- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 40,866
- Reaction score
- 21,773
No, I'm arguing the convict who has had his fine paid is 100% free to decide on his own whether or not it was intended to influence him or if it was just charitable, and then that person is also 100% free to decide whether or not to take any particular action based on that, including deciding it was a cynically political move and voting for Trump in response or stay home or fuck off to Mexico--exactly the same options as if they had not had the fine to pay before voting in the first place, and that's the point.Obviously there isn’t a written agreement stating that once your fine is paid you are now obligated to vote for joe Biden - that would be clear and brazen and Michael Bloomberg isn’t an idiot
The gray area in which we appear to
Disagree on is if this was intended to Influence the actions of the receiver (which by definition is bribery) or simply a good deed to correct an injustice as it appears to be you’re arguing
Tell ya what, get rid of PACS, get rid of Citizens United, get rid of gerrymandering, and then come and talk to me about how serious what Bloomberg did is.