4 ms·

Love how it skips the current, most-corrupt-in-history President.

LorenDB 1y ago
There is precedent for exempting the sitting President. For example, Harry S Truman was exempt from the two term limit enacted during his presidency.
- mdhb 1y ago
  Don’t feed people that kind of nonsense trying to pretend it’s the same situation. It’s fine to just call a spade a spade or in this case to call corruption corruption.
  - LorenDB 1y ago
    I'm not trying to discount corruption. I'm just saying that there is precedent for this sort of thing.
    - hypeatei 1y ago
      There is also precedent for divesting from your businesses before taking office but that hasn't happened.
  - lesuorac 1y ago
    Previous / current behavior is nearly always exempted from legislation. Same reason why salary increases for senators and etc affect the _next_ session instead of the current one. Chances are the current administration is already running awfoul of existing laws (especially the part where TrumpCoin conferred actually benefits to its holders). But given the lack of appetite from the current majority parties at enforcing the law I don't expect any changes. Can't wait for anything besides FTTP to become more widespread.
- johnecheck 1y ago
  That's not what's happening here. It's not a one-time Trump exception, it just doesn't apply to presidents. To me, it's completely obvious that this legislation should apply to the president. All the legislators know that too. Perhaps they're afraid. Perhaps they're ambitious. Either way, I'm not a fan.
  - LorenDB 1y ago
    To quote the article: > Hawley also said the legislation would ban the next president and vice president from holding or trading individual stocks while in office, meaning the legislation wouldn't affect President Trump. If I am reading this correctly, it does apply to future presidents, right?
    - johnecheck 1y ago
      Apologies, I missed that line. The '[the act] would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from trading or holding individual stocks' made me think it only applied to them.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ourmandave 1y ago
And this is just about individual stocks, completely separate from the 1000's of Conflicts of Interest. https://theweek.com/politics/trumps-conflicts-of-interest https://theweek.com/politics/trumps-conflicts-of-interest
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  Yeah, and we can't even agree on what should be the low hanging fruit. We have a long road still to go.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
onionisafruit 1y ago
There’s a much bigger chance of the president signing something that doesn’t restrict him personally.

There is precedent for exempting the sitting President. For example, Harry