The US elected a stupid, spoilt child. With the help of another stupid spoilt child. And just like kids they are now having a stupid name-calling match.
I think it is totally worthy of the US. Arrogant, entitled children playing at grown ups seems to be their trademark.
And the UKs ignorant, spoilt fucking brat Farage is just a mimic of these two. Mostly from up their arses.
They lasted until June. That's longer than some people were giving them.
Let's just hope it's not an Aliens vs Predator situation where whoever wins the humans lose.
And may I remind people not to generalise about the USA, or make unhelpful comparisons to other countries such as the UK, especially if you're not a US poster.
There were definite echoes of "I'm taking my ball and going home" and "you're not my friend and you're not coming to my party" in the recent exchanges between Musk and Trump.
I've seen comments about 'two ageing divas falling out with each other' being particularly appropriate during Pride Month. I couldn't possibly comment, except that such a fallout would usually be a lot more sophisticated and witty.
They lasted until June. That's longer than some people were giving them.
Let's just hope it's not an Aliens vs Predator situation where whoever wins the humans lose.
It was inevitable that Trump and Musk would turn on each other; the only question was when. Unfortunately, the humans have already lost. It’ll take a long time to undo the damage these two, together with the Republican-controlled Congress that has totally failed in its own governing responsibilities, have done.
The popcorn factor aside, this puts congressional Republicans in an interesting position. Do they side with Trump so that he won’t endorse a primary opponent? Or do they side with Musk so that he won’t bankroll a primary or general election opponent? Life was so much simpler for them when they could assume Trump’s endorsements and Musk’s funds would walk hand-in-hand.
The popcorn factor aside, this puts congressional Republicans in an interesting position. Do they side with Trump so that he won’t endorse a primary opponent? Or do they side with Musk so that he won’t bankroll a primary or general election opponent? Life was so much simpler for them when they could assume Trump’s endorsements and Musk’s funds would walk hand-in-hand.
Assuming no other factors at play, I think their best bet would be to stick with Trump, who's way more popular among Republican grassroots than Musk is.
As for Musk's money, I think the Wisconsin judicial election showed it's not omnipotent in its impact, especially when countered by the known presence of Musk himself.
Assuming no other factors at play, I think their best bet would be to stick with Trump, who's way more popular among Republican grassroots than Musk is.
Agreed - I don't think this hurts Trump politically. Musk is not intrinsically popular among Trump voters. His money is useful, and they were happy to cheer him on while he was firing liberals, burning the government to the ground, and generally upsetting people they don't like, but there's no significant Musk constituency that will turn against Trump over this.
Trump supporters are used to the man acting like a toddler, so they can't possibly be put off by this particular instance of a public tantrum if they weren't put off by any of his previous similar antics.
Assuming no other factors at play, I think their best bet would be to stick with Trump, who's way more popular among Republican grassroots than Musk is.
Agreed - I don't think this hurts Trump politically.
I am kinda hoping that the general impression of chaotic in-fighting within the administration will do some damage to Trump's image in the aggregate, but yeah, it wouldn't be a question of "OMG, how dare Trump insult a great patriot like Elon Musk!!"
...they were happy to cheer him on while he was firing liberals, burning the government to the ground, and generally upsetting people they don't like, but there's no significant Musk constituency that will turn against Trump over this.
And most of the cheering was likely for Trump himself as the perceived purger of waste, with Musk as, at most, his competent errand boy.
And it's clever of Trump to spike his denunciation with mention of Musk's support for EVs, because Republicans and even quite a few swing-voters hate eco-endeavours, and to the extent that Musk has any cache within right-wing circles at all, it's in spite of his persona as a green capitalist, not because of it.
Assuming no other factors at play, I think their best bet would be to stick with Trump, who's way more popular among Republican grassroots than Musk is.
Agreed - I don't think this hurts Trump politically. Musk is not intrinsically popular among Trump voters.
Not among the MAGA voters, no. They’ll certainly follow Trump. But while they’re Trump’s base and now the Republican base, and while they may control many if not most GOP primaries, there are a lot of districts where they alone aren’t enough to ensure a GOP win in a general election, especially if Trump himself isn’t on the ballot. Trump’s endorsements in 2018 and 2022 weren’t particularly effective.
And Musk has his own groupies, particularly among young males. They’re not as big a voting block as the MAGA voters, but in the current political climate, and with the GOP majority in the House as slim as it is, they’re not a group that can be ignored either.
Trump probably does still have the advantage, at least for now. (As Musk noted, he’ll be around a lot longer than Trump.) But the political calculus has changed.
