Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 388: Ashley Madison Cawthorn

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/victory-sen-ted-cruz-supreme-court-strikes-campaign-loan-repayment-lim-rcna26466

Scotus wonders why they are losing institutional respect as they legalize corruption and criminalize bodily choice.

Changing things up a bit, the Ontario provincial election is coming up, and is looking to be one of the most one-sided elections in decades:

https://338canada.com/ontario/

It's hilarious to me that the Liberal (left of center) party has just completely given up because they keep losing candidates to cancel culture, and as a result we're going to have another term of the fat, useless brother of the late, drug addict mayor of Toronto. Somehow Dougie Ford managed to be the best option after completely bungling the provincial response to COVID.

https://tinyurl.com/mr35922r

If they are going to flat out fire any candidate that has ever used a bad word on social media, they are never going to have a candidate under the age of 40.

Side note, why on earth is there a character limit for URLs? Jesus fuck GameFAQs

Dancedreamer posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/victory-sen-ted-cruz-supreme-court-strikes-campaign-loan-repayment-lim-rcna26466

Scotus wonders why they are losing institutional respect as they legalize corruption and criminalize bodily choice.

I don't see an issue with this one? The $250k limit seems completely arbitrary

https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1526202578735927296

In another ruling SCOTUS handed down, 5-4 that courts don't have jurisdiction to review factual findings of the executive branch in immigration removal cases even if the government is alleged to have made gross factual errors. Of note, not even the government argued it was that immune to judicial review, a fact pointed out in the dissent. The court rejected the interpretations argued by both parties in the actual suit and just handed down its own instead.

Barrett wrote the opinion of the court. Gorsuch was the one who joined the liberals here.

Gorsuch, in dissent

It is no secret that when processing applications, licenses, and permits the government sometimes makes mistakes. Often, they are small ones -- a misspelled name, a misplaced application. But sometimes a bureaucratic mistake can have life-changing consequences. Our case is such a case. An immigrant to this country applied for legal residency. The government rejected his application. Allegedly, the government did so based on a glaring factual error. In circumstances like that, our law has long permitted individuals to petition a court to consider the question and correct any mistake.

Not anymore. Today, the Court holds that a federal bureaucracy can make an obvious factual error, one that will result in an individual's removal from this country, and nothing can be done about it. No court may even hear the case. It is a bold claim promising dire consequences for countless lawful immigrants. And it is such an unlikely assertion of raw administrative power that not even the agency that allegedly erred, nor any other arm of the Executive Branch, endorses it. Today's majority acts on is own to shield the government from the embarrassment of having to correct even its most obvious errors.

masterplum posted...

I don't see an issue with this one? The $250k limit seems completely arbitrary

The idea is that you can't pay off loans you made to your campaign with campaign contributions made after the election.

In short:

A candidate can loan as much of their own money to their campaign as they wish.

Up to $250k of said loan can be paid back using the campaign's funds (which includes ANY donations made to the campaign - regular donors, SuperPACs, etc.) with no restriction whatsoever.

But if they want to use that general pool of money to repay themselves, the law was that you could only repay amounts above $250k with your campaign funds within the first 20 days after the election. After those 20 days expire any loan made to the campaign above $250k which you still haven't repaid to yourself is considered a campaign contribution now and you can't take it back. That is to say, you can't just keep soliciting third-party donations to pay yourself back indefinitely.

What this ruling does in throwing all that out is allowing a candidate to accept campaign contributions after the election and then transfer it from the campaign to their personal account without limit. Allowing for the kind of obvious corruption/solicited bribery that Congress meant to prohibit with campaign finance reform in the first place.

Yeah that's fucking insane.

These SC decisions are a fucking travesty.

I cannot imagine how much worse it's going to get once the Rs hold the trifecta come the 2024 elections.

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

Changing things up a bit, the Ontario provincial election is coming up, and is looking to be one of the most one-sided elections in decades:

https://338canada.com/ontario/

It's hilarious to me that the Liberal (left of center) party has just completely given up because they keep losing candidates to cancel culture, and as a result we're going to have another term of the fat, useless brother of the late, drug addict mayor of Toronto. Somehow Dougie Ford managed to be the best option after completely bungling the provincial response to COVID.

https://tinyurl.com/mr35922r

If they are going to flat out fire any candidate that has ever used a bad word on social media, they are never going to have a candidate under the age of 40.

Yet they wont disown blackface Trudeau? Weird

Ah, I didn't consider the bribery angle.

Hmmm

Jakyl25 posted...

Yet they wont disown blackface Trudeau? Weird

Ya it's hilarious, although it should be noted that provincial parties are technically separate from federal parties, although most are closely tied to a federal party. It's hilarious how people completely looked the other way when Social Justice Champion Justin Trudeau was caught in something that should have been easily cancellable.

I say this as someone who voted for him in the 2 previous elections before the last one, and think that the people making a big deal of the blackface picture are the worst kinds of pearl clutching cancel culture social media addicts

xp1337 posted...

