Judge decides not to block Musk's $1M election giveaway It's a bit of a moot point given the US presidential election is today, but a Pennsylvania judge has declined to stop Elon Musk's $1M election lottery despite the billionaire's America PAC seemingly admitting the whole thing was rigged from the start. Chris Young, director of Musk's America PAC, admitted in a hearing at the …
This post has been deleted by its author
Is it really popcorn when the grand Muskhead pulls another con (making everyone believe that choices weren't predestined) but the great unwashed wish to believe otherwise?
It's not as if this is a tremendous surprise, right?
Not with a request or a demand, neither appeal nor invitation;
No entreaty, we did not beg, beseech or implore, no levy on your time;
It came not with a proposition, no petition or solicitation;
Not an order, nor a command, no imposition upon your person.
It should have been a stipulation, our singular ultimatum, to exact your cooperation, please accept our supplication.
Well given that SCOTUS had given POTUS Absolute Immunity and hence effectively made the office holder a King in all but name they could literally start issuing Titles to their BFF/Biggest supporters/most trusted toadies.
"Baron Musk of Hawthorne" is actually a possibility if the FOCF wins.
IE a literal robber baron if he gets his promised "Department of Efficiency" gig handed to him by the FOCF.
Just a reminder most of the battleground states have not declared yet.
I'm curious what the state of play was at this time in 2020? Had the FOCF already declared victory? Because counting his chickens before they've hatched is a bit of thing with him isn't it?
Well given that SCOTUS had given POTUS Absolute Immunity and hence effectively made the office holder a King in all but name they could literally start issuing Titles to their BFF/Biggest supporters/most trusted toadies.
No, they have not. The Supreme Court just ruled that the President has qualfied immunity, just as they've always had.
"Baron Musk of Hawthorne" is actually a possibility if the FOCF wins.
Well, if looks like the non-felon has won. The sentencing for his 'felonies' is also still due on the 26th(?) in NYC.
I'm curious what the state of play was at this time in 2020? Had the FOCF already declared victory? Because counting his chickens before they've hatched is a bit of thing with him isn't it?
Other people have been doing the counting and it's currently 223 to 279 for Trump. I don't think Harris has conceded yet, so perhaps there's going to be 4 more years of fiery, but mostly peaceful protests, claims of Russian interference, and lawfare. Which will probably include this case with the curious lottery that wasn't. The injunction is now moot, but the potential for new charges for running a rigged competion is still open.
The president now has "has absolute or presumptive immunity from criminal charges for his official acts" as commentators have described it. That's quite an extension.
If you're going to quote from fever dreams, you should probably cite your sources. Presidents have always had that power, and the emphasis is on official acts.
@Jellied Eel
"Presidents have always had that power"
I dont know what is worse- that democrats tried to change that just so they could go after Trump, or that they needed telling how the presidency actually works (and that the President is the Executive office so shouldnt be in Bidens condition)
Depends.
If you got $1m no.
Otherwise yes.
When they said "selected" people would get $1m they meant pre-selected people.
A little bit like the con-testants on this game show.
Some years back I was visiting a sub-Saharan country in Africa and got talking with one of the locals over a coffee about how corruption affects their democracy. I can 't remember exactly how he put it, but the essence was that if some local bigwig comes by and says to a villager "I will give you a cow if you promise to vote for me" the villager will take it and vote for the bigwig, because the central government is totally divorced from his existence, while a cow will make a real difference to his family. Then the local finished off by saying something like " but of course that wouldn't happen in a developed world democracy." For some reason I've been thinking about that little encounter more often recently.
" but of course that wouldn't happen in a developed world democracy."
This is the reason the USA and the UK switched to a secret ballot -- which the Americans called "The Australian System" at the time, because Aus was pioneering fair election theories.
The existing symbol of American Democracy was the fishbowl, as seen in political cartoons of the time: a democratic ballot where everyone could see your vote.
