|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27460 Posts
On October 21 2024 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:
People wonder how fascists got into power in Italy and Germany. In part, it was thanks to clowns like oBlade and BlackJack.
Trump has for many years called for his political opponents to be locked up ("Lock her up"). According to numerous former members of his own cabinet, he seriously floated the idea of political assassinations on many occasions. Earlier this year, his legal team argued that he should be immune from prosecution were he to order one. He publicly praised brutal dictators. Now he publicly says he'd like to copy their methods, but somehow his words are "spun" or taken out of context.
In this sense I find the moral cowardice and spinelessness of the conservative centre much more contemptible than the MAGA true believer. Especially the political leadership in the upper echelons
They should be the safety valve, or the circuit breaker and have massively failed in this regard. For Donald Trump of all people
|
United Kingdom10006 Posts
On October 21 2024 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 06:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 04:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 03:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 00:54 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 00:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 00:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 21 2024 00:37 Magic Powers wrote:On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point. Trump didn't use the word "violent", you added that. Trump referred to "radical left lunatics". With that he could mean anything ranging from loud protesters to in-your-face activists to anti-fascists to physically violent gangs and whatever else he can come up with. He could mean anything. From all of those groups, you immediately jump to the violent ones? Nice try buddy. He literally used those exact words to describe Kamala Harris as well lol. Agreed. 1. Trump would use the military to silence whoever he believes to be part of the radical left. 2. Trump believes Harris to be part of the radical left. 3. Therefore, Trump would use the military to silence Harris. He's labeled plenty of other people as being part of the radical left too. 4. Therefore the mainstream media can publish headlines “Trump promises to use the military on Kamala Harris” Promises? Who said promises? This is accurate: 4. Therefore, the mainstream media could accurately publish the headline "Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris", because that headline is literally just repeating #3. That's just reporting what Trump has already said. Right, we just see things differently because Trump didn’t say he would use the military to silence Kamala. I want the media to tell me what people actually say and you want them to tell you their interpretation of what they say as if it’s the thing they actually said. It's not an interpretation. There is no subjectivity. It's literally the law of detachment in deductive reasoning: 1. If someone is perceived by Trump to be part of the radical left, then Trump has said he would use military force to silence them. (p -> q) 2. Kamala Harris is perceived by Trump to be part of the radical left. (p) 3. Therefore, Trump has said he would use military force to silence Harris. (q) Trump has stated that if one thing is true for an individual, then a second thing follows for that individual. The first thing is true in the instance of Harris. Therefore, the second thing follows in the instance of Harris. There is no reading between the lines, or a dependence on context, or metaphor involved. This is the logical conclusion to what Trump has said about Harris being on the radical left and what Trump would do to silence anyone on the radical left. If you think Trump is lying, then fine, but that's different. Poppycock. Trump using the military to silence people on the radical left is also not something he explicitly said. So you’re already starting with your own deduction and then just carrying it on to any extreme you want. There’s no limitations to this game. Trump has called ISIS the enemy.
Trump calls the radical left the enemy.
Trump has said he would bomb the shit out of ISIS
Ergo Trump has said he will bomb the shit out of the radical leftOf course you will hand wave this away and say “stop being absurd” when all I’m doing is playing out the same logic you’ve stipulated. That's not how valid inference and deductive reasoning work. Feel free to look up the law of detachment and the law of syllogism, for example. You are not using the "same logic" as... well... actual logic. I see your Poppycock and I raise you a Malarkey  It seems like this topic has run its course. Feel free to have the last word if you'd like. + Show Spoiler +I hope the last word is Balderdash!
