this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
566 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19144 readers
6780 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
 

Trump has promised Musk major role in overseeing government spending in any future Trump administration

Donald Trump’s estranged niece is accusing the former president of having a “new owner” because of his increasingly close relationship with tech billionaire Elon Musk.

“Donald Trump has always been for sale,” Mary Trump wrote in a Substack post on Saturday.

“Given this decades-long pattern, it’s not surprising that the world’s richest fascist, South African jumping bean Elon Musk, would also be interested in purchasing a few shares in a man who is willing to sell whatever he can get his hands on —whether it’s steaks or American national security — because he values money more than anything,” she added.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 121 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

That alone should disqualify him from office. If you can't hold a security clearance, you shouldn't be able to run for any office, let alone POTUS.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 34 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They letchya do it when ur (pretend) rich

[–] vanontom@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Even when the wealth is literally from foreign "investments" (bonus if obvious enemies) and criminal activity (tax avoidance, money laundering, fraud stocks, crypto, etc).

SCROTUS absolutely fucked us with Citizens United. "MoNeY = SpEeCh!?" Congress failed us by not passing campaign finance reform or any relevant laws. Americans failed us by being easily influenced by political ads and generally brain dead.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

If they did this, Trump could just rescind clearance from all Dems. Unfortunately, this is up to the voters.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

All compromised Dems? Sounds like a good idea. And I assume he would need to do it by proxy since he currently has only citizen powers.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I meant obviously while he was in office for the 2020 election. Just because it's too late now doesn't mean it's a good idea for the future.

Potentially letting a political rival decide who is compromised is obviously not a good idea no matter who is in charge to make that decision.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Well someone is already deciding based on the ability to get a security clearance. And if being "Don citizen" and not able to get a security clearance at all, how should that person be allowed an office that needs a Top Secret clearance level?

Also it shouldn't be up to Trump, or anyone he appoints (or that any president appoints).

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago

So the question becomes who should that person be and how should they be assigned/appointed to that position and who has authority over them if they become corrupted?

Ultimately, that has to come down to the Executive (under the President), Legislative (confirmed like judges and subject to filibuster and the whole legislative process), maybe the Judiciary if you can find a way to wrangle that, which would put them under the authority of the Supreme Court, or appointed by direct election (which would 99% likely mean it just swings whichever way the President swings anyway).

That is the way our government works and none of these solve the problem of politicizing who gets clearances and who doesn't.

Traditionally, this is under the authority of the President and he doesn't ever get involved because why the fuck should he? But just like the Postmaster bullshit with DeJoy, the President can decide he's going to take direct control (by firing the old person and appointing someone amenable to his wishes).

The only protection we have is for the American people to look at their own candidate and say, "No, he's up to some bullshit and I will not support that." And far too many of us simply won't do that. Yeah, that skews right which means Republicans get away with more shit than Democrats do.

There is not a political solution to human nature.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

If you can’t hold a security clearance, you shouldn’t be able to run for any office, let alone POTUS.

It's 2019. Biden is running against Trump. Trump arranges for Biden's security clearance to be revoked. Trump is now running unopposed.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 43 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

There's no way Musk owns Trump ... Putin would never sell him.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

No, Putin has a controlling interest in the stock (and is unlikely to sell enough to lose that controlling percentage), but he did sell Elon a significant interest in Trump.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 3 weeks ago

It's a time share

[–] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 40 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I hope his ROI on this is worse than his Twitter purchase.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

The value of twitter was what he is using it for.. the money is irrelevant.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 34 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s un/believable the man isn’t in prison yet. The head spinning part are the people that that still believe in him.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

My very conservative parent and step are disgusted with djt and one has said they're voting Harris, the other hasn't expressed a candidate. Their good friend down the street actively encouraged me to not trust the lawyer.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

I’m seeing that too. Moderate conservatives who want normal back are voting for Harris.

And remember that thing with McCain? As much as some people liked him, some of them didn’t vote for him because they couldn’t stand Palin. A bit of that happening now, the disgust with Vance is pushing people over to vote Harris. One stated Trump would probably die of unhealthy old age in office and they couldn’t risk “that bearded turd” becoming President.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 29 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Trump's niece doesn't know anything more than the rest of us. And, even if Trump did "promise" Musk a key government role, we all know how likely he is to keep his promises.

But, what Musk is doing is clever, though evil. He's ingratiating himself to Trump. If Trump is elected, he won't consider Musk an enemy which is absolutely key, and might throw Musk a bone. If Harris is elected, she'll govern using traditional norms and values, which means not vindictively prosecuting people who helped her political opponent, even a guy who went right up to the line of what's legal in trying to get Trump elected.

Heads Musk wins. Tails he doesn't lose.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If Harris is elected, she'll govern using traditional norms and values

You're right, but it probably also means she'll keep FTC chair Lina Khan as chair of the FTC. As chair she's been aggressive, in a good way. Musk and the FTC haven't gotten along much over the past few years and I expect with more time the FTC with Khan in charge will cause problems for Musk, who continues to violate obvious laws and regulations.