By the way, the Javanese Empire annexed Dutch New Guinea using a voting system of selected voters that is now recognized in Java as a corrupt way of keeping Suharto in power. They haven't made the step to recognizing the annexation as dishonest.
"How to Kill The Electoral College"
Yes, and with no proposed method to address the issues there would be with a strictly popular vote. A candidate with a strong appeal to big city dwellers on the East Coast of the US could win with little support west of the Mississippi River.
True.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
IHMO Identifying alternative systems that improve the "Fairness" of the process, for various definitions of what of fairness, could be (if it hasn't already been) the topic of a dozen University theses.
Modern technology allows us to simulate the consequences of dozens of different possible approaches before implementing changes.
But that assumes a)People agree the system is unfair b)They agree to abide by the results of the tests and implement them. c)Parties agree to accept they would have to campaign across all or most of the States in order to gain widespread support.
Evidence suggests the system advantages Republicans and they have zero interest in reforming it.
Rather like the proposals to improve border security and asylum processing after the FOCF called up his boy Mikey Johnson in fact.
Evidence suggests the system advantages Republicans and they have zero interest in reforming it.
Except the Republicans have suggested reforms, only to have those shouted down by the Demorats. Problem though I think is a combination of the Constitution, State laws regarding how elections are run, technology and a mobile workforce. A 'simple' FPTP or majority system in theory could work, assuming you know where your population is, if they're entitled to vote and have a trusted method to run those elections.
The Electoral College and the US Senate exist because the USA's founders opted to give small, low population states greater representation at the federal level than their population should afford. Those small states were afraid that their voices would be drowned out by their larger, more populous counterparts, so they threw a wrench into deliberations to get their way. That thumb on the scale of democracy carries forward today because those low population states have a vested interest in keeping the status quo and the requirement to change things is too great.
Those states were only small in terms of eligible voters. IE Free White men.
They had plenty of population. Just most of them were slaves.
And as the ratio of bodies needed to work the land : Everything else has risen (how many people does a modern combine replace? 100? 200?) the remaining votes in those states have become ridiculously more valuable. Hence the desperate 4 year scramble.
The EC is a product of slavery and should have been dumped after the Civil War, but it wasn't. Today the US could design a system that balanced representation for all states through some sort of simulation framework*
If people recognised it was a bad system to begin with and there was consensus it had to be fixed. Something lacking right now.
But let's be clear. The Fat Old Convicted (but not yet sentenced) Felon did just win by gaming the EC like he did in 2016.
This time round he told told people what they wanted to hear so badly they ignored everything else about his suitability. The FOCF gambled people would forget all the s**t during his last term. They did. With a little help from his pals Musk and Faux News.
Time will tell what he delivers, and who he delivers it to. Remember George Orwell.
"People who vote for corrupt politicians aren't victims, they are accomplice" and as Gil Scott-Herron pointed out following Reagan's victory "People want "nostalgia," even if it's only for last week."
Remember America, you did this to yourself and Putin, Orban, Bibi, Xi and Kim are all in ROTFLMFAO mode because 45 years after Margaret Thatcher you still can't face the idea of a woman President. You need a real diaper wearing petulant whiny ass man-child "man" in charge, because women are soooo emotional.
*You could even make a game out of and see who wins, provided you are aware of the developer biases, which is why SimCity always shows the liberterian small-government approach winning. That's the difference between a game and a real simulation.
The EC is a product of slavery and should have been dumped after the Civil War, but it wasn't. Today the US could design a system that balanced representation for all states through some sort of simulation framework*
Don't forget the Republicans ended slavery, the Democrats resisted that, along with things like ending segregation and the Poll Taxes. The rest doesn't really need any kind of AI or gaming, just a way to create a representative democracy. So break the US into roughly equal sized chunks based on eligible voters and call it good. But that would require states to agree to those changes, and then maybe down to county level. Along with minor representation details like reflecting urban vs rural voters, where population distributions would favour the urban voters.
