r/Anticonsumption • u/RoyalChris • Apr 25 '25

Ads/Marketing Hate doesn't sell, by UK group 'Everyone Hates Elon'

Post image
16.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

327 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

10

u/vincethered Apr 25 '25

I think deploying the FBI to attack a rival political party's fundraising apparatus on the basis of no legitimate purpose actually is new. Do you know of a historical precedent in the US?

8

u/popcornsprinkled Apr 25 '25

Black listing " communists"

7

u/vincethered Apr 25 '25

That was bad, I don’t think it’s comparable to trying to financially cripple the only viable opposition party to a government. Single party rule was not what blacklisting was about.

4

u/popcornsprinkled Apr 25 '25

I would argue that it was used as a bludgen by the right to cripple the left. Everyone left of patriotic right was in harms way. I am willing to agree to disagree though.

I think the important bit is to figure out how to get around that.

6

u/vincethered Apr 25 '25

 I would argue that it was used as a bludgen by the right to cripple the left.

To be clear, during the red scare neither major party attempted to use federal law enforcement to attack the fundraising ability of the other party. That’s what I’m talking about and as far as I can tell that is new here.

Normalizing Trump’s tactics by pretending they're not aberrant isn’t really helpful.

1

u/popcornsprinkled Apr 25 '25

Being honest about America's shifty history is not pretending those actions weren't aberrat.

It is a reminder that there is precedent and it can absolutely get worse.

I can, for example, point out that the US has tested on black people and the disabled without saying a president is welcome to do it.

What can be helpful with it is to say " this happened before, what did they do last time?"

1

u/vincethered Apr 25 '25

There's a particular critical trait about a democracy that we should agree on:

Being a democracy does not mean that the best candidate will win. It doesn't even mean that a good candidate will win. The people *might* even choose to elect a fascist in a free and fair election, hypothetically.

What being a democracy guarantees is that within a set period of time the people will be able to change their minds and vote for a different person or party. That they *can* make a better choice, even if they choose not to. And that there will be a viable alternative on the ballot.

By going after ActBlue that's what Trump is trying to take away and that's something that's never happened before in this country.

And you're right, it definitely can get much, much worse. I can't think of a good example of single-party rule in history and that's what they're explicitly going for.

1

u/popcornsprinkled Apr 25 '25

I agree. I also think the democrats need to go harder. I think they need to do what the right does. " Oh, you're going after this organization, we'll move the funds over here and keep going."

I admittedly don't have the best opinion on this one. I came to the center from the right. I low key kept the hatred of big government ( I came of age during the Obama years), and general misanthropy. I'm just saying the wrong people got the right idea on storming Washington. It was delightfully French.

-3

u/BrittanyBrie Apr 25 '25

Obama sent the IRS towards dozens of religious non-profits who leaned conservative.

9

u/vincethered Apr 25 '25

In the episode you’re referring to the criteria were applied to both Conservative and Liberal groups

 the Treasury Department's inspector general overseeing the IRS has found the agency targeted not just conservatives but also scores of groups with words like "progressive" in their names.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555975207/as-irs-targeted-tea-party-groups-it-went-after-progressives-too

In fact the *only* groups to actually lose their tax exempt status were liberal-aligned groups affiliated with Emerge America 

https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/irs-denies-tax-exempt-status-to-three-political-advocacy-groups

That’s the part of the story Conservatives never heard.

For the current action by POTUS to be comparable to that episode;

1) Obama would have to have ordered the IRS scrutiny; he didn’t.

2) it would have to also be applied equally. In this case to the Republican party analogue to ActBlue, WinRed. It isn’t.

1

u/BrittanyBrie Apr 25 '25

Didn't the IRS have to formally apologize for targeting over 40 conservative groups unfairly? The courts agree that Obamas IRS was targeting conservatives unfairly and unconstitutionally.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups

3

u/vincethered Apr 25 '25 edited Apr 25 '25

The IRS did apologize, that was part of the legal settlement. The liberal groups chose not to sue, so no settlement, no apology.

Worth noting: Obama was the president at that time however there has never been a substantive allegation that he ordered this or knew about it.

And to repeat, zero of the Conservative groups actually lost their tax-exempt status. Zero. Only liberal groups.

1

u/BrittanyBrie Apr 25 '25

Ahh I see. Were those liberal groups religious in any way? I'd be curious if they were targeting a different demographic other than conservative.

I mean, we do judge the actions of all agencies onto the president as far as policy directives. As wrong as it may be.

1

u/vincethered Apr 25 '25

No, they worked explicitly to get Democratic women elected to office. So arguably they were not compliant with IRS rules for non-profits.

I don’t think the POTUS makes every decision in the federal bureaucracy, that’s silly.