this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
657 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2339 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 174 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Blatantly illegal.

But Biden won't step up and make Garland do his job.

Just throw it on top of the giant piles of reason "not trump" isn't enough to fight fascism.

We need people actually willing and able to fight, best case scenario for Biden is he's only one of those things.

And as president, he's clearly able to direct the DOJ, if he believes he shouldn't be able, that makes him unwilling to fight fascism.

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 56 points 1 month ago (3 children)

musk is all in. He either goes to prison or trump wins.

I'm sure investigation starts immediately, but it won't get results until after the election.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (27 children)

What investigation is needed?

There's no way this is legal, it's what "blatantly illegal" means.

Like, if someone stripped naked, got a full automatic gun and walked around the White House busting off caps, it's "blatantly illegal" no investigation needs to be done.

This isn't like Musk went home and put pants on, he's still running around literally everyday till the election doing this.

You stop the person from committing the crime, and lock them up if there's reasonable suspicion they'll keep committing crimes.

Then when you've stopped more crimes from happening, you investigate the crimes that already blatantly happened, as well as looking for others.

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

musk is all in. He either goes to prison or trump wins.

If trump has proven anything, it's that wealthy Republicans can get away with literally anything in this country. Musk isn't going to prison, and I doubt he'll even see a courtroom over this.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Seriously... Trump staged a literal insurrection and is the top presidential candidate. They think Musk is going away for some voter bribery?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fluba@lemdro.id 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just curious, why do you think Biden has to do anything? There's teams of people in charge of enforcing laws that don't need the president to tell them what to do. A CEO doesn't tell everyone under him what to do. He just expects them to do their job to the best they're able.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Because I know who Merrick Garland is and have observed his behavior over the last four years?

It's legit one of the few areas I agree with Biden:

In recent weeks, President Biden has grumbled to aides and advisers that had Garland moved sooner in his investigation into former President Donald Trump’s election interference, a trial may already be underway or even have concluded, according to two people granted anonymity to discuss private matters. That trial still could take place before the election and much of the delay is owed not to Garland but to deliberate resistance put up by the former president and his team.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/white-house-frustration-with-garland-grows-00140813

Although I disagree with Biden on his path forward. Rather than replace Garland, his plan is to grumble to aids and adversers that Garland doesn't do what he wants, I believe Biden should have never appointed him in the first, and can offer no plausible explanation for why he hasn't been replaced other Biden is (say it with me) unwilling to fight fascism as hard as it needs to be fought.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 111 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The Supreme Court: “This is fine as long as it remains Republicans only…”

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 89 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is a case where max jail time is needed. 5 years for each bribe.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Served consecutively, not concurrently

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 85 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The best part about this is that unlike a lot of the other illegal shit his PACs are doing, Musk can't separate himself from it and say he wasn't personally involved. He personally handed out the giant check.

If Harris wins, and if her administration actually decides to crack down on this shit, Musk could end up behind bars. I'm not holding my breath, but it's a still a pleasant thought.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The first rally he came out for trump, he flat out said "if trump loses I'm fucked".

It's logical to assume if he's being this blatant because even a little digging would show obvious crimes.

He's already fucked, he has no other option than to double down with blantant shit.

All the more reason to act now, the election is in two weeks, but if looking into this gets a head start to find some shady shit before January...

Well, it's probably all hypothetical, Biden wouldn't have the balls to do anything.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 82 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Elon Musk and promising people money you'll never actually pay out. Name a more iconic duo

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 38 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Merrick Garland & fecklessness?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Remember: the reason Garland got nominated for SCOTUS in the first place was that he was so conservative Obama figured Mitch McConnell couldn't possibly object to him.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Merrick garland was actually recommended by one of the senate GOP members, Grassely, who headed up the senate judicial commitee. He said Garland would be "reasonable" choice that Obama would never nominate.

So Obama nominated him to make a point, and the Senate tsk tsked anyway and refused to fill the seat for the first time in its history.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 67 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Donald Trump, such a great candidate that you have to pay people and offer them cash prizes to get people to vote for him...

That's the message here.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 62 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Put him behind bars for that and I start believing that the government takes this vote seriously.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm going to lower the bar:

If the government issues any sort of indictment in the next 3 weeks, I'll agree that they are taking it seriously. Even without bail.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Though maybe some of the other things Musk was doing were of murky legality, this one is clearly illegal. See 52 U.S.C. 10307(c): “Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both…” (Emphasis added.)

I mean, if it’s clearly illegal then can we, you know, apply the law?

[–] rigatti@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

checks Musk's net worth

....

No.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 42 points 1 month ago (1 children)

... shall be fined not more than $10,000 ...

Pocket change.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago

Make him pay it for each entrant. It’s probably still pocket change because a hundred billion dollars (or whatever it is now) is effectively infinite money.

Sometimes the depth of the hole we’ve dug ourselves is just astounding.

[–] gargamel@leminal.space 37 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, I guess I would take a million dollars from a deluded billionaire, but I would still vote for Harris.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 month ago

None of the people they are trying to bribe will see money.

[–] negativenull@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago

So something is going to happen to him right? RIGHT?!?

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

The worst part is, he isn't even American. Imagine if Americans would go into a foreign country and try to influence the elections... Oh wait.

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What's stopping people from applying to his "lottery" and just not voting Trump?

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Apparently nothing. I live in PA and want to sign up, but I really don't want Musk to have my email or phone number or home address.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

He will claim is was a joke in court.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChowJeeBai@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Stupid rich people trying to take advantage of 'stupid' poor people.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›