511
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
511 points (97.4% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2087 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This feels like a very foolish move. I do not know the relevant law at all, but surely it's some kind of illegal to falsely use someone's face to claim their political endorsement? And it's not like Taylor Swift is somehow lacking in either the financial clout to sue over it or the PR clout to turn it around
If this fucking walloper wants to ruin his own campaign then that's more than fine by me. I'm just surprised by what seems like such an obviously poor move
Honestly, poor political moves seem to be all the man is capable of. And his base (unfortunately) always seems to have just enough cognitive dissonance to eat it up and pivot/shift the goalposts.
More and more, I come to the conclusion that the only way forward is to stop fighting them, and instead focus on strengthening us.
The one thing MAGA republicans have in spades is a sense of unity and community, which is something we on the left need to foster (instead of infighting and segmentation).
That's his superpower. No matter how low your opinion of him gets he can always find a way to surprise you with how shitty he can be.
Can he always go lower? Yes. Does it ever surprise me? No.
From what I understand, Taylor Swift was offered big time FTX money but her parents are competent legal professionals who reviewed the contract, recognized that SBF was selling dangerous unregistered securities, and advised to stay the fuck away from that shit. I think she may have been the only celebrity who avoided that dump truck of money to protect her fans and her brand.
Not someone I'd fuck around with. (also remember when Evermore theme park tried suing lol)
All true but there is likely a portion of his base who follows nothing regarding Taylor Swift, only passively knowing who she is.
(That’s me, and I’m not part of his base. I give zero fucks about Taylor Swift. Everything I know about her is through passive acquisition.)
They’re not going to care enough about her to hear the retraction. If anything it’ll be some vague thought that even liberal star elites like their guy with no follow up.
If I was an attorney for Taylor Swift, I might argue that the campaign needs to have their assets frozen because who knows what other fraudulent or illegal activity the campaign could be engaging in. Guys like trump do this type of thing because their expectation is that they'll get away with it.