this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
255 points (97.8% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3748 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
all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 223 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I’m pretty sure Biden has immunity and can do whatever the hell he wants. At least that’s what the Supreme Court told me.

[–] [email protected] 113 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Wrong decision. Since SCOTUS overturned Chevron, the FEC actually can’t make up any rules so elections no longer have rules

Edit: /s

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Plus wrong decision still. If it's a Wednesday in a J month, and if you sing your wish to the tune of "Don't Tell Me How To Live" by Kid Rock, your wish will come true as long as it oppresses a minority.

Try to keep up.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Plus if you put your tongue in a certain place it doesn't work....

God damn. The Supreme Court has become a fake martial arts place

https://youtu.be/ZTMnJcRgFrI?si=ZIxts5Vtr8ae8lRn

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

If not, just make a fake stock to launder money like Trump and Nunes did.

[–] [email protected] 141 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Two days and they already reek of desperation and fear.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Remember when Trump got the scratch on his ear and there was that photo of him with his fist raised and the flag in the background?

So many people were sure that would ensure a Trump win.

Now it’s just old news.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What if Biden spends the war chest on Harris's behalf?

[–] [email protected] 40 points 3 months ago (3 children)

It’s stupid regardless. You can pass on funds iirc

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago

It would be stupid even if you can't pass the funds. A PAC can still spend that money supporting her, and it resets the individual donation limits.

The big ticket donors would all get to donate again.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Stupider than that. She's a listed candidate on the original filing.

I worry thought about both how long the Supreme Court can delay and how stupid Trump judges can be.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Are these public funds yet?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Then all those donors get to donate again because the campaign finance limits no longer apply, and Biden can spend that money on Harris's behalf.

The legal approach just isn't going to work out in there favor. If the money doesn't go to Harris, all of a sudden she gets a do-over with all donors and it can go to a PAC which will spend it on her behalf.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 3 months ago

Is this what the MAGAs call lawfare?

[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That money was donated to the Democrats, no?

[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 months ago (1 children)

More specifically to the Biden Harris campaign which she is and has always been a part of, yes?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Trump knows what he's talking about and might actually have a point this time. He's been pulling financial crimes longer than Harris has been alive.

Let the liar speak, surely he'll tell the truth this time!

[–] [email protected] 40 points 3 months ago (1 children)

“He can’t just transfer it! He needs to launder it through a casino.”

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago

And then bankrupt it!

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Trump knows what he's talking about...

Lol, no.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Lol

I'm glad you liked my comment!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

He tells the truth regularly: it’s called projection.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I smell orange desperation

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I do prefer a citrus desperation as opposed to other fragrances.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I wear that cologne! How you doin'?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's ok, she can just use that money to pay of a pornstar. We've all seen that's totally acceptable as far as the Repubes are concerned.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

It’s not that he paid her It’s that he paid her to stay quiet so the election wouldn’t be affected by the news, manipulating results.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago

Someone’s getting a little hot under the toupee

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago

They are flailing! They have no idea what to do anymore other than shout that it’s not fair.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Risky click if the day...

E: not risky. Actually 🔥

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Picture this.

I'm a bag of dicks. Put me to your lips.

Lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

El-P with the goat line "quicker than Trump fucks his youngest"

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I love watching Trump cry. 😂 We'll see him throw a public tantrum before this is done. 🍿

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Like most other Trump suits, this one is also for show

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

We'll see him throw a public tantrum before this is done.

You mean like any other Tuesday?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

Hey look, the roaches are skittering.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure Legal Eagle covered this (at least partially). There are laws in place that prevent candidates from accessing funds that originally belonged to another candidate. This is a fraud prevention method to make sure that someone doesn't join a race then drop out purely to dump their funds into a candidate of their choice. A very wealthy person (billionaire?) shouldn't run for office with the intent of dropping out. There are very strict laws that regulate campaign finance. There are limits on how much money can be donated to a campaign, and money donated to Biden would be ineligible to be given to Harris.

That being said, the money will go towards Harris, but it may go in a roundabout way. The money may be put towards the DNC and their advertising budget which could go to support any DNC candidate. However, since she is the front runner, the money will be spent towards her. Seems like filling suit is just for show, imagine that.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Since the Republicans on the FEC refuse to vote for any investigation into Donny, the Democrats shouldn't feel any compunction about quashing this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Nah it's always been the Biden Harris campaign. The money is donated to her as much as Joe.

The GOP has to argue that the ppl giving the money didn't know it would go to Harris. Pretty tough when her name is on the banner.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I partially agree with that. There is a fairly large difference between giving money to the current president vs. the VP. I do think you're right though that it's a valid argument that would probably hold up in court. Lets not forget our current supreme court though.