Trump being Trump, is deductive reasoning or any kind of consistency logic even a reasonable way to approach what he says?
|
On October 21 2024 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 06:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 04:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 03:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 00:54 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 00:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 00:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 21 2024 00:37 Magic Powers wrote:On October 20 2024 22:11 oBlade wrote:
The comparison of violent radical leftists to troubled misbehaving children could NOT be more apt. I don't even know if it should still be referred to as a comparison at that point. Trump didn't use the word "violent", you added that. Trump referred to "radical left lunatics". With that he could mean anything ranging from loud protesters to in-your-face activists to anti-fascists to physically violent gangs and whatever else he can come up with. He could mean anything. From all of those groups, you immediately jump to the violent ones? Nice try buddy. He literally used those exact words to describe Kamala Harris as well lol. Agreed. 1. Trump would use the military to silence whoever he believes to be part of the radical left. 2. Trump believes Harris to be part of the radical left. 3. Therefore, Trump would use the military to silence Harris. He's labeled plenty of other people as being part of the radical left too. 4. Therefore the mainstream media can publish headlines “Trump promises to use the military on Kamala Harris” Promises? Who said promises? This is accurate: 4. Therefore, the mainstream media could accurately publish the headline "Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris", because that headline is literally just repeating #3. That's just reporting what Trump has already said. Right, we just see things differently because Trump didn’t say he would use the military to silence Kamala. I want the media to tell me what people actually say and you want them to tell you their interpretation of what they say as if it’s the thing they actually said. It's not an interpretation. There is no subjectivity. It's literally the law of detachment in deductive reasoning: 1. If someone is perceived by Trump to be part of the radical left, then Trump has said he would use military force to silence them. (p -> q) 2. Kamala Harris is perceived by Trump to be part of the radical left. (p) 3. Therefore, Trump has said he would use military force to silence Harris. (q) Trump has stated that if one thing is true for an individual, then a second thing follows for that individual. The first thing is true in the instance of Harris. Therefore, the second thing follows in the instance of Harris. There is no reading between the lines, or a dependence on context, or metaphor involved. This is the logical conclusion to what Trump has said about Harris being on the radical left and what Trump would do to silence anyone on the radical left. If you think Trump is lying, then fine, but that's different. Poppycock. Trump using the military to silence people on the radical left is also not something he explicitly said. So you’re already starting with your own deduction and then just carrying it on to any extreme you want. There’s no limitations to this game. Trump has called ISIS the enemy.
Trump calls the radical left the enemy.
Trump has said he would bomb the shit out of ISIS
Ergo Trump has said he will bomb the shit out of the radical leftOf course you will hand wave this away and say “stop being absurd” when all I’m doing is playing out the same logic you’ve stipulated. That's not how valid inference and deductive reasoning work. Feel free to look up the law of detachment and the law of syllogism, for example. You are not using the "same logic" as... well... actual logic. I see your Poppycock and I raise you a Malarkey It seems like this topic has run its course. Feel free to have the last word if you'd like. + Show Spoiler +I hope the last word is Balderdash!
Like I said, different strokes for different folks. I want the media to tell me Trump advocates for the military to be used to quell left wing agitators causing chaos on Election Day and you want them to tell you Trump wants to use the military to silence Harris. To you these things are equivalent and to me they are not. I agree not much more to discuss here.
|
On October 21 2024 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:
People wonder how fascists got into power in Italy and Germany. In part, it was thanks to clowns like oBlade and BlackJack.
Trump has for many years called for his political opponents to be locked up ("Lock her up"). According to numerous former members of his own cabinet, he seriously floated the idea of political assassinations on many occasions. Earlier this year, his legal team argued that he should be immune from prosecution were he to order one. He publicly praised brutal dictators. Now he publicly says he'd like to copy their methods, but somehow his words are "spun" or taken out of context.
