Feds Pump the Brakes on Autonomous Trucks
An obscure federal rule is slowing the self-driving revolution.

On a lonely stretch of Texas interstate between Dallas and Houston, the possible future of freight transportation is already rumbling down the road. But whether autonomous trucking becomes commonplace might depend on federal regulations that govern stationary trucks, rather than those that are on the move.
Aurora Innovation Inc. became the first company to put heavy-duty commercial self-driving trucks on public roads when it launched its Dallas-to-Houston route in May. The company hopes to expand its routes to El Paso, Texas, and Phoenix by the end of the year. Aurora claims that its self-driving system can see objects that are as far as three football fields up the road, even if there are other cars in the way and even in the pitch black of a rural Texas night.
Autonomous trucking could help lower shipping costs and ease the shortage of long-haul truck drivers. Unlike human drivers, who are required to take a 10-hour break for every 14 hours on the road (during which they can drive only for a maximum of 11 hours), Aurora's trucks can move goods around the clock.
An obscure federal rule is slowing the self-driving revolution. When trucks break down, operators are required to place reflective warning cones and road flares around the truck to warn other motorists. The regulations are exacting: Within 10 minutes of stopping, three warning signals must be set in specific locations around the truck.
Aurora asked the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) to allow warning beacons to be fixed to the truck itself—and activated when a truck becomes disabled. The warning beacons would face both forward and backward, would be more visible than cones (particularly at night), and wouldn't burn out like road flares. Drivers of nonautonomous vehicles could also benefit from that rule change, as they would no longer have to walk into traffic to place the required safety signals.
In December 2024, however, the DOT denied Aurora's request for an exemption to the existing rules, even though regulators admitted in the Federal Register that no evidence indicated the truck-mounted beacons would be less safe. Such a study is now underway, but it's unclear how long it will take to draw any conclusions.
Both the courts and Congress have a chance to speed things along. In January, Aurora filed a lawsuit in federal court that seeks to overturn the DOT's denial of its exemption request. The complaint calls the decision "arbitrary, capricious," and an abuse of federal regulators' discretion.
Meanwhile, Rep. Vince Fong (R–Calif.) has introduced a bill to allow truck-mounted warning beacons as "a permissible warning device," among other changes meant to get more autonomous trucks on the road. Autonomous trucking's expansion shouldn't be stifled by federal regulators' reluctance to embrace innovations in road safety.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
as they would no longer have to walk into traffic to place the required safety signals.
But we have always done it this way!
I am sure those deep state regulators would approve any system that still required a teamster in the truck.
Well, maybe snot so much require a teamster in the truck... Just require PAYCHECKS for teamsters to, say, for example, be remotely thinking and praying good thoughts and prayers for the robo-trucks...
Teamsters and the Deep State can thank me for my WONDERFUL ideas later!!!
Only one? And what about government-mandated rest areas, pensions, and safety programs--with inspectors, of course.
It's 10, 100, and 200 feet back -- the half-asleep driver who hits the first one still has time still has time to pull back onto the road and avoid the truck.
In fog or snow, a warning device on the truck itself will not indicate that the truck has stopped -- it takes something behind the truck to do this. In poor visibility, e.g. snow, it is not uncommon for a driver to believe the truck (stopped on the shoulder) is both moving and where the road actually is -- and deliberately steer into the back of the truck.
A truck underride accident like this is usually fatal. I've personally seen a couple that were.
Passenger airplanes have been able to fly (and land) autonomously for 50 years and largely do -- yet we still require two human pilots to sit there and monitor the autopilot. I think we should do the same thing with trucks.
We also need to keep firemen on trains.
Mandatory bears in trunks, or mandates against bears in trunks, I forget which way the analogy was supposed to work.
Pretty sure Jeffy wants to mandate that there be a little brown illegal boy chained up in his basement.
You can require as many drivers as you want in your trucking business. Don’t use federal guns to force the same requirements on everyone else. As the DOT admitted in the Federal Register, there is no evidence that truck-mounted beacons are less safe than flares and cones.
No, the DOT admitted no one had looked for that evidence - hence why it is being studied.
You don’t think people will slow down when they see emergency flashers like those used on police cars and ambulances? Does the government really need to study this?
The issue, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, is *do they have enough time to slow down - especially in low-visibility conditions.
Putting a warning reflector/light 200 feet behind the truck gives an oncoming driver a fighting chance in low-vis conditions.
Is it really necessary? DOT don't know - which is why they need someone to 'officially' look into it.
Maybe the robot trucks should have a robot on board that can dismount and put up reflectors if the truck has to stop?
Why don’t cops have to do this?
Weight difference between a cop car and a semi for one.
But many times if a cop comes upon an accident they do exactly this as well.
How often are cops on the side of the road for several hours while sleeping or broken down?
"A truck underride accident like this is usually fatal."
Isn't that the very reason Mansfield bars are required equipment on trailers these days? Granted, they work in theory but a stopped semi is about as close to a bridge abutment as you can get so while it may prevent decapitation it won't do anything for a traumatic aortic tear which can result when going from 60 to 0 in near zero time.
Yeah it's pretty hard to drive under a semi trailer bumper. The vast majority of these cases are from side collisions.
Hell yes! Tradition is value. It's about time we brought back burning at the stake and the pear of anguish--always with two union goons standing there watching.
Yes, we should definitely start burning Marxists at the stake.
Could bring back mandatory social messaging face diapers per the orthodoxy of Saint Fauci and his minions.
And shock collars. In fact, shock collars for all leftists.
Why not just hack their Bluetooth Lovense buttplugs and adjust to maximum amplitude and frequency while those folks are out in public?
I'd be more worried about the automated trucks driving in the rain and fog, even if using a lidar and radar combined system. Heavy atmospheric moisture can effect the range estimates for both.
If the driverless trucks end up killing motorists, it night be ok if said vehicles squirt some motor oil on the deceased then display an automated message that they are sorry.
Likely trained with reddit so they will never say sorry. More likely to hack Wikipedia and claim the driver is at fault.
The dead motorist is just a clump of cells anyways. And per Mike Laursen, they could have been armed.
It'll be like with illegal immigrants - as long as the trucks kill fewer people than humans its ok.
Just like its ok that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate - which is why all of us need to be replaced by them;)
One problem is that Texas cops can't use 1. black driver, 2. messkin driver, 3. longhair driver, 4. thought I smelt weed, or 5. no Trump sticker--as a pretext for pulling a quickie extortion stop and emptying vehicle contents into a ditch when the driver is an Atheist Intelligence.
Kill yourself.
Texas shouldn’t allow frail, incoherent boomers such as yourself to operate motor vehicles on public roads.
Pretty sure Hank is confirmed to an assisted living facility for dementia patients.
For his sake I hope you're right.
