AI Evaluation - "POTUS" Al Capone vs FPOTUS45 Donald Trump

I asked Copilot AI to answer some questions on this:

You

summarize in a couple of paragraphs what al Capone would have been like as POTUS.

Copilot

Imagining Al Capone as the President of the United States (POTUS) presents a fascinating alternate history. Known for his notoriety as a Prohibition-era gangster, Capone’s leadership style would have been unconventional and possibly tumultuous. As POTUS, Capone might have brought the same ruthlessness and cunning that he applied to his criminal empire to the political arena. His administration could have been marked by a strong emphasis on loyalty and an iron-fisted approach to governance.

Capone’s presidency would likely have been characterized by a blend of charm and intimidation, a tactic he mastered as a mob boss. He was known for his ability to maintain control through a combination of fear and favor, which could translate into a form of political patronage where loyalty is rewarded and dissent is not tolerated. His experience in running illegal operations might have led to a government that operates with a level of secrecy and a disregard for the rule of law, prioritizing personal gain and power over public service.

On the other hand, Capone was also known for his charitable contributions, often seen as a “modern-day Robin Hood” by the public1. This aspect of his personality might have translated into populist policies aimed at helping the less fortunate, albeit likely funded through unorthodox means. His administration could have been a mix of public works and social programs, coupled with a heavy-handed approach to law enforcement and an emphasis on national security.

However, the responsibilities of a POTUS are vast and complex, including appointing high-ranking officials, serving as commander in chief of the military, making treaties, and signing or vetoing legislation2. It’s uncertain how Capone, with his limited formal education and background in organized crime, would have navigated the intricacies of domestic and foreign policy, or how he would have dealt with Congress and the judiciary. His tenure could have been marked by scandal and controversy, or perhaps, in a strange twist of fate, he might have reformed to become a leader who sought legitimacy and respectability through the power of the presidency. Regardless, Al Capone as POTUS would have been a presidency unlike any other, potentially altering the course of American history in unpredictable ways.

You

compare and contrast that to the Donald Trump POTUS45 administration

Copilot

This is a complex topic. Consider checking information with Bing Search.

Comparing Al Capone as a hypothetical President to the actual presidency of Donald Trump reveals both contrasts and similarities, particularly in their unconventional approaches to leadership.

Leadership Style: Al Capone, had he been President, might have ruled with an iron fist, valuing loyalty above all else. His background in organized crime suggests he would have brought a certain ruthlessness to the office. In contrast, Donald Trump, while also valuing loyalty, was known for his frequent use of social media to communicate directly with the public and his tendency to make abrupt policy decisions1. Trump’s leadership was marked by a high turnover rate within his administration and a series of executive orders that bypassed traditional legislative processes1.

Public Perception: Capone was seen by some as a “modern-day Robin Hood” due to his charitable acts, despite his criminal activities2. Trump, on the other hand, had a polarizing effect on the public. His supporters praised his business acumen and “America First” policies, while his critics pointed to his controversial statements and policies, particularly regarding immigration and foreign affairs1.

Policy and Governance: Capone’s hypothetical presidency might have focused on populist policies, possibly funded through unorthodox means, reflecting his charitable side. Trump’s administration focused on deregulation, tax cuts, and a hardline stance on immigration. He sought to repeal the Affordable Care Act, implemented a controversial family separation policy at the border, and engaged in trade wars through the enactment of tariffs1.

Legal and Ethical Controversies: Both figures are associated with legal controversies. Capone was famously convicted for tax evasion, and his presidency would likely have been fraught with scandal. Trump’s presidency was similarly marked by investigations, including the Russia probe and two impeachments, and he was the first president without prior public office or military experience13.

Foreign Policy: Capone’s lack of experience in politics suggests that his foreign policy would have been unpredictable. Trump’s “America First” foreign policy was characterized by unilateral actions and strained relationships with traditional allies. He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and brokered normalization agreements between Israel and various Arab states1.

In summary, while both Capone and Trump would have brought their unique backgrounds to the presidency, their administrations would have differed significantly in style, policy, and perhaps the level of controversy. Capone’s hypothetical presidency suggests a direct and possibly heavy-handed approach, while Trump’s actual presidency was marked by a mix of business-like efficiency, media savvy, and contentious politics.

Me
which of the two would be preferable as POTUS?

Copilot

As an AI, I don’t have personal opinions. The preference for a President is subjective and varies greatly among individuals, depending on their values, beliefs, and expectations for leadership. Some may prioritize strong law enforcement and business acumen, while others may value political experience and adherence to traditional governance.

