this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
153 points (96.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3787 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 21 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Almost definitely house arrest is the only real option. A distant second is removing his security detail, but that's not exactly easy.

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago (3 children)

It's frustrating how the rich and powerful end up not having to leave their cushy mansions even when doing prison time.

[–] hansl@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Maybe Americans should explore not voting the rich and powerful into permanent roles. There are real limitations of what you can do with a president after their time in office and it makes sense that you’d want security details and special rights for past presidents.

The right thing to do would have been not to elect Trump as a meme. We shat the bed, now we see the consequences. Let’s see if people are still as stupid as ever.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Never forget: they mostly didn't.

First, the majority of people voted for not-Trump, though lmfao b/c we don't care about "majority" here... :-P

Second, the majority of electoral college votes were for not-Clinton. Including protest votes to third-party candidates.

And before that, the majority of votes in the Republican primary election were for not-Cruz.

And before that, the media gave him tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars worth of free advertising. Then afterwards they gave even more, b/c you "gotta be fair" after all!:-D

He very much is the product of "The System", which shat him out and just as easily can produce another exactly like him. Kanye 2028?

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Democrats too. Democrats pumped alot of money and energy into elevating trump, and continue to pump money into far right candidates.

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 1 points 9 months ago

"Certainly not many people would be dumb enough to..." -> Almost half the nation proceeds to prove them wrong.:-(

"Well what else were we to do, leave the only other option be BERNIE SANDERS!?"

Republicans are not "conservatives" nor are Democrats "liberals", I now realize.:-(

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Right. Sweet poetry would be placing him in Epstein's very cell.

Or perhaps for the safety of the inmate he is placed in solitary.

Hell he can still have his Secret Service; they can just assume the role of corrections officer.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The rich and powerful generally go to prison for at least some time. The hangup with Trump is the lifetime protection from the secret service. There's no way that the secret service could consent to just watching on video or something, and having armed guards next to other prisoners is even more dangerous.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We need to stop the "lifetime secret service protection" thing. Is completely stupid.

[–] rifugee@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I think the idea is that since the president learns all kinds of classified information while in office, it's in the public's best interest to protect them from foreign agents after they are out of office.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

How does that work when they're openly selling said secrets out of a closet in Florida

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

So we should require retiring presidents to enter the witness protection program?

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yes I'm sure that's exactly what he was trying to say 🙄

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Once in a while, though even then generally to minimum security, but house arrest is pretty common for wealthy convicts even without the secret service issue.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

No no.. to keep him safe they need to make sure he's well protected.. I think they have a prison on another island just across the gulf

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Not necessarily, there's always Fort Leavenworth

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

How is this not easy? Secret service protection is afforded only by virtue of law. At one point, GWB only was going to have protection for 4 years after his term, but congress reverted the law to lifetime protection.

You can easily change the law to not apply to those who are imprisoned in the federal system.

He's not some sort of god emperor that gets protection via birthright.