The idea is that you can't pay off loans you made to your campaign with campaign contributions made after the election.

In short:

A candidate can loan as much of their own money to their campaign as they wish.

Up to $250k of said loan can be paid back using the campaign's funds (which includes ANY donations made to the campaign - regular donors, SuperPACs, etc.) with no restriction whatsoever.

But if they want to use that general pool of money to repay themselves, the law was that you could only repay amounts above that first $250k with your campaign funds within the first 20 days after the election. After those 20 days expire any loan made to the campaign above $250k which you still haven't repaid to yourself is considered a campaign contribution now and you can't take it back. That is to say, you can't just keep soliciting third-party donations to pay yourself back indefinitely.

What this ruling does in throwing all that out is allowing a candidate to accept campaign contributions after the election and then transfer it from the campaign to their personal account without limit. Allowing for the kind of obvious corruption/solicited bribery that Congress meant to prohibit with campaign finance reform in the first place.

Can transfer to your personal account only what you loaned and only what people are willing to donate. I think it actually could moreso be considered helping the middling rich candidates versus the overly rich. I don't see a problem with this. If say Beto O'Rourke or whatever can now put more of his personal assets on the line to run his campaign and go all out, and people even if he loses, can respect his effort and donate to help him not fall into bankruptcy for fighting for their ordeals after the fact... what is wrong with that? Trump could outshine him and dump billions, but he would never recoup.

I don't see where bribery comes in.

Corrik7 posted...

I don't see where bribery comes in.

I think the issue is if you spent a huge amount of your own money, then you could legally get million dollar donations later that you could claim was repayment

The comically corrupt, but now legal, example would be loaning your campaign an unnecessarily large amount of money like the day before the election despite your campaign actually having cash on hand. Then winking that you'd very much like to recoup your "losses" there and having wealthy donors/corps contribute after the election now that you've actually won the seat and they're contributing to a Senator/Congressperson-elect and that money just repays the candidate while they then recategorize their campaign as "[Person] for [Office] 2026" or whatever so not only did they get themselves paid, the money they already had before they pulled this stunt was untouched during this whole charade and immediately sets them up with a massive war chest for their re-election campaign that could also scare off potential challengers as not being worth trying to mount a challenge. Just compounds incumbent advantage on top of all the other things, I think. Hell, repeat the scheme every cycle and you'd have basically an insurmountable money advantage that continues to grow.

You could, of course, do this more subtly by estimating the cost of a campaign at the start and loaning yourself that much at the start and then, despite having self-funded yourself in a manner that you wouldn't actually need to solicit donations, still do so and basically use other people's donations to repay yourself and use that initial loan as basically a persistent war chest to ward off challengers in the event you win. And if you lose, well you already paid yourself back with other people's donations.

I mean, end of the day it's still Citizens United causing most of the problems here for allowing unlimited money to flood into politics and basically establishing increasingly steep price barriers to running a major campaign. But this decision helps those with the money or ability to just secure substantial loans to do so at no risk to themselves and have others bear the cost, whether it be grassroots donors or just taking bribes from wealthy donors and corporations who I would assume are the far more likely group to donate to someone who already had their election.

https://twitter.com/noliewithbtc/status/1526306390469394437?s=21&t=TjbX0B0n8gAzU4JROmI9Eg

For Republicans, the Bill of Rights starts at the 2nd Amendment

https://twitter.com/potus/status/1526548254749560833?s=21&t=ojnFtNst4MFpg63OH6KZRw

Stupid question, but why wasnt this already the case?

Is DeSantis TRYING to be a dictator? Oh wait, this is the same party that basically wanted Trump as their perpetual dictator-in-chief, stupid question.

Suprak the Stud posted...

Stupid question, but why wasnt this already the case?

Just glancing at an article on this that isn't very in-depth and it sounds like they're going to make a fast-track lane for additional manufacturers who don't currently have approval.

xp1337 posted...

Just glancing at an article on this that isn't very in-depth and it sounds like they're going to make a fast-track lane for additional manufacturers who don't currently have approval.

Anti-vaxxers: This is an experimental vaccine fast tracked without proper testing! I wont take it! Also where can I buy this baby formula

https://twitter.com/allahliker/status/1526607578465284098?s=21&t=h4tsvNM0SAbpSOTbr8m1Xg

The joke here is that the dude in the video, who is supposedly a senior engineer at Twitter, has no online presence or Twitter account. Thats how you know its real.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/allahliker/status/1526607578465284098?s=21&t=h4tsvNM0SAbpSOTbr8m1Xg

The joke here is that the dude in the video, who is supposedly a senior engineer at Twitter, has no online presence or Twitter account. Thats how you know its real.

Nah, fuck off with this. Don't amplify Project Veritas shit even to poke fun.

Lol Im sure that poster always doubted that

Jakyl25 posted...

