this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
333 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2131 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
 

Summary

Two Pennsylvania voters, Austin Gwiazdowski and Jeanne Fermier, received $100 checks from Elon Musk’s pro-Trump “America PAC” despite not signing the PAC’s petition, which was required to qualify for payments.

The petition aimed to gather support for the First and Second Amendments and facilitate pro-Trump outreach.

Both voters expressed confusion and refused to cash the checks.

The PAC, funded by Musk, mailed 187,000 checks as part of efforts to boost Trump’s Pennsylvania support, while Musk’s political influence continues to rise.

top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 133 points 5 days ago

187,000 counts of trying to buy votes.

penalty: a lecture about the lowball offers.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 114 points 5 days ago (3 children)

What sucks: for the last 4 fucking years, we've had a constant stream of bullshit about "cheating and fraud" from Fuckface 45 and his cronies. It's now normalized to call into question election integrity, so even if they actually fucked with the election, it's highly unlikely anyone could figure out anything.

Thanks, exhaustion.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 49 points 5 days ago

pollute the waters so much you can't find anything. pretty much how it goes.

notice how all the whining about cheating and fraud all just stopped once the cheater 'won'.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Whoops!

P.S. you mean for the last 8 fucking years

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I guess. But he "won" in 2016 and didn't bitch about election fraud or cheating. Strange, that.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 days ago

he lost the popular vote. he was whining about that then, too.

You forget yourself .

He totally did, claimed Clinton couldn't have won the popular vote.

He won and still claimed it was rigged.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/20/tweets/yes-donald-trump-claimed-fraud-after-2016-iowa-cau/ He absolutely started calling election fruad as early as possible and if I were a better google-er I'd find one of the multitude of references he made to the 2016 election being rigged, well past it being relevant.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

that's all they do. why do you think they called everyone a pedophile. now they have one as a president, who is hiring Epstein's pal as head of FDA and another predator as AG.

[–] Zier@fedia.io 38 points 5 days ago (2 children)

18 U.S. Code § 597 - Expenditures to influence voting

Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 721; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 601(a)(12), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498.)

[–] bquintb@midwest.social 3 points 5 days ago

The rich and powerful are above the law in the US

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 47 points 5 days ago (2 children)

How can Americans expect their country to work if shit like this is allowed?

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 3 points 4 days ago

It's "working" as intended.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 4 days ago

The the price of Twitter he could've given that to everyone.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 46 points 5 days ago

Elon bought votes

It would be inspected under Trumps admin

He knew that.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 39 points 5 days ago

If this is a slip up in some sort of voter fraud scheme...

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Certainly no one would sign up random addresses to highlight his lack of checks. Teehee.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nothing could make me happier than the opportunity to take a hundred bucks from Musk that he himself accidentally sent to me.

Alright, plenty of things could make me happier. But it would still make me pretty happy.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago

Just as likely he's now sending a pittance to other people in order to say he wasn't targeting a group. You can send out a LOT of hundred dollar bills before you approach a billion.

[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago

Election integrity get me so turned on.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

How are those 200,000 amish going to cash their checks?

[–] Razzazzika@lemm.ee 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

They still can use a bank... they're just prohibited from directly using technology themselves. Other people can use technology on their behalf. I just picked up an Amish hitchhiker 2 weeks ago. He can't drive a car but he can ride on one fine.

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

That's really not true either. They don't take issue with technology.

They have cell phones and washing machines. Some Amish communities just look like any old country highway with pickup trucks and harvesting equipment.

The particular type of Amish you're thinking of will still have things like landlines and probably some electricity on the farm.

They take issue with depending on others, Amish strive to be self sufficient and independent. They don't want to attach themselves to possessions, or things they can't make and maintain themselves, but that doesn't mean they can't use them. They can and gladly do. They have rules on their use, they self regulate their use. Guy I went to school with has his wife go through and look through his phone. If she thought the was using it too much she'd hang on to it. He drove an old pickup and he and his brothers ran a junk yard part time specifically so he'd have access to parts for it. He was going to school to be a machinist, because there was a machine shop in his community and he didn't want to bother the elders with learning how to use it. Soon as he finished the precision machine program he just went back to his farm.

[–] ouRKaoS 4 points 4 days ago

prohibited from directly using technology themselves

Unless you count one of the other billions of loopholes they have... I live pretty near an Amish community, and often see them with cell phones & vapes. Power tools are okay "for work". Hell, there's a buggy I see about once a week with RGB LEDs on the sides.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Musk out there buying votes