(Master Thread) 2024 Election Strategies, Issues, & Candidates [merged threads]

[Ban Hammer 13,274]

49 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

Are you kidding me????

FBI investigating 'apparent assassination attempt' on Donald Trump | US News | Sky News

"Streamed live on Sep 2, 2024"
"Just over a month after an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a former Secret Service agent has warned there may be another such attempt before the election."
looks like he was right............

 

 

any bets on the political leanings of this shooter?

Edited September 15 by Ban Hammer

[Nous Eb 86]

3 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

"Streamed live on Sep 2, 2024"
"Just over a month after an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a former Secret Service agent has warned there may be another such attempt before the election."
looks like he was right............

 

any bets on the political leanings of this shooter?

 

 

Dan Bongino is right a lot. I have seen most of his coverage on the assassination attempt. He still has friends inside the USSS as well, he knows more than he is saying most of the time. I believe Trump might hire him in some capacity in his new cabinet.

 

My bet is that they will try to spin that he is an independent or even a conservative, but that the internet will do its job in 3 minutes and debunk it. We'll see!

[TBoneTX 45,043]

Assassination stuff in "Assassination" thread, please.

[TBoneTX 45,043]

Paycheck-to-paycheck voters will 'believe their lying eyes' and vote against Harris

 

[...] Since the debate, many in the media and many Democrats have viewed Kamala Harris's well-practiced non-answer answers as a decided victory for her.  While they may see it that way, there's a very good chance that most working-class Americans do not.

 

After the debate, I conducted my own snap poll of friends and family members living paycheck-to-paycheck while getting battered daily by the harsh realities of life — harsh realities that everyone I spoke with believed have gotten worse under the Biden-Harris administration.  [...]

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4876945-voters-living-paycheck-to-paycheck-will-cost-harris-the-election/

[Boiler 45,348]

Ouch, even ABC are getting a clue.

 

 

[Crazy Cat 41,619]

6 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Ouch, even ABC are getting a clue.

 

 

These are fools who think we are fools, too.  Why did the moderators not fact check that?

Edited September 16 by Crazy Cat

[Crazy Cat 41,619]

I saw that the ABC whistleblower did produce an affidavit about the rigged debate.  Looks like Kamala had sample questions, and the conspirators agreed to fact check only Trump.  They also agreed not to ask questions which would have been harmful to Kamala. This is crooked, dishonest, and maybe even illegal.

[Ban Hammer 13,274]

sneaky democrats.............
 

 

[Nous Eb 86]

4 hours ago, Crazy Cat said:

I saw that the ABC whistleblower did produce an affidavit about the rigged debate.  Looks like Kamala had sample questions, and the conspirators agreed to fact check only Trump.  They also agreed not to ask questions which would have been harmful to Kamala. This is crooked, dishonest, and maybe even illegal.

 

4 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

sneaky democrats.............
 

 

 

 

This is illegal and someone should finally be held accountable.

 

Title 18: 

§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.)

 

[Pooky 3,773]

9 minutes ago, Nous Eb said:

 

 

 

This is illegal and someone should finally be held accountable.

 

Title 18: 

§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.)

 

It is the payment to a voter that is illegal. These are payments to influencers to make content that influences people to vote a certain way. That isn’t illegal.

 

If the content producers do not state they are being paid to put forward the view, that may fall under a different statute, as, I believe, all political advertising needs to state who is paying for it.

[Ban Hammer 13,274]

11 minutes ago, Nous Eb said:

 

 

 

This is illegal and someone should finally be held accountable.

 

Title 18: 

§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.)

 

i do not see how that would fit in the above cited video as the person who reported this was asked to make videos to influence other voters.  it is not payment for that influencer to vote for
or against someone.
 

[Nous Eb 86]

13 minutes ago, Nous Eb said:

 

 

 

This is illegal and someone should finally be held accountable.

 

Title 18: 

§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.)

 

 

Actually it's worse in this case. They are not paying one person to alter their vote, they are paying a person to influence many votes.

[Ban Hammer 13,274]

Just now, Nous Eb said:

 

Actually it's worse in this case. They are not paying one person to alter their vote, they are paying a person to influence many votes.

then cite said law for that.  if it were illegal to influence many votes, a lot of celebrities would be facing jail time.

[Pooky 3,773]

14 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

then cite said law for that.  if it were illegal to influence many votes, a lot of celebrities would be facing jail time …

… which would be nice 😁

[Nous Eb 86]

16 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

then cite said law for that.  if it were illegal to influence many votes, a lot of celebrities would be facing jail time.

 

And they should. If it is illegal to pay for 1 vote, how would it not be illegal to pay (by proxy) for multiple votes? When the law was written, there were no influencers, there was no internet. Combine 597 with 594 and I bet a good lawyer can make a case or at the very least the law should be amended to include this modern way of coercion (which it is given the shaming towards certain voters and the average IQ of the people on the internet following complete strangers on the internet for advice) to make it clear for the ones in the back smokin' crack that this is illegal. So although it does not specifically say "thou shalt not pay an internet influencer to spread dis- and misinformation to shame people into voting a certain way", I believe chapter 29 of title 18 gives a path to prosecute with the language therein or AT LEAST trigger regulation.

@Pooky I would agree it should fall under a different statute but unfortunately there is no regulation (yet) on a federal level for this:

 

"Currently, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) does not regulate political advertising online in the same way the agency requires sponsorship disclosures for political advertising on traditional mediums, especially on  television."
https://citapdigitalpolitics.com/?page_id=44 

 

Which is why I believe they need to go after them with what they DO have written in law right now, albeit not updated. This BS needs to stop.