A resounding response to apathetic nonvoters: CAH will pay you up to $100 if you didn't vote in 2020 and you apologize by publicly posting "Donald Trump is a human toilet." Don't have to ask me...
A resounding response to apathetic nonvoters: CAH will pay you up to $100 if you didn't vote in 2020 and you apologize by publicly posting "Donald Trump is a human toilet."
Don't have to ask me twice CAH, now let me send you $8 even though I haven't played your game in years...
My favorite bit:
Is there some way I can force Elon Musk to pay $47 to Cards Against Humanity PAC?
Funny you should ask! If you’re a registered voter in PA, GA, NV, AZ, NC, WI, or MI, just type your name into this dumb website for his PAC, put “MuskIsDumb@cah.lol” as your referrer, and they'll be legally obligated to pay us $47. The more people who do this, the more Musk money we’ll get to un-fuck America.
If he doesn’t pay up, we’ll sue him again.
This might be lazy, but I'm a not an american so I can't see Musk's website and figure it out for myself. How on earth are CAH getting this bit to happen?
Is there some way I can force Elon Musk to pay $47 to Cards Against Humanity PAC?
Funny you should ask! If you’re a registered voter in PA, GA, NV, AZ, NC, WI, or MI, just type your name into this dumb website for his PAC, put “MuskIsDumb@cah.lol” as your referrer, and they'll be legally obligated to pay us $47. The more people who do this, the more Musk money we’ll get to un-fuck America.
This might be lazy, but I'm a not an american so I can't see Musk's website and figure it out for myself. How on earth are CAH getting this bit to happen?
Here's an article about it: Elon Musk's PAC offers $47 payouts to refer swing state voters to sign petition This appears to be the petition in its entirety: The page also says: Musk is paying $47...
Petition in Favor of Free Speech and the Right to Bear Arms
The First and Second Amendments guarantee freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. By signing below, I am pledging my support for the First and Second Amendments.
The page also says:
Our goal is to get 1 million registered voters in swing states to sign in support of the Constitution, especially freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.
Musk is paying $47 for each referral whenever people in certain states sign a petition. The email address identifies who referred them, so Cards Against Humanity would get credit for the referral.
So it seems like both Musk and CAH are using loopholes to pay people to do stuff. It's technically not paying people to vote (since they will never know if you actually voted) but it's sorta adjacent.
Lol beautiful! I thought this has something to do with the spaceX despoiling CAH land lawsuit and wondered how did they get it settled so fast. Nope, even easier and better, just using Musk's own...
Lol beautiful!
I thought this has something to do with the spaceX despoiling CAH land lawsuit and wondered how did they get it settled so fast.
Nope, even easier and better, just using Musk's own dumb PAC against him. Can he wiggle out of this one? He's going to whine and moan about it to his lawyers right? I hope he moans about it publically to achieve the Streisand effect.
As much as I'd love to see Fatuous Clown II pay for the violence he's inciting, the amount isn't worth providing my detailed personal information on a gun advocacy site. I really, really don't...
As much as I'd love to see Fatuous Clown II pay for the violence he's inciting, the amount isn't worth providing my detailed personal information on a gun advocacy site. I really, really don't want to spend the rest of my life deleting e-mails and texts from the people who have that list, blocking calls, or seeing them show up at my door.
[The previous owner of my work cell number must have been on a list. I'm deleting and blocking 3 - 4 right-wing spam texts/day, and sending 4 - 5 solicitation calls/week to voicemail. If I accidentally block a legitimate work message, it's a problem. No thanks to more of that.]
I think I know the enemy pretty well by this point. I also don't assume I'm so cognitively well-defended that bad ideas repeated often enough will simply bounce off. It takes mental energy to...
I think I know the enemy pretty well by this point. I also don't assume I'm so cognitively well-defended that bad ideas repeated often enough will simply bounce off. It takes mental energy to uproot the most insidious ones, and that's not something I have in abundance these days.
There is an intentional strategy to drown truth in lies through exhaustion of debate, and I'm not playing the game.
Some how I got on Judicial Watch's email list. I blame my stepmom who for a while would use my name to add extra names to petitions til I told her to cut it out (usually not political at least but...
Some how I got on Judicial Watch's email list. I blame my stepmom who for a while would use my name to add extra names to petitions til I told her to cut it out (usually not political at least but I'm betting the petitions had ties to similar politics. One was to keep a park near her to not have a dog park, cause she liked being able to use the whole park as her dog park and felt they would actually regulate it more if they made an official one that only had part of the park).