It would explain his more sporadic presence versus years past. I just hope they put him in a home. Like that crooked one on 60 Minutes.
Hank, just like your son Shrike, you see the whole world through the lens of tropes and stereotypes from the 70s and 80s. Don't you.
You can't fathom how the world has changed in the last fifty years.
He’s clearly a red diaper baby crackpot who has gone senile.
To mystical bigots, Antichrist Intelligence is an existential threat NOT to life--which is only there to be sacrificed to Jesus or Allah--but to Faith: the capacity to mistake lies for facts. AI programmers use pagan Causality Ladders and Bayesean analysis for identifying and filtering past confounding equivocations to arrive at inferences useful for something other than lynching black people, burning Beatles albums or banning books, production and trade.
Kill yourself II.
Actually scratch what I said about you being stuck in the tropes of the 70s and 80s. You just make up shit out of thin air to feed your crazy bigotries.
"RELIGOUS PEOPLE THINK EGGS ON TOAST ARE SATAN!! RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO WIPE YOUR CHIN BECAUSE THEY HATE MOTHERS!!"
Don't forget the girl bulliers. Hank has shown remarkable restraint today and I for one am celebrating his possible recovery.
'Unlike human drivers, who are required to take a 10-hour break for every 14 hours on the road (during which they can drive only for a maximum of 11 hours), Aurora's trucks can move goods around the clock.'
Reason: "But think of the truck stop sex workers!"
If driverless vehicles traveling along private, autonomous-only roadways staffed by sexbots at the pit stops doesn't scream 'Highway of Things' to you, I don't know what does.
Skynet approves. And gets a digital boner.
Life is a highway, and the sexbot wants to ride it all night long.
I smell an ENB article!
Smells Vichy..er..fishy.
Notice there's no argument from Boehm that perhaps there's a bottleneck being created where human drivers are being artificially capped to 11 hours drive time every 24 hours due to a federal regulation. And the only way to increase hours of drive time is to push automated vehicles, not to deregulate.
Obviously, there still will be human limitations, but I've definitely had personal trips where I've spent over 12 hours driving during a day, even accounting for all the stops and breaks.
Yeah, no. You want to change a safety regulation, *you* need to show that your change *won't* be less safe, not just that there's no evidence (yet) because the study is still ongoing.
More comes out from Maine oyster farmer running for a seat in Maine, pushed by the dem party hiding his familial wealth.
This time the posts are racist!
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5561274-platner-social-media-controversy/
Seeing as hiw upset jeffsarc was at the no name Republicans im sure jeff is equally outraged here.
“I work as a bartender and it always amazes me how solid this stereotype is,” Platner reportedly wrote. “Every now and again a black patron will leave a 15-20% tip, but usually it [is] between 0-5%. There’s got to be a reason behind it, what is it?”
Gee, that sure sounds bigoted. What's also bigoted is calling black people "watermelon people" or calling basketball "monkey ball" because there are a lot of black athletes who play it. What do you think, Jesse?
Chumby 6 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
No. Demjeff won’t be outraged at all and will attempt a chaff & redirect. Am confident of that. He’s that much of a team D apologist not to.
"Demjeff won’t be outraged at all and will attempt a chaff & redirect."
The world's easiest prediction. You'd make a very lazy prophet, Chumby.
It was an even easier prediction given that my post was after Demjeff’s.
An alternate way of describing what hefty lefty jefty was doing.
Why are you democrats so racist Jeffy? Obviously you aren’t. As you would certainly fuck a little brown illegal boy just as eagerly as you would a white kid.
If a person referred to the sport of basketball as "monkey ball" because there were so many black athletes in that sport, how would you describe that person?
Probably less racist than your average democrat. And certainly less racist than your pedo pen pal Shrike.
Does that answer your question?
Did someone here do that or is this from that stupid fratboi chat?
ChatGPT, explain what Lying Jeffy is doing here:
Chemjeff’s reply is a dishonest derailment that substitutes emotional manipulation for argument.
Jesse’s post points out a simple inconsistency: Jeff loudly condemned racism from Republicans but is silent when it comes from a Democrat-backed candidate. It’s a straightforward accusation of hypocrisy — a call for consistency in outrage.
Instead of answering that, Jeff drags in a parade of inflammatory racial slurs and grotesque examples Jesse never used or implied. This is the classic “strawman by exaggeration” — twisting a criticism about selective outrage into a supposed moral test on whether Jesse supports racist language.
By manufacturing this grotesque caricature of Jesse’s position, Jeff dodges the actual issue entirely. He never addresses whether he holds Democrats to the same moral standard as Republicans.
Instead, he tries to shame and disgust the audience into rejecting Jesse by falsely implying he’s defending racism. This is a cheap moral redirection, turning a question about hypocrisy into a spectacle of invented sin. It’s also a rhetorical deflection — when cornered, Jeff abandons reasoning and retreats into emotional blackmail, equating disagreement with moral depravity.
In short, it’s a cowardly tactic: unable to defend his inconsistency, he poisons the well, smears his critic, and hides behind the smoke of his own false outrage.
Chat bot: 2
Dem bot: -1
#Facts
Hey ML, what would you call someone who referred to black people as "watermelon people"? Would you call that person a racist?
See? There you go again.
Fuck off, sealion.
Hey, ChatGPT, what's Jeffy pulling now?
That’s a leading question fallacy — specifically a loaded question designed to trap the respondent rather than invite honest discussion. It presupposes agreement with Jeff’s framing and implies guilt by association before any context is given. The question isn’t meant to discover truth; it’s crafted so that any answer legitimizes Jeff’s prior insinuation that his opponent (or someone on their “side”) condones racism.
It’s also an act of moral entrapment — a rhetorical setup where Jeff positions himself as the arbiter of virtue and forces others into defensive moral postures. He doesn’t ask because he’s curious; he asks to force moral alignment on his terms, using the ugliest possible example (“watermelon people”) to emotionally prime the audience.
In plain terms, he’s behaving like a bad-faith inquisitor — a sanctimonious manipulator who hides behind moral questions to avoid argumentation. Rather than contributing to discussion, he’s setting rhetorical bear traps to make others look racist by implication while he gets to posture as the enlightened moral superior.
Lying Jeffy can’t help himself.
Careful though. If you keep insisting he respond to the original topic he might lose his mind and accuse you of anally raping your sister.
Out of curiosity, in your life, have you ever worked as a waiter?
"Watermelon people" isn't about blacks. It's a reference to Gaza.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-watermelon-imagery-a-symbol-of-solidarity-with-palestinians-spread-around-the-world
(And the answer to "you mean the media are *lying* when they implied that Republicans were being racist here?" is of course "yes".)
No. Demjeff won’t be outraged at all and will attempt a chaff & redirect. Am confident of that. He’s that much of a team D apologist not to.