This time round he told told people what they wanted to hear so badly they ignored everything else about his suitability. The FOCF gambled people would forget all the s**t during his last term. They did. With a little help from his pals Musk and Faux News.Time will tell what he delivers, and who he delivers it to. Remember George Orwell.
The left-stream media did everything in their power to tell everyone that Trump was Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all wrapped up with an orange bow. But the electorate didn't listen, and voted for the person that would boost the economy, reduce the impact of illegal immigration, reduce the cost of living and get tough on crime. Over in the blue corner, Harris wheeled out a succession of accents and has-been celebs. I kinda feel sorry for Springsteen given his endorsement of Harris probably cost him any money from future live concerts.
But you are right, time will tell. If Trump doesn't do what the DNC said he would, then it should be obvious to Americans that the DNC lied. Which also should be true for the left-stream media. They backed the wrong horse, many of their predictions and projections were false, and their ratings had already been falling through the floor. Their credibility is already pretty much shot, so whether MSNBC will cancel the 'View' and replace it with a more representative panel that doesn't so obviously hold the majority of Americans in contempt.
You need a real diaper wearing petulant whiny ass man-child "man" in charge, because women are soooo emotional.
I think Americans would accept a woman President, just not that woman. Again this is the DNC's fault by the way they decided Biden had gone from being as 'sharp as a tack' to being a liability practically overnight. And then replacing him with a bigger liability that nobody had voted for in the primaries. Maybe in a couple of cycles, Tulsi Gabbard will run and win, after all she wiped the floor with Harris in previous Democrat primaries. Or maybe Obama will try putting his missus in power, or Democrats will realise that it was the DNC's old guard of dinosaurs like Pelosi, Clinton, Schumer and Obama who's 'strategy' cost them this election. Then again, the Republicans have much the same problem with Trump having seized control. Maybe this will lead to a new party or coalition. Interesting times ahead.
Now I know you must know about the political realignment of the South and Nixon's Southern strategy to exploit that,
So why you trying to conflate pre-Civil rights racist democrats with the modern party, and pre 20th century civil rights Republicans with their current racist members?
So why you trying to conflate pre-Civil rights racist democrats with the modern party
Those racist Democrats were people of Biden's generation, and the 'modern' Democrats haven't really changed. Van Jones was on CNN bemoaning people who talked down to black women. Harris even managed to Trump Hilary with her attempt at a southern accent, along with faux hispanic and black. Or even Obama doing his good'ol boy routine to try and whip up support for Harris. Americans aren't stupid, and much as with Hilary's 'ordinary Amercians' schtick could tell they were being sold to by 1%'ers determined to cling on to power. Harris wheeled out celebs to read scripted endorsements, Trump drove a garbage truck and won over those ordinary Americans.
"Is not 'we the people' who decide on the president as the person gaining most votes doesn't necessarily end up as president, rather it is the elites that decide."
If the President was elected by popular vote, the top handful of large cities would elect them. There's a big difference between city dwellers and people that live in more urban and rural communities. A popular vote would have the effect of slanting elections towards a much more narrow cross-section of the populace. For more local elections, the voters will be much more representative. In large states that can still be quite skewed. If a large percentage of the population is living in one or two big cities, the voice of the vast majority of area in the state has little input. Look at a state such as Kansas with Kansas City, Topeka and Wichita containing a disproportionate number of the population.
""I will give you a cow if you promise to vote for me""
Given the price of beef, I'd totally take a cow! A lot of what the government does is divorced from my day to day existence and I do my best to avoid their scrutiny.
I've been around for a 'few years' now and one thing I have noticed is that while there is a lot of FUD leading up to a major election, there isn't much of a difference to most things on the backside. This time my slow season started especially early which does impact me, but there was no reason for it. Maybe Mr. Trump will start in on all of the post-election BS that will put enough people at ease that I can finish out the year without too much of a dip. I'd give no credence to anything he promises, but the show is what counts. I don't think many people realize how little power the US President has and how much Congress does.
