this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
144 points (98.6% liked)

Politics

308 readers
215 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 61 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Even if Musk's lawyers don't succeed in making this go away and the whole thing does turn out to have been illegal, it won't make any difference: the election will be long over by then

[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world 38 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Just another example of the privilege that money buys.

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 14 points 4 days ago

Best legal system money can buy

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 20 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We still have to fight for him to be held accountable.

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Well, that's another thing. How likely is it he'll ever see any real consequences that affect him in any way?

Not that I'm saying he shouldn't be prosecuted if this does turn out to be illegal (which it probably is), just that I'm extremely cynical when it comes to the likelihood of it actually having any effect

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago

Well, he's definitely fucking around and ig we'll all find out.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Common law, right? Even if the resolution doesn't have a practical impact now, it's important to set a precedent (hopefully to prevent such things in the future).

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 7 points 4 days ago

But isn't the point that it's pretty clearly illegal already, which is why they're now framing it as something else?

As long as rich reich-wingers can just throw lawyers at something that looks like vote buying, they can drag things out until elections are over and then it'll be too late – can't undo the effect post hoc.

[–] Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Wouldn't that open them up to other crimes like false advertising?

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Try violations of federal election law:

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=147042

It seems pretty cut and dried.

[–] Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Besides that, wouldn't it count as taxable wages and need a W-2 OR 1099 if it's not a lottery or gift?

[–] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Fraudulent advertising, apparently.

[–] StrongHorseWeakNeigh@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I highly doubt that works on any vaguely competent/not-bought-out judge.

[–] BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago

In America?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

Sovereign citizen logic.

"I wasn't hiring a prostitute, I was gifting money to my non-exclusive girlfriend who only sleeps with people for money."