Hell, I always wonder if she didn't secretly sign me up for it. Ah well... I just have it on my smart list of emails to instantly delete (it looks on who is sending it and puts it in a folder and I just dlete everything in that folder without looking).
No offense, but fuck your mom. People like her are the reason my kids are terrified of dogs. Just playing by themselves then some giant dog 2x their size comes out of nowhere and starts jumping on...
One was to keep a park near her to not have a dog park, cause she liked being able to use the whole park as her dog park
No offense, but fuck your mom. People like her are the reason my kids are terrified of dogs. Just playing by themselves then some giant dog 2x their size comes out of nowhere and starts jumping on top of them.
Woah Woah Woah strong language. To be fair I also despise the kind of dog owner you mentioned. But. @Tigress didn't say their stepmom had a giant or ill behaved or off leash dog. Just that their...
Woah Woah Woah strong language. To be fair I also despise the kind of dog owner you mentioned. But.
@Tigress didn't say their stepmom had a giant or ill behaved or off leash dog. Just that their stepmom wanted to maintain a dog-inclusive park. What if this was a super huge inner city forest park, and the division would mean the dog inclusive portion shrink from several dozen acres to a tennis court size area, and push several well behaved dogs within far denser proximity to each other?
Oh no, he pegged her correctly sadly. her past few goldens have luckily had some decent manners without them doing anything but the current one is an almost full grown puppy that really could...
Oh no, he pegged her correctly sadly. her past few goldens have luckily had some decent manners without them doing anything but the current one is an almost full grown puppy that really could stand a training class or two. As I mentioned to him, last time I visited her, there was almost exactly an incident like he was ranting about with her dog. I mean the dog was being friendly but one of the kids he was accosting was not really enjoying it (and I couldn't even get her to realize that either sadly, she kept saying, "All the kids liked my dog!").
But, she doesn't listen to me so she's going to be one of those dog owners sigh. And I gaurentee you if some one accosted her about it to show that it angers people she would just see them as an uptight not dog person. I remember growing up we had a dog aggressive dog when I was a kid (golden btw) that she'd make me let loose (she would make me rewalk him if she figured out I didn't and I wasn't a good liar) and there was one little dog he did not get along with. Understandably the guy did not like our dog or my mom and I don't blame him (he seemed to realize she was the problem as I was always embarassed when I had to go grab my dog when he saw his dog). She at the time just saw him as a grumpy old man. At least now she realizes she was in the wrong there and that dog should never have been off leash (hell, he escaped fenced yards and into them to start dog fights. He's why if I ever have a dog again I never want one that doesn't get along with other dogs).
Again, my children have a lifelong fear of dogs that's going to take years to mitigate (my own trauma took about 30 there) because of entitled dog owners. I think that justifies dropping an fbomb...
Again, my children have a lifelong fear of dogs that's going to take years to mitigate (my own trauma took about 30 there) because of entitled dog owners. I think that justifies dropping an fbomb against one.
I'm sure she's a fine and reasonable lady outside of this, but on this issue she's a monster in my mind.
I see, sorry about your kids having been traumatized , and I hope they heal completely and soon. Agree with you that there are monsters out there, as well as highly selfish people (and selfish...
I see, sorry about your kids having been traumatized , and I hope they heal completely and soon. Agree with you that there are monsters out there, as well as highly selfish people (and selfish monsters)
"Using the entire park as her dog park" very much implies that her dog was off-leash. Hence the fear that they'd regulate it more. I also highly doubt it would have been Tigress's example if it...
"Using the entire park as her dog park" very much implies that her dog was off-leash. Hence the fear that they'd regulate it more. I also highly doubt it would have been Tigress's example if it were an eminently reasonable petition.
I don't agree with her either but I'm kinda across the country. Good luck trying to change her mind, I guarentee you if you accosted her she'd just roll her eyes at the not dog loving person sigh....
I don't agree with her either but I'm kinda across the country.
Good luck trying to change her mind, I guarentee you if you accosted her she'd just roll her eyes at the not dog loving person sigh.
At the very least her dog friends have gotten her to pick up after her dog (she used to not even do that, course she doesn't listen to me but least her dog loving friends also agree and she apparently listened to them).