"an accompanying video saying the winner was selected for no other reason than signing America PAC's petition in support of the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution."
...
"Young also admitted that winners were required to sign non-disclosure agreements to prevent them from sharing the terms of their deals with Musk's Trump-backing PAC. "
Time to replace the irony meter again...
Reportedly the winners weren't randomly chosen, but they picked people who would help shill for them. So my idea of Kamala voters signing the petition (since that costs nothing) winning and then trolling Musk on Twitter probably wouldn't work - the NDA probably prevents you from saying anything negative about Musk or Trump or you owe them $2 million.
"Reportedly the winners weren't randomly chosen, but they picked people who would help shill for them."
Your honor, it wasn't any sort of contest or lottery as we had it rigged from day one. There's no way we can be convicted of holding a contest as it never was one.
...you need to just turn the channel from Fox to CNN or another neutral network.
CNN is hardly neutral, but it has been fun watching the left-stream media try to reconcile what just happened. Nice example from the Bbc-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr4lwlpx3wxo
His victory cements a fundamental realignment of American politics toward a conservative populism that began in 2016 and was thought to have been discarded with his defeat in 2020.
Obviously the 'experts' at the Bbc couldn't read the room, even though a slew of elections across the world showed a growing rejection of 'liberalism', globalism and left-wing politics. Something the media should have been well aware of given assorted box-office bombs of movies and TV shows that emphasised messaging over story. Get woke, go broke etc. But this is what happens when the media lives inside their own bubbles. Harris wheeled out a line of celebrity endorsements from the likes of P.Diddler's ex. Obviously J-Lo is an expert judge of character. Or Beyonce, who gave an expert view of macroeconomics and how Harris would fix the economy.
Or not.
The public rejected those messages, and the messengers problem is probably living inside the California bubble & celebrity echo chamber. But the late, great Kurt Cobain probably said it best-
With the lights out, it's less dangerous
Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us
...
A denial, a denial
A denial, a denial
Hopefully now the TDS sufferers will wake up and realise they were conned by the Democrat's bread & circuses routine, but right now, many are still in very much in denial. Lots of videos of stupid lefties losing it, shouting at their cameras. Other than their entertainment value, those 'influencers' don't really influence anything.
> CNN is hardly neutral [..] left-stream media [..] TDS
Pot Black hole, kettle
> Obviously the 'experts' at the Bbc couldn't read the room
I saw that too, and it was a particularly stupid assertion on the part of the author. I've no idea who "thought" that- they might have predicted or hoped that it would, but it became quickly obvious that support for Trump hadn't gone away after Biden was elected.
But if you're trying to claim that the BBC or "left-stream media" (i.e. anything to the left of Fox News) in general were saying that or predicting a slam-dunk for Harris, you're either mistaken or lying. At best, the impression I got from reading/listening to them is that Harris stood a far-from-certain chance of winning at best compared to Biden who had been heading towards almost-certain defeat.
> the late, great Kurt Cobain probably said it best
Ironic that- as a right-wing supporter of a candidate and party that has explicitly pandered to anti-"woke", anti-LGBTQ+, pro-Project 2025 forces- you're trying to co-opt Cobain to back up your crowing that they won.
As has been noted on numerous occasions "Cobain was outspoken on gay rights, homophobia, and sexism [and] he said he often wished he’d been gay to annoy homophobes and was often known for wearing dresses to protest against sexism" before that was a:-
> “Wearing a dress shows I can be as feminine as I want… I’m a heterosexual… big deal. But if I was a homosexual, it wouldn’t matter either.”
> “If any of you in any way hate homosexuals, people of a different color, or women, please do this one favor for us — leave us the fuck alone! Don’t come to our shows and don’t buy our records.”
You might think that Cobain was "great", but I suspect he wouldn't have pissed on you- a gloating apologist for those same bigots- if you were on fire.
But honestly, you're over-analysing something that's just a common expression of contempt..
