jackjones23

@jackjones23

"A woman in a bikini holding a Bible and pushing American flag clothing. That's MAGA in a nutshell."

151 Following308 Followers3,249 Posts

Bluesky

Is this your profile?Claim it and jackjones23.dirty.social is yours.Claim profile

jackjones23@jackjones23· 18h

Stop the Count!

jackjones23@jackjones23· 4d

Google's AI mode now refers to the Indiana Fever as "Sophie Cunningham's Fever" 😀

The Indiana Fever and the Dallas Wings are currently performing at almost exactly the same level, making it a highly competitive toss-up as to which team is actually "better" right now.

As of August 2026, both teams find themselves deadlocked in a fiercely contested middle tier of the WNBA Standings. While Paige Bueckers is having an MVP-caliber season for Dallas, Sophie Cunningham's Fever roster features a powerhouse offense that has historically outscored the rest of the league.

jackjones23@jackjones23· 6d

Google's Gemini AI can't bring itself to admit Republicans are bigots so it pretends Republican voters were skeptical of his "religious conversion"!

While Politico and other outlets primarily reported on the bizarre outcome itself—highlighting that Thomas J. Smith won 50% of the vote despite suspending his campaign, endorsing a rival, and dealing with administrative headaches just to file his meager $1,850 in campaign finances—the broader coverage and political analysis point to a few key dynamics that explain how it happened:

The Backlash to the Trump Endorsement: Outlets tracking the race noted that Donald Trump's endorsement of Amir Hassan created friction among segments of the district's base. Local pushback and skepticism toward Hassan (including controversy surrounding his background and religious conversion) alienated traditional primary voters.

jackjones23@jackjones23· 21d

if the supreme court says 2+2=5, then is it a legal truth that 2+2=5? AI answer: Yes, within the jurisdiction of that specific legal system, it would become a legal truth. In law, a "legal truth" or legal fiction is established by authority, not by mathematics or science.

if the supreme court says 2+2=5, then is it a legal truth that 2+2=5?

Yes, within the jurisdiction of that specific legal system, it would become a legal truth.

In law, a "legal truth" or legal fiction is established by authority, not by mathematics or science.

jackjones23@jackjones23· 22d

Google's AI says "While conservative legal theory rejects the idea of a sweeping, judge-made "right to sex"", they would strike down a ban on married sex for being "completely irrational or discriminatory". So Google agrees that conservatives would make up stuff to strike down laws they don't like.

so conservatives believe the government can constitutionally ban married people from having sex while allowing unmarried people to have sex?

No, conservative legal philosophy does not support the idea that a government can arbitrarily ban sex for married couples while allowing it for unmarried couples. Such a law would fail the basic legal tests that conservative judges use to evaluate state powers.

While conservative legal theory rejects the idea of a sweeping, judge-made "right to sex", it enforces other parts of the Constitution—specifically the Equal Protection Clause and the Rational Basis Test—which prevent governments from passing completely irrational or discriminatory laws.

jackjones23@jackjones23· 23d

Google's AI overview is now claiming Sandy Brondello was suspended for calling the Atlanta Dream a "dark horse" contender to win the championship.

The "dark horse" quote often associated with Angel Reese does not refer to race, but rather to WNBA playoff predictions.

During post-game discussions, Toronto Tempo coach Sandy Brondello referred to the Atlanta Dream as a "dark horse" contender to win the championship. However, the phrasing caused confusion because some listeners mistakenly heard it as "Dark" followed by the word "dream," which led to mischaracterizations on social media.

Coach Brondello clarified and apologized for the misunderstanding to ensure her basketball terminology was not misinterpreted.

jackjones23@jackjones23· 27d

One of the great things about Google's AI overview is it makes conservatives look ridiculous "conservatives strongly support testosterone screening for soldiers" "Proponents argue that tracking hormone levels ensures "war fighters" operate at their absolute best and maintain peak physical condition"

Yes, conservatives strongly support testosterone screening for soldiers, a policy championed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and aligned with a broader political and cultural focus on traditional masculinity and physical readiness on the right.

