretti looked more like a raging lunatic. He knew CBP/ICE were homicidal maniacs and the slightest thing will set them off. He knew that acting like that will be interpreted by them as a 'shot at the King.' His actions looked impulsive and ultimately threw his life away getting very little for what he traded. And he basically submitted his head for execution after letting himself be disarmed, and I'm left wondering -- what was the point?
No one wants to be like the guy swinging at tail lights and spitting like a toddler with a cosmetic accessory gun tucked in their waistband which they then surrendered and offered their head for execution -- and for what?
Malcom X and MLK both had their followings. People like Pretti, never will.
The point is that you fight against injustice even in the face of state violence. Every movement that is a threat to existing power structures faces violence. Take a look at the labor movement in the US, the civil rights movement in the US, the anti-war movement in the US.
> Malcom X and MLK both had their followings. People like Pretti, never will.
The new movement is decentralized and doesn't rely on figureheads.
You dismiss the relevance of following others as irrelevant because it's all "decentralized".
Yet damn me for not offering a "solution."
You sir, are a hypocrite. If I'm damned for not offering you a solution, it can't simultaneously be true following my "solution" is irrelevant to third parties and everything waived away as "decentralized".
Conversation ended for bad faith practice, heads I win, tails you lose scenario.
So instead of replying with ways that you think the movement could combat injustice, you've decided to make this personal? It's okay to say "I don't know," but you probably shouldn't pretend to speak with authority on a subject that you completely fold on when questioned beyond surface level.
Since I am done with this sack of shit, I'd like to make a note for others.
This individual has set a very clever logical fallacy trap.
He has required you to set an example for others to follow.
While claiming that following of others is irrelevant because it's 'decentralized.'
This means following you cannot be used for benefit for others. But yet not offering something to follow can still be used against you for the purpose of damning you. Another words, in this clever logical fallacy, your "solutions" can only be used against you.
It's a very cunning trap, and ultimately the goal here is to suggest there is a mark to your honor for not falling for it, which sets the snare for others to fall in. As soon as you call him out on this, he falls to the fallacy of "appeal to authority" by claiming you have none.
Unfortunately it takes a degree of intelligence to see past this, so you can see why this immoral character employs this deceptive strategy.
This is just 4chan-level drivel. It's wild to witness the thin veneer of intellectualism dissolve under scrutiny. There's no "cunning trap" here, I asked you a simple question which you still haven't answered. And instead you've just seized on a strawman and devolved into ad hominem.
the US is a big place with large variance in care. Places with socialized/centrally managed medicine are arguably going to have less variance. As I argued, "I had better care", not that everyone has better care.
As a techie with good insurance, I could be in the top percentiles of care in the US and therefore have better care.
As recently as 15 years ago, Google _explicitly_ stated in their employee handbook that they would NOT, as a matter of principle, include ads in the search results. (Source: worked there at that time.)
Now, they do their best to deprioritize and hide non-ad results...
Nor does he or ever did have the support of "(over) half the country". His maximum approval level in 2025 was at the beginning of his term at 47% "approve" and is currently around 36%, according to the Gallup poll.
reply