US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
I think it's also an Always Sunny reference. Dennis in IASIP uses that phrase a few times when bigging himself up to ludicrous levels.
Meta, Amazon and tech CEOs make $1 million investments in Trump's inauguration
Tech companies are sending big bucks to President-elect Donald Trump's nonprofit inaugural committee.
www.cbsnews.com
Uber and its CEO donate $1 million each to Trump's inaugural fund
Uber Technologies and CEO Dara Khosrowshahi each contributed $1 million to President-elect Donald Trump's inaugural fund. Several companies, including Meta Platforms, are making similar donations. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman also plans a personal $1 million contribution. These donations follow...
Apple CEO Tim Cook plans to donate $1 million to Trump’s inauguration: report
The Donald Trump-JD Vance inaugural fund is expected to raise a record-setting $150 million
www.independent.co.uk
Tim Cook's check better be signed Tim Apple tho.
L is Real 2025
Last edited:
Why do you donate to the inauguration? Like that's not even a partisan question; this is a basic function of government that should require no input or funding from anyone other than the government; the public's one act of support should be whether they show up or not. Or is there a nuance I'm missing?Meta, Amazon and tech CEOs make $1 million investments in Trump's inauguration
Tech companies are sending big bucks to President-elect Donald Trump's nonprofit inaugural committee.Uber and its CEO donate $1 million each to Trump's inaugural fund
Uber Technologies and CEO Dara Khosrowshahi each contributed $1 million to President-elect Donald Trump's inaugural fund. Several companies, including Meta Platforms, are making similar donations. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman also plans a personal $1 million contribution. These donations follow...m.economictimes.com
Corpo garbage lining up to curry favor. "Please don't fuck me with tariffs, daddy"Apple CEO Tim Cook plans to donate $1 million to Trump’s inauguration: report
The Donald Trump-JD Vance inaugural fund is expected to raise a record-setting $150 million
Tim Cook's check better be signed Tim Apple tho.
L is Real 2025
They're not donating to the actual official inauguration itself. That is organised by the Joint Congressional Commitee on Inaugural Ceremonies, and paid for by the state with taxpayer money.
What these corpos are donating to is Trump's inaugural fund, a nonprofit entity that funds and organizes inaugural events outside of the official inauguration. You know, all the pomp and circumstance celebrations at the Mall in DC and such.
These funds can also accept limitless donations. The intent was to allow newly inaugurated presidents big blowouts without doing so at the taxpayers expense, but in practice are also used by donors to curry favor with the incoming administration. In this case, donating 1 mil buys face time with Trump.
am hoping this isnt overlooked just cos am annoying messenger, cos is heavy and only ever more relevant for ppl wanting to know how the world geopolitically got where it's at today. A really informative podcast going over America's unacknowledged history of fucking the rest of the world over with systemic war crimes, destabilising leftist governments, enabling fascist dictator coups so long as they're willing to let international corporations drain their local resources all while generations of aggressive propaganda conditioned even the more educated, cynical/critical people into broad dismissive assumptions. Is well produced if it matters also.
^Korea^
Just sharing first of each season cos they cover different countries/moment in history the US funded horrors any reasonable one of us would condemn any other nation for doing - yet we aren't even at the stage of the government acknowledging any of it let alone admittance of wrongdoing. Reperations are relegated to a fucking high fantasy concept by now.
Iraq
Cuba
Afghanistan (All MGS references for titles here, huh)
Cambodia (the current ongoing season as of typing, up to episode 5? I think?)
State of our geopolitical world will make so much more sense afterwards, garunteed promise or you money back!
But it is bleak. Very very bleak.
^Korea^
Just sharing first of each season cos they cover different countries/moment in history the US funded horrors any reasonable one of us would condemn any other nation for doing - yet we aren't even at the stage of the government acknowledging any of it let alone admittance of wrongdoing. Reperations are relegated to a fucking high fantasy concept by now.
Iraq
Cuba
Afghanistan (All MGS references for titles here, huh)
Cambodia (the current ongoing season as of typing, up to episode 5? I think?)
State of our geopolitical world will make so much more sense afterwards, garunteed promise or you money back!
But it is bleak. Very very bleak.
Speaking of which: Washington Post's cartoonist has resigned because they wouldn't let her publish a cartoon showing various industry/media figures (including Jeff Bezos) kneeling in front of the President-Elect.
Washington Post cartoonist resigns over paper’s refusal to publish cartoon critical of Jeff Bezos
Pulitzer prize winner Ann Telnaes had drawn a cartoon of the paper’s owner kneeling before Donald Trump
www.theguardian.com
While this is (mostly...*) true, Biden did get $1m apiece from Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
On the other hand: Biden's inauguration fund came to ~$61-62m. Trump's is over $200m.
*That 'mostly' is because while Google and Amazon gave much less to Biden than to Trump, these figures are still understatements. Google gave over 300k, not 200k.