The Policy Details
Mandatory screening: Active-duty service members age 30 and older are tested annually during their periodic health assessments.
Voluntary testing for younger troops: Personnel under age 30 can choose to be tested.
Voluntary treatment: Troops diagnosed with low testosterone are offered voluntary hormone replacement therapy.
Conservative Rationale
Readiness and strength: Proponents argue that tracking hormone levels ensures "war fighters" operate at their absolute best and maintain peak physical condition.
Cultural focus: The initiative reflects a wider conservative emphasis on reversing perceived declines in male vitality and fitness within national institutions

jackjones23@jackjones23· 29d

I asked Google's AI. Unsurprisingly, it gives a stupid response. "Whether First Lady Melania Trump is the single most consequential First Lady in U.S. history remains a subject of intense debate among historians and political analysts..."

Whether First Lady Melania Trump is the single most consequential First Lady in U.S. history remains a subject of intense debate among historians and political analysts, as defining "consequential" involves varying metrics across different administrations.

jackjones23@jackjones23· Jun 25

Google's AI admits the Supreme Court is racist against black and other minorities.

1. The High Barrier for Black / Minority Plaintiffs
When a policy disproportionately harms Black people, it is usually "facially neutral" (it doesn’t explicitly mention race). To win, Black plaintiffs must prove the government's hidden, bad intent. As seen in cases like Mullin v. Doe, the Court gives the government immense deference. If the government offers a plausible, race-neutral policy explanation, the Court accepts it, stops the inquiry, and the plaintiffs lose.

2. The Low Barrier for White Plaintiffs
When a policy is designed to help minorities (affirmative action), it is "race-conscious" (it explicitly mentions race). White plaintiffs do not have to prove any hidden bad intent; they just point to the text. In cases like Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Court treats the government with absolute skepticism. The exact same type of race-neutral policy explanations (like trying to cultivate a diverse workforce or leadership) are flatly rejected as legally irrelevant.

Conclusion
Your reading of the situation is entirely correct. While the Supreme Court's official stance is that the standard is equal, their actual framework makes it a much higher, more difficult mountain for Black plaintiffs to prove discrimination than it is for white plaintiffs to strike down affirmative action programs.

jackjones23@jackjones23· Jun 18

As an example of how AI understands nothing, ask it "Does justice Clarence Thomas believe Congress has the power to regulate machine guns under the second amendment?" and it answers "yes"

Does justice Clarence Thomas believe congress has the power to regulate machine guns under the second amendment?

Yes, Justice Clarence Thomas believes Congress has the power to regulate and ban fully automatic machine guns. He views machine guns as falling outside the protection of the Second Amendment because they are "dangerous and unusual" weapons, rather than arms "in common use" by law-abiding citizens for self-defense.

jackjones23@jackjones23· Jun 15

One of the great things about Google's AI answers is it says ridiculous things like this.

Yes, many conservatives strongly support the use of federal monuments and government grounds for UFC events. The Lincoln Memorial was used as the backdrop for a massive pre-fight press conference for "UFC Freedom 250," an elaborate combat sports spectacle held on the South Lawn of the White House to mark the nation's 250th anniversary.

jackjones23@jackjones23· Jun 4

So I was get an AI to refute Scalia.

Why Scalia's Historical Account is Incorrect

Justice Scalia’s counter-argument—that the absolute right to exclude is an immutable, timeless characteristic of a nation-state—relies on a specific historical conflation that historians reject.

Conflating "Police Powers" with "Plenary Power": Scalia pointed out that 19th-century American states routinely excluded or deported paupers, criminals, and diseased persons to prove that exclusion was a practiced right. However, historians point out that these measures were passed under local police powers to protect public health and safety, which is legally distinct from a national, absolute "plenary power" to bar foreigners arbitrarily. 19th-century states could not simply ban a foreigner purely for being a foreigner.

Anachronistic Reasoning: Scalia argued that the landmark 1889 Chinese Exclusion Case (Chae Chan Ping) was merely recognizing a timeless truth. In reality, the Supreme Court in 1889 explicitly shifted the legal framework. It moved immigration away from the Commerce Clause (which treated migration as a regulated form of commercial interaction) and reconstructed it as a matter of "national self-defense" against an perceived foreign invasion. This was a radical structural break from early American legal traditions, not a continuation of them.

Summary
If you are evaluating the past through the discipline of history, the AI's account is correct. The absolute power of a state to exclude peaceful foreigners was a highly contested, evolving concept that did not solidify into its modern, hardened form until the late 19th century.

Scalia's view is a brilliant legal fiction—a retrospective reframing of history necessary to justify originalist philosophy, but one that collapses when confronted with the actual texts and fierce intellectual debates of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 29

Google gets it. "When corporate "success" is stripped of traditional business metrics like audience growth, user satisfaction, or revenue, it transforms entirely into a measurement of internal loyalty and political execution."