TBF, it's a local neighborhood park that mostly just the neighbors with dogs use. So, usually it's not too big a problem what she does (and it's usually at times that it's mostly dog users at the park). But yes, last time I was there there was an incident where some school kids were entering the park and her large, overly friendly (and not all that good mannered) dog was jumping all over them including one or two that you could tell did not care for dogs. And yes, I tried to tell her and she was totally like, "Oh no, they were enjoying the dog! They liked my dog!" I've also tried to tell her her dog would be more likable if he had manners (which is true, he's a sweet dog but he really needs manners and he can get nippy when he's excited which I absolutely gaurentee a not dog person is not going to realize he's not being aggressive but just overly energetic. But she absolutely does not listen to me, as I noted, she only started picking up after her dog after her friends pushed her too, I had been nagging her way before they got her to).
This is exactly the problem. At the end of the day, teeth are teeth and a 20lb weight advantage over a small child. If the dog is overly energetic it either needs leashed or impeccable training...
a not dog person is not going to realize he's not being aggressive but just overly energetic.
This is exactly the problem. At the end of the day, teeth are teeth and a 20lb weight advantage over a small child. If the dog is overly energetic it either needs leashed or impeccable training with a watchful owner.
Nobody would tolerate my child running up to people, shoving them to the ground, licking and biting them gently, then me saying "Oh they're just a little overenergetic, it's not dangerous."
It's kind of like spiders and bees. It doesn't matter how often I tell strangers how wonderful and not-dangerous they are, they're not going to appreciate me letting a boxful of them loose on the subway or their picnic table.
Nobody would tolerate my child running up to people, shoving them to the ground, licking and biting them gently, then me saying "Oh they're just a little overenergetic, it's not dangerous."
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying good luck getting my step mom to see it that way. She can't see past her own love of dogs to see it from other people's POV.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying good luck getting my step mom to see it that way. She can't see past her own love of dogs to see it from other people's POV.
Oh to be clear, I was intending to re-enforce that you get it and your mom (and far too many other people I know) doesn't. My sister has a perfectly trained German shepard. It just goes up to...
Oh to be clear, I was intending to re-enforce that you get it and your mom (and far too many other people I know) doesn't.
My sister has a perfectly trained German shepard. It just goes up to kids, sits in front of them, and starts smiling and awaiting chin scratches or back rubs before licking or trying to play. I want every dog person to meet this dog to set a baseline for what a good dog owner looks like.
This part is absolutely hilarious and I signed the petition listing the CAH email as my referrer. And screenshot the process just in case. Elon you impolite words so-and-so, pay my favorite...
This part is absolutely hilarious and I signed the petition listing the CAH email as my referrer. And screenshot the process just in case.
Elon you impolite words so-and-so, pay my favorite hilarious card came company a bunch of your monies!
I'd take them up on it but I'm not their target as I totally voted 2020. I would easily post Donald Trump is a Human Toilet. Does it matter where? Cause I'll say it right now, Donald Trump is a...
I'd take them up on it but I'm not their target as I totally voted 2020. I would easily post Donald Trump is a Human Toilet. Does it matter where? Cause I'll say it right now, Donald Trump is a Human Toilet.
Actually, I take it back. Toilets are good to have around and serve a useful function (one that is gross and without could cause disease so they help prevent disease). Donald Trump does none of that, quite the opposite really. Donald Trump is a parasite at best. One that spews out trash and makes things far far worse.
The part about them being a superPAC and having a full list of folks who voted plus how they lean?!?! That's legit?! And this isn't interference because it's free speech. Your country crazy
The part about them being a superPAC and having a full list of folks who voted plus how they lean?!?! That's legit?! And this isn't interference because it's free speech.
Of course I’m biased by my dislike of Musk, but I think this is a very enjoyable form of protest. Push the loophole to the limit (reading about legal maneuvering is like tickling your brain). And...
Of course I’m biased by my dislike of Musk, but I think this is a very enjoyable form of protest. Push the loophole to the limit (reading about legal maneuvering is like tickling your brain). And they take the time to break down all the absurdities. I’m not sure how effective they’ll be, but it makes a great read.
I don't even like the card game much anymore, but I enjoy their political antics. Hard to say how effective they are but even if it's a tiny amount, anything better than zero is a win in my book!
I don't even like the card game much anymore, but I enjoy their political antics. Hard to say how effective they are but even if it's a tiny amount, anything better than zero is a win in my book!
But they aren't paying anyone to vote. They're paying non-voters from 2020 to "make a voting plan" and make a public statement. There's no requirement that anyone actually go to a polling location...
