3 ms·

The proposed law was so egregiously stupid that if you live in California, you should seriously consider voting for Anthony Weiner's opponent in the next electi

by timr 2y ago

The proposed law was so egregiously stupid that if you live in California, you should seriously consider voting for Anthony Weiner's opponent in the next election. The man cannot be trusted with power -- this is far from the first ridiculous law he has championed. Notably, he was behind the (blatantly unconstitutional) AB2098, which was silently repealed by the CA state legislature before it could be struck down by the courts: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ncla-victory-gov-newsom-repeals-182900581.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ncla-victory-gov-newsom-repea... https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/COVID-misinformation-AB-2098-17530946.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/COVID-... (Folks, this isn't a partisan issue. Weiner has a long history of horrendously bad judgment and self-aggrandizement via legislation. I don't care which side of the political spectrum you are on, or what you think of "AI safety", you should want more thoughtful representation than this.)

johnnyanmac 2y ago
>you should want more thoughtful representation than this. Your opinion on what "thoughtful representation" is is what makes this point partisan. Regardless, he's in until 2028 so it'll be some time before that vote can happen. Also, important Nitpick, it's Scott Weiner. Anthony Weiner (no relation AFAIK) was in New York and has a much more... Public controversy.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > Public controversy I think you accidentally hit the letter "L". :P
dlx 2y ago
you've got the wrong Weiner dude ;)
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Lol, I thought "How TF did Anthony Weiner get elected for anything else again??" after reading that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rekttrader 2y ago
** Anthony != Scott Weiner
GolfPopper 2y ago
Anthony Weiner is a disgraced New York Democratic politician who does not appear to have re-entered politics after his release from prison a few years ago. You mentioned his name twice in your post, so it doesn't seem to be an accident that you mentioned him, yet his name does not seem to appear anywhere in your links. I have no idea what message you're trying to convey, but whatever it is, I think you're failing to communicate it.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  He meant Scott Wiener but had penis on the brain.
- timr 2y ago
  Yes, it was a mistake. I obviously meant the Weiner responsible for the legislation I cited. But you clearly know that. > I have no idea what message you're trying to convey, but whatever it is, I think you're failing to communicate it. Really? The message is unchanged, so it seems like something you could deduce.

by timr 2y ago

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>you should want more thoughtful representation than this. Your opinion on what "thoughtful representation" is is what makes this point partisan. Regardless, he's in until 2028 so it'll be some time before that vote can happen. Also, important Nitpick, it's Scott Weiner. Anthony Weiner (no relation AFAIK) was in New York and has a much more... Public controversy.

Terr_ 2y ago
> Public controversy I think you accidentally hit the letter "L". :P

dlx 2y ago

you've got the wrong Weiner dude ;)

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Lol, I thought "How TF did Anthony Weiner get elected for anything else again??" after reading that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rekttrader 2y ago

** Anthony != Scott Weiner

GolfPopper 2y ago

Anthony Weiner is a disgraced New York Democratic politician who does not appear to have re-entered politics after his release from prison a few years ago. You mentioned his name twice in your post, so it doesn't seem to be an accident that you mentioned him, yet his name does not seem to appear anywhere in your links. I have no idea what message you're trying to convey, but whatever it is, I think you're failing to communicate it.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
He meant Scott Wiener but had penis on the brain.
timr 2y ago
Yes, it was a mistake. I obviously meant the Weiner responsible for the legislation I cited. But you clearly know that. > I have no idea what message you're trying to convey, but whatever it is, I think you're failing to communicate it. Really? The message is unchanged, so it seems like something you could deduce.