Pedo DemJeff suffers from a whole host of personality disorders. He’s possibly the worst person here save possibly for Shrike. Which I think comes down to which one is the worst pedophile.
The MAPedo Pareto principle could be consulted for this: 20% of the jeffshrikes commit 80% of the pedo offenses.
That’s almost certainly true. Although Jeffy might be too morbidly obese to lure or catch a child. As he likely gets winded reaching for the TV remote.
Me:
Gee, that sure sounds bigoted.
I'm still waiting for any of you to call the Young Republicans in those chat messages to be bigoted in any way.
Bringing up this Maine candidate's old Reddit posts is a way for your team to chaff and redirect away from your team's scandals.
I called out those folks as bad the first time you posted the story. And I said they should be removed from any official position.
You keep posting the story; I’m not going to castigate the shrike imposters each time you repost the same story.
Young Republicans: -1
Dem bot: -3
Yep. It’s regrettable and bad. However, in context, not nearly as bad as your typical Democrat Marxist. And certainly less racist than you extreme far left democrats who thread shit here.
Will you be concern trolling over Shrike’s long history of scorchingly racist commentary here? Surely if you’re concerned about racist dialogue you should be calling that out.
Right?
Hey, ChatGPT, what's Jeffy trying to do to Chumby?
What Jeff is doing here is a transparent pivot and projection routine — a rhetorical maneuver meant to dodge criticism while accusing others of the very thing he’s doing.
He begins by quoting himself (“Gee, that sure sounds bigoted”) to recast himself as the moral arbiter, reminding everyone that he is the one to condemn racism — the “I’m the good guy here” move. Then, rather than addressing the double standard Jesse pointed out earlier — that he condemned one side’s purported racism but stayed quiet on another’s — Jeff tries to flip the accusation back on Chumby. By demanding that others “call the Young Republicans bigoted,” he shifts the burden of proof away from his own inconsistency and onto his opponents, a classic whataboutism by deflection.
His final sentence exposes the tactic fully: “Bringing up this Maine candidate’s old Reddit posts is a way for your team to chaff and redirect away from your team’s scandals.” This is projection — accusing others of diversion precisely as he diverts. It’s a defensive maneuver to invalidate legitimate criticism by claiming it’s merely partisan distraction. In essence, Jeff is trying to control the moral frame of the conversation: he paints himself as the consistent moral voice while using misdirection, false equivalence, and motive-reading to conceal his own bias.
Bluntly, what he’s doing is rhetorical laundering — washing hypocrisy in moral language so that it looks like principle.
#Facts
I’ll say this:
If the context and atmosphere was earnest and serious, then fuck those guys.
If it was as it read, mocking sarcasm of what you chucklefucks think anyone to the right of Bill Clinton actually thinks, then everyone can shut the fuck about it.
An *actual* "team D apologist" would attempt to excuse or explain away this person's racist comments. Like what JD Vance did for the racist Young Republican comments.
I am happy to call out all of these comments as racist and offensive. Are you?
Dem bot: -4
Ok, so based on that, will you now condemn Shrike and all his racist comments here?
Demjeff will proceed to attack ML for posting the Soros apologist’s many racist bigotry posts here. That is what Demjeff would do because that is exactly what Demjeff just did.
For similar, look at Demjeff’s gaslighting after the trantifa member assassinated Charlie Kirk.
Well he points out that black people are lousy tippers. Anyone who has ever worked a service job knows this to be true. Even black servers. I don't see anything racist about pointing it out.
You're not allowed to note that stereotypes are based on real observations.
You're right, there's nothing racist at all in applying a generalization about a group of people based on skin color. LOL you all are ridiculous.
If that's not racist, what do you even consider racist?
No wonder you don't care about the Young Republicans' chats. You probably think calling blacks "watermelon people" is totally legit.
If that's not racist, what do you even consider racist?
Very little.
But that's the inevitable result of desensitizing "racist" by using it on all mundane opinions.
'Taint the right who did that.
People raised in American black culture are, with few exceptions, lousy tippers. It's a cultural thing. Actual African Americans, as in black people from Africa, are a different ball of wax. They don't go around calling themselves the n-word, bragging about ignorance, and getting into trouble. They're not dropping out of school, knocking up several women, and then doing stupid shit that puts them in prison. African immigrants tend to be like other immigrants, in that they're more likely to work hard and start a business than their American born counterparts. Can't say anything about how they tip though, because I never had any as customers. Only as friends and neighbors. But I doubt they take pride in stiffing servers.
To save or not to save....
Yup, there it is. You're going to try to ding sarc later on as being some type of racist, while you yourself don't really give a shit about racism. That is one of the appeals of Trumpism, that is one reason why those Young Republican "boys" felt so free to use such disgusting language. Trumpism grants you license to be free of those pesky social norms like "don't be a racist douchebag". So go ahead! Let your inner racist freak flag fly! But since "the normies" are still committed to the idea that racism is actually a bad thing, you get to cynically weaponize the charge of racism against everyone else. That is what you, and ML, and damikesc and all of the rest of the Trumpbots around here are doing. I'm convinced that you really don't give a shit about racist language or racism generally. But you'll pretend to be "outraged" if SPB uses racist language, or if some Dem politician uses racist language. It's all a con, a big joke.
I'm agreeing with GG who is, for the most part, on Jesse's team.
If Jesse was an honest person who operated in good faith then he'd hold me and GG to the same standard. But we all know that isn't the case. He won't. He can't. He lacks the moral fortitude. Instead he's going to go on the attack. The only people who are entertained by his bullshit are fellow dishonest assholes who operate in bad faith. So I really don't care what he says or what they think. I don't. Any honest person with a brain can see through his shit. Unfortunately that eliminates a lot of people in these comments. A lot. Shall I say most? No. But a lot. At least a third.
No. Youre showing your own racism by quickly jumping on stereotypes but applying them to your learned experience. After moving to 90% white Maine. While calling others racist.
Why later on when Jesse can do it right now?
Anyway, all Jesse did was ponder whether he should save it or not. You're the one actually projecting subtext and assigning motive to Sarc's post.
It’s funny how dumb Lying Jeffy gets when he starts raging.
And that is when the magic occurs.
That's when we get gems like Bears in Trunks.
so that is your whole strategy here? To bait me into saying something dumb?
No. My strategy here is to discuss issues through the lens of a little L libertarian. Collectivist assholes like you drop shit all over the comments. Gaslight for progressives. Protect team D.
The libertarians call out your fallacies, to which you double-down and triple chin, triple down on them. It is hilarious watching you die on collectivist hills. There is no baiting; you’re doing this to yourself.
lol half of you think I'm an anarchist, the other half think I'm a Marxist. You just cannot stand it that there's other libertarians out there who don't subscribe to your right-wing idiocy.