Both of these things can be true. Trump can be a fascist and it’s also counterproductive to have a mainstream media with low standards. The only problem is your inability to discern my critique of the mainstream media with a defense of Trump.
|
On October 21 2024 07:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 06:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 04:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 03:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 00:54 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 00:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 00:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 21 2024 00:37 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Trump didn't use the word "violent", you added that. Trump referred to "radical left lunatics". With that he could mean anything ranging from loud protesters to in-your-face activists to anti-fascists to physically violent gangs and whatever else he can come up with. He could mean anything. From all of those groups, you immediately jump to the violent ones? Nice try buddy. He literally used those exact words to describe Kamala Harris as well lol. Agreed. 1. Trump would use the military to silence whoever he believes to be part of the radical left. 2. Trump believes Harris to be part of the radical left. 3. Therefore, Trump would use the military to silence Harris. He's labeled plenty of other people as being part of the radical left too. 4. Therefore the mainstream media can publish headlines “Trump promises to use the military on Kamala Harris” Promises? Who said promises? This is accurate: 4. Therefore, the mainstream media could accurately publish the headline "Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris", because that headline is literally just repeating #3. That's just reporting what Trump has already said. Right, we just see things differently because Trump didn’t say he would use the military to silence Kamala. I want the media to tell me what people actually say and you want them to tell you their interpretation of what they say as if it’s the thing they actually said. It's not an interpretation. There is no subjectivity. It's literally the law of detachment in deductive reasoning: 1. If someone is perceived by Trump to be part of the radical left, then Trump has said he would use military force to silence them. (p -> q) 2. Kamala Harris is perceived by Trump to be part of the radical left. (p) 3. Therefore, Trump has said he would use military force to silence Harris. (q) Trump has stated that if one thing is true for an individual, then a second thing follows for that individual. The first thing is true in the instance of Harris. Therefore, the second thing follows in the instance of Harris. There is no reading between the lines, or a dependence on context, or metaphor involved. This is the logical conclusion to what Trump has said about Harris being on the radical left and what Trump would do to silence anyone on the radical left. If you think Trump is lying, then fine, but that's different. Poppycock. Trump using the military to silence people on the radical left is also not something he explicitly said. So you’re already starting with your own deduction and then just carrying it on to any extreme you want. There’s no limitations to this game. Trump has called ISIS the enemy.
Trump calls the radical left the enemy.
Trump has said he would bomb the shit out of ISIS
Ergo Trump has said he will bomb the shit out of the radical leftOf course you will hand wave this away and say “stop being absurd” when all I’m doing is playing out the same logic you’ve stipulated. That's not how valid inference and deductive reasoning work. Feel free to look up the law of detachment and the law of syllogism, for example. You are not using the "same logic" as... well... actual logic. I see your Poppycock and I raise you a Malarkey It seems like this topic has run its course. Feel free to have the last word if you'd like. + Show Spoiler +I hope the last word is Balderdash! Like I said, different strokes for different folks. I want the media to tell me Trump advocates for the military to be used to quell left wing agitators causing chaos on Election Day and you want them to tell you Trump wants to use the military to silence Harris. To you these things are equivalent and to me they are not. I agree not much more to discuss here.
Trump is focusing on radicals on the left instead of calling out radicals as a whole, and we all know why he's doing that, especially with him including Harris in the radical left group. He's not after the radical right. Can you guess why? I know why.
|
On October 21 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:
People wonder how fascists got into power in Italy and Germany. In part, it was thanks to clowns like oBlade and BlackJack.
Trump has for many years called for his political opponents to be locked up ("Lock her up"). According to numerous former members of his own cabinet, he seriously floated the idea of political assassinations on many occasions. Earlier this year, his legal team argued that he should be immune from prosecution were he to order one. He publicly praised brutal dictators. Now he publicly says he'd like to copy their methods, but somehow his words are "spun" or taken out of context. Both of these things can be true. Trump can be a fascist and it’s also counterproductive to have a mainstream media with low standards. The only problem is your inability to discern my critique of the mainstream media with a defense of Trump.