The popcorn factor aside, this puts congressional Republicans in an interesting position. Do they side with Trump so that he won’t endorse a primary opponent? Or do they side with Musk so that he won’t bankroll a primary or general election opponent? Life was so much simpler for them when they could assume Trump’s endorsements and Musk’s funds would walk hand-in-hand.
As for Musk's money, I think the Wisconsin judicial election showed it's not omnipotent in its impact, especially when countered by the known presence of Musk himself.
I’m not talking about his harebrained “lottery.” I’m talking about his donations, which amounted to around $250 million to Trump and candidates who would do Trump’s bidding in 2024.
Agree with @Nick Tamen -- Musk could fund a lot of primary candidates against Republicans in Congress, who would have to figure out who they're more afraid of.
Agree with @Nick Tamen -- Musk could fund a lot of primary candidates against Republicans in Congress, who would have to figure out who they're more afraid of.
He could also fund Democratic candidates in a general election. There’s no reason to expect loyalty to the GOP from him.
Wll Democrats want to be associated with Elon musk?
I wouldn’t bet on politicians of any stripe turning down that kind of money. And if his support comes in the form of independent expenditures, which I think most of his donations in 2024 were, they can claim distance while still enjoying the benefit.
Word is just in from the pro-Tech Bro MAGA guy who emails me too regularly that Trump & Musk are faking their 'breakup.' It's another long-calculated ace move in the 4D/5D/6D chess match they're playing against The Libs. (yes, I know there are no aces in chess)
Word is just in from the pro-Tech Bro MAGA guy who emails me too regularly that Trump & Musk are faking their 'breakup.' It's another long-calculated ace move in the 4D/5D/6D chess match they're playing against The Libs. (yes, I know there are no aces in chess)
I'm harkening back to school days when two kids would start pummeling each other at recess or lunch and everyone else would circle around them shouting "Fight! Fight!"
I wonder if now would be a good time to buy shares in popcorn?*
* not for myself - I can't even stand the smell of it!
Word is just in from the pro-Tech Bro MAGA guy who emails me too regularly that Trump & Musk are faking their 'breakup.' It's another long-calculated ace move in the 4D/5D/6D chess match they're playing against The Libs. (yes, I know there are no aces in chess)
I don't think it's fake. But, given how mercurial the personalities involved are, it's probably got a better chance than average of ending in a reconciliation, just because these don't play by the standard rules.
Though my money would be more on the break-in being real, and pretty much permanent.
Wll Democrats want to be associated with Elon musk?
I wouldn’t bet on politicians of any stripe turning down that kind of money. And if his support comes in the form of independent expenditures, which I think most of his donations in 2024 were, they can claim distance while still enjoying the benefit.
Granted, I don't know much of anything about how independent expenditures work, specifically about how public the paper trail is. Semi-semi-educated guess, though, would be that Musk is too high-profile AND polarizing a figure to get away with controversial stealth donations in the way that, say, the Koch Brothers or Michael Bloomberg would. At the very least, wouldn't there be rumours floating about that Elon Musk, aka the most hated person in the Trump regime and the guy blamed by Democrats just months ago for the impending economic collapse, was now funding the pro-Democratic activities and advertising?
Wll Democrats want to be associated with Elon musk?
I wouldn’t bet on politicians of any stripe turning down that kind of money. And if his support comes in the form of independent expenditures, which I think most of his donations in 2024 were, they can claim distance while still enjoying the benefit.
Granted, I don't know much of anything about how independent expenditures work, specifically about how public the paper trail is. Semi-semi-educated guess, though, . . . .
My experience is that your semi-educated guess doesn’t reflect how it usually plays out.
Semi-semi-educated guess, though, would be that Musk is too high-profile AND polarizing a figure to get away with controversial stealth donations in the way that, say, the Koch Brothers or Michael Bloomberg would. At the very least, wouldn't there be rumours floating about that Elon Musk, aka the most hated person in the Trump regime and the guy blamed by Democrats just months ago for the impending economic collapse, was now funding the pro-Democratic activities and advertising?
A few things about this:
The mid-terms are almost a year and a half away, a lifetime in American politics, especially these days.
Money is money, and politicians always need money.
Democrats might not all view Musk as irreparably beyond the pale. California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has had both Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on his podcast and didn't push back on their crap, an effort to show how open-minded he is. I was disgusted, and I don't know how it will work out for him as he tries to re-position himself as a national candidate, but that's clearly what he was trying to do.