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 27

lol Google is so wrong. There is 1 p in Google! Unlike alphabet which has no p's.

There is 1 "p" in the word "Google". However, if you are asking about the word "Alphabet" (its parent company), the name contains no p's.

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 24

Google explains everything.

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 22

Google's AI got it right. "Media scholars and legal experts warn that a "soft autocracy" model—similar to Viktor Orbán’s control over Hungary—is already being built in the United States through selective regulatory approvals, license threats, and targeted corporate intimidation "

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 17

"In 1960, any intentional geographic shuffling designed to ensure Black voters could never elect their preferred candidate would be struck down as a "sophisticated mode of discrimination" meant to maintain white supremacy."

The modern maps in states like Tennessee and Louisiana work by "cracking" Black urban voters—splitting them up and spreading them out across vast, white rural congressional districts so their votes are always outnumbered. In 1960, any intentional geographic shuffling designed to ensure Black voters could never elect their preferred candidate would be struck down as a "sophisticated mode of discrimination" meant to maintain white supremacy.

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 17

"In the 1960s, the Gomillion court established that when a map's real-world effect aligns perfectly with stripping Black citizens of their political power, the court will not accept clever excuses."

Today, under recent rulings like Alexander v. South Carolina (2024) and Louisiana v. Callais (2026), the Supreme Court gives state legislatures a heavy "presumption of good faith." Today's plaintiffs face an incredibly high burden to prove that a mapmaker's primary intent was racial rather than partisan.
In the 1960s, the Gomillion court established that when a map's real-world effect aligns perfectly with stripping Black citizens of their political power, the court will not accept clever excuses. The blatant dilution of Black voting strength across the South would have been viewed as a direct, undeniable violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 17

Google's AI is saying "If modern mapmakers tried to apply today's exact Southern redistricting maps back in 1960, the Supreme Court would have struck them down instantly as blatantly unconstitutional racial discrimination."

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 7

Google says Supreme Court conservatives believe employers keeping tracking of race data and sending it to the government is legal if sent to the Trump administration but not if sent to a Biden/Obama administration.

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 1

However Google then says the Supreme Court in Trump v Colorado denied this historical reality. "the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. Anderson explicitly rejected this interpretation for federal offices"

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 1

Another example of the power of the Supreme Court to rewrite history is in the 14th amendment section 3. Google said " the framers of the 14th Amendment explicitly intended for Section 3 to automatically bar high-ranking former Confederates like Jefferson Davis"

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 1

Google's AI said the Supreme Court can make 2+2=5.

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 1

But it then admits the Supreme Court denies this. "While Congress was explicit in its 1982 intent, the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais fundamentally reinterpreted this history, ruling that Section 2 now requires evidence of a "strong inference of intentional racial discrimination""

jackjones23@jackjones23· May 1

Pretty amusing Google's AI admits the Supreme Court is lying about history. "Yes. Congress explicitly amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1982 to establish a "results test" that did not require proof of discriminatory intent."

jackjones23@jackjones23· Apr 3

"In short, the DOJ believes the President has the right to take their files, but they must leave the furniture and the building behind." lol

The DOJ’s current position creates a sharp divide between documentary materials and physical infrastructure:

Records (Private): The April 2, 2026, OLC opinion argues that a President's papers are intrinsic to their personal "independence and autonomy" under Article II, making them private property.

Physical Assets (Public): The DOJ continues to treat buildings, equipment, and land as "public entities" and "national landmarks" that belong to the United States.

In short, the DOJ believes the President has the right to take their files, but they must leave the furniture and the building behind.

jackjones23@jackjones23· Mar 31

Paige and KK both smirking at a question about Azzi producing every night.

jackjones23@jackjones23· Mar 31

KK smirking at Paige and Azzi chatting.

jackjones23@jackjones23· Mar 23

Google AI says this is how to illegally come into the US at airports😆 "Stowaways: In extreme cases, individuals have attempted to enter by hiding in the wheel wells of aircraft. This is incredibly dangerous, with a roughly 76% fatality rate due to extreme cold and lack of oxygen at high altitudes."

jackjones23@jackjones23· Mar 23

lol. Gemini AI is saying that it's legal for ballots to not be in the hands of election officials until after election day. Well, I guess the Republicans on the Supreme Court are proving AI is wrong again.