Can you point to those sources that are doing a good job of covering Trump?
|
Northern Ireland27460 Posts
On October 21 2024 07:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 06:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 06:10 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 04:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 03:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 00:54 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 00:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 21 2024 00:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 21 2024 00:37 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Trump didn't use the word "violent", you added that. Trump referred to "radical left lunatics". With that he could mean anything ranging from loud protesters to in-your-face activists to anti-fascists to physically violent gangs and whatever else he can come up with. He could mean anything. From all of those groups, you immediately jump to the violent ones? Nice try buddy. He literally used those exact words to describe Kamala Harris as well lol. Agreed. 1. Trump would use the military to silence whoever he believes to be part of the radical left. 2. Trump believes Harris to be part of the radical left. 3. Therefore, Trump would use the military to silence Harris. He's labeled plenty of other people as being part of the radical left too. 4. Therefore the mainstream media can publish headlines “Trump promises to use the military on Kamala Harris” Promises? Who said promises? This is accurate: 4. Therefore, the mainstream media could accurately publish the headline "Trump says that he would be willing to use the military to silence Harris", because that headline is literally just repeating #3. That's just reporting what Trump has already said. Right, we just see things differently because Trump didn’t say he would use the military to silence Kamala. I want the media to tell me what people actually say and you want them to tell you their interpretation of what they say as if it’s the thing they actually said. It's not an interpretation. There is no subjectivity. It's literally the law of detachment in deductive reasoning: 1. If someone is perceived by Trump to be part of the radical left, then Trump has said he would use military force to silence them. (p -> q) 2. Kamala Harris is perceived by Trump to be part of the radical left. (p) 3. Therefore, Trump has said he would use military force to silence Harris. (q) Trump has stated that if one thing is true for an individual, then a second thing follows for that individual. The first thing is true in the instance of Harris. Therefore, the second thing follows in the instance of Harris. There is no reading between the lines, or a dependence on context, or metaphor involved. This is the logical conclusion to what Trump has said about Harris being on the radical left and what Trump would do to silence anyone on the radical left. If you think Trump is lying, then fine, but that's different. Poppycock. Trump using the military to silence people on the radical left is also not something he explicitly said. So you’re already starting with your own deduction and then just carrying it on to any extreme you want. There’s no limitations to this game. Trump has called ISIS the enemy.
Trump calls the radical left the enemy.
Trump has said he would bomb the shit out of ISIS
Ergo Trump has said he will bomb the shit out of the radical leftOf course you will hand wave this away and say “stop being absurd” when all I’m doing is playing out the same logic you’ve stipulated. That's not how valid inference and deductive reasoning work. Feel free to look up the law of detachment and the law of syllogism, for example. You are not using the "same logic" as... well... actual logic. I see your Poppycock and I raise you a Malarkey It seems like this topic has run its course. Feel free to have the last word if you'd like. + Show Spoiler +I hope the last word is Balderdash! Like I said, different strokes for different folks. I want the media to tell me Trump advocates for the military to be used to quell left wing agitators causing chaos on Election Day and you want them to tell you Trump wants to use the military to silence Harris. To you these things are equivalent and to me they are not. I agree not much more to discuss here.
Alternatively the person conducting the interview could have posed a follow-up question to clarify what Trump was referring to and force him into a bit of specificity.
Or in another ode to removing ambiguity Trump could run his mouth a bit less in his trademark fashion.
In the absence of both people will interpret what he says through various lenses, some informed by past behaviours. Why wouldn’t they?
|
Wait why would Trump have Antonio Brown on stage? Sure he was a great NFL player but he left the NFL as a complete embarrassment and basically has had a Kanye like fall.... Oh wait.
You would think these endorsements would hurt more than help.
|
|
|
On October 21 2024 10:32 Razyda wrote:
Dems are being pretty much farmed for dishonesty
If you think the Dems are dishonest, then you're going to have a heart attack when you hear about their opposition.
|
Are dishonesty and transparency actually political issues held by modern americans, or just something both sides attack each other for without bothering how to check how they perform at home?
I suspect the latter, because 'farming the republicans' for dishonesty wouldn't matter; dishonesty is openly an asset in the Trump-republican campaign (See : Trump's runningmate opting in to running alongside "America's hitler", "They're eating the dogs", refusal to admit he/they lost the election they lost etc). Truth and honesty doesn't exactly seem like an american value from where I'm standing.
|
Since when are Democrat politicians responsible for some left-wing news outlets creating a false narrative? Huh?
|
On October 21 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:
People wonder how fascists got into power in Italy and Germany. In part, it was thanks to clowns like oBlade and BlackJack.