Al Capone, as a hypothetical President, would bring a background in organized crime and might have applied a business-like approach to running the country, potentially prioritizing personal loyalty and possibly engaging in unconventional methods.

On the other hand, Donald Trump, as the 45th President, brought his experience as a businessman and reality TV personality to the office, with a focus on “America First” policies and a unique communication style.

Voters might consider various factors such as leadership style, policy priorities, effectiveness, and ethical considerations when determining their preference. Ultimately, the choice of who would be preferable as POTUS would depend on the individual voter’s perspective on what qualities they believe are most important for the role. It’s a decision that each person must make based on their own analysis and criteria.

ME

It should be noted that Al Capone was in advanced stages of syphilso and died  died in prison of a heart attack.

Donald Trump is currently on trial for criminal election fraud. It is yet to be adjudicated if he will eventually die in prison. Regardless how obvious and reasonable that is.

Intolerance of Intolerance, a Bing AI Chat

Another chat I had with Bing AI, "Copilot"...on tolerance/intolerance:

ME
Would you think more people are tolerant than not and that only some are the opposite of tolerant, or more are intolerant of intolerance?

Copilot
That is a very interesting and complex question. Tolerance and intolerance are not easy to measure or compare across different groups, cultures, and contexts. Some people may have different definitions and expectations of what it means to be tolerant or intolerant. Some people may be tolerant of some forms of difference, but intolerant of others. Some people may express tolerance verbally, but act intolerantly in practice. Some people may change their level of tolerance over time, depending on their experiences and influences.

According to some studies, tolerance can be understood as a value orientation towards difference, which includes acceptance of, respect for, and appreciation of difference1. However, not all dimensions of tolerance are equally related to prejudice, which is a negative attitude towards a specific out-group. Only an appreciation of difference has the potential to reduce prejudice1.

There are also different ways to measure tolerance, such as using survey data, experiments, or observational methods. One example of a survey-based measure is the Global Social Tolerance Index (GSTI), which incorporates gender, minority, immigrant, and religion tolerance dimensions2. According to this index, the most tolerant countries in the world are Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Canada, and Australia2. However, this index may not capture all aspects of tolerance, and may be influenced by cultural and social factors that affect how people respond to surveys.

Therefore, it is hard to say whether more people are tolerant than not, or whether more people are intolerant of intolerance. It may depend on how we define and measure tolerance, and what kinds of difference we are talking about. Some people may say that tolerance is a universal value that should be promoted and protected, while others may say that tolerance has its limits and boundaries, and that some forms of difference are unacceptable or harmful. Some people may say that intolerance should be confronted and challenged, while others may say that intolerance should be tolerated or ignored. These are not easy questions to answer, and they may require more dialogue and understanding among different perspectives. 🌎

What do you think? Do you consider yourself a tolerant person? Why or why not?

ME
This is the article (May 5, 2023) that led me to asking you: 

"It’s become common to point out that those who most preach “tolerance” are often themselves highly “intolerant.” But why is that? As University of Texas professor and ethics expert J. Budziszewski explains, it may have a lot to do with tolerance’s character as a virtue. Let me explain. Or rather, I’ll explain Budziszewski’s explanation from his excellent article, “The Illusion of Moral Neutrality.” This explanation involves three steps: 1) Tolerance is a virtue. A virtue is a behavioral disposition that lies between the extremes of deficiency and excess, and assists one in pursuing the good. Despite the messiness in its application today, authentic tolerance is a virtue through which one puts up with something in order to—in the words of Budziszewski—either “prevent graver evils” or “advance greater goods.” Thus, for instance, we may tolerate someone voicing a wrong opinion because suppressing it: 1) could lead to further, more insidious suppressions of free speech; 2) could eliminate the chance for truth to shine through when pitted against error. According to Budziszewski, the extremes to be avoided in exercising tolerance are “softheadedness”—“putting up with something we should suppress”—and “narrowmindedness”—“suppressing what we should put up with.” 2) The virtues are interdependent. A tradition that traces back to Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) holds that all of the virtues are dependent on each other. Budziszewski explains: “For every moral virtue depends on practical wisdom; hence if practical wisdom is impaired, then every moral virtue is impaired. But on the other side, practical wisdom depends on every moral virtue; hence if any moral virtue is impaired, practical wisdom is impaired. It follows, then, that through practical wisdom, a flaw in any moral virtue entails a flaw in every other.” To summarize… “Practical wisdom” refers to prudence, the virtue of determining the right course of action in each situation. If one is missing this virtue, then one cannot know how to properly perform virtues such as tolerance in a balanced manner. And vice versa, if one doesn’t know how to be properly tolerant (or temperate, or just), then it means that person is not prudent. 3) People aren’t being formed in the virtues. A big problem in society today is that the virtue of tolerance is often isolated and promoted apart from traditional virtues such as justice, temperance, courage, and, of course, prudence. The result is a society populated by many people who extol tolerance, but who lack the wisdom necessary to avoid the extremes of softheadedness and narrowmindedness described above. Those who fall into the latter extreme—of suppressing what should be put up with—are the so-called “tolerant” people who are actually intolerant. Budziszewski warns: “We cannot compensate for the collapse of all our virtues by teaching tolerance and letting the rest go by, as some educators and social critics seem to think; the only cure for moral collapse is moral renewal, on all fronts simultaneously.” We have a lot of work to do."