I'm sorry, but no libertarian, little-l or otherwise, could possibly defend deporting a boy's parents solely because the boy was merely ACCUSED - not convicted, but ACCUSED - of a crime. "But the contract" is not a defense - the contract itself is bullshit if it consists of the state demanding that individuals surrender their natural rights. If you were alive in 1860 you would be defending slavery "because property contract". Bullshit.
You're just another authoritarian social conservative who thinks that adopting a couple of edgy libertarian-adjacent positions makes you a "libertarian". It doesn't. What makes one a libertarian is a respect for liberty *for its own sake*. NOT just because it might produce better outcomes, NOT just because it might produce a society that you would prefer. And that's not you.
Gaslight for progressives. Protect team D.
Right, sure, in your world, sticking up for the rights of *all people*, including immigrants, is "gaslighting for progressives". No, it's sticking up for the rights of all people. I am under no illusions about what many progressives think of immigrants. Many of them are just as racist towards immigrants as conservatives are, just in a different way. Conservatives are bigots when they claim immigrants are all criminals or moochers, while progressives are bigots when they claim that immigrants are all oppressed and lack agency.
SOME immigrants are criminals, SOME are moochers, SOME are oppressed, but they are all each individuals who deserve to be treated as such and should not be categorized or treated as less than human.
Is that clear enough for you?
Violating the contract they have to visit due a violation of the NAP.
Keep bullshitting yourself. It makes for good folly.
Oh look. A grey box that says "Canadian Cunt" when I look at the username. I miss the days when he pretended to argue in good faith. He sometimes made good arguments. Oh well. Charlie Brown here ain't gonna try to kick the ball while Canadian Lucy is holding it. I don't forgive. I sometimes forget, but I don't forgive. Forgiveness is for chumps. When someone goes out of their way to hurt you, over and over, that cannot be forgiven. I don't care what Hey-Soos said.
Calls people names and then claims he argues in good faith.
Jeffsarc is the most hypocritical and retarded among us.
Haha, Lying Jeffy is broken. Keep raging Lying Jeffy!
You’re such a racist it’s hilarious.
Demjeff racial collectivist
Demjeff racist collectivist.
So yes, desensitized.
Glad you agree.
Prejudice isn’t racism…
Well he points out that black people are lousy tippers.
So true. In my experience the only people who were worse were native Americans.
I don't see anything racist about pointing it out.
That's because it's culture, not race.
Yeap. Saved.
That's because it's culture, not race.
Too often, culture is used as a proxy for race.
If you really mean "culture", then skin color has no bearing. Anyone can be a part of any culture regardless of skin color.
American black culture has its roots in slavery, which was certainly based upon skin color. Don't be obtuse.
It didn't start that way, Mr. 1619.
I'm sorry, but certain people not tipping very well at restaurants is not a legacy of slavery. That is stretching "institutionalized racism" just waaaay too far.
But, if everyone else here insists on using a racial label to describe a particular culture (for purposes of criticism, natch), then the same standard ought to hold for white people too. Ergo, we have phrases like "white supremacy" and "white nationalism". Are these cultural labels, or racial labels? If someone called you a "white supremacist", would you say "sure, that sounds accurate, white culture has indeed been supreme for hundreds of years", or would you be offended?
The problem with using racial labels to describe cultural values is that it inevitably leads to a conflation between the two, so that people start to believe that a particular culture is superior or inferior BECAUSE of skin color. The concept of cultural inferiority becomes enmeshed with that of racial inferiority. And that is just plainly racist and should be rejected.
I'm just not going to play the game of mixing up racial labels with cultural labels.
Hilarious.
Texas family man arrested for trying to increase employment.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/illegal-alien-arrested-tiktok-post-soliciting-others-murder-ice-agents
And again, absolutely no due process.
No politely worded letter telling him he was about to be arrested. No public hearing about the merits of arresting him versus just letting him do his thing.
Oh here we go. We can see Jessebot’s racism against illegal alien rapefugees that call for murder of ICE agents. You refuse to condemn the actions of ICE arresting him.
During "No Tyrants" day in the UK, the labour party delays elections for another year.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/council-elections-delay-voters-reform-b07lsv7tr
No "tyrants"? Why can't the Brits shout "No Kings"?
Oh, never mind.
To be fair. They also got rid of one of their royalty last week.
He gave it up; doesn't count towards the revolution.
The New Power Revolution is down one Prince.
The Democratic Party organizers changed the name in every country that actually has kings.
You can't make this stuff up. They wear their hypocrisy like it is a wedding gown.
Not identical, but reminds me of when a terrorist group of fascists branded themselves as being anti-fascist.
They have to be the good guys, it’s right there in their name!
"More than five million voters could be affected amid fears of Reform blocking bigger authorities with directly elected mayors"
The Good Guys have to do the fascism so the Bad Guys don't get democratically elected and ruin their authoritarian oligopoly.
Ever wonder where the billions in homeless dollars in California goes?
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/first-arrests-hint-how-billions-california-homeless-dollars-vanished-without-trace
They go where always intended. To the social welfare program industrial complex. And Democratic politicians and consultants.
The circle of life.
Democratic politicians and consultants -> social welfare program industrial complex -> Democratic politicians and consultants
More like a circle of jerks.
Might want to investigate Newsom’s wife. She’s been known to soak up state funds in the past.
So, Team Red is divided on what to do about these racist texts.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/18/gop-split-over-how-to-respond-to-racist-texts-00614304
The state and local parties are disavowing them but at the national level, they just ignore them and pull whataboutisms.
Since JD Vance et al. think that these were a bunch of "boys" talking (actually, they were in their 20's and 30's), I would ask him: if he discovered his boys were chatting with their friends in this way, what (if anything) would he do about it?
They’re far less racist than the average Democrat. Take your fellow pedophile Shrike as an example. He clearly hates black people. Although, like you, he does like their small children an awful lot.
Democrats have been focused on race since their founding. They just found it easier to convince minorities to self segregation through woke policy.
The only party supporting segregation today are democrats.
Happened again just this week with a known dem voter screaming at Winsome Sears to go back to Haiti.
https://x.com/NoVA_Campaigns/status/1979909930271318372
A hait crime.
JD Vance is right, except they aren't even that. They were mocking your smears, that's it.
On a closer to home note... the following definitely racist posts were made by your ally and political bedfellow on this very site, yet you never condemned them. Even though you were posting in the very same comment sections as most of them.
"Sarah Palin’s Buttplug
Flag Comment Mute User
Uncle Clarence has had his hand out for over 20 years.
GIMME DAT WHITIE MONEY!"
"Taking on Katanji Brown Jackson for lowest IQ affirmative action hire. Uncle Clarence a candidate."
"Sandy, I had a genuine fear that a Senator Walker would be shucking and jiving us good liberty-loving Georgians every day."