Trump has for many years called for his political opponents to be locked up ("Lock her up"). According to numerous former members of his own cabinet, he seriously floated the idea of political assassinations on many occasions. Earlier this year, his legal team argued that he should be immune from prosecution were he to order one. He publicly praised brutal dictators. Now he publicly says he'd like to copy their methods, but somehow his words are "spun" or taken out of context. Both of these things can be true. Trump can be a fascist and it’s also counterproductive to have a mainstream media with low standards. The only problem is your inability to discern my critique of the mainstream media with a defense of Trump.
It's reading between the lines when you don't seem to express much of an issue with how Fox News reports on Kamala Harris and other Democrats. You only seem to have such elaborate, vociferous defense of "journalistic standards" and "logical integrity" when Trump or some other right-winger is netting the criticism. People see 2+X=4 and conclude that X must equal 2. Just because you didn't say what X equals doesn't mean it has whatever value you want it to have.
|
On October 21 2024 10:56 Fleetfeet wrote:Are dishonesty and transparency actually political issues held by modern americans, or just something both sides attack each other for without bothering how to check how they perform at home? I suspect the latter, because 'farming the republicans' for dishonesty wouldn't matter; dishonesty is openly an asset in the Trump-republican campaign (See : Trump's runningmate opting in to running alongside "America's hitler", "They're eating the dogs", refusal to admit he/they lost the election they lost etc). Truth and honesty doesn't exactly seem like an american value from where I'm standing.
Accusing someone of lying, holds a bit better when you say " they are lying and we are not" rather than "they are lying and we are lying slightly less"
On October 21 2024 11:09 Magic Powers wrote:
Since when are Democrat politicians responsible for some left-wing news outlets creating a false narrative? Huh?
I think there is some confusion here. Do you have to be politician to be democrat?
|
On October 21 2024 12:59 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 10:56 Fleetfeet wrote:Are dishonesty and transparency actually political issues held by modern americans, or just something both sides attack each other for without bothering how to check how they perform at home? I suspect the latter, because 'farming the republicans' for dishonesty wouldn't matter; dishonesty is openly an asset in the Trump-republican campaign (See : Trump's runningmate opting in to running alongside "America's hitler", "They're eating the dogs", refusal to admit he/they lost the election they lost etc). Truth and honesty doesn't exactly seem like an american value from where I'm standing. Accusing someone of lying, holds a bit better when you say " they are lying and we are not" rather than "they are lying and we are lying slightly less" Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 11:09 Magic Powers wrote:
Since when are Democrat politicians responsible for some left-wing news outlets creating a false narrative? Huh? I think there is some confusion here. Do you have to be politician to be democrat?
I hear you, but you also say All what Republicans have to do now, is to say to any undecided voter ( if undecided by now, then probably not much into politics) is: "Look what they report, and now look what actually happened" .
Don't you believe Republicans' message in that case would fall short, on the grounds that people will not believe them or care because they're (generally) lying slightly more?
|
On October 21 2024 12:53 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 07:06 BlackJack wrote:On October 21 2024 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:
People wonder how fascists got into power in Italy and Germany. In part, it was thanks to clowns like oBlade and BlackJack.
Trump has for many years called for his political opponents to be locked up ("Lock her up"). According to numerous former members of his own cabinet, he seriously floated the idea of political assassinations on many occasions. Earlier this year, his legal team argued that he should be immune from prosecution were he to order one. He publicly praised brutal dictators. Now he publicly says he'd like to copy their methods, but somehow his words are "spun" or taken out of context. Both of these things can be true. Trump can be a fascist and it’s also counterproductive to have a mainstream media with low standards. The only problem is your inability to discern my critique of the mainstream media with a defense of Trump. It's reading between the lines when you don't seem to express much of an issue with how Fox News reports on Kamala Harris and other Democrats. You only seem to have such elaborate, vociferous defense of "journalistic standards" and "logical integrity" when Trump or some other right-winger is netting the criticism. People see 2+X=4 and conclude that X must equal 2. Just because you didn't say what X equals doesn't mean it has whatever value you want it to have.
