512
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 183 points 11 months ago

Doesn’t matter. This is America where things like that are ignored. This is how people like Clarence Thomas can keep their job. Corruption and criminality are rewarded in America. But only if you’re in politics.

[-] IronCorgi@kbin.social 88 points 11 months ago

Seriously anyone remember the issue with Emoluments? They were specifically banned in the constitution, and the Government was sued over it, and then the Supreme court sat on it until Trump was no longer president and then the supreme ruled it moot. Republicans will not play by the rules.

[-] cogman@lemmy.world 69 points 10 months ago

The issue we have is that the checks for a bad actor are impeachment and elections. The founders thought "surely, elected officials would put country over party". They were wrong there, so now impeachment is ineffective.

The founders thought "surely, voters wouldn't elect an immortal leader". Again, dead wrong.

Voting is really the only effective check at this point, which is why Republicans try to undermine it at every turn. Vote in every election!

[-] ScrollinMyDayAway@lemm.ee 15 points 10 months ago

If only we could vote out a Supreme Court member. But ironically those that sit on the highest court in the country are held accountable by nobody, and serve for life.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

They are held accountable by Congress. But that assumes that Congress isn't complicit.

[-] killernova@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago

Sounds like a couple branches fell off the tree.

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago

China is held accountable by the people, who are asleep at the wheel while overdosing on meth.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

That was intentional in the design of the supreme court. It was made to be the least democratic branch of government because it was made to hold the current majority to the standards of the past. Which is what a constitution is.

[-] teft@startrek.website 15 points 10 months ago

I hope you mean immoral which while being really bad would not be as bad as an immortal ruler.

[-] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 10 months ago

I strongly disagree.

Most presidents have lived, at most, a few decades after the conclusion of their regime. I believe Carter is now the champion in that category, at 43 years. This is the upper bounds on their consequences. As far as we know about life after death, anything that jumps the track after that is no longer a problem for them. This creates a tunnel vision-- it's very hard for mortal leaders to consider "this has a payback or cost structure over 50, 100, 500 years."

On the other hand, an immortal is stuck here. He'll be the one with searing lung pain for millennia until the ecosystem heals from a fossil-fuel binge, he'll be watching any century-scale projects he invested in crumble as society destabilizes around him. This would impact his goals and decision making process-- his self interest would favour stewardship and long-term stability.

TBH, I really want to see some sort of take on "Vampire runs for President on a pro-ecology platform." It's no zanier than anything else in this season's Crunchyroll catalogue.

[-] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Or if you own a billion dollar corporation. Then it's encouraged and just good business!

[-] sebinspace@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Just stop being poor, easy clap

[-] Rivalarrival 4 points 10 months ago

You are free to sue to keep his name off the ballot. I don't think a court would side with you until he has been duly convicted, but we can hope.

[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago
[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago
[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 months ago

Wrong. Wealthy people get the same treatment usually.

[-] FReddit@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Yes. An exception would seem to be Bernie Madoff. But it wasn't the amount of money.

He had to be punished because he ripped off other rich people.

[-] Backgammon@startrek.website 0 points 10 months ago

I think he means that wealthy people get the same treatment as those in politics.

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

What? No. Or at least, "not quite" depending on how you meant that.

Wealthy people are given the same passes as politicians. Both are treated better than the rest of us. The criminal justice system exists almost exclusively to punish the second category.

[-] Backgammon@startrek.website 1 points 10 months ago

Just saw this reply, but yea that's exactly what I was interpreting you as saying.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

It wasn’t an either/or situation. So what exactly am I wrong about?

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You literally ended your comment with "only if you're in politics."

Relax, though. We're all on the same side here. I upvoted your original post. I just wanted it to be clear that wealthy people are also immune. They are also often rewarded for their misdeeds after they hire a PR team to spin things.

[-] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago
[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

If you're wealthy, you don't need to be a politician to be above the law.

this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
512 points (95.7% liked)

politics

18075 readers
2589 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS