this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
91 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19246 readers
2703 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 weeks ago

In a court filing last month, Murray's lawyers called First United American's request to disqualify The Onion's bid a "disappointed bidder's improper attempt to influence an otherwise fair and open election process."

Oh you know, just the usual suspects back at it again.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago

Of course they did, no good things allowed to happen in this timeline

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago

Boo, don't ruin the funny thing from happening

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago

The judge thinks that the Sandy Hook families are really concerned about a couple of million dollars in what is essentially imaginary money anyway, since there's no way they'll collect any more than a small fraction of the $1.5 billion he owes them. They considered shutting down Infowars to be far, far more important and were essentially saying "Instead of Jones owing us about $1.5 billion that we'll never see, we'll say he now owes us $1.498 billion that we'll never see".

I'd want the same damn thing. I'd want Infowars seized and turned into a memorial site for the victims and promotes gun control legislation. Hell, I'd say "Hey, you can knock the judgement down to $1 billion if I get control of infowars." It's not that I believe infowars is worth anywhere close to $500 million in real money, but it's certainly worth $500 million in imaginary money I'll never see anyway just to make sure he doesn't have it.

With that said, given this timeline this doesn't surprise me in the least. Part of me is expecting that this whole case will be reversed on appeal, either through the SC, a Trump-friendly judge along the way, or somehow through Trump's meddling. And honestly, there's a non-zero chance that one of these kook judges says that somehow, Sandy Hook owes Jones ten figures. Because this is the timeline we live in.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago

government must not interfere with capitalism. oh. unless its for our side. then A-OK!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago

At the end of a lengthy two-day hearing in a Texas courtroom, Lopez criticized the auction process as flawed and said the outcome "left a lot of money on the table" for families of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

"You got to scratch and claw and get everything you can for them," Lopez said.

...

Lopez cited problems — but no wrongdoing — with the auction process. He said he did not want another auction and left it up to the trustee who oversaw the auction to determine the next steps.

So it hasn't been undone, I guess?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I make it about a paragraph or two on these sites. Ad playing, playing, fucking playing, at the bottom, the top, the side, a fucking interstitial breaking up the text...

So all I gathered is that there is a guy named Lopez who agreed that the process was corrupt.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Judge Lopez didn't say it was corrupt, quite the opposite. But he did think it was flawed.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'm pretty sure based on the structure of the deal between the Onion and the Connecticut families this basically guarantees that the families (and any other creditors I guess) take home less money. Given the amount of money that they're owed from the Connecticut judgement those families are basically 95% of the beneficiaries of this sale, and the original deal with the Onion had them giving up a huge chunk of what they could be entitled to in order to make sure that the Texas families (who were victimized in the same way but weren't part of the same suit and got a much lower reward from a Texas court) got $100,000 more than they would have under the next-best offer. So in order for this to end up being a gain the next-best bid would need to either be so high that giving up $1.5 billion wouldn't be enough to exceed what the Texas families would get, or else it gives the other bidder the ability to cut their bid to basically nothing and in turn reduce the amount that the Connecticut families forgo and the amount the Texas families take home by however much they want.

This is all amateur analysis, but short of rejecting the Connecticut/Onion bid outright for some reason I don't think there's any way that this doesn't put the families in a worse spot. Instead whoever is behind the FUAS bid (widely believed to be Jones's allies) may get to decide how much to screw the families over.

Edit to fix some numbers. What's $1,498.5 billion between friends?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

This is sorta a win win for the onion. They got some good content out of it for little expense.