Maybe because nobody posts FoxNews shit to this thread?
In fact the last time I recall someone sharing something from a Rupert Murdoch outlet to the thread it was a New York Post article citing a statistic that traffic fatalities increased 4x year over year after Haitian immigrants showed up to Springfield. My response to that article was to find Ohio's online database for traffic collisions and use it to show that the # of traffic fatalities in 2023 was equal to the # of fatalities in 2019 in order for me to show that the New York Post was using a cherry picked statistic to make Haitian immigrants look bad.
So I actually put more time and effort scrutinizing the Rupert Murdoch outlet than anyone else in the thread was willing to and I shared the results even though they did not support my arguments at the time. So your accusation that I don't take issue with the journalistic standards of right wing outlets just blew up in your face, didn't it?
|
On October 21 2024 04:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2024 04:07 MJG wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg78ljxn8g7oTech billionaire Elon Musk has said he will give away $1m (£766,000) a day to a registered voter in the key swing state of Pennsylvania until the US presidential election in November.
The winner will be chosen at random from those who sign a pro-constitution petition by Mr Musk’s campaign group AmericaPAC which he set up to support Republican nominee Donald Trump's bid to return to the White House. I'm sure they've set this up in such a way that it skirts around laws against bribing voters, but it is still super suspicious. I assume its something along the lines of its not illegal to pay someone for signing a petition saying that they will be voting for X, because there is nothing compelling them to actually do so.
The article says that the relevant law is this:
Federal law states that anyone who "pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting" faces a potential $10,000 fine or a five-year prison sentence.
We can definitely argue that Musk is effectively paying people to register to vote, but the fact that they're signing a petition to enter a contest (as opposed to receiving a direct payment for registering to vote) is probably how he's going to get away with this.
EDIT:
I'm an idiot, I completely missed the part where people are being paid for signing the petition, even if they don't win the $1 million jackpot.
In Pennsylvania, Mr Musk is giving voters $100 for signing the petition, plus another $100 for each person they refer who signs. Voters in other battleground states get $47 per referral.
This makes the whole thing even sketchier, but the petition loophole will still be protecting Musk from punishment somehow.
|
On October 21 2024 17:08 MJG wrote:The article says that the relevant law is this: Show nested quote +Federal law states that anyone who "pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting" faces a potential $10,000 fine or a five-year prison sentence. You could definitely argue that Musk is effectively paying people to register to vote.
If we go by the threads standards, not only can you argue this but you can also publish headlines that’s exactly what he’s doing!
|
It also depends a lot on what the petition actually says, which I cant check because the site doesnt allow access outside the us and trying to find an article that actually talks about the context is hard with all the clickbait articles.
Elon has some expensive lawyers so I assume its legally mostly sound but anyone with half a brain can clearly see he is violating the spirit of the law.
|
Northern Ireland27460 Posts
On October 21 2024 17:49 Gorsameth wrote:
It also depends a lot on what the petition actually says, which I cant check because the site doesnt allow access outside the us and trying to find an article that actually talks about the context is hard with all the clickbait articles.
Elon has some expensive lawyers so I assume its legally mostly sound but anyone with half a brain can clearly see he is violating the spirit of the law.
Yeah I’d imagine it’s legally cleared, but does very much appear to be contradicting the spirit of various laws.
Musk appears to be pursuing a course of action that’s either principled that I disagree with, or pragmatically calculated and incredibly daft. We’ll see how that goes
If your business ventures are in ‘green’ areas and big tech concerns etc, things that base aren’t exactly noted for being fans of, it’s a bold strategy cotton
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