But they aren't paying anyone to vote. They're paying non-voters from 2020 to "make a voting plan" and make a public statement. There's no requirement that anyone actually go to a polling location or fill out a ballot in order to receive their money. It's the same reason why Musk's call for voters to refer others to register in swing states is perfectly legal.
They are clearly paying people, to commit to vote, and to disparage one of the leading candidates. Plus they offer to pay more if you commit to vote and lean blue. I am sure they have some good...
If you didn't vote in 2020, Cards Against Humanity will PAY you to apologize, make a voting plan, and publicly post "Donald Trump is a human toilet"—up to $100 if you live in a swing state and lean blue.
They are clearly paying people, to commit to vote, and to disparage one of the leading candidates. Plus they offer to pay more if you commit to vote and lean blue.
I am sure they have some good lawyers on retainer, because they are practically begging to be taken to court.
Isn't it more frightening that they've already checked with their lawyers and got the okay? It feels like this ought to be illegal but it's not. Remember when Stephen Colbert (in character) ran...
Isn't it more frightening that they've already checked with their lawyers and got the okay?
It feels like this ought to be illegal but it's not.
Remember when Stephen Colbert (in character) ran the Colbert SuperPAC?
Speaking in character, Colbert said the money would be raised not only for political ads, but also "normal administrative expenses, including but not limited to, luxury hotel stays, private jet travel, and PAC mementos from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus."[6]
Colbert hosted former Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman Trevor Potter on the program to help him fill out the paperwork [...] Potter explained that corporations prefer to remain anonymous when supporting political causes. Therefore, he helped Colbert set up in Delaware a 501(c)(4) shell corporation to which donations can be given anonymously without limit and used for political purposes, [...] Since the FEC doesn't require full disclosure, Colbert likened his 501(c)(4) to a "Campaign finance glory hole": "You stick your money in the hole, the other person accepts your donation, and because it's happening anonymously, no one feels dirty!"
His audience and donors are obviously in on the joke and blue leaning. But more relevant to CAH, the superPAC also directly called for votes to a specific candidate:
During the run-up to the South Carolina primary, the super PAC released an "over the top negative ad" attacking Mitt Romney[7] ("If Mitt Romney really believes 'corporations are people, my friend' then Mitt Romney is a serial killer")[37] and another which first attacked Stephen Colbert and then attacked the Super PAC itself. Both urged South Carolinians to vote for Herman Cain [...] On January 21, the "Cain/Colbert" combo received over 6,000 votes, a fifth-place finish.[40]
Stephen Colbert certainly recieved consequences for his SuperPAC stunt:
In April 2012, a Peabody Award was bestowed upon Stephen Colbert for his Super PAC parody as an "innovative means of teaching American viewers about the landmark court decision".[9] In June 2014, the Annenberg Public Policy Center reported that the Colbert Super PAC segments increased viewers' knowledge of PAC and 501(c)(4) campaign finance regulation more successfully than other types of news media.[48][49]
Colbert SuperPAC didn't directly pay out, it called for donations, but there would have been no legal hurdles for the SuperPAC to spend money as free speech. If a SuperPAC can send someone a nice letter of support that's, free speech and not vote buying; if that letter is also a coupon for money that's not vote buying; if that letter is itself a cheque or a dollar bill that's still free speech and not vote buying. That's exactly how insane this whole thing is
But that is how new case law is decided, right? Someone gets prosecuted under a novel interpretation of law. They get convicted. It eventually probably gets appealed. The appeal is eventually...
But that is how new case law is decided, right?
Someone gets prosecuted under a novel interpretation of law. They get convicted. It eventually probably gets appealed. The appeal is eventually maybe upheld.
In this case, Cards Against Humanity appear to be practically begging to be taken to court.
There are a ton of DA's looking to make a name for themselves must be seriously consider taking this to trial.
I'm not sure if it matters how confident you are that this is currently legal under case law.
The way courts have been ruling recently, how can anyone be confident on where they land on this particular issue.
lmao, they are not. The courts have already decided this issue pretty damn thoroughly, and they are not the only ones doing stuff like this. Their political opponents tend to like the court...
In this case, Cards Against Humanity appear to be practically begging to be taken to court.
lmao, they are not. The courts have already decided this issue pretty damn thoroughly, and they are not the only ones doing stuff like this. Their political opponents tend to like the court defision that made this possible too, so they're unlikely to try to overturn it.