America has always been for sale; we're just not trying to hide it anymore.
If you do not accept that actions can be moral or immoral regardless of consequence-- at least in some cases-- then your moral system probably will deliver worse consequences and therefore should not be used. There are different kinds of cases where this happens. One of them is when someone intends to do something that is definitely immoral and it accidentally has good consequences. And the flip side of that: when someone does something that they have no way of foreseeing or reason to suspect that it will lead to something bad. Another is the perfectionism problem: all but the most optimal sequence of events is immoral despite it being impossible to know what that sequence is in the moment. Another is the problem of fault: doing something within your rights that results in some kind of unjustified harmful reaction by someone else. As I gestured at earlier, the problem of fault makes act utilitarianism tend toward acquiescing to tyranny, and the more uninhibited are the destructive impulses of the tyranny, the more subservient the act utilitarian must be toward it. Because the reprisal for resistance is a consequence. But you know not to blame the victim, so I can only conclude that you are not an act utilitarian. Not really. Or you have a philosophical problem to pretend to solve.
This is easily overcome by recognising that it is the decision we judge, and that such a judgement depends on the information available to the person at the time. All of which has already been covered.
This would only be a quandary if we were to judge it from a perspective of retrospective omniscience and assume the decider was in the same position, which is absurd.
The perfectionism problem is applicable to some degree to pretty much all approaches to morality in which the individual lacks 100% complete information and resource (which would be practically all of them, including rule utilitarianism). It is overcome by an iota of pragmatism.
You have come to that conclusion because you insist on this canard about tyranny, which still doesn't hold true, and relies on simply writing off certain consequences altogether to arrive at the poor outcome. Yes, reprisal is a consequence. So is the possibility of success, and the probability of emboldened tyranny through inaction. And then we have it weighted against the continued suffering of the original tyranny, because inaction is also a choice.
It is easy for an act utilitarian to conclude resistance is optimal. Just as it is easy for a rule utilitarian to conclude acquiescence is optimal, because those unwilling to look at individual circumstances can conclude that if overthrowing the government isn't always right then it never is.
This is literally the first time in my lifetime that a Republican President did not have the results objected to or protested on January 6th. If January 6th, 2021 had not played out the way it did, I guarantee you there would be objections to the votes. Democrats wrote themselves into a corner by spending 4 years pretending any contest to an election is insurrection.
As far as protestors, lefties just can't handle the snow.
Fabricating a narrative about the election being ''stolen'' out of whole cloth, spending months putting pressure on legislators and vice presidents alike to abuse their power and then storming the capitol when they didn't isn't exactly ''any contest to an election''. Its a very specific contest to an election. One that's very specific to one particular political leaning in the US.
Republicans did it once. Democrats behaved that way from 2001-2020 continuously. Hell, even before that, marxists literally bombed the US Capitol and Clinton pardoned them.
And you know, if now they're going to decide that they're better than that behavior only because Republicans acted like that once, I'm not upset if they never realize that moment was holding up a mirror to them, I'm content if they follow through with behaving better.
And so the worse the reprisal, the more you should condemn the resistance. Your moral system incentivizes harsh repression.
That conclusion A) doesn't follow unless you once again ignore all other consequences; and B) would be just as applicable to rule utilitarianism, which can consider all the same consequences but in broader strokes.
If this is your objection, then it isn't even really an act/rule one, but rather just a wish to totally ignore certain consequences (in this case, the foreseeable death of innocents). You do you.
Quite a lot of context misleadingly omitted there. Clinton commuted the sentences of two people (Rosenberg and Evans) involved in the 83 bombing to time served. Both had served over 15 years in prison by that time.
Rosenberg wasn't sentenced for involvement in the 83 bombing-- that charge was dropped and the commuted sentence was unrelated. And Evans' sentence for the bombing was 5 concurrent years, so it had already been fully served. So neither sentence that got commuted actually had anything to do with the bombing.
Your attempt to highlight the similarities runs into the problem of....the lack of similarities. You seem to blame the Democrats a lack of grace upon defeat(as if the Republicans are characterized by that) which would be fair if that was the topic at hand. But its not.
After all the argument of the Trumpers isn't that Biden should not have won, but that he secretly had not won, and that this justifies attempts to prevent him from taking office and install a false president in his place. And that's kinda unique. In a bad way. At our most charitable to your argument we could bring up Bush vs Gore with some convinced Gore indeed would have won without the supreme court stepping in. Okay. We can accept that. But that was a razor thin and very controversial election, not at all like 2020, and it was not accompanied by the Democrats scheming to install Gore as president and then send a mob Gore's way when he disagreed.
Also the whole ''The Republicans did it once. Democrats did it continuously'' kinda ignores the very negative Republican reaction to Obama's win. 2020 wasn't some break with a long tradition of Republicans accepting defeat with absolute grace.