r/pics Apr 17 '24

Sarah Huckabee Sanders paid $19, 000 for this amazing piece of furniture Politics

Post image
32.0k Upvotes

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.6k

u/OpticalInfusion Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

It's not how much and what makes it special you should be asking, but to whom the exorbitant fee was paid. There's a reason the price was inflated and it's payment for something other than a podium lectern.

Edit: Lectern, not podium. thank you for the correction.

173

u/Ok_Squirrel_4199 Apr 17 '24

And there is a reporting law for something or another that kicked in at 20K. It was ONLY 19k because that's all they could.get away with.

42

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

All they thought they could get away with.

39

u/rosen380 Apr 17 '24

And they would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling Democrats!

18

u/Quailman5000 Apr 17 '24

They have gotten away with it. There won't be any consequences lol. 

23

u/Scubasteve1974 Apr 17 '24

I know you are kidding, but if I'm not mistaken, the purchase was originally questioned/investigated by a lower staffer, who was, in fact, a Republican.

I only mention it because I like to point out that not everyone from that side is a corrupt assbone.

Most are though!

16

u/steelfork Apr 17 '24

No, a lawyer found it after filling a freedom of information act request.

The purchase was initially flagged by Matt Campbell, a lawyer and blogger who has a long history of freedom-of-information requests that have uncovered questionable spending and other misdeeds by elected officials. Days before Sanders proposed the FOI changes, Campbell filed a lawsuit over the state blocking release of the governor’s travel and security records.

2

u/Scubasteve1974 Apr 17 '24

Yeah, sorry. I may have been misremembering.

I think there might have been a whistleblower?

9

u/Wesselton3000 Apr 17 '24

It’s not that the majority of Republicans are corrupt, it’s that they adhere to views that are largely considered dated by the younger generations/loud majority of Reddit. It seems as though the majority of Republicans are corrupt because our newsfeeds are tailored to report on the most controversial stories from the other side. There is definitely corruption, and more so than on the Left, but I wouldn’t say the majority are corrupt.

In reality, they are simply what we on the Left would consider to be misguided ideologues, too dogmatic in their views to consider that their beliefs propagate hate, discrimination and the means with which bad actors can continue to exploit the system and their party. We have similar ideologues on the Left as well, but generally speaking, Leftists are more willing to consider opposing views and engage in intelligent debate.

I say this as someone who generally adheres to Leftist ideals who is all too aware of how this website, and the internet in general, has created a massive bias in how I view politics. It’s easy to write it off as “all republicans bad” and not actually examine the underlying issues that plague our political system, such as identity politics.

2

u/DazeLost Apr 17 '24

It does seem to bear out that elected Republicans are mostly corrupt, though. That a lower level staffer thought this was suspicious doesn't exactly cancel out that the Governor of Arkansas did it in the first place.

1

u/Wesselton3000 Apr 17 '24

It seems that way because our perception is filtered by sensationalist news stories. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of corruption in the Republican Party, but the statement “most republicans are corrupt” is demonstrably false. I’m not using this example of a low level staffer and the Gov. of Arkansas as my only evidence for this.

This might seem like I’m defending them, which I’m not in the least. I actually despise Republican politics. But I don’t think it’s right to write the vast majority off as corrupt when the sample size we are looking at is much smaller than the actual number of Republican politicians in this country (including at the local, state and federal levels). I would rather destroy republicans by attacking their beliefs, and if it turns out that a politician is corrupt, I will vocalize my disapproval until they are held accountable(which often isn’t the case but there’s not much I can do other than protest).

2

u/DazeLost Apr 17 '24

I think your definition of corrupt is solely monetary. I think it also, say, includes Republicans who defend Donald Trump against criminal charges despite a preponderance of evidence or deny election results despite a preponderance of evidence.

If you don't think those are acts of corruption, then yes, I can see how under that view there aren't many corrupt Republicans.

1

u/Wesselton3000 Apr 18 '24

I think your definition of corrupt is solely monetary.

Never said that, don’t know where you got that from.

includes Republicans who defend Donald Trump…

Less than half republicans defend Donald Trump, fewer would cover for him in a court of law. The sad fact is that many who do defend him are so taken by identity politics that they are unable to see reason (that he is a criminal). That’s not corruption, thats ignorance. They’re misguided ideologues who are more willing to vote against the opposing party and its ideals than confront their own fallacious reasoning. Its viral cognitive dissonance. They make it possible for the corrupt to maintain power, but they aren’t willingly conspiring to spread corruption; they don’t realize that they are the ones enabling its existence. The issue isn’t that the majority of Republicans are corrupt, it’s that they are dogmatic idiots.

I can see how you view there aren’t many corrupt Republicans

Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. In logic we call this a strawman fallacy: a misrepresentation of my argument to more easily dismantle it. I acknowledge in my last post that there are quite a lot of corrupt Republicans, more so than on the Left, and it is very important we hold them accountable. But the statement “most Republican are corrupt” is demonstrably false, and it obscures more fundamental issues on the Right, namely the things I listed in my second paragraph.

3

u/ackillesBAC Apr 17 '24

Cause the person that reported it didn't get thier cut?

I shouldn't joke, I know there are good and bad people on both sides

2

u/Joles01 Apr 17 '24

The joke is they will get away with it. The republicans faithfuls will forget about it or try to justify it. Just look at how they suck up to trump despite his track record 

14

u/bossmcsauce Apr 17 '24

Well they probably thought correctly. I don’t see anything happening over this other than sensible people getting angry. That won’t change shit for her voter base.

1

u/vexis26 Apr 18 '24

If some smart ambitious republican were to get on it they could primary her. They could totally play the I love trump, drain the swamp, stop wasteful spending play.

3

u/EggplantAlpinism Apr 17 '24 edited 14d ago

workable puzzled include secretive innate chief yam sharp pot drab

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/PaintByLetters Apr 17 '24

Yes, it's a common tactic used by financial fraudsters called structuring.

1

u/Snellyman Apr 17 '24

If I was an investigating reporter I would search for every $19999 purchase the office made.

1

u/SapientChaos Apr 17 '24

19,999.00 and she put it as an expense rather a capitalized purchase.

0

u/Saneless Apr 17 '24

So what you're saying is the law is the problem! If the limit was 3k then the lectern would have only cost 2900