That reminds me-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6AY65Is8Q8
Antfia demonstrating why they shouldn't play with matches. Luckily the police they were whining about defunding still had enough money for a fire extinguisher.
You might think that Cobain was "great", but I suspect he wouldn't have pissed on you- a gloating apologist for those same bigots- if you were on fire.
And this is exactly why you lost. 8+ years of relentlessly negative campaigning. Biden elected promising to heal the political divide and instead widenening it, helping Harris by describing her opponents as 'garbage'. If the Demonrats had basically ignored Trump and focused on policies, they may have won. But they didn't have policies, or Bidenomics clearly demonstrated the failure of those policies. But thanks to the DNC's campaigning for Trump, Republicans now have the Presidency and Congress. Trump hasn't declared war on California, so there'll be 4yrs for Americans to discover if the Democrats lied to them about nonsense like 'Project 2025' or not.
> And this is exactly why you lost. 8+ years of relentlessly negative campaigning.
Who's "you", exactly? Are you taking for granted- again- that anyone you disagree with on this subject is a [US] "Democrat"?
This is ironic coming from someone who isn't even American themselves (*) and who identifies as "mostly a libertarian/conservative" rather than a "Republican". (**)
And yet you still make the kneejerk assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is a "Democrat" and- by implication- American themselves.
Nope, I'm not. I certainly have opinions on the politics of other countries that affect me or which I have an interest in. However, I'm not so all-in on another country's political system that I'd even bother defining myself or my politics in its terms.
I'm also pleased that you've no comeback to the observation that the man you consider "great" would likely have fucking hated *you* and anyone else trying to co-opt him in support of the bigotry he opposed during his lifetime.
(*) Despite Jellied's obsession with the US political system and adoption of the US-centric viewpoint of the culture war propaganda they've swallowed wholesale, they're actually from somewhere in the UK.
(**) Though I suspect that's only because explicitly doing so would make the dichotomy too obvious even to them- and to anyone else who wanted to point out that, despite playing that part in all but name, Jellied isn't even American.
This is ironic coming from someone who isn't even American themselves (*) and who identifies as "mostly a libertarian/conservative" rather than a "Republican"
Not at all ironic. I have some interests in the US, do you? Of course it's difficult to tell, what with you being an anonymous coward.
...would likely have fucking hated *you* and anyone else trying to co-opt him in support of the bigotry he opposed during his lifetime.
Ah, and now you're a speaker for the dead? I thought the lyrics were rather apt, but you decided to expose your own bigotry by trying to make a political statement and putting your own words in their mouth. You hate anyone to your right, therefore you assume Cobain would have agreed with you. Around 72m Americans (and counting) disagreed with your bigoted viewpoints however.
Despite Jellied's obsession with the US political system and adoption of the US-centric viewpoint of the culture war propaganda they've swallowed wholesale, they're actually from somewhere in the UK.
No obsession. Although some here do seem rather obsessed with Amercian cultural icons like Trump, Musk etc. American culture wars are also global, ie the Bbc makes garbage, just as Disney does. Their big brains don't seem to have realised that if you make content aimed at minorities, you get minority audiences. And even those minorities often agree that shows like the Acolyte, Agatha, Rings of Power or even our own Dr Who are practically unwatchable and don't represent. And then in typical lefty fashion, the cast & crew double down on dumb by attacking their audiences. This is also a mistake the Harris campaign made. Nobody cares what celebs like Beyonce, De Niro, Ford etc say when they endorsed Harris. Amercians probably aren't as bedazzled by celebrity as Harris and wonder why they should listen to people that essentially lie for a living.
Plus what happens over there tends to affect what happens here. Starmer may have been one of the first to call Trump and congratulate him, but Trump might still pursue legal action against Labour for their election interference and sending people to help Harris's campaign.. And then there's boring little details, like funding NATO, the Ukraine regime etc etc. It won't be the first time the US has walked away from a conflict they started and left Europe to clean up the mess.