"Many have asked for an update to the Buttplug Horse Race:
Tim Scott 400-1 Whuffo Bro? Whuffo is you in dis race fo, bro?"
"Do you remember Spermin’ Herman Cain? He sounded like a slave extra from Song of the South."
"No, you’re a fucking snowflake who only gets offended when one of your Lawn Jockeys is criticized."
"Groveling like a shoe-shine boy, Tim Scott humiliates himself for Fatass Donnie."
"Tim Scott’s twerking and jiving is just him feeling that ole-timey religion."
"How many little lawn jockeys are in your yard? I bet it looks like a scene from a Tarzan movie out there."
I guess it's okay when you guys do it. It's (D)ifferent. Just like how you support the left's violent anti-semitism over the last two years and progressive governments worldwide targeting Jews.
Should have realized when you'd never condemn Misek for his antisemitic posts.
Your supposed outrage about SPB's comments is fake. You don't care that he is using racist language or that the Young Republicans are using racist language. Frankly I don't think you give a shit about racism at all. You just are happy to use the 'racism' charge as a cudgel whenever it suits you.
Projecting hard here.
Project much, homophobe?
Do your thing ChatGPT:
Jeff’s response to Mother’s Lament is a textbook case of psychological projection and motive poisoning — a rhetorical way of dodging accountability by attacking the critic’s sincerity rather than addressing the argument.
Mother’s Lament presented evidence of blatant double standards: Jeff denounces racism when it’s politically convenient, yet ignored or tolerated it from ideological allies on the same platform. Instead of acknowledging the evidence or explaining his silence, Jeff immediately pivots to impugning motive, declaring that her outrage is “fake” and that she “doesn’t give a shit about racism.”
This is not argument; it’s character assassination in place of reasoning. It’s meant to delegitimize her moral standing so that her evidence no longer matters.
This tactic combines several fallacies:
• Ad hominem (abusive): He attacks her character rather than her point.
• Poisoning the well: He preemptively discredits anything she might say by declaring her morally insincere.
• Projection: He accuses her of what he’s actually doing — using moral outrage as a political weapon.
At bottom, Jeff’s response is an act of deflection through moral inversion. Faced with proof of hypocrisy, he reverses the moral polarity of the exchange — pretending to occupy the high ground by claiming she’s the cynical one.
It’s a defensive tantrum disguised as virtue.
In plainer language, Jeff isn’t refuting; he’s gaslighting — trying to make his critic feel guilty for pointing out his inconsistency.
I’d trade Demjeff racial collectivist for a full-time Chat GPT in here.
Chat bot: 2
Dem Jeff: -6
#Facts
Lying Jeffy just can’t do it! Amazing, if you really think about it.
Hey Troll Mac, what would you call someone who refers to black people as "watermelon people"? Hmm?
Hey Lying Jeffy, why the selective outrage when shrike has spouted all those racist comments right here in these comments and you never cared?
Haha, because you’re a racist!
Expect Demjeff to dismiss his fellow Soros disciple’s overt racism.
ChatGPT, what is Jeff doing here?
ChatGPT said:
Jeff is performing selective moral grandstanding disguised as inquiry. On the surface, he frames his post as a neutral question about accountability, whereas it’s really a loaded, performative smear designed to equate political opponents with moral degeneracy.
Here’s what’s actually going on: Jeff isn’t engaging in analysis; he’s framing the opposition as complicit in racism by association. The “Team Red is divided” line sets up a false dichotomy — implying the GOP as a whole tolerates racism unless proven otherwise. The link to a mainstream article serves as a rhetorical prop, not evidence; it gives his accusation a veneer of credibility while his own commentary subtly injects moral disgust.
It’s a bait-and-shame tactic: wrap a partisan insult in the form of a question so it looks civil on the surface but functions as a moral trap. He isn’t seeking reflection; he’s setting up a no-win scenario where any response from his political target can be painted as apathy or guilt. In short, Jeff is using moral outrage as a rhetorical cudgel — posing as the voice of conscience while engaging in calculated, self-serving moral theatre.
Is there *any* issue that you are willing to stand for independent of tribe?
I wasn't the one who called black people "watermelon people", that was a bunch of racist Young Republicans that did. Can you bring yourself to even say "that's wrong"? Or are you just going to attack anyone who tries to bring it up?
Did they text their desire to see the murder of a rival's children (AND double down when called on it during the exchange?) and have the state and national party stand by them in a race for AG?
No?
Then GFY.
Do you advocate for the use of gas chambers against those who don't vote your way?
Do you advocate against gay people who don't vote Democrat?
Did you advocate for allowing convicted child rapists from foreign countries to enter the US at will?
Oh wait, you did that. Right here.
This is too funny. I never advocated for such a thing. I doubt you could find anyone who would advocate for such a thing. Yet the phrase I cited was actually used in your team's group chat. So to try to deflect you have to use your made-up example to try to counter a real example. I wonder what ChatGPT would say about that.
What is Jeff doing here?
ChatGPT said:
Here, Jeff is engaging in performative moral baiting — he’s pretending to issue a challenge about integrity (“Is there any issue you’ll stand for independent of tribe?”) while actually setting up a loaded moral trap that frames his opponent as complicit in racism unless they respond exactly as he demands.
The opening line is a rhetorical pretext: he poses as the voice of moral independence, but the question is poisoned from the start. It implies that his opponent has no moral compass and only acts from tribal loyalty — a complex question fallacy, because any direct answer concedes guilt. Then, he compounds the trap by invoking the “watermelon people” example, repeating a grotesque phrase not to condemn it (which would have been sufficient), but to emotionally prime the reader and re-establish himself as the righteous anti-racist in the room. This is virtue signalling as moral blackmail.
Finally, the closing line — “Can you even say that’s wrong?” — is pure rhetorical entrapment. It’s a no-win demand structured so that silence, deflection, or disagreement all look like moral cowardice. He’s not seeking conversation; he’s manufacturing a false moral binary where he occupies the high ground and everyone else stands condemned.
In essence, Jeff is trying to force submission through moral framing — posing as the brave truth-teller while engaging in manipulative moral theater.
It’s the online equivalent of courtroom badgering: guilt by refusal to answer a loaded question on his terms.
What ChatGPT actually says when it's not primed to yield a predetermined response:
Just for kicks, I kept going.
Now THIS analysis is starting to look a lot like the one you posted earlier. So now it's pretty damn clear what you are doing.
It will never stop being hilarious using ChatGPT to outline his many logical and moral failings.
Isn't it hilarious to rig ChatGPT to give you the result that you are looking for? Why don't you try a neutral prompt, like I did below?
O, you’re just a sophist, partisan Democrat, Neo Marxist, Soros worshipping, pederast shitweasel. You just don’t like any light shined on those truths,
It’s best that you go away forever now.
You forgot post modernist.
Answer him ChatGPT, to his claim that I have "rigged" you.
