Crawford projected winner over Schimel in SCOWI blow to Muskrats $MILLIONS

[robosmith]

$Billions only buys you so much. Strategic error of handing $M checks to buy votes.

[CrakHoBarbie]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

$Billions only buys you so much. Strategic error of handing $M checks to buy votes.

You know, it's funny....

Elon calling everyone's grandparents "parasites", didn't elicit a more positive response from Americans.

[User]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

$Billions only buys you so much. Strategic error of handing $M checks to buy votes.

So, you are saying that Musk can't just buy an election. 

Thanks!

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, User said:

So, you are saying that Musk can't just buy an election. 

Thanks!

So, you are saying you have no problem with billionaires trying to buy elections.

Thanks.

[User]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So, you are saying you have no problem with billionaires trying to buy elections.

Thanks.

No. The facts show that regardless of how much someone spends, it still comes down to 1 person and their 1 vote. 

Money is speech. 

[Aristides]

12 minutes ago, User said:

No. The facts show that regardless of how much someone spends, it still comes down to 1 person and their 1 vote. 

Money is speech. 

So you have no problem with billionaires trying to buy elections.

[Hodad]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So you have no problem with billionaires trying to buy elections.

These are the same people for whom George Soros was the boogeyman for decades because he supported liberal organizations financially. Too much influence!

And now we have Musk nakedly offering cash for signatures, support and realistically for votes. Everyone knows that this is not how democracy is supposed to work, but his ideological allies are willing to overlook it because they believe in the MAGA dogma far more than they believe in democratic values. 

We're just a quick jump away from auctioning off political positions to the highest bidder. Extreme income inequality bleeding into electoral inequality.  

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

These are the same people for whom George Soros was the boogeyman for decades because he supported liberal organizations financially. Too much influence!

And now we have Musk nakedly offering cash for signatures, support and realistically for votes. Everyone knows that this is not how democracy is supposed to work, but his ideological allies are willing to overlook it because they believe in the MAGA dogma far more than they believe in democratic values. 

We're just a quick jump away from auctioning off political positions to the highest bidder. Extreme income inequality bleeding into electoral inequality.  

The more blatant the abuse the harder they defend it. It's in the MAGA handbook. 

[User]

31 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So you have no problem with billionaires trying to buy elections.

You can't buy an election. All you can do is support people and causes. Speech. 

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, User said:

You can't buy an election. All you can do is support people and causes. Speech. 

Right, but you have no problem with billionaires trying to buy elections.

[User]

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

These are the same people for whom George Soros was the boogeyman for decades because he supported liberal organizations financially. Too much influence!

And now we have Musk nakedly offering cash for signatures, support and realistically for votes. Everyone knows that this is not how democracy is supposed to work, but his ideological allies are willing to overlook it because they believe in the MAGA dogma far more than they believe in democratic values. 

We're just a quick jump away from auctioning off political positions to the highest bidder. Extreme income inequality bleeding into electoral inequality.  

There is a difference in complaining and pointing out what is being done and characterizing it as "buying" an election and wanting to legally stop it. 

Musk was not offering cash for votes. Musk was not even saying you have to vote a certain way to get the money. The money was around support for the petition. 

This is why it is allowed to go on. 

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Right, but you have no problem with billionaires trying to buy elections.

You can't try to do something you can't do. 

 

[Aristides]

21 minutes ago, User said:

 

You can't try to do something you can't do. 

 

So why did Musk spend over 20 million on the election including giving million dollar cheques to two supporters? Because he is just a nice guy? 

This is fun. You make every excuse in the world for it but just can't say you support it. Keep on squirming. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So why did Musk spend over 20 million on the election including giving million dollar cheques to two supporters? Because he is just a nice guy? 

This is fun. You make every excuse in the world for it but just can't say you support it. Keep on squirming. 

That is not buying an election, it is no different than asking why someone spent their time going door to door or standing on the street corner or having a rally... all of those things are time and money spent to support candidates and causes. That is speech. 

 

[Aristides]

Just now, User said:

That is not buying an election, it is no different than asking why someone spent their time going door to door or standing on the street corner or having a rally... all of those things are time and money spent to support candidates and causes. That is speech. 

 

Squirm. Squirm.

[User]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Squirm. Squirm.

You say that... but you are the one avoiding responding to the facts of what I said. 

[Aristides]

24 minutes ago, User said:

You say that... but you are the one avoiding responding to the facts of what I said. 

Ya, going door to door is the same as giving 20 million to a campaign and million dollars cheques to individuals. 🤣

Squirm. Squirm.

[gatomontes99]

Isn't it weird that the numbers are so skewed?

Liberal justice got 1.3M votes. Conservative justice got 1.06M votes. But the referendum on voter ID got 1.4M. The liberal justice promised to shoot down any voter ID laws.

So almost 400,000 people voted for someone that would use her power to thwart their will? that just doesn't make any sense.

[Aristides]

By law, Wisconsin voters have had to provide ID since 2011. This vote was whether or not to put it in the state constitution.

[Aristides]

43 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Isn't it weird that the numbers are so skewed?

Liberal justice got 1.3M votes. Conservative justice got 1.06M votes. But the referendum on voter ID got 1.4M. The liberal justice promised to shoot down any voter ID laws.

So almost 400,000 people voted for someone that would use her power to thwart their will? that just doesn't make any sense.

Maybe they have bigger issues than voter ID. Maybe you should be asking yourself why that is.

[User]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

Ya, going door to door is the same as giving 20 million to a campaign and million dollars cheques to individuals. 🤣

Squirm. Squirm.

He didn't give 20 million to a campaign though. The checks were not given to people for a vote. 

Yet again, factual details matter. 

 

[Aristides]

35 minutes ago, User said:

He didn't give 20 million to a campaign though. The checks were not given to people for a vote. 

Yet again, factual details matter. 

 

Ya, he did.

https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-wisconsin-supreme-court-election-loss-2053668

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/elon-musk-spending-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-b2725855.html

https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-musk-million-dollar-giveaway-cdea66e0dcbaa53dd183e1d10bee2b35

Facts do matter.

[User]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Ya, he did.

No, he didn't.

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Facts do matter.

You claimed he gave the money to a campaign. Words matter. Either you lied or you ignorantly said something you don't understand. Which is it?

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, User said:

No, he didn't.

You claimed he gave the money to a campaign. Words matter. Either you lied or you ignorantly said something you don't understand. Which is it?

The links show he did.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, User said:

No, he didn't.

You claimed he gave the money to a campaign. Words matter. Either you lied or you ignorantly said something you don't understand. Which is it?

Are you so stupid you don't know Justice Crawford was running a campaign for her SCOWI seat?

I donated $25 to her CAMPAIGN 3 days ago. What is it you believe I (and Muskrat) was doing? LMAO

[User]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

The links show he did.

No, they don’t.