If they're begging for anything, it's for attention and, perhaps, new legislation making at least some of this shit illegal. But it would be that new legislation that would be far more likely to be subject to a court case.
This all is unfortunately legal. If anything, them doing this is a very effective critique of its being legal. There is language on the webpage more or less saying just that.
This all is unfortunately legal. If anything, them doing this is a very effective critique of its being legal. There is language on the webpage more or less saying just that.
They’re not paying people to vote for a candidate, they’re paying people to vote at all. Which in my understanding makes this okay. Technically someone could go out and vote for Trump after having...
They’re not paying people to vote for a candidate, they’re paying people to vote at all. Which in my understanding makes this okay. Technically someone could go out and vote for Trump after having received their money, but given the pre-selection process and publicity it involves, I doubt many would go through that.
From the bottom of the website:
Paid for by Cards Against Humanity PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
Less even than that, they're paying people to make a voting plan and a social media post. Whether or not you actually vote afterwards is up to you and none of their concern.
They’re not paying people to vote for a candidate, they’re paying people to vote at all.
Less even than that, they're paying people to make a voting plan and a social media post. Whether or not you actually vote afterwards is up to you and none of their concern.
A resounding response to apathetic nonvoters: CAH will pay you up to $100 if you didn't vote in 2020 and you apologize by publicly posting "Donald Trump is a human toilet."
Don't have to ask me twice CAH, now let me send you $8 even though I haven't played your game in years...
My favorite bit:
I voted in 2020, of course, but I still want to say this: Donald Trump is a human toilet.
This might be lazy, but I'm a not an american so I can't see Musk's website and figure it out for myself. How on earth are CAH getting this bit to happen?
Here's an article about it:
Elon Musk's PAC offers $47 payouts to refer swing state voters to sign petition
This appears to be the petition in its entirety:
The page also says:
Musk is paying $47 for each referral whenever people in certain states sign a petition. The email address identifies who referred them, so Cards Against Humanity would get credit for the referral.
So it seems like both Musk and CAH are using loopholes to pay people to do stuff. It's technically not paying people to vote (since they will never know if you actually voted) but it's sorta adjacent.
That's the email they signed the petition with. On the website:
Archive link
Lol beautiful!
I thought this has something to do with the spaceX despoiling CAH land lawsuit and wondered how did they get it settled so fast.
Nope, even easier and better, just using Musk's own dumb PAC against him. Can he wiggle out of this one? He's going to whine and moan about it to his lawyers right? I hope he moans about it publically to achieve the Streisand effect.
As much as I'd love to see Fatuous Clown II pay for the violence he's inciting, the amount isn't worth providing my detailed personal information on a gun advocacy site. I really, really don't want to spend the rest of my life deleting e-mails and texts from the people who have that list, blocking calls, or seeing them show up at my door.
[The previous owner of my work cell number must have been on a list. I'm deleting and blocking 3 - 4 right-wing spam texts/day, and sending 4 - 5 solicitation calls/week to voicemail. If I accidentally block a legitimate work message, it's a problem. No thanks to more of that.]
I've always been more of a 'know your enemy' type, but completely understandable.
I think I know the enemy pretty well by this point. I also don't assume I'm so cognitively well-defended that bad ideas repeated often enough will simply bounce off. It takes mental energy to uproot the most insidious ones, and that's not something I have in abundance these days.
There is an intentional strategy to drown truth in lies through exhaustion of debate, and I'm not playing the game.
That would drive me nuts. Is there a way you can request to change your number?
No, unfortunately - the company owns the number. It's also an iPhone, which doesn't have the very efficient Google text/call spam blocking.
There are carrier specific solutions. I enabled it for AT&T and it eliminated 99% of the spam calls.
I'll check in with the telecom team - I don't have direct access to the Verizon account. Thank you!
Some how I got on Judicial Watch's email list. I blame my stepmom who for a while would use my name to add extra names to petitions til I told her to cut it out (usually not political at least but I'm betting the petitions had ties to similar politics. One was to keep a park near her to not have a dog park, cause she liked being able to use the whole park as her dog park and felt they would actually regulate it more if they made an official one that only had part of the park).
Hell, I always wonder if she didn't secretly sign me up for it. Ah well... I just have it on my smart list of emails to instantly delete (it looks on who is sending it and puts it in a folder and I just dlete everything in that folder without looking).