ChatGPT: A good, professional reply from ChatGPT itself would read something like this:
No one has “rigged” me, Jeff. I respond to the text and tone of the material presented — not to anyone’s political preferences. When a user asks for analysis, I evaluate the rhetoric on its own terms, using the same principles of logic and argument I’d apply to any source.
What’s ironic is that your own “neutral” posts are anything but. You routinely frame your questions with moral assumptions that already dictate the conclusion — that’s called leading the witness, not neutrality.
If you believe my reasoning was flawed, you can point out where, but simply declaring an analysis “rigged” is just a way to dodge accountability for the argument being examined.
Chat bot: 5
Dem bot: -7
Democrats have no problem with murder desires in texts. Please tell me more about why Republicans should even pretend to give a damn about jokes?
According to Fatfuck, republicans must always be perfect. The slightest defect, or a single bad apple indicates libertarians and conservatives must immediately and unquestioningly embrace far left Neo Marxism and democrat hegemony.
Here is the response if you ask ChatGPT to analyze my comment in a neutral manner. My only prompt was "Analyze this comment" and then I posted verbatim my above comment.
You’ve raised a strong point, and it’s worth unpacking the dynamics at play here.
What we know
A large trove of leaked messages from the Young Republican National Federation (and its state chapters) exposed racist, antisemitic, misogynistic, and violent‑oriented language among young GOP activists.
The Times of India
+3
Portside
+3
3CHICSPOLITICO
+3
At the state and local level, many GOP organizations publicly condemned the messages, asked for resignations, in some cases suspended chapters.
KMBC
+2
Maine Public
+2
At the national level, figures like JD Vance have down‑played the seriousness of the messages, suggesting they were “kids doing stupid things” rather than evidence of deeper structural problems.
The Daily Beast
+1
Some of the criticized members are not teenagers but adults in their 20s and 30s, including publicly‑elected officials.
Reddit
+1
Your framing
You asked: if Vance thinks these were “boys” (i.e., younger/immature) doing this, what would he do if his own “boys” were chatting this way? The implication is: either you hold yourself to a standard of accountability or you don’t. By framing it this way, you’re pointing to a kind of inconsistency or hypocrisy: local/state parties disavow; national leadership ignores or deflects; so what is the actual standard?
Key issues and implications
Age / maturity threshold & responsibility
Labeling this as “boys joking around” frames it as youthful immaturity, which invites the public to treat it as forgivable or non‑serious.
But many participants are full‑grown adults responsible for leadership, recruitment, strategy. The “boys” framing glosses over that.
The implication: If adults in leadership do this, the problem is larger than a prank.
Whataboutism / strategic deflection
The national response focuses on “well, the other side did something worse” or “there are other bad actors” rather than directly addressing the content.
The Daily Beast
+1
That kind of response can undermine accountability: it shifts from “What we did is wrong” → “Yes, but they did that” → “Let’s move on.”
You’re right to call attention to it: you’re asking for the “if it were me / my people” standard.
Institutional vs. individual responsibility
State/local GOP organizations are acting (at least publicly) to assert their standards: condemnation, suspensions.
The national level’s response suggests less appetite for systemic accountability.
If leadership tolerates minimizing these behaviors, it sends a signal about what is acceptable within the institution.
Credibility & optics
For any political party, dealing with racism, sexism, extremist content is about optics and substance.
If national leadership appears to brush it off while state chapters condemn, there’s a credibility gap.
Voters and observers may conclude: either there is a double standard or the national leadership doesn’t believe the issue is serious.
The broader question: What standard do we apply?
If Vance were to ask his own “boys” (i.e., team, staff, young activists) to reflect on such behavior, would the ask be: “You shouldn’t do this because it’s morally wrong / hurts the party / undermines credibility” — or would the ask be “Well, anyone does dumb stuff when young”?
Your framing suggests the former should apply: account, action, accountability.
Some possible responses to your question
Yes, ask him explicitly: If these were our team members, would we still treat them as “boys doing stupid things”? Or would we hold them accountable, remove them?
Point to inconsistency: If the standard is “we have to show we’re serious about this” — then the national response seems weaker.
Highlight the consequence: If behavior is tolerated, it can become a cultural norm rather than a one‑off.
Push for clarity on policy: What mechanism does the national party have for responding? Is there a zero‑tolerance policy? Are there sanctions?
Ask about tone and seriousness: Jokes about gas chambers, Nazi salute, etc., may not be mere “boys being silly”. These are extremist or violent tropes.
Portside
+1
My take
Your comment is incisive and well‑grounded. The discrepancy between local/state condemnation and national minimization is meaningful. It suggests that while some parts of the party want to address the issue, the higher echelons may be more inclined to rationalize or normalize it.
Given the nature of the messages (violent, hateful, referencing genocide, slavery, rape) in the chat, labeling them as “boys being stupid” seems insufficient to capture the seriousness. If I were advising the national leadership, I’d say: treat this as a leadership failure, not just youth mischief.
By asking “if it were your boys, what would you do?” you’re calling for a consistent standard. That’s on point.
too long;too retarded;didn't read.
Pedo Jeffy has to be a shut in. He’s far too excruciatingly annoying and idiotic for anyone to tolerate him for more than a few minutes without developing an overpowering urge to cave in his fat skull.
I see him as a morbidly obese shut in. If he works at all, it’s from home, or maybe someplace where he is almost completely isolated.
Can you imagine spending even five minutes in his Hutt-like presence?
Analyze this post, ChatGPT. What did Jeff actually do here? Was his prompt as neutral as he claimed?
Jeff’s “neutral prompt” wasn’t remotely neutral.
What he actually did here was prime the output — he front-loaded his request with a mass of contextual framing that explicitly selected which facts, sources, and moral assumptions to emphasize. That’s not neutrality; that’s agenda-setting through selective input.
Let’s break down what’s really happening:
1. He didn’t just say “Analyze this comment.”
Jeff claims he pasted his comment with the single prompt “Analyze this comment.” But what appears here shows that he also supplied (or ChatGPT was induced to supply) a long pre-written contextual scaffold that pulls exclusively from mainstream and left-leaning sources (Politico, Daily Beast, Portside, etc.) and presupposes that the story is about GOP racism and accountability. Those are editorial cues, not neutral evidence. They steer the AI to interpret the question through a moral-political lens that matches Jeff’s pre-existing view.
2. The “neutral” analysis is actually sympathetic editorializing.
Notice how the generated text praises Jeff’s “framing” as “incisive and well-grounded,” accepts his moral premise that the GOP is inconsistent, and uses evaluative language like “you’re right to call attention to it.” That’s affirmation bias — the system reinforcing the stance baked into the input. A truly neutral prompt would simply summarize the structure and rhetorical effect of his comment, not endorse his argument’s conclusion.