American politics are in an unusually fluid state right now. The Republican party was at least in name the party of fiscal responsibility, but that's completely gone now, as they've been taken over by the radical right. Democrats could and I would argue should change, possibly quite dramatically, if they want to reach voters. If it takes Musk's money to do that, so be it.
Wll Democrats want to be associated with Elon musk?
I wouldn’t bet on politicians of any stripe turning down that kind of money. And if his support comes in the form of independent expenditures, which I think most of his donations in 2024 were, they can claim distance while still enjoying the benefit.
Granted, I don't know much of anything about how independent expenditures work, specifically about how public the paper trail is. Semi-semi-educated guess, though, . . . .
My experience is that your semi-educated guess doesn’t reflect how it usually plays out.
Hey, I had TWO "semis" in there! They don't call me "the king of qualification" for nothing.
The mid-terms are almost a year and a half away, a lifetime in American politics, especially these days.
But, again, I think Musk is too high-profile and controversial a figure for the Harold Wilson Rule to apply.
But, sure, if, as @Nick Tamen suggests, Musk can keep his contributions completely secret, maybe he could pull it off. I assume he'd have some way of extracting quid pro quo in the policy department, even though no one would know he's the donor?
And on that note...
Democrats could and I would argue should change, possibly quite dramatically, if they want to reach voters. If it takes Musk's money to do that, so be it.
So, just to clarify, you'd think it was okay for Musk to become a big donor to the Democrats, and that he could do so without also pulling the party to the right?
Kayfabe. Which is to say, that this feels like part of a staged fight in professional wrestling. Fun, but a distraction.
For the Democrats, it can't hurt to have top-level Republicans calling their own president a pedophile in public. But it's hard to draw a provable connection between this brawl and any tangible harm to GOP fortunes.
Surely its been known for years that JE was a regular at Mar-a-Lago so of course DJT would feature in the files he promised to release. The big question is whether or not he is on the flight logs from Miami to Little St Thomas.
Surely its been known for years that JE was a regular at Mar-a-Lago so of course DJT would feature in the files he promised to release. The big question is whether or not he is on the flight logs from Miami to Little St Thomas.
I'm quite willing to believe that Trump had no more criminal involvement with Epstein than, say, Stephen Hawking did. But as someone who doesn't like the Republican Party, public fratricide among its superstars works for me.
But, sure, if, as @Nick Tamen suggests, Musk can keep his contributions completely secret, maybe he could pull it off. I assume he'd have some way of extracting quid pro quo in the policy department, even though no one would know he's the donor?
"Not public" doesn't mean no one knows.
Democrats could and I would argue should change, possibly quite dramatically, if they want to reach voters. If it takes Musk's money to do that, so be it.
So, just to clarify, you'd think it was okay for Musk to become a big donor to the Democrats, and that he could do so without also pulling the party to the right?
Musk doesn't actually have any fixed political position or ideology so wouldn't necessarily drag the Democrats further right, and the party's dependence on and love for the very rich has been baked in for decades. If you had read the Wikipedia article on dark money I linked to upthread, you'd know that Democrats spent more dark money than Republicans in the 2020 election cycle. It's not like they're clean and righteous.
The mid-terms are almost a year and a half away, a lifetime in American politics, especially these days.
But, again, I think Musk is too high-profile and controversial a figure for the Harold Wilson Rule to apply.
But, sure, if, as @Nick Tamen suggests, Musk can keep his contributions completely secret, maybe he could pull it off. I assume he'd have some way of extracting quid pro quo in the policy department, even though no one would know he's the donor?
Secrecy and no one knowing really aren’t the issue. People caring is more the issue. The average voter just knows they’re seeing adds critical of the Republican and supporting the Democrat. They might notice that the ad is paid for by some group with a generic name like “Americans for Good Government.” The number who’ll do research to find out who’s behind that group, or who’ll pay attention to media reports about it, will typically be minimal.
As for Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party, the sayings “politics makes strange bedfellows’ and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” come to mind. The “principle” at stake is control of the House.
While Musk has been known to support Democratic candidates in the past, I personally do not think the Democrats would accept his financial support. He is too tainted. He cut out federal employees, stopped the funding of USAID--we can debate how much damage that has done. Social Security recipients are all up in arms about SCOTUS giving SS access to the DOGE people--even though he is not officially a part of it anymore; and there are serious questions about his existing federal contracts. He will likely be under investigation when the Dems are back in power.
The Democrats certainly should not accept Musk's support. It's bad enough for one major US party to have been captured by Trumpism - why risk losing the other as well?