No offense, but fuck your mom. People like her are the reason my kids are terrified of dogs. Just playing by themselves then some giant dog 2x their size comes out of nowhere and starts jumping on top of them.
Woah Woah Woah strong language. To be fair I also despise the kind of dog owner you mentioned. But.
@Tigress didn't say their stepmom had a giant or ill behaved or off leash dog. Just that their stepmom wanted to maintain a dog-inclusive park. What if this was a super huge inner city forest park, and the division would mean the dog inclusive portion shrink from several dozen acres to a tennis court size area, and push several well behaved dogs within far denser proximity to each other?
Oh no, he pegged her correctly sadly. her past few goldens have luckily had some decent manners without them doing anything but the current one is an almost full grown puppy that really could stand a training class or two. As I mentioned to him, last time I visited her, there was almost exactly an incident like he was ranting about with her dog. I mean the dog was being friendly but one of the kids he was accosting was not really enjoying it (and I couldn't even get her to realize that either sadly, she kept saying, "All the kids liked my dog!").
But, she doesn't listen to me so she's going to be one of those dog owners sigh. And I gaurentee you if some one accosted her about it to show that it angers people she would just see them as an uptight not dog person. I remember growing up we had a dog aggressive dog when I was a kid (golden btw) that she'd make me let loose (she would make me rewalk him if she figured out I didn't and I wasn't a good liar) and there was one little dog he did not get along with. Understandably the guy did not like our dog or my mom and I don't blame him (he seemed to realize she was the problem as I was always embarassed when I had to go grab my dog when he saw his dog). She at the time just saw him as a grumpy old man. At least now she realizes she was in the wrong there and that dog should never have been off leash (hell, he escaped fenced yards and into them to start dog fights. He's why if I ever have a dog again I never want one that doesn't get along with other dogs).
Again, my children have a lifelong fear of dogs that's going to take years to mitigate (my own trauma took about 30 there) because of entitled dog owners. I think that justifies dropping an fbomb against one.
I'm sure she's a fine and reasonable lady outside of this, but on this issue she's a monster in my mind.
I see, sorry about your kids having been traumatized , and I hope they heal completely and soon. Agree with you that there are monsters out there, as well as highly selfish people (and selfish monsters)
"Using the entire park as her dog park" very much implies that her dog was off-leash. Hence the fear that they'd regulate it more. I also highly doubt it would have been Tigress's example if it were an eminently reasonable petition.
I don't agree with her either but I'm kinda across the country.
Good luck trying to change her mind, I guarentee you if you accosted her she'd just roll her eyes at the not dog loving person sigh.
At the very least her dog friends have gotten her to pick up after her dog (she used to not even do that, course she doesn't listen to me but least her dog loving friends also agree and she apparently listened to them).
TBF, it's a local neighborhood park that mostly just the neighbors with dogs use. So, usually it's not too big a problem what she does (and it's usually at times that it's mostly dog users at the park). But yes, last time I was there there was an incident where some school kids were entering the park and her large, overly friendly (and not all that good mannered) dog was jumping all over them including one or two that you could tell did not care for dogs. And yes, I tried to tell her and she was totally like, "Oh no, they were enjoying the dog! They liked my dog!" I've also tried to tell her her dog would be more likable if he had manners (which is true, he's a sweet dog but he really needs manners and he can get nippy when he's excited which I absolutely gaurentee a not dog person is not going to realize he's not being aggressive but just overly energetic. But she absolutely does not listen to me, as I noted, she only started picking up after her dog after her friends pushed her too, I had been nagging her way before they got her to).
This is exactly the problem. At the end of the day, teeth are teeth and a 20lb weight advantage over a small child. If the dog is overly energetic it either needs leashed or impeccable training with a watchful owner.
Nobody would tolerate my child running up to people, shoving them to the ground, licking and biting them gently, then me saying "Oh they're just a little overenergetic, it's not dangerous."
It's kind of like spiders and bees. It doesn't matter how often I tell strangers how wonderful and not-dangerous they are, they're not going to appreciate me letting a boxful of them loose on the subway or their picnic table.
Eh this i probably would also understand
Me too, but that's only because I know they're up to date on their rabies shots.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying good luck getting my step mom to see it that way. She can't see past her own love of dogs to see it from other people's POV.
Oh to be clear, I was intending to re-enforce that you get it and your mom (and far too many other people I know) doesn't.
