this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
589 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2648 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
589
He can be president but he can’t be a nurse: The jobs Trump can’t get with felony convictions (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 5 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 95 points 5 months ago (5 children)

It's insane how we've relied far too long on a sort of gentleman's agreement around presidents and congress and all. I don't think the founding fathers could have EVER anticipated the amount of corruption that could occur.

If the orange turd did one thing, it's to lay bare how truly exploitable and corruptible the ruling class can be. I mean, we all know it was bad but he truly showed by bad (and open) it could get. And how nothing whatsoever would be done about it...

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 37 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

It’s insane how we’ve relied far too long on a sort of gentleman’s agreement around presidents and congress and all. I don’t think the founding fathers could have EVER anticipated the amount of corruption that could occur.

They did. The entire point of the structure of Congress was to ensure that the passions of the people were tempered and "cooled" through the political process. Between competition between the three branches and the structure of government, they did their best to ensure this wouldn't happen.

What they didn't anticipate was that competition would give way to collaboration among so many competing elements. From state legislatures to the federal House and Senate, across to the Supreme Court (intended to be insulated from political generally to focus on the well-being of the nation), and across again to the president. Those stars shouldn't align all that often. But anti-American authoritarians, the underhanded bastards they are, have made it so that those stars align more often than not for their political goals.

So, that's the problem. What do you do when all the elements of the government are working together? Sure, Trump absolutely abused his position, but so what? We're barely holding any of these anti-Constitutional people responsible for the damage they've done to the political process and democracy in general.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Well, they did think of this. George Washington himself wrote about being weary of factions becoming too strong so that exactly this could happen. Madison also wrote about it and so did Jefferson. He actually suggested that this is the entire reason the judiciary needed to not be factionalized.

I think ultimately their interpretation boils down to that the mechanics needed to take over should have the bar as high as possible for the time. And then as time went on, these protections were eroded. The democracy has in fact been able to reign in really bad presidents before and quiet down large factions. So relying on good will and good duty is a recent thing.

Things have only gone off the rails entirely in the last 50 or so years. But I’d argue that George Bush did a ton to result in this. Keep in mind, executive orders were not meant to be used this way. They’re currently being abused to hell and that’s a loophole the same way that pardoning yourself as president is a loophole.

These loopholes are intentional because it’s sort’ve a “if you can’t keep these powers in check as a populace, it’s your fault” type of mechanism.

[–] mjhelto@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Exactly!

At the end of World War 2, we gave a free pass to almost any Nazi who had any kind of scientific or tactical expertise because we knew the soviets were doing the same and needed the tactical advantage and knowledge to start ahead in the pending Cold War. Many of those same Nazi scientists went on to hold positions of power in our military, intelligence, and corporations.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Did you know there's no law that says a dog can't be president? You'd have to get it to 35, but technically we could have an Air Bud POTUS.

The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-executive-branch/#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20lists%20only%20three,for%20at%20least%2014%20years.

[–] lemmyng@lemmy.ca 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Natural born citizen may be a bit problematic, but there's precedent with at least one district court recognizing animals as legal persons as of 2021.

On the dystopian side, perhaps this also means a corporation could become POTUS.

[–] manucode@infosec.pub 6 points 5 months ago

On the dystopian side, perhaps this also means a corporation could become POTUS.

As Musk is not natural born US citizen, making X.com president could be his workaround.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

Oh I fully expect us to go Full Robocop if the revolution doesn't come.

[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's like this in many countries. In the UK we've never had to deal with people being held in contempt of parliament, but in recent years we've seen corruption and a blatant disregard for "rules" that would have made politicians sick a decade ago. It's at a point where the UK has considered a constitution to ensure that anyone caught being openly corrupt or breaking the rules can be arrested.

Many right-wing politicians have shown that the rules have been lax for a very long time, and IMO it's a sign that perhaps we as a society need to seriously look at how we stop the right (and perhaps even the left) from abusing their power without consequence.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 60 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The problem isn't that a convicted felon can be president, the problem is that a convicted felon can't get other jobs and vote. We should stop dehumanizing felons.

[–] FilthyCheese@lemmings.world 27 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But I want to keep dehumanizing Trump.

[–] lando55@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There are plenty of other reasons to do so

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well considering he's remorseless about his crimes and plans to commit more, I think maybe it's fine to keep on them for this too. It's also not like he's served his debt to society.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

He's not planning to commit crimes, he's planning to legally perform unlawful acts.

The former is your typical burglar. The latter is literally Hitler.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 33 points 5 months ago

It makes sense that elected officials can't be banned from serving for crimes, excepting ones like treason and other major ones. Otherwise it would be far too easy for a party in power to simply charge, arrest and convict people over more minor crimes to prevent representation. Also why congress people can't be arrested, excepting felonies, on their way to Congress. It'd be too easy to stop government by simply arresting people frivolously.