Again, independent expenditures are, by definition, not donations made to the candidate or to anyone coordinating with the candidate, including the candidate’s party. If Musk makes independent expenditures supporting Democrstic candidates, there is nothing for Democrats to “accept.” They can say “please don’t do that,” but they have no ability at all actually accept or not accept.
Again, independent expenditures are, by definition, not donations made to the candidate or to anyone coordinating with the candidate, including the candidate’s party. If Musk makes independent expenditures supporting Democrstic candidates, there is nothing for Democrats to “accept.” They can say “please don’t do that,” but they have no ability at all actually accept or not accept.
What do you suppose it will take for people to pound this through their heads?
Again, independent expenditures are, by definition, not donations made to the candidate or to anyone coordinating with the candidate, including the candidate’s party. If Musk makes independent expenditures supporting Democrstic candidates, there is nothing for Democrats to “accept.” They can say “please don’t do that,” but they have no ability at all actually accept or not accept.
Okay. But let's jig the scenario, and say that Donald J. Trump is the guy who disavows the Republicans and then tries to influence Democratic politics via independent donations to pro-Democratic organizations unaffiliated with the party itself.
What would you say is the likelihood of Trump being able to do this without a) his activities being revealed, and b) in the event of being revealed, proving a negative development for the Democrats?
I personally think that the answers to my hypothetical questions about Trump would be the same as the answer to the real-life possibility of Musk pivoting to the Democrats, since both men are very visible representations of this administration, and Musk being actually less popular than Trump with hoi poloi.
Anyway, I see the two sides are still sniping about Musk possibly switching to the Democrats. Have any Democrsts weighed in on this?
Again, independent expenditures are, by definition, not donations made to the candidate or to anyone coordinating with the candidate, including the candidate’s party. If Musk makes independent expenditures supporting Democrstic candidates, there is nothing for Democrats to “accept.” They can say “please don’t do that,” but they have no ability at all actually accept or not accept.
Okay. But let's jig the scenario, and say that Donald J. Trump is the guy who disavows the Republicans and then tries to influence Democratic politics via independent donations to pro-Democratic organizations unaffiliated with the party itself.
What would you say is the likelihood of Trump being able to do this without a) his activities being revealed, . . .
It will be revealed. There are enough media groups and public interest groups pouring over FEC filings that it will be “revealed.”
The question, as we’ve said, is whether the average person will pay attention or care. Experience says that few will.
. . . and b) in the event of being revealed, proving a negative development for the Democrats?
I see it happen pretty much every election cycle. Someone or some group whose support the candidate would really rather not have decides to endorse the candidate and/or run ads in support of the candidate (or ads attacking the candidate’s opposition). I’ve rarely seen it prove to be a negative for that candidate; most candidates navigate it.
But the bottom line is that even if it’s a negative development for Democrats, and even if Democrats really want to refuse Musk’s support, there’s really nothing they can do about it if that support comes in the form of independent expenditures.
I personally think that the answers to my hypothetical questions about Trump would be the same as the answer to the real-life possibility of Musk pivoting to the Democrats, since both men are very visible representations of this administration, and Musk being actually less popular than Trump with hoi poloi.
Wll Democrats want to be associated with Elon musk?
I wouldn’t bet on politicians of any stripe turning down that kind of money. And if his support comes in the form of independent expenditures, which I think most of his donations in 2024 were, they can claim distance while still enjoying the benefit.
Granted, I don't know much of anything about how independent expenditures work, specifically about how public the paper trail is.
So when we tell you how they actually work, and point you to information on how they actually work, why do you keep posting about how you think they’d work?
@Ruth, I could the same of your posts as what you said about mine.
So when we tell you how they actually work, and point you to information on how they actually work, why do you keep posting about how you think they’d work?
Well, I'm not planning to do much reading on the topic of independent expenditures(as is my prerogative, and I still thank you for drawing my attention to the information, maybe tomorrow), and if you are not inclined to summarize the contents of the articles(as is your prerogative; I don't always wanna do it myself), then I should probably just bow out here. From what I've been able to glean from quick skims and the discussion, your position is that a tycoon's donations probably could be revealed, but it likely wouldn't make a difference because few voters would care in the long run.
And point in your favour, I guess, because taking Ruth's advice and googling some relevant keywords, I got an Axios article called "Musk cash becomes liability in Democratic primaries". The title sounds bearish on Musk's prospects with the Democratic Party, and much of the details presented back that up, but it does remain the case that some of the controversial donations were made up until quite recently, but only seem to have become an issue in the last couple of days.
