148
Gotta check if I'm still allowed to vote and if I'm still a citizen! How wonderful! What a great time to be alive!
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2025
148 points (98.1% liked)
politics
26808 readers
2294 users here now
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 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How you know they're on the same side in one picture:
Boggles the mind that people still call this a democracy.
Imagine a world where "money = speech" reconciled with the notion that when it comes to elections, everyone should have an equal voice, and the result is that a fixed amount of money was made available to candidates, split evenly among every citizen, and we were able to choose who our portion went to. No outside funding period.
Apparently Brazil passed such legislation. They have a national electoral fund that they use to fund electoral campaigns. Individual citizens can donate up to 10% of their income to the fund per year.
Funny enough some states in the US also had such laws but they were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Are you saying they progressively cap what you can donate, based on the donators income? That sounds like it blatantly disenfranchises poor voters, but maybe I’m misunderstanding. I would think, there should be a hard cap on the amount you can donate. If anything would be progressive, I’d think the government should match your donation (not to exceed the cap) for poorer voters. Like, if you’re on food stamps, you basically only have to pay with half as much as everyone else (or something).
Representative government who only represents the donors and not the constituents, especially after an election, is definitely why we can't have nice things.
I'm kinda surprised no one has come in with the "It isn't a democracy, it's a Democratic Republic!"
Fuck, keep forgetting I'm not on reddit.
Cause the issue isn't how people are represented, but that money means more representation. Doesn't matter if it was straight democracy or democratic republic, it ain't really either if people with money get more representation.
Shocked, yes shocked I am that such a bold, genius person is crawling back to the trough instead of following through on fucking anything.
Following through on what? Musk is behaving exactly as he always has, and that’s in support of anything and everything to keep himself wealthy and profiting.
This isn’t a Trump issue, don’t be mistaken. The billionaire class will invest in any and all levers of power that continue their way of life, especially those that continue to insulate them from any accountability. The Republican Party as well as any others that further consolidate money and power for the wealthy while making life harder and more desperate for the rest of us will always have an infinite supply of funding and support from the billionaires. Trust me, now and even more so in the future, this is the shape of politics and the true ‘us vs them’ that those in power are trying less and less to distract us from.
Following through on what?
Anything. In this particular example his never-really-existed “America party”.
The billionaire class will invest in any and all levers of power that continue their way of life, especially those that continue to insulate them from any accountability.
Obvs. Agreed.
I would not be surprised to see someone trying to fund something like the teabagger movement after Taco's exit. If they call it the "America party", I would not be surprised. Whole lot of people will be too young to know or have strategic forgettery about the first teabagger movement. And the "mainstream media" is not likely to do a good job telling them, either, if they bothered to watch it. Certainly, their information bubbles will not.
If fElon plays the role of financing and astroturfing that, I would not be surprised, either. He needs some way to disrupt anything that might end the corporate welfare pipeline or start up any inconvenient regulation of his companies....getting morons to vote for Republicans under the guise of a "new party" (teabagger/"Tea Party" 2.0) is a great way to do that.
3 months ago he was saying he was gonna start his own party.
fElon says a lot of things.
It was always political theater
So he's going to help the party that supports a pedo?
Birds of a feather, and all that
They hate transpeople, and that's enough for him.
Money only matters when the only two options play that game...
Musk could give Republicans a trillion dollars, it won't stop an authentic progressive with charisma like Mamdani.
No amount of money can translate to votes like that.
Progressives lost to AIPAC funded candidates.
New York doesn’t mirror the voting of the rest of the country.
Money still wins elections. Don’t be complacent.
It doesn't have to be that way. On the west coast the Seattle mayor election went to Katie Wilson, a staunch progressive.
I didn’t say it “has to be that way”.
Seattle is in a blue state. Like New York, it doesn’t mirror the voting of the rest of the country.
We need to win in purple/red states to change our trajectory.
I'm noy saying money doesn't matter, but Kamala Harris outspent Trump by, like, 2:1 iirc in 2024 and still lost. Clearly money is not the only factor.
I agree it isn’t the only factor but it is a big one. Also, Trump had billionaires doing things off the books like Elon paying people to vote.
The money is to alter the results; not change perceptions before voting.
Money is used to change perceptions before the election. That is why so much is spent on campaigns. It is also used for bribery. Elon will use his money in any way possible to get what he wants.
That doesn't make any sense.
Because if they were doing that, they'd have people who wanted to do it and wouldn't require a bribe.
If they were bribing people, they'd demand payment be made after, and then just not pay them
Under no circumstance would they pay first and hope to not get ratfucked, because they fuck over everyone else at the drop of a hat.
Sounds like you’re claiming politicians dont accept bribes. Which is verifiably false.
They can pay before or after, if the politician doesn’t follow through on their end wealthy people have other ways to make them pay.
Or maybe the word gets out that a particular politician isn’t delivering. With the resources that the wealthy have they can run a smear campaign and ruin that politicians career.
Not to mention Clarence Thomas was bribed by letting him use a super yacht. If he didn’t follow through on his end the owner could just not let him use the yacht anymore.
There are many ways to skin this cat.
PEDOnald wants muskrat to help him cheat and hide and lie...
Worled once,.likely work again.
Trump: If you cheat for me, I MAY forgive you...
Musk: Thank you daddy. 😘
Wake me up when the guillotines come out
Well, they need him to rig the midterms
Nazi money won't save them
Cristiano Ronaldo? That caught me off guard.