Lol Im sure that poster always doubted that

That person is making a joke, I literally said its a joke guys.

https://twitter.com/allahliker/status/1526609731795791872?s=21&t=YfHsastgN-Rw77FZFlUo9Q

Its pretty obviously fake, the person whose tweet I shared is satirizing.

and Im not amplifying Project Veritas by contextualizing a very fake video thats likely going to be the only thing chuds talk about for awhile, lmao.

https://twitter.com/joshuapotash/status/1526564150792622081?s=21&t=DHw6hkc2sHDIztJXe9Dm2g

https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1526741238803836928?s=21&t=qBeuvg8qx-Uryj_jnTVqrA

Basically this though:

https://twitter.com/iboudreau/status/1526743731847712769?s=21&t=qBeuvg8qx-Uryj_jnTVqrA

https://twitter.com/decisiondeskhq/status/1526739559861563392?s=21

hell yeah fetterman doubling lamb

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1526741238803836928?s=21&t=qBeuvg8qx-Uryj_jnTVqrA

Basically this though:

https://twitter.com/iboudreau/status/1526743731847712769?s=21&t=qBeuvg8qx-Uryj_jnTVqrA

Yep had the exact same thought. He's an absolute ghoul, but they voted him out for a terrible reason.

MoogleKupo141 posted...

https://twitter.com/decisiondeskhq/status/1526739559861563392?s=21

hell yeah fetterman doubling lamb

Polling was pretty clear on this but HELL YEAH indeed.

Fetterman will be good. Certainly better than Lamb, but I still prefer Lamb to a Republican.

I'm really disappointed that Irwin is looking to beat Lee for the House in my district. Irwin received millions of $ from a pro-Israel PAC that had also heavily supported the Republicans who pushed the Jan 6 bs, and he's been openly welcoming the support. He (and the ads) are marketing himself as a centrist who can reach across the aisle to get things done, which is honestly the last thing we need here.

Oh I don't know if Madison Cawthorn is done. Might be time for a run as an independent!

Apparently McCormick and Oz are both at 31.2% right now, so I wouldn't be surprised if that goes to a recount

Peace___Frog posted...

I'm really disappointed that Irwin is looking to beat Lee for the House in my district. Irwin received millions of $ from a pro-Israel PAC that had also heavily supported the Republicans who pushed the Jan 6 bs, and he's been openly welcoming the support. He (and the ads) are marketing himself as a centrist who can reach across the aisle to get things done, which is honestly the last thing we need here.

Don't know anything about this race (other than what you just said about it lol) but:

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1526773442485399552

Wasserman's latest comment on it. I've seen others call it for Lee since then, and Lee has declared victory but no concession from Irwin as far as I can tell.

That's amazing news. Thank you! I must have been looking at something from earlier on the evening that showed Irwin with a big lead

I hope Cawthorn just spills every secret and starts naming names as soon as it's official.

The Disinformation Governance Board is dead, turns out putting a person who spreads shut in charge was a bad idea.

Re:Oz, I'm actually surprised more famous people don't run for office as they have been historically extremely successful.

Seems odd that someone like Mark Cuban or oprah hasn't turned to politics

campaigning seems like a lot of work, Im not surprised Mark Cuban would prefer to do basketball stuff or be a shark or whatever instead of putting in that effort

Yeah just look where it got Trump. His business appears to be crumbling and he may be in legal trouble. Some rich people are content with wealth and don't feel that much need to take the next step.

Famous people might be good at winning elections, but how many have actually done much of note after being elected? Those aren't easy jobs and celebrities generally aren't well prepared for them. Not to mention there's easier ways to influence politics if you have money and/or a media platform.

I genuinely believe Dwayne Johnson is going to be President someday.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The Disinformation Governance Board is dead, turns out putting a person who spreads shut in charge was a bad idea.

Even if they did a good job with it (questionable as is) this seemed like such an obvious thing for the next GOP president to weaponize. Good that theyre killing it.

Agreed. Also obviously shut was supposed to be shit, lol (its too late to edit)

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I genuinely believe Dwayne Johnson is going to be President someday.

he got elected (over Kane!) in the story mode of some WWE game or other and it's like....man I don't think that's a GOOD idea but it might be a better one than anybody else we're likely to get at this point

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1526997132858822658?s=21

Who could have seen this coming

The Democrats are the party of division and hate? That's hilarious

Oh fuck guys we lost Elon Musk and the douchebag crypto bro vote?

I'm sure those very real votes helped push us over the top in 2008 or whenever the last time they supposedly voted D was.

the GOP, the party of unity and love

Xeybozn posted...

Famous people might be good at winning elections, but how many have actually done much of note after being elected? Those aren't easy jobs and celebrities generally aren't well prepared for them. Not to mention there's easier ways to influence politics if you have money and/or a media platform.

Arnold wasted a bunch of money on special voting referendums that all failed and put California in a massive amount of debt.

Yes, they have become that. Republicans might be guilty of it too.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

the GOP, the party of unity and love

Remember GWB said "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Actually, the GOP should run as the party of unity and love. That would make a great slogan. Unity and Love. And to prove their new direction, they can push Trump into retirement on the basis that he's too mean and divisive.

Unity, love, and insurrection!