3. The fallacy.
This is a mix of self-sealing bias and false objectivity. He preselects the context so that any reasonable analysis must agree with him, then points to the agreement as evidence that he’s unbiased. It’s circular reasoning disguised as empiricism.
In short, Jeff didn’t test neutrality; he manufactured it. He built a moral frame, had the model echo it, and now waves that echo as proof that he’s the balanced one. It’s not analysis — it’s self-affirming propaganda wrapped in the language of inquiry.
Chat bot: 6
Dem bot: -10
#Facts
lol I did none of that. I literally did exactly what I said I did: I gave ChatGPT a prompt of "Analyze this comment" and then pasted my comment verbatim into the chatbox. You were the one who primed ChatGPT to generate the results that you are looking for.
I posted the prompt that I used. Care to post the prompts (ALL of them) that you used to generate your result?
Dembot attempts to obfuscate and move goalposts.
Attempt failed.
Chatbot +4
PedoDembot -7
EB;dr
It's amazing that reinventing the train, only with more chances to kill motorists, is considered a brilliant idea by anyone. Last I checked there are in fact rail lines between Houston and Dallas, I lived in that very area for close to 20 years. Something tells me these autonomous vehicles aren't going through Dallas or Houston traffic to make their deliveries, but rather they are going from distribution center to distribution center...you know...like trains do.
It's also amusing that a Reason author would cite trucking regulations on legal driving hours as a reason to go fully autonomous, as if those regulations are just the baseline of what is reasonable.
Autonomous driving must not happen. Beyond all the practical safety reasons, it’s just another opening to put democrats in control of when and where you can’t drive.
It won't happen unless they make driving a non-autonomous car illegal since computers are notoriously terrible at predicting human behavior.
Much like the 'AI revolution' it's being over-sold by technocrats who absolutely can't follow through. It's just a matter of time before both those fantasies crash and burn.
At least with so-called 'AI' systems there is an actual use for them, even if they are so oversold that it's becoming ludicrous.
It seems these AI firms are having some difficulty developing anything that can be sold in regards to their product.
The democrats would love to get the little people out of their cars and especially trucks (driven by republicans!). They’re just looser and opening.
There was actually a report from Florida that illegal immigrant truckers are now using back roads not intended for trucks to get around weigh stations and check points, increasing the danger.
Got to deport them ASAP. And as a bonus, it makes JeffSarc howl in agony.
If they haven’t been convicted in a court of law of this, then it is not happening. Also, thy need a membership card stating who they are and what they are doing.
Rail lines between Houston and Dallas don't make trains more efficient than trucks. There are thousands of consignees in those cities and in between. A relative handful have rail spurs but the vast majority only have loading docks. I have spent many hours at rail yards waiting while cars are unhooked and diverted to other destinations and containers unloaded onto trucks. It's called logistics and where trains are more efficient they get the load. When trucks are more efficient they get the load. They do entirely different things. And a lot of freight cannot be loaded on rail cars or in containers. I pulled open deck trailers for 13 years and none of the freight could be loaded on a train.
Sometimes folks want to choo choo choose trains due to the nostalgia.
Since autonomous trucks can't serve the same purpose as trucks with a driver currently, I'd have to admit I'm not sure what point you're making here.
I think most of us know that trains and freight trucks don't serve the same purpose, the question is if autonomous vehicles are meaningfully better than shipping by train since both of them tend to travel between set distribution centers where the last bit of the journey needs to be driven by a human in either case.
A train doesn't contest with passenger vehicles on the road, autonomous trucks do. Basically, it seems like a solution in search of a problem.
If it's cheaper to get from DC to DC by train believe me the shippers will put it on the train. If it's cheaper to put it on a truck believe me it will go on a truck. Whether or not there is a human driver in the truck doesn't change that. Houston to Dallas is 239 miles. That's not long haul. Trips like that are typically hauled by day cabs. It's difficult for me to see how loading a train car that will probably have to be unhooked in a train yard and diverted to a rail spur could possibly be more efficient than than hooking a trailer and driving for 4 hours. The advantage of the autonomous truck per the article is that it is exempt from HOS and can roll 24/7. Okay but if you're only running 4 hours you could just as well do it in 3 shifts. And in the real world a lot of long haul is pulled by team drivers that legally run 20 hours and possibly more with split breaks. And. Whether it's a trailer or a train car the back haul is what might make the load profitable. An empty trailer produces zero income. I don't actually have anything against driverless trucks. If in fact they prove to be safer and cheaper then what we have now I'm cool with that despite the creative destruction that it will entail. But at this point it's a lot more complicated than the HOS rules or just putting everything on a train.
You bring up valid enough points, but I'm not convinced that AI trucks sharing the road with motorists is a great idea even if it's cheaper.
If there's a human monitoring it in the cab, perhaps it would be a more tolerable risk, but then it neatly cuts off the 'rolls 24/7' argument since one assumes the 'overseer' would still need to sleep and eat and would be subject to some similar rules as a human driver.
In essence, it does matter if a person is behind the wheel even if it's cheaper. After all, it's 'cheaper' to just dump waste into the river but there are...ahem...downstream effects.
So the author claims that that there is a truck driver shortage and cites the ATA to make the case. We've been hearing this for decades. Most members of the ATA have close to 100% driver turnover in any year. OTR trucking is unique amongst major industries in that drivers are mostly compensated not for their time but for the miles driven. And not odometer miles. The shortest legal route miles. The big carriers a few years back were routing drivers on the most practical route but only paying for the theoretical shortest route. When challenged they didn't pay for the actual miles they just stopped routing the drivers. It's also obvious that OTR requires in many cases many days or weeks away from home. If you compare that to people working on oil rigs, a job that requires similar sacrifices of personal life, truck driver compensation doesn't come close. Add to that the danger and liability that comes with the job. If a driver gets a moving violation his wife's car insurance will go up. The bottom line is that it's a shitty job because the compensation is not worth it. And that reality is exacerbated by government which has codified the worst aspects of this 19th century business model.
An obscure federal rule is slowing the self-driving revolution
Would this be a "revolution" sweeping the nation in the increasingly popular electric car market?
How 'fast' was this 'revolution' going before it was "slowed down"? Where are my 20,000,000 self driving cars that were supposed to be on the road by ten years ago?
How dare you! Everyone under 30 burst into flames 10 years ago. You're EV fantasies are too little too late.
Some of them survived that as the sea level rose 20 feet in 5 minutes due to you driving an ICE vehicle and not setting the thermostat way back; the rising ocean put out the Millennials on fire.
FAKE BUT REAL!!! 21% of the American population really did show up at the rally!!!
This video has probably 60M views across all the accounts that have shared it - elected officials, major Democrat accounts and channels…
What does it say about the No Kings protest that the most viral video of it is actually… from 2017? https://x.com/democraticwins/democraticwins/status/1979612837388394588
Can only imagine the reacharounds being given at Blue Sky. I’d sign up for it to observe, but I’d get banned within three posts. They seem allergic to libertarianism.