(FWIW, I don't think these would all qualify as independent expenditures, since at least some of them were made openly via Musk's corporations.)
In the past, Trump has contributed to Democratic candidates officially and unofficially. Musk too. Trump is now saying if Musk supports a Democratic candidate in any way there will be consequences. Kind of like drawing a line in the sand and daring the guy to step over it.
In the past, Trump has contributed to Democratic candidates officially and unofficially. Musk too.
Well, yeah, but Trump the erstwhile cosmopolitan Manhattanite and Musk the erstwhile green-tech guru are now both pretty different from before in their perceived political orientations.
Trump is now saying if Musk supports a Democratic candidate in any way there will be consequences.
I'm sincerely interested to know what consequences Trump thinks he can impose on a now-apostate Musk. I'm guessing mostly in the realm of dumping his contracts with the federales, and maybe cajoling red-state governments to do the same.
I'm sincerely interested to know what consequences Trump thinks he can impose on a now-apostate Musk. I'm guessing mostly in the realm of dumping his contracts with the federales, and maybe cajoling red-state governments to do the same.
You don't need to guess, as Google is still free. But I'll give you a hint - there's more than federal contracts at stake for Musk.
Comments
The US elected a stupid, spoilt child. With the help of another stupid spoilt child. And just like kids they are now having a stupid name-calling match.
I think it is totally worthy of the US. Arrogant, entitled children playing at grown ups seems to be their trademark.
And the UKs ignorant, spoilt fucking brat Farage is just a mimic of these two. Mostly from up their arses.
Coincidentally, he has an analogue in the animal kingdom:
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/health-history/leeches
Let's just hope it's not an Aliens vs Predator situation where whoever wins the humans lose.
Dafyd, Hell Host
😢
The popcorn factor aside, this puts congressional Republicans in an interesting position. Do they side with Trump so that he won’t endorse a primary opponent? Or do they side with Musk so that he won’t bankroll a primary or general election opponent? Life was so much simpler for them when they could assume Trump’s endorsements and Musk’s funds would walk hand-in-hand.
Assuming no other factors at play, I think their best bet would be to stick with Trump, who's way more popular among Republican grassroots than Musk is.
As for Musk's money, I think the Wisconsin judicial election showed it's not omnipotent in its impact, especially when countered by the known presence of Musk himself.
Agreed - I don't think this hurts Trump politically. Musk is not intrinsically popular among Trump voters. His money is useful, and they were happy to cheer him on while he was firing liberals, burning the government to the ground, and generally upsetting people they don't like, but there's no significant Musk constituency that will turn against Trump over this.
Trump supporters are used to the man acting like a toddler, so they can't possibly be put off by this particular instance of a public tantrum if they weren't put off by any of his previous similar antics.
I am kinda hoping that the general impression of chaotic in-fighting within the administration will do some damage to Trump's image in the aggregate, but yeah, it wouldn't be a question of "OMG, how dare Trump insult a great patriot like Elon Musk!!"
And most of the cheering was likely for Trump himself as the perceived purger of waste, with Musk as, at most, his competent errand boy.
And it's clever of Trump to spike his denunciation with mention of Musk's support for EVs, because Republicans and even quite a few swing-voters hate eco-endeavours, and to the extent that Musk has any cache within right-wing circles at all, it's in spite of his persona as a green capitalist, not because of it.
And Musk has his own groupies, particularly among young males. They’re not as big a voting block as the MAGA voters, but in the current political climate, and with the GOP majority in the House as slim as it is, they’re not a group that can be ignored either.
Trump probably does still have the advantage, at least for now. (As Musk noted, he’ll be around a lot longer than Trump.) But the political calculus has changed.
I’m not talking about his harebrained “lottery.” I’m talking about his donations, which amounted to around $250 million to Trump and candidates who would do Trump’s bidding in 2024.
Two queens, say.
I wonder if now would be a good time to buy shares in popcorn?*
* not for myself - I can't even stand the smell of it!
I don't think it's fake. But, given how mercurial the personalities involved are, it's probably got a better chance than average of ending in a reconciliation, just because these don't play by the standard rules.
Though my money would be more on the break-in being real, and pretty much permanent.
