I can see it. Trump seems very susceptible to flattery. Slob his knob enough and be the last person he talked to, you could definitely get funding.

Thanks, Silas!

I’m sorry, but your premise is flawed. The actual fact is that they are not fun at parties.

Fair. But I think the reason behind that feeling is different between the two of you. One is internal, the other is systemic. Though I guess if you were to ask her, she’d say the same thing in reverse.

Our voices didn’t matter. It didn’t matter how we voted.

My suspicion is that she feels that way because she lost. A wild guess, but I think she’s so selfish that she can’t imagine other people’s voice/desires mattering as much as her own personal wishes; their votes shouldn’t count like her’s does.

Yeah I’m pretty weary of the press covering him as if he’s a normal presidential candidate. I understand we have to pay attention to what he says and does because he has such a following that are rabid and ready to burn it all to the ground. But that doesn’t mean we wring our hands when he yet again breaks some norm of politicking. We should stop expecting normal. Just report on his insanity so the sane people can better prepare themselves.

Even if it’s true, he’s just admitting that he doesn’t care about future generations. Fuck them kids, I guess.

George Soros

I think he’s considered the King Jew in their worldview. He’s the Final Boss™, if you will.

my reason for waking up

Emotions run high around politics right now. Can’t I say I blame people for that. Shits fucked. And there is friendly fire from time to time when people feel like saying or acknowledging anything bad about “your side” is strengthening “the other side”. And hell maybe they’re right I don’t know. It’s all very subjective.

That thing about when he was in China was a shitshow from top to bottom. I had never even heard of the “controversy” so it was probably some bullshit the moderators threw in to appease the conspiracy lunatics and appear balanced. Then his answer was a bunch of nothing and flailing around. I don’t think he even answered it. The closest he got was “that’s what I said” and didn’t address the accuracy of the statement or an explanation in his answer. And then he stopped with a few seconds left in his allotted time and froze up and stammered for the rest of it.

Tim Walz is, by all appearances, a stand up guy and smart as a tack. But that isn’t really what drives these debates. If they were won and lost on the merits, no Republican would have been elected in my lifetime. But they’re not about substance and by pretty much every measure that answer and interaction was a doozy of a loser.

But that was the only answer that he flubbed like that, so the night wasn’t a total disaster for Walz. It just wasn’t a win.

Don’t forget the “distinct odor” lol. That just says to me that the cops lied through their teeth to get the warrant.

I think they’d be good stewards!

I hope whoever gets the website keeps it exactly the same in looks and tone, and instead of contributing to misinformation actively correct misinformation online and post accurate stories. Keep the vibe and over-the-top voice tho.

Yes, that was the distinction I was trying to make. These cases are fact dependent. I’m willing to admit that in this specific case there might have been both the intent to imply endorsement by a specific person and that practical result.

But as you can see in the other comments where I’m getting reamed, owning a voice outright is a pretty popular (if currently legally dubious/impossible) concept.

There is no way to exactly fingerprint a voice. There isn’t a mathematical definition of a voice. Even fingerprints and DNA aren’t completely unique; think of twins. This means that a subjective judgement would have to be made when deciding ownership.

Look, I’m obviously not going to convince you. But I hope, for your sake, that this legal framework doesn’t come to exist because you will not be the winner. Disney, Warner Brothers, or some other entity with deep pockets will own just about everything because they have the lawyers and money to litigate it.

There are real problems and dangers of trying to turn everything that has value into capital for capital owners.

I never argued that you can’t sue for implied endorsement or defamation. That is illegal. What isn’t legal is owning a voice outright. You’re conflating the two.

I’m sorry but that isn’t true. A voice is a natural trait. There are other people with similar or identical voices out there.

Let’s just say you can “own” a voice. In that world, what happens when two people naturally sound similar? Who gets the rights?

That might be a valid claim. But I would find it to be a very weak one unless they can come up with evidence that their use actually pretended to be him. The strongest argument here in my opinion would be that they hoped people would assume it’s him, even though they never state it. In the end it would be a very fact-reliant case, and subjectively I wouldn’t be convinced of an attempt to mislead based just on the use of a voice alone.

Again, I’m asking what, in a perfect world where this kind of protection existed, would happen if two people had similar (or identical) sounding voices? Which entity would gain the legal rights and protections?