71–80 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have corporations ever not played the "aggrieved victim" card?
The social/political appeal part is the new part. Companies have always released "we did nothing wrong" statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incorrect. A pardon does require a conviction, however. And it will probably never get that far.
Incorrect. There is no requirement that even an indictment has occurred in the past.
Technically sure, you're correct. The worst kind of correct.
> "This is obvious political retribution by the outgoing administration against Polymarket for providing a market that correctly called the 2024 presidential election," a Polymarket spokesperson tells Axios. When I saw that statement, from a company spokesperson, it was striking. Is it now respectable and advisable for a corporation to make official statements like this?
Corporations have been making these kinds of statements for almost the past decade.
For ever...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m willing to let the government make their case, but let’s not pretend that a 6am raid from the feds is better than getting arrested.
A 6am raid from the feds is better than getting arrested. It is.
Obviously there are no details yet, but I suspect it's as simple as: - Polymarket is still very illegal in the US - Lol. We all know it's easy to get around that - If the CEO knew or was complicit in US citizens breaking laws, he could be in trouble. And if there was evidence he was encouraging it, he could be in big trouble
[flagged]
None of what you listed is relevant since it isn’t illegal for example to suppress speech or mislead the public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accepting a presidential pardon requires an admission of guilt. Would being a confirmed criminal aide them in business in any way?
Incorrect. A pardon does require a conviction, however. And it will probably never get that far.
Obviously there are no details yet, but I suspect it's as simple as: - Polymarket is still very illegal in the US - Lol. We all know it's easy to get around that - If the CEO knew or was complicit in US citizens breaking laws, he could be in trouble. And if there was evidence he was encouraging it, he could be in big trouble
Can someone explain to me how this is? It's a company HQ'd in New York, but it's not allowed to do business in the very country it's HQ'd in? What am I missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wild take that might actually be true: by attacking the Biden administration, the company wants to appeal to Trump and maybe even get Trump's attention (and favor), hoping that the Trump administration will loosen the regulations on betting and eventually make it legal to operate their business in the US.
This is not a wild take at all. Every major corporation in the US is currently sucking up to Trump because his presidency will be entirely transactional and without regard to the constitutional purpose of the office. If you scratch his back, he will find a way to scratch yours - until it’s no longer convenient for him to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What rake did I just step on? I'm getting downvoted for this.
I think it's the perception that your comment assumes that the accusations by Polymarket that the Biden admin are targeting them for predicting Trump are true.