So tails probably isn't just doesn't lose, it's probably a real loss.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You’re right, but it probably also means she’ll keep FTC chair Lina Khan as chair of the FTC

I really hope so, but we'll see. There has been a lot of pressure from rich democratic donors to dump her.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I admit it is a hope and not a guarantee. However I also learned that unless the President takes an active role and nominates someone (and they are confirmed), then the current member can just continue in their role as an acting member/chair.

So depending on the political climate, Khan may be able to just quietly continue her work.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The best thing about Khan is that there's nothing quiet about her work.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Oh I agree. By quietly I just mean without undue political interference.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ms. Khan has been chair of the FTC since 2021. When did she start aggressively pursuing big business illegal activities, and why are we only hearing about them this year?

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

As a few quick examples of the work (not necessarily success).

Wikipedia probably has a better outline, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission#Biden_administration

I'm assuming we're hearing about it more since it's an election year.

I admit I'm far from an expert on the subject and position. I didn't follow much until I saw her interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, https://youtu.be/oaDTiWaYfcM

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 3 weeks ago

Thank you, I look forward to reading those sources.

I upvoted because you're probably right but I hate both you and myself for it.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 24 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What a fugly couple of mugs. Why do popular bad people look like that as they obviously obsessed with their own image? I remember Zuckerberg had something for a particular roman politician thus maintaining this weird hair thing, but then we have OpenAI guy who looks like he's one of Dexter's villains, and also these guys. Are they intentionally working on their Dr Evil persona or what? It's not that they should be visually pleasuring to me, like no one, but with my small sample size and bias it seems to me that it's some trend.

[–] MisterNeon@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Sam Bankman Fried wanted FTX headquarters to look like his hair.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 points 3 weeks ago

I've got hair like his.

Just not on my head.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

What. I need some time to process it.

[–] apocalypticat@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago
[–] fluckx@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

A tech billionaire responsible for creating the laws his own companies run under? What could go wrong.

[–] MajinBlayze@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Has musk even paid anything?

There was that time he said he'd donate to a pac, and then didn't.

Is this just because he owns Twitter and has a bunch of the same followers as trump? If so, does trump really think people would pick musk over him?

Genuinely this dynamic is really confusing to me.

I guess the only explanation I can think of is that Trump was always a stooge for the billionaires, and Elon has appointed himself their representative

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Musk is a liar. He said he wasn't going to donate to Trump in July when news leaked about his 45mil/month promise, but he was already donating, and is still donating now.

This week, there was more proof that Musk has put his money where his mouth has been. According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, Musk poured tens of millions of dollars into Republican campaigns and conservative groups even before he publicly endorsed Donald Trump in July. Conservatives helped conceal Musk’s contributions through so-called social welfare or “dark money” groups that do not have to disclose their donors and can raise unlimited funds. (Musk did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment.)

One piece of reporting stood out. The newspaper found that the tech billionaire donated more than $50 million in 2022 for campaign advertisements by Citizens for Sanity, a group connected to former Trump aide Stephen Miller and his non-profit America First Legal, which bills itself as “the long-awaited answer to the ACLU.” 

Musk has also directly aligned himself with Trump, founding a super PAC called America PAC to get 800,000 people to vote for the former president in key battleground states. According to the Guardian, Trump’s ground operation in swing states are now mostly outsourced to America PAC, and Business Insider said that Musk is now shelling out millions to Republicans in 15 competitive House races. Yesterday, Politico reported that America PAC was teaming up with Turning Point Action, the political advocacy division of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA, to fund hundreds of “ballot chasers” in Wisconsin. 

Hes also dumped at least 300k in to general GOP races directly:

The National Republican Congressional Committee reported receiving $289,100 from Musk in August, according to its report filed with the Federal Election Commission Friday.

[–] MajinBlayze@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Alright, that's what I'm looking for, thanks!

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 2 points 3 weeks ago

America™©® brought to you by Elon Musk™

Fucking disgusting...

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

You have forgotten about the currency that Trump usually deals in, something called "quid pro quo."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think because Elon can let him run whatever he wants on Twitter unchecked (disinformation or whatever), and because Elon is all in on grifting crypto bros that Trump is hoping to pull in for their votes before they notice the con.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Not only their votes, but also their tech. Musk has numerous working schemes to put up some new grifts like TrumpCoins to support Donald's shady businesses with these if they are not looked into - that he would guarantee. Elon looks like a guy who knows how to handle weird transactions, at least to him, and Twitter purchase showed that.

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] can@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 11 points 3 weeks ago

I'm a Republican who KNOWS the Deep State is out to Get Me and THAT'S why I'm Voting for the Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein Friend who's Bankrolled by the RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD! Because they OBVIOUSLY will Drain The Swamp!

[–] renrenPDX@lemm.ee 6 points 3 weeks ago

Start referring to trump as President Musk. That’ll sour the milk fast.

[–] JargonWagon@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago
[–] Jagothaciv@kbin.earth 5 points 3 weeks ago

Conservative hegemony is just one cock sleeve after another.

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Government contractor to set spending of government. Nothing wrong with that at face value at...all...

load more comments
view more: next ›