> putting your own words in their mouth. You hate anyone to your right, therefore you assume Cobain would have agreed with you
Nah... I'm pretty good at qualifying that sort of thing, even when it's obvious. Hence "I suspect he wouldn't have pissed on you [..] if you were on fire" and "the man you consider "great" would likely have fucking hated *you*"
But feel free to re-read my original post with actual quotes from Cobain himself which made clear his feelings on the matter and pretend that he wouldn't have.
> Around 72m Americans (and counting) disagreed with your bigoted viewpoints however.
Honestly never realised my comments were *that* widely read! But that appeal to numbers/popularity proves nothing about what Cobain would have thought, so your disingenuous point was...?
> bigoted viewpoints
Oh, and I'm sure that while I'm sure you'd be able to contrive some disingenuous rationalisation if I picked you up on this (oh wait, I just did), this is little more than childish, low-rent "you said it, so I'll say it back" snidery. Fairly on-brand for you, then.
> Plus what happens over there tends to affect what happens here.
Gosh, you don't say?! :-O
Yes, I'm well aware of all that, hence why we're discussing this. Unlike you, I don't lose track of the fact that I'm not an American nor pretend otherwise.
But that appeal to numbers/popularity proves nothing
Other than how democracy works.
..which made clear his feelings on the matter and pretend that he wouldn't have.
He doesn't have any feelings on the matter on account of being dead. But you demonstrated your bigotry by attempting to suggest how he might feel, were he still alive. Again I just said the lyrics were apt for the current situation. You wouldn't put out a Republican if they were on fire, so you project your own issues onto someone else.
...this is little more than childish, low-rent "you said it, so I'll say it back" snidery. Fairly on-brand for you, then.
Well, a little NLP can go a long way. Projection, mirroring and the utter predictability of the typical far-left concern troll. But again this is why the Dems lost. They play the man, not the ball. I pass you shovels, you keep digging. It remains to be seen if the Dems concede defeat and try for some reconciliatiion and keep attacking their objects of hatred like Trump, or Musk, or if they follow you deeper down the hole of your own blind hatred.
Unlike you, I don't lose track of the fact that I'm not an American nor pretend otherwise.
And there you go again with another ad hom. Not suprising really that you're too afraid, or ashamed to put a name to your words. I'm just waiting now to see if Biden and Harris write (or ghostwrite) books explaining the DNC's Nacht der langen Messer when the Four Families threw Biden under the bus. There can't be any love lost between Biden and the way he was unceremoniously erased from the ticket, and neither have much of a political future left now.
> > But that appeal to numbers/popularity proves nothing [ quote cut here ]
> Other than how democracy works.
Note intentionally misleading truncation of full quote: "But that appeal to numbers/popularity proves nothing about what Cobain would have thought".
Note intentionally misleading truncation of full quote:
I see you're still digging. And relying on channeling spirits to try and support your 'argument'? Again, it's clear you wouldn't put out a burning Republican. Again this is why the nasty party lost.
It asks nothing, and offers nothing back. +
It is exactly what the FOCF wants most people to feel. Disenfranchisement is the Republican tool. When people vote in large numbers they generally don't vote Red. They discourage it whenever and wherever possible by whatever means they can get away with.
Stand your ground. There's still a chance the House majority will go Blue, spoiling the day for Lil' Mikey* and there is another way for the long haul. A hell of a lot of the people who voted for the Rapist-in-Chief have no clue about what they've voted for but then the Democrats have little idea why they voted for him to begin with. It's time they started finding out.
+ Thank you LM Bujold for that.
*WTF did the Dems field no candidate to stand against the contemptible little weasel Majority House Speaker? Is that some sort of "Gentlemen's agreement" that you don't do that to the House Speaker? Doesn't that rather depend on Mr I'm-on-$200K/Yr-but-have-no-bank-account Johnson being a gentleman to begin with? Or is because he's "On a mission from God" ?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
