187,000 counts of trying to buy votes.
penalty: a lecture about the lowball offers.
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
336 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22655 readers
3571 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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'.
Whoops!
P.S. you mean for the last 8 fucking years
I guess. But he "won" in 2016 and didn't bitch about election fraud or cheating. Strange, that.
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.
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.
How can Americans expect their country to work if shit like this is allowed?
It's "working" as intended.
Elon bought votes
It would be inspected under Trumps admin
He knew that.
If this is a slip up in some sort of voter fraud scheme...
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.)
The rich and powerful are above the law in the US
Link?
Lol what? Can you seriously not copy and paste 18 U.S. Code § 597 into any search engine for the internet?
How do I find the official source tho? The internet is full of misinformation and google loves to send me to content marketing third party untrustworthy trash.
Yes, you should always post a link to the authorative source
The official source is the US government..which is why they cited 18 U.S. Code § 597
Honestly, it should be self explanatory that is laws/codes would be from official American government websites.
Normally i would agree that links should be provided but if someone's cites a specific law/code, the government site (state or federal, depending on what's being cited) should be the immediate source of information.
We're not going to handicap ourselves because you have an aversion for googling. Learn to research. It's legal code...gee I wonder if a .gov link might be legit.
You're on a link sharing website saying you dont want to share links. Is this your first time on the Internet?
Welcome, we share links here.
It's not that you asked for a link, it's your low effort way of asking that implies you are already skeptical of the information.
"Hey! I googled to look for it and I'm having a hard time finding where it officially says the statute. Mind sharing a link?"
They probably would have said "No problem. Let me google that for you. Here..."
I'm not asking for me. I'm trying to let you know that you should always cite your sources. The link is something you should always provide when you quote something.
If you want to get into it, it's links that aren't acceptable as citations. I'm academically published and onto of the number 1 rules of citations is that links on their own are never acceptable sources because they're ephemeral.
When I cite a book or journal entry, edition, and page number, that source will still exist in the future even if tracking it down is difficult. If I had cited a link to a Geocities site or a page that was edited after my publication, future researchers wouldn't be able to find my sources. Ever.
Sometimes, you have to cite a webpage, but if you do you it needs to include date accessed, the name of the page (sometimes sites change their urls and the data can be sniffed out afterwards if you know to look for the organization), and the relevant data should be copied into an Appendix in case it disappears forever.
This is just one link, there are better ones I'm sure on a .gov site. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter29&edition=prelim
They are literally citing the law. That's better than a link because links change all the time, but the citation remains valid because it's referring to a code section and not some ephemeral html.
Depending on what you're looking for (law or regulations), the official sites are code.house.gov or the Electronic Code of Federal regulations (ecfr.gov).
What? You have that backwards.
Laws change. Links will ensure you get the latest info.
No. Links change, link rot. Yes, laws change. Which is why I posted the USC. If the exact USC changed, you would know immediately. The gov could overhaul their website and links would die. If you have the code you can look it up on the official .gov sources. In this particular situation a link is not a guarantee. Maybe for other information? But doubtful. I personally have bookmarks from over 15+ years ago that are likely dead. Search skills are... a skill. To make Google better, learn the udm=14 trick .
Use a permalink
Are you a bot? Absolute nonsense comments and the same post spammed across communities, screams "child or bot"
Citations to the law include changes to that law. If you follow the citation above, it'll have the date of adoption and the date of any amendments. It'll also remain if the law is strikes from the books with a notation regarding its repeal.
Easy analogy: the 18th amendment. When it was repealed, they didn't replace it with something else, but updated the language of the amendment to include its repeal. But a newspaper article from 1922 would still have incorrect information regarding the legality of alcohol sales.
Which is exactly why you should link to the source. You're proving my point
No, I really am not.
I'm saying specifically that a link is a bad reference, whereas a citation to a statue, book, or other reference that doesn't change domains and stop functioning is a good one.
A code citation is an excellent reference. A link to a Congressional site isn't when Congress is liable renamed after Trump's favorite donor in 6 months.
While Google has been circling down the toilet lately, if you at least try searching for what you want, and use half a brain to think about what you're looking at, it's not exactly super difficult. I have to Google similar stuff for work sometimes, and .gov is pretty much a sure thing that you're getting a government source, which is pretty good when you're looking for a government's laws. I also get different major colleges, which is just as good. Especially since you're reading legalese, not commentary on the law or whatever.
Or we can all do our duty to each other and share authorative sources to fight misinformation
I'm a random guy on the Internet. Frankly you should be doing your due diligence the same way you would on a Google search result anyway.
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.
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.
Election integrity get me so turned on.
How are those 200,000 amish going to cash their checks?
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.
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.
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.
Certainly no one would sign up random addresses to highlight his lack of checks. Teehee.
Musk out there buying votes