3 ms·
> We can’t afford healthcare because they revoked the subsidies but at least we now also can’t afford gasoline too! But we can easily affort 500+ million per d
by jjav 9d ago
> We can’t afford healthcare because they revoked the subsidies but at least we now also can’t afford gasoline too!
But we can easily affort 500+ million per day for faraway foreign wars! That, no problem.
- qzw 9d agoAlso apparently a $5000 “dividend” for everyone if we just “do the right thing”. I thought you had to be profitable to pay a dividend, but apparently not. Oh also, that $1.5T will magically not add to the debt or come from tax dollars.
- torginus 9d agoIsn't that the textbook definition of buying votes?
- grim_io 9d agoYeah. And? :)
- Brendinooo 9d agoApparently not. >In Brown v. Hartlage (1982), a Supreme Court case where a Kentucky county commissioner promised to reduce his salary if elected, the Court unanimously drew a line between policy promises and vote buying. “A candidate’s promise to confer some ultimate benefit on the voter, qua taxpayer, citizen, or member of the general public, does not lie beyond the pale of First Amendment protection,” Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote. Given that precedent, Trump is almost certainly within the bounds of the law (you might remember Elon Musk wasn’t charged for handing out $1 million checks to people during a campaign rally in Wisconsin in exchange for “taking the time to vote.”). https://www.readtangle.com/trump-dividend-midterm-promise/ https://www.readtangle.com/trump-dividend-midterm-promise/
- Arodex 9d agoThis is an asinine decision that essentially makes vote buying totally legal. We see this trick with the recent Supreme Court decisions that essentially make racial gerrymandering legal again by just making the crime impossible to prove by accepting any other justification at face value.
- Brendinooo 9d agoI mean, if you really believe that, then no politician would ever be able say something like "I'll work to get you free health care".
- Ntrails 9d agoYeah. I'm not sure how a strict reading doesn't end up with obvious policies ending up making all of the policies below "vote buying": - Cancel student loans - Reduce federal tax rates - Increase unemployment/pension/etc payouts There is always a state of "this policy upside is contingent on voting for me" - though in Trumps case he is making it contingent Not on his own electoral outcome in some sense. Just messy.
- Brendinooo 9d agoAs is often the case with our commander in chief, things once expressed subtly are now expressed brazenly.
- recursivecaveat 9d agoDon't forget: you can accept bribes as long as you receive them after the fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._United_States I guess I will never pay another restaurant bill again, since any possible future "gratuity" I might award them would of course have no bearing on their past decision to bring me a plate of food.
- fittingopposite 9d agoThat's a problem if you live in a country with politically illiterate voters. That's why education is so important in democracies so people don't fall for such crap
- lenkite 9d ago> But we can easily affort 500+ million per day for faraway foreign wars! That, no problem. That's because War is a wealth transfer program to the billionaire class. Look at the stock prices of the Big-5 War Companies of the Corporate States of America. Look at the wealth of their executive boards and CEO compensation - which has increased even more in 2026.