heybruce

Jailing him might be impractical, but they could take away his phone and only let him use it under supervision.

"AI is just another left bias propaganda tool to further form and reinforce the the minds of the easily lead." Why bother learning what AI really is when you can just assume it is part of some vast, left-wing conspiracy.

Damned liberal economy is trying to deny Trump another term as President.

ChatGPT is a Large Language Model (LLM) Artificial Intelligence (AI) program. In simple terms, that means it "reads" everything made available to it and provides answers to questions asked based upon the statistical probability of what words would follow such a question based upon all the words it has read. If answers lean liberal, that is probably because liberals are more likely to publish their ideas and will therefore be better represented in the data fed to the program. I'm sure if ChatGPT were asked to describe a typical hero the description would be of a tall, physically fit man and if asked to describe a typical princess the description would be of a young, pretty, "good" girl. Those are the stereotypes that occur in literature (mostly fiction) and so would be used in the answers. ChatGPT doesn't think, it simple provides answers based upon an assessment of all data provided. It's answers need to be evaluated with that in mind. If conservatives want ChatGPT to lean more in a conservative direction, they need to publish more and rely less on videos, radio, podcasts, etc.

I expect a rehash of the "2000 Mules" movie.

Back atcha.

He definitely doesn't like the US Constitution, laws, traditions and common sense telling him what to do.

Even when you've got nothing you have to post something.

Still trying to drag the topic away from your discredited nonsense about NATO and Ukraine. Also trying to get away with making nonsense claims without proof.

Really? Why don't claims of a stolen election also need serious proof in your world?

43 - 27 = 15. Allowing for a nine month pregnancy he would have been 14 or 15. Not impossible, but...

No surprise here: The Hawaii fires are in the news so Trump had to find a way to get his name into the story. The man's ego won't allow him to shut-up, no matter how much he should.

I'm not the least bit surprised that you ignored the final part of my post: "You can prove me wrong by providing a source." However placeholder did your work for you. Any comments?

NATO members, acting independently of NATO, took part in these conflicts. That's not the same as NATO taking action. Now stop deflecting and try to focus on the topic, the timeline for Ukraine joining NATO.

After thinking it over I realized I my above reply was to an off-topic deflection. Please disregard it, and I apologize for feeding the troll.

In which of these conflict was NATO involved that did not start with an attack on a NATO member?

At the time NATO was formed the USSR was perceived as the greatest security threat to the member nations. However all of the founding documents I've seen refer to a general security agreement without specifically mentioning the USSR. Security threats did not disappear after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, so there was an incentive to keep the organization intact. Every President from Clinton to Trump has attempted some form of diplomatic reset in the relations with Russia. Russia was only interested in resets that helped it economically without restricting its bullying of it neighbors.

An informed opinion requires evidence. An ignorant opinion...well, you're right. Regardless, violence and other illegal acts are not justified and can not be excused based on an opinion, informed or otherwise.

You still have not provided any evidence that NATO explicitly and exclusively exists to defend against the Soviet Union. That may be what you think of NATO, but NATO doesn't exist to meet your expectations.

They were discussing NATO expansion into the former East Germany. Even Gorbachev made it clear that they weren't talking about NATO expansion outside of Germany. "Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”" https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

Your original post painted an inaccurate whataboutism speculation about Russia and China seeking military alliances with neighbors of the US. I pointed out that the US would be puzzled by any neighbor seeking to join such an alliance, but would not seek to prevent it unless it was an offensive, vs defensive, alliance. And you clearly have not proven anything.

Really? Where is that made clear?

Still making stuff up. Where in your link is any claim you've made been supported? Why don't you provide the original mission statement you claim states that NATO exists to combat the Soviets? What evidence do you have that Russia tried to join NATO, and why is it relevant to the war in Ukraine?

Really? Who are these others? What evidence have they presented? Could it be that there is no evidence and someone, by repeating an unsubstantiated claim about a stolen election, provoked violence? Wouldn't it be weird if that person were Trump and he is now repeating the crime?

Really? Have you read the charges? Which ones do you think are "nothing"?