67
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

Lol. He didn’t specify which president. Remember how Jared and Ivanka failed their background checks and had to “amend” their financial disclosures every time new evidence came into light?

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

this hunter biden shit is small potatoes. should he be subject to exactly the same legal standards and processes that any old fuckstick would have to endure? absolutely. should the prez be investigated if there’s any connection? sure. but, come on. don’t expect me to fall for this horseshit. that brandon guy is old as fuck but he’s doing a solid job and there’s no fucking chance i’m voting for a republican traitor.

[-] RustyWizard@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago

Agreed. Dude should be treated the same as anyone else.

I'm pretty hard against applying disclosure laws and shit to family members merely for being related. You don't get to choose your mom and dad. It seems unreasonable to force someone to follow standards of government office because they were born.

[-] Catma@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

I dont see how this helps at all. They can release whatever financial info they want, and even if it is super clean, the right's response will simply be "they lied on those documents."

Hell, it didnt bother anyone voting for him that Trump never released his tax returns ahead of the election. If he is the nominee again he won't release his newer tax returns. So at best this becomes a gesture that isnt going to sway a single vote and will only serve to have people nitpick and create more conspiracy theories.

[-] SpunkyBarnes@geddit.social 4 points 1 year ago

Hunter and his foibles will be the political punching of record for the duration.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

He should release a beer like Billy Carter.

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago

What's going to happen if they don't follow it though? "Sorry, I've removed you as my child, because you're a dick"

Sounds like a case for those post birth abortions Florida man is talking about.

[-] ElBarto@lzrprt.sbs 1 points 1 year ago

Would a serial killer be a post birth abortionist?

[-] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

This is a really dubious proposal. Congress can not enact a code of conduct on specific private citizens due to a family member's position/job.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What's hard about actual behavioral rules is that it's not like the kids did anything to get in the position of "child of a president" and with the age of current presidents....Don Jr is 44, Beau would have been 54. They are full grown adults with careers. Imagine one of them was working their way up the ranks of the UN, or maybe they could even be a congressman, and then their parent becomes president and what, they have to quit? What if they refuse, who is punished? What if it's something like the Trump org where it's a family-owned institution, and the kids are taking control so that the president doesn't control it while in office, do they have to find like a weird cousin?

And then, if you are making someone quit because their parent is president...you definitely have to give them a job in the White House, right? You can't just force them to cook burgers for 4-8 years, and getting them a job on a board or whatever is going to be controversial too. Giving a nepotism job is bad, but you're also forcing them to quit their non-nepotism job so I'm not sure what you're supposed to do.

So anyway, that's why just disclosures is probably the best option. Though it does need to be a legal requirement and not just a norm, because otherwise the people who need to be forced to disclose the most will just refuse to do it.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
67 points (86.8% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3991 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