I agree there should be some spaces free of politics. Will avoid.
(The original point was -- if the law is strictly worded such that it is a crime only if there is demonstrable benefit for the person who is paying then the "loophole" exists where the person getting the benefit and the person making the payment can be separated. I could have said the same thing without using the most recent known example of a similar attempt.)
But also crime and fraud are what they are -- whether committed by politicians or business people or those in other professions.
If we are talking about something questionable done by say SBF or Elon Musk and they also have some political connections or leaning -- that might not in itself make the discussion political. Yes there are subtle ways those discussions can carry undertones and phrased to score imaginary points. In that sense avoiding references where possible is advisable - probably akin to 'defensive driving'.
(The original point was -- if the law is strictly worded such that it is a crime only if there is demonstrable benefit for the person who is paying then the "loophole" exists where the person getting the benefit and the person making the payment can be separated. I could have said the same thing without using the most recent known example of a similar attempt.)
But also crime and fraud are what they are -- whether committed by politicians or business people or those in other professions.
If we are talking about something questionable done by say SBF or Elon Musk and they also have some political connections or leaning -- that might not in itself make the discussion political. Yes there are subtle ways those discussions can carry undertones and phrased to score imaginary points. In that sense avoiding references where possible is advisable - probably akin to 'defensive driving'.