this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
332 points (99.7% liked)

politics

19050 readers
3939 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court has told Elon Musk to buzz off.

The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear an appeal from Elon Musk’s X Corp. on the company’s claim that special counsel Jack Smith took an unlawful deep dive into Donald Trump’s social media account without notifying the former president.

X Corp. begged the Supreme Court in July to determine under what circumstances a tech company can be compelled to turn over information on its users, while being prevented from alerting those users that they’re being investigated.

When X Corp. challenged the order, it was found in contempt and fined $350,000. Prosecutors argued that notifying Trump of the search would endanger the evidence.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 174 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Boy…. Musk sure is simping hard for the turdmonger.

Probably should check his bank accounts for rubles

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 70 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It seems to me that Musk is trying to get deeper into politics, and one way to do that is to be a part of Trump’s cabinet. So I’d imagine he is bootlicking for the role. And it’s probably working.

[–] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee 68 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It seems to me that Musk is trying to get deeper into politics,

It seems, yes

[–] Zier@fedia.io 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Deeper? or 'higher'? Ketamine Karen for President 2028 'Make America Mars Again'. zoom zoom

[–] mostNONheinous@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

Neither can anyone participating in an insurrection against the United States.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago
[–] Track_Shovel 10 points 1 week ago
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, bootlicking always works on mewling narcissists.

But the after taste is awful. And permanent.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Some people have no concept of taste, and Musk would certainly fit that description.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

I bet all he’s ever had is a concept of taste.

Just like the concepts of a plan.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Thank god he can't run for President. I don't think he'd be satisfied being one-among-many Senators or Representatives. Governor of Texas, though...

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Oh, he’d definitely try to secede.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Two of his largest businesses depend on the US government being friendly to him. Space X and Telsa. The grift is in plain sight. “Please keep buying my rockets, and please don’t make life hard for EV manufacturers.”

[–] Juice@midwest.social 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Always have and always will. Tesla is barely a car company, they're a company that sells EV carbon credits to other car companies, that happens to also sell cars

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, specifically when you consider Elon's troubling interference about the use of his Starlink during the Russo-Ukrainian war. Potentially hobbling the Ukrainians to the benefit of the Russians.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

I want to be clear about the situation. He made them agree that StarLink wouldn't be used for offensive operations. (As though any operation is offensive in a fully defensive war.)

When it came time to attack Russian ships, Elon wouldn't extend the operational range.

Because, you know, apparently it's not fair to go attack the Russian navy before it attacks you... in an ongoing war.

Hobbling is a good way to put it. It's not quite sabotage, but it sure as hell wasn't great.

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 5 points 1 week ago

Musk did seem to lurch to the right after his meeting with Putler

[–] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 46 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wonder what else musk is hiding.

[–] celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Probably been to Epstein Island more than Jeffrey Epstein.

[–] Cadeillac@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That would explain calling that diver a pedo. It's ALWAYS projection

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

He did say that the only reason a man would travel to Thailand was for underage sex tourism right after having travelled to Thailand...

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don’t necessarily think this is a boon. I mean this time is against people i hate, and that’s cool. Just as long as the government can be trusted not to abuse their power.

[–] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 week ago

This was my takeaway as well. They're not agreeing with Smith for any reason other than this nets them more discretionary power.

[–] grue@lemmy.world -3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

X Corp. begged the Supreme Court in July to determine under what circumstances a tech company can be compelled to turn over information on its users, while being prevented from alerting those users that they’re being investigated.

Ah, after reading the headline I was wondering what motive could be so ulterior that it could override the MAGA Justices' [sic] corrupt compulsion to help Trump. Yep, putting gag orders on services while investigating their users is nefarious enough to fit that bill.

Just to be clear here, if there's anybody who eminently deserves to be fucked over by secret subpoenas, it's Trump. But despite that political expediency serving the good guys (for once), it's still a bad precedent.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago

This isn't the NSA snooping on your private conversations because it's a day ending in a y.

This is a search for corroborating evidence against someone credibly accused of inciting a fucking insurrection done with reasonable suspicion, court order, the works.

As for the "gag order" part, Trump is known to routinely delete evidence and there's no doubt that Musk would warn him to do so if it didn't put himself in legal jeopardy.

Tl;Dr: you're comparing apples and hand grenades.

[–] zaph@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 week ago

The NSA were looking through our webcams. Donnie committed a felony on live television. Hope this helps you spot the difference.