politics
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.