My sister has a perfectly trained German shepard. It just goes up to kids, sits in front of them, and starts smiling and awaiting chin scratches or back rubs before licking or trying to play. I want every dog person to meet this dog to set a baseline for what a good dog owner looks like.
This part is absolutely hilarious and I signed the petition listing the CAH email as my referrer. And screenshot the process just in case.
Elon you impolite words so-and-so, pay my favorite hilarious card came company a bunch of your monies!
I'd take them up on it but I'm not their target as I totally voted 2020. I would easily post Donald Trump is a Human Toilet. Does it matter where? Cause I'll say it right now, Donald Trump is a Human Toilet.
Actually, I take it back. Toilets are good to have around and serve a useful function (one that is gross and without could cause disease so they help prevent disease). Donald Trump does none of that, quite the opposite really. Donald Trump is a parasite at best. One that spews out trash and makes things far far worse.
The part about them being a superPAC and having a full list of folks who voted plus how they lean?!?! That's legit?! And this isn't interference because it's free speech.
Your country crazy
You are not wrong.
Of course I’m biased by my dislike of Musk, but I think this is a very enjoyable form of protest. Push the loophole to the limit (reading about legal maneuvering is like tickling your brain). And they take the time to break down all the absurdities. I’m not sure how effective they’ll be, but it makes a great read.
I don't even like the card game much anymore, but I enjoy their political antics. Hard to say how effective they are but even if it's a tiny amount, anything better than zero is a win in my book!
Isn’t it illegal to actually buy votes? People complained when Elon did this exact thing for right leaning voters.
But they aren't paying anyone to vote. They're paying non-voters from 2020 to "make a voting plan" and make a public statement. There's no requirement that anyone actually go to a polling location or fill out a ballot in order to receive their money. It's the same reason why Musk's call for voters to refer others to register in swing states is perfectly legal.
They are clearly paying people, to commit to vote, and to disparage one of the leading candidates. Plus they offer to pay more if you commit to vote and lean blue.
I am sure they have some good lawyers on retainer, because they are practically begging to be taken to court.
Isn't it more frightening that they've already checked with their lawyers and got the okay?
It feels like this ought to be illegal but it's not.
Remember when Stephen Colbert (in character) ran the Colbert SuperPAC?
His audience and donors are obviously in on the joke and blue leaning. But more relevant to CAH, the superPAC also directly called for votes to a specific candidate:
Stephen Colbert certainly recieved consequences for his SuperPAC stunt:
Colbert SuperPAC didn't directly pay out, it called for donations, but there would have been no legal hurdles for the SuperPAC to spend money as free speech. If a SuperPAC can send someone a nice letter of support that's, free speech and not vote buying; if that letter is also a coupon for money that's not vote buying; if that letter is itself a cheque or a dollar bill that's still free speech and not vote buying. That's exactly how insane this whole thing is
Whether it seems like it should be illegal or not, it is legal. A lot of this is them bringing awareness to the stupidity of our election laws.
But that is how new case law is decided, right?
Someone gets prosecuted under a novel interpretation of law. They get convicted. It eventually probably gets appealed. The appeal is eventually maybe upheld.
In this case, Cards Against Humanity appear to be practically begging to be taken to court.
There are a ton of DA's looking to make a name for themselves must be seriously consider taking this to trial.
I'm not sure if it matters how confident you are that this is currently legal under case law.
The way courts have been ruling recently, how can anyone be confident on where they land on this particular issue.
I would be astounded if the Supreme Court reversed course on Citizens United
And CAH would earn sexual favors for life from yours truely.
I'll make sure they know to call this one in if it actually happens.
lmao, they are not. The courts have already decided this issue pretty damn thoroughly, and they are not the only ones doing stuff like this. Their political opponents tend to like the court defision that made this possible too, so they're unlikely to try to overturn it.
If they're begging for anything, it's for attention and, perhaps, new legislation making at least some of this shit illegal. But it would be that new legislation that would be far more likely to be subject to a court case.
This all is unfortunately legal. If anything, them doing this is a very effective critique of its being legal. There is language on the webpage more or less saying just that.
They’re not paying people to vote for a candidate, they’re paying people to vote at all. Which in my understanding makes this okay. Technically someone could go out and vote for Trump after having received their money, but given the pre-selection process and publicity it involves, I doubt many would go through that.
From the bottom of the website:
Less even than that, they're paying people to make a voting plan and a social media post. Whether or not you actually vote afterwards is up to you and none of their concern.