Granted, I don't know much of anything about how independent expenditures work, specifically about how public the paper trail is. Semi-semi-educated guess, though, would be that Musk is too high-profile AND polarizing a figure to get away with controversial stealth donations in the way that, say, the Koch Brothers or Michael Bloomberg would. At the very least, wouldn't there be rumours floating about that Elon Musk, aka the most hated person in the Trump regime and the guy blamed by Democrats just months ago for the impending economic collapse, was now funding the pro-Democratic activities and advertising?
A few things about this:
Hey, I had TWO "semis" in there! They don't call me "the king of qualification" for nothing.
But, again, I think Musk is too high-profile and controversial a figure for the Harold Wilson Rule to apply.
But, sure, if, as @Nick Tamen suggests, Musk can keep his contributions completely secret, maybe he could pull it off. I assume he'd have some way of extracting quid pro quo in the policy department, even though no one would know he's the donor?
And on that note...
So, just to clarify, you'd think it was okay for Musk to become a big donor to the Democrats, and that he could do so without also pulling the party to the right?
For the Democrats, it can't hurt to have top-level Republicans calling their own president a pedophile in public. But it's hard to draw a provable connection between this brawl and any tangible harm to GOP fortunes.
I'm quite willing to believe that Trump had no more criminal involvement with Epstein than, say, Stephen Hawking did. But as someone who doesn't like the Republican Party, public fratricide among its superstars works for me.
Musk doesn't actually have any fixed political position or ideology so wouldn't necessarily drag the Democrats further right, and the party's dependence on and love for the very rich has been baked in for decades. If you had read the Wikipedia article on dark money I linked to upthread, you'd know that Democrats spent more dark money than Republicans in the 2020 election cycle. It's not like they're clean and righteous.
As for Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party, the sayings “politics makes strange bedfellows’ and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” come to mind. The “principle” at stake is control of the House.
What do you suppose it will take for people to pound this through their heads?
Okay. But let's jig the scenario, and say that Donald J. Trump is the guy who disavows the Republicans and then tries to influence Democratic politics via independent donations to pro-Democratic organizations unaffiliated with the party itself.
What would you say is the likelihood of Trump being able to do this without a) his activities being revealed, and b) in the event of being revealed, proving a negative development for the Democrats?
I personally think that the answers to my hypothetical questions about Trump would be the same as the answer to the real-life possibility of Musk pivoting to the Democrats, since both men are very visible representations of this administration, and Musk being actually less popular than Trump with hoi poloi.
Anyway, I see the two sides are still sniping about Musk possibly switching to the Democrats. Have any Democrsts weighed in on this?
Google is free.
The question, as we’ve said, is whether the average person will pay attention or care. Experience says that few will.
I see it happen pretty much every election cycle. Someone or some group whose support the candidate would really rather not have decides to endorse the candidate and/or run ads in support of the candidate (or ads attacking the candidate’s opposition). I’ve rarely seen it prove to be a negative for that candidate; most candidates navigate it.
But the bottom line is that even if it’s a negative development for Democrats, and even if Democrats really want to refuse Musk’s support, there’s really nothing they can do about it if that support comes in the form of independent expenditures.
@stetson, you already showed your hand, here:
So when we tell you how they actually work, and point you to information on how they actually work, why do you keep posting about how you think they’d work?
@Ruth, I could the same of your posts as what you said about mine.
Well, I'm not planning to do much reading on the topic of independent expenditures(as is my prerogative, and I still thank you for drawing my attention to the information, maybe tomorrow), and if you are not inclined to summarize the contents of the articles(as is your prerogative; I don't always wanna do it myself), then I should probably just bow out here. From what I've been able to glean from quick skims and the discussion, your position is that a tycoon's donations probably could be revealed, but it likely wouldn't make a difference because few voters would care in the long run.
And point in your favour, I guess, because taking Ruth's advice and googling some relevant keywords, I got an Axios article called "Musk cash becomes liability in Democratic primaries". The title sounds bearish on Musk's prospects with the Democratic Party, and much of the details presented back that up, but it does remain the case that some of the controversial donations were made up until quite recently, but only seem to have become an issue in the last couple of days.
(FWIW, I don't think these would all qualify as independent expenditures, since at least some of them were made openly via Musk's corporations.)
Well, yeah, but Trump the erstwhile cosmopolitan Manhattanite and Musk the erstwhile green-tech guru are now both pretty different from before in their perceived political orientations.
I'm sincerely interested to know what consequences Trump thinks he can impose on a now-apostate Musk. I'm guessing mostly in the realm of dumping his contracts with the federales, and maybe cajoling red-state governments to do the same.
You don't need to guess, as Google is still free. But I'll give you a hint - there's more than federal contracts at stake for Musk.