But the counter for Trump is already in the Constitution: a speedy trial. Fucker should be in prison already and prevented (via 14th) from being elected.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

to be able to run for president even if you're convicted is a good thing.

though in lots of places in the US you can't vote for the president. seems ridiculous that you can be one. both should be allowed.

[–] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 14 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I get it, a DUI is felony, and shit happens. However, 34 felonies, dealing with attempting to influence an election that got you the presidency, and paying off a porn star that you had sex with while your pregnant wife was at home, should ban you from the presidency. Jan 6th should have done that and put his ass up on the gallows, but here we are.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (10 children)

paying off a porn star that you had sex with while your pregnant wife was at home

Let's focus on the important parts, not play morality police as if Stormy Daniel's profession or Trump's marital status make the crimes worse. Let's not sink to the level of the hypocritical authoritarians of the Christian Right or the equally hypocritical tabloid press.

You're right about everything else, though.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Banging a pornstar isn't the problem.

Paying off a pornstar on the eve of an election with the intent to influence that election and then falsifying business records to cover up the payments, is a problem.

It's less a morals thing and more actual crime things.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

[–] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The right want to bring church and religion into politics. They worship tRump as a "christian". Cheating on your pregnant wife isn't very christian. I mean no disrepect to stormy or anyone that does any kind of work like her. It should be legal. The only thing I will give her shit for is for is she fucked tRump, which had to be rather disgusting.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

Trump's literally an admitted atheist, I wonder how many of them know that.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Ummm.... A DUI is a misdemeanor, unless it's like your 3rd or 5th one in X number of years, depending on jurisdiction. I got a DUI years ago. I'm not a convicted felon.

[–] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Must depend on the state then or they changed it since you got yours. It's a felony here.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Damn. I looked it up, and apparently New York, and New Jersey, ~~and Wisconsin~~ are the odd states that even a first time DUI is a felony. Everywhere else it's generally charged as a misdemeanor for your first three, and the fourth is a felony.

[–] TheBraveSirRobbin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wisconsin is not a felony. WI has some of the most relaxed DUI laws

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oh, well maybe that was why the summary lumped it in with the other two.

[–] TheBraveSirRobbin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I believe it isn't even a misdemeanor which could be why it's lumped in with states where it isn't a misdemeanor, but I could be wrong

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago

After Jan 6th, he should have been put in front of a damn firing squad

[–] PineRune@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I was hoping for an actual list of jobs he is barred from in the posted link, but it's just another dime-a-dozen article on Trump's conviction and riddled with ads.

[–] ech@lemm.ee 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Can't trust a person like that around percocet, but nuclear codes are a-ok!

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Nuclear Percocet is a maybe. And also a pretty good band name.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

He can't get most normal jobs. Every job application has a part where you have to admit if you're a felon and then do background checks. He also can't rent in almost any place owned by a corporation instead of an individual. It's actually a serious problem for non-violent and/or actually reformed ex-cons which don't their time. But the incarceration industrial complex and the government that allows it don't care, it's just punish and forget. Then the rich felons like the Orange scrotum are unaffected and just get gigs in politics, sell books, expensive speaking jobs, become talking news heads, and all kinds of other disruptive, cancerous blights.

[–] OkGo@lemm.ee 15 points 5 months ago

Well, humanity NEEDS nurses, clowns not so much.

[–] Numenor@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Trump can’t work for a casino in Illinois or a vet in Indiana, in pest control in North Carolina, he can’t sell a car in Mississippi, or work in any healthcare setting in Virginia.

Even in New York, if he wanted a real estate brokers license, he would need permission from the secretary of state.

In Florida, he can’t be a firefighter or legally tend bar at his Mar-a-Lago compound; Florida law prohibits bars from employing bartenders who have been convicted of a felony within five yea

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

None of those jobs should exclude ex convicts. The president is a job that should.

[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That would lead to false charges against political opponents or lead to laws that declare certain things as a felony to prevent certain populations from office.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago

The voting populace should be smart enough to not vote in a convicted felon in most cases, but it shouldn't exclude you from running. Else felony convictions could be used as a political tool to bar your opponents from running.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

The only job for which he’s qualified is fertilizer.

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Could you imagine him as your fucking nurse? He’s calling you a loser and stinking up your room while you lay there with a broken leg.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

He'd be the guy who abandons his patients to raid the controlled substances closest, then come back to say the guy bleeding out from the clear gunshot wound is faking it and needs to "man up"

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

This is the best fucking argument for "If you've done your time, no need to punish you further."

load more comments
view more: next ›