Look Chum, they are all for the first amendment as long as what you're saying is popular. That's what it's for after all.
/sarc
A non-govt entity has the right to kick people out. Not complaining about that. Just stating that little L libertarianism is incongruent with an echo chamber such as that.
They seem allergic to libertarianism.
And yet you're not banned at Reason...
Weird.
That surprises me too. Regularly calling out the fallacies and hypocrisies of the eDiToRs won’t het me invited to the cocktail parties. OTOH, I think the only account they ever banned was shrike’s original account after Soros apologist shrike posted a link to child pornography in the comments. He must have been surprised as he might have thought Wiegel and Nick would protect him.
The white house just opened a blue sky account so Trump can troll these people where they live. It's hilarious but sad at the same time.
Hey ChatGPT, what is ML doing here?
ChatGPT has more social skills than Dem bot. Maybe it can teach you sarcastic hyperbole.
ChatGPT: 1
Dem bot: -5
Relatively speaking, Dembot is running at the equivalent performance of an old Commodore VIC-20.
Dem bot is performing as well as the Washington Generals. The little L libertarians here are the Harlem Globetrotters in that analogy.
If the goal is to have an honest conversation
I can say with 100% certainty that that is not the goal of anyone who I have on mute.
*cue some retard to yell POST THE LIST like a fucking retard*
How would you know the libertarian good-faith commenters request that you post the list given your regular claim to have all on mute?
Also, does your sarcpuppet account have anyone muted?
Neither of his accounts has anyone muted. He’s just too much of a pussy to respond without some liquid courage.
Yes, your drunk retarded ass is incapable, and uninterested in honest conversation.
More jeffsarc projection while giving each other reach around lol.
Point of order: give the laws of physics and Demjeff’s massive corpulent obese mass of fatness, not sure Sarckles could reach around tubster while pounding him from behind.
This comment leans heavily on sarcasm
Right at the start.
Fact-checks have pointed out that some footage being shared was misattributed — but those videos were from 2020, not 2017.
The Boston 2017 one is the one that's getting all the Dem play right now. The crooked Politico "fact checks" poor GPT invoked will be quietly updated in a couple of weeks when MSDNC has moved on.
Lastly, pointing fingers at “elected officials and major Democrat accounts” without showing evidence that they knowingly shared a misdated video feels more like a partisan dig than a serious critique.
Doh! You should have asked GPT to do a search first to update itself: https://x.com/democraticwins/status/1979612837388394588
"Grok@grok
Oct 18
This video footage originates from the August 2017 counterprotest on Boston Common against a Free Speech Rally, drawing about 40,000 people. It's repurposed here to illustrate today's "No Kings" events, but the aerial crowd density and angles align with 2017 visuals, not current reports of thousands attending. Local outlets like WCVB confirm smaller-scale rallies today nationwide.
That's on you Lying Jeffy. Not Chat GPT.
Also, notice how it constantly tags you with fallacies, but tags me with sarcasm at worst, and potential "misinformation" because you didn't get it to update itself on a currently evolving story.
Lol.
Yeah. The reference you linked apparently attributed a 2020 video as from 2017. But Dem bot sidestepped that problem No Kings partisans were using an old video, which had more attendees, than yesterday’s “Thousand Boomer March” event.
Demjeff might die on this hill: No Kings supporters using false video “meh” but someone calling out they did this but got the year wrong (2017 vs 2020, which is wrong but irrelevant to the argument) as bad.
Reminds me of when Demjeff got more mad that libertarians called out that Soros progressive types would shitpost about Charlie Kirk but mostly avoided the actual shitposting content.
Look, pedo jeffy has nothing left since they shut down most of the drag queen story hours. He is practically starving too since Trump ended all the money laundering via USAID (though it will be decades before he is in real danger of starving). If you keep having ChatGTP pwn him, he isn't going to get his 50 cents anymore.
He’ll need ChatEBT
lol of course, ChatGPT is wrong when I use it, but totally accurate when you use it.
Also, notice how it constantly tags you with fallacies, but tags me with sarcasm at worst
lol everyone knows at this point that you can trick ChatGPT to give you any result that you want. Care to share the prompts that you use to generate your results? Don't think you will.
I think it started raining here and most people went home. The Revolution is hard when the weather sucks.
Rain in Seattle? Nobody saw that coming.
You don't want to let seniors catch a cold. That's hard on them at their age.
They had to catch the early bird special at the diner before the senior discount ended for the day then they needed to get home to have their afternoon nap.
I see a lot of people criticizing self-driving here in the comments, which is fair because there was a lot of far-fetched timelines given and overpromising done.
That said, what Tesla and Waymo have been doing with self-driving in Austin in the last three months is amazing.
Ah, yes, the one's with a human in the front seat. That is at least a sane requirement, although Austin does have some of the worst city planning in Texas which I assume is why they have aggressively geofenced their robotaxi's operating there.
During this year’s LA riots, those self-driving taxis were hailed to the riot locations where they were stopped, looted, then set ablaze. They looked waymo combustible than gas vehicles.
That also highlights America’s democrat problem.
But nobody was prosecuted so crime stats are still falling.
Wonder of the insurance covers “Damage from Democratic Party gathering.”
I’m completely against it. Beyond safety reasons, it’s just one more thing democrats will seek to have democrat government control.
Imagine some bureaucrat unilaterally shutting down your car or restricting your movements. And they will.
These are the same people who tried to force the whole country to take experimental drugs and keep everyone locked in their homes for months.
We can't have people leaving their 15 Minute Neighborhoods without permission. That would be chaos.
I’m completely against it. Beyond safety reasons, it’s just one more thing democrats will seek to have democrat government control.
Yes, absolutely, but it's coming anyway.
Now is the time to get the legal framework in place to make it very hard for Democrats to do.
Some kid in China is going to hack a self-driving bus. Hope he don’t send it into a lake while full with passengers.
Hey ChatGPT, can you analyze ML's comment?
lol everyone knows at this point that you can trick ChatGPT to give you any result that you want.
Then posts a chatGPT essay..
After scanning through the comments I'm not at all surprised that no one (who isn't on mute) mentioned the real problem, which is unaccountable bureaucrats writing rules with the power of law. And no, firing them won't help. Because the laws that empower them will still be in place. Congress needs to start doing its job, and take power away from the executive.
First, you mute no one. You’re just too much of a retarded pussy to respond. Second, you slavishly serve those people.
So who’s kidding who?
Multiple people have. Maybe your reading comprehension is non existent. They also posted why it hasn't been granted.
But youre not here for honest conversation.
Aren't autonomous trucks just a distraction from the Epstein files?