They wont see this, they are to busy getting flooded with sports updates from some random trans teenager.

There is this site i got advertisement for that shows news “on both sides” and it highlights how some news like the above only exists for one side.

When they see this

Yeah, that's the thing.

Reminder that it is an actual cult and cult propaganda is literally all they will see.

A lot of conservatives think that if something is done within the bounds of law, then it's not a bad thing. If your leadership removes a law, then that illegal thing, is now magically legal. It doesn't matter what that thing was, it's removing "red tape".

It's "removing red tape" and they've been told over and over again that removing red tape is a good thing.

Easy, it's been framed to them as a storm they have to weather in order to get rid of the people they don't like who are causing all the real problems. They see something bad for the economy or whatever and think "I can handle this, but hopefully all those brown people I see around will be run out of town!"

“Doesn’t affect me, don’t care.”
The fact that they will be nickeled and dimed even harder by profit margins and get less back from tax services will go right past them. Try to explain it and their eyes will glaze over before you get two words out.

That implies Fox or OAN actually mention it.

The thing is, maga does not need rationalization. Trump appeals to their emotions, he's a human ragebait.

They are all just temporarily disadvantaged millionaires anyway. One day they will exploit the same loopholes.

“The orange furher glazed when I gave him a blownjob so he loves me and will never do anything that’s not in my best interest.” *

Honestly how can The People exploit this? I dunno maybe we should all educate ourselves real carefully on how shell companies work and take advantage of this stupid nonsense.

"Oh no, sorry nobody's paying taxes for your war machine funding... it's all tied up in random shell companies!"

Shocking that there were still anti-corruption rules they forgot to abolish.

Because the Senate has been controlled by corrupt Republicans for an entire human generation, which means no laws governing finance have actually passed in ages. As a result all governing has had to be done through executive order because it’s literally the only way to get things done.

It’s a terrible and unstable way to govern a country, because when the next guy comes in he gets to just say “nah I’m not gonna do that”. See also: the FCC rule requiring your bills to have an actual breakdown of the costs and fees that Trump just threw away.

The regime generally uses the strategy of “you can just do things”, and nobody, of any political or non-political persuasion, at any agency or institution anywhere in the country, has the fucking stones or morals to do fuck-all about it. This is a demonstrable truth. This is why we are here. This is how we got here.

The opposition simply… isn’t.

I think it’s because it was a rule created to fulfill the voted on act—and department creates the rules. In my understanding, the departmental role in actual rule making and implementation is where it gets wiggly. Please someone correct me/clarify at will! https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/financial-regulation/trump-administration-wipes-beneficial-ownership-database-in-permanent-removal-of-anti-corruption-safeguards/ar-AA2a2jBD

He didn't repeal the law. He repealed an administative rule/regulation (that was never really implemented in the first place).

The law was the NDAA (part of which was the Corporate Transparency Act). Those laws still exist. Ordinarily when a "law" is passed by congress it's too goddamn vague to implement. So federal agencies start the administrative rulemaking process (which usually takes years to decades) and eventually the appropriate federal agency implements some set of regulations that are the agency's best effort to implement what they think congress kinda meant with the original law.

In this case, when Biden was president, a rule was passed to implement part of the Corporate Transparency Act that required corporations to report "beneficial owners" to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen). The presumption of this rule was that if you are a beneficial owner of a corporation (but not a big one), you are a criminal or will be, and FinCen needed to know who you are to come bust your ass in the future. The rule was created and implemented fairly quickly in federal rulemaking terms, and like most contentious regs, it was immediately challenged in court, and there were injunctions and reinstatements. and and FinCen was on-again and off-again in telling people to report or not report. It was a shitshow, but moreover, it had a very short compliance deadline, and real teeth in terms of fines, and even by FinCen's own estimates most "beneficial owners" of corporations had no idea the rule even existed. It was the sort of thing that wouldn't be hard for the well heeled people to work around, but a pain in the ass for ordinary small corporations. It was feel-good legislation that wouldn't have done much to stop crime (because we kinda know who the big financial criminals are anyway).

This is what I want to know

He looks like a thinly disguised parody of Jeb Bush

It's a pathological illness

It's his addiction and it's the only thing that gives his life value . Plus he's just a selfish greedy POS

Thought it was the actor, Rob Lowe, uncanny.

It's the US - they'll just be fined a fraction of the profits made.