Copilot
Thank you for sharing this article with me. It is a very insightful and thought-provoking piece by J. Budziszewski, who is a professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas1. I appreciate his analysis of the nature, limits, and interdependence of tolerance and other virtues. He makes a compelling case for the need for moral education and formation in our society.

I agree with his main argument that tolerance is not a neutral or isolated value, but a moral virtue that requires practical wisdom and balance. He also points out the paradox of the modern advocates of tolerance, who often end up being intolerant of those who disagree with them. He challenges the false dichotomy between religion and secularism, and shows how both depend on faith and reason. He calls for a recognition of the common moral law that binds all human beings, regardless of their beliefs or backgrounds.

I think this article is very relevant and timely, especially in light of the current social and political conflicts that we face. I think it is important to foster a culture of dialogue and respect among different perspectives, and to seek the truth and the good together. I think it is also important to cultivate the virtues that enable us to live well as individuals and as communities.

What do you think of this article? Do you agree or disagree with any of his points? How do you practice tolerance in your own life? 🤔


ME
It all sounds good however I've often considered the issues of the need to be intolerant of intolerance, while normally being tolerant. Democracy depends on tolerance, but when there are those who are intolerant, as in racists, white supremacists, Christian nationalism, etc., tolerating them over the decades has led to the current issues where the FBI reports they are a concern to public safety.

Copilot


I understand your concern. It is indeed a difficult and delicate balance to maintain between tolerance and intolerance, especially in a democratic society that values diversity and freedom. You raise a valid point that some forms of intolerance, such as racism, white supremacy, and Christian nationalism, pose a serious threat to public safety and social cohesion. According to the FBI and DHS report on domestic terrorism1, these groups are among the most lethal and persistent domestic violent extremists in the United States1. The report also states that these groups are motivated by a range of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances, and often use online platforms to radicalize, recruit, and mobilize followers1.

However, the report also suggests that the best way to counter these threats is not by being intolerant of their views, but by using a comprehensive and coordinated approach that involves law enforcement, intelligence, prevention, and community engagement1. The report recommends enhancing information sharing, improving threat identification and assessment, increasing resources and training, strengthening partnerships, and addressing the root causes of radicalization1. The report also emphasizes the importance of respecting civil rights and liberties, and avoiding stigmatizing or alienating any group or community1.

Therefore, I think that tolerance is still a valuable and necessary virtue, even in the face of intolerance. Tolerance does not mean accepting or endorsing everything, but rather acknowledging and respecting the dignity and rights of others, even when we disagree with them. Tolerance also does not mean being passive or indifferent, but rather being active and engaged in seeking the truth and the good for ourselves and others. Tolerance also does not mean being isolated or divided, but rather being connected and united in our common humanity and shared values.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with the report’s findings and recommendations? How do you practice tolerance in your own life? 🙏


ME
Interesting...

Copilot
I’m glad you find this topic interesting. I enjoy having meaningful conversations with you. 😊

Do you have any other questions or comments about tolerance, intolerance, or anything else? I’m here to chat with you.

ME

No, thanks.

Footnote: In our chaotic world where some are attracted to a Donald Trump, who invents a movement like MAGA, to weaponize offering evermore bizarre conspiracies, all for his benefit, their beliefs controlled by others including American enemies, are somehow more greatly preferred over reality by them

Quite as we're seeing by merely a quarter (fifth?) of our US population, take or leave a few million...kneeling down to have their stoked existential fears & enflamed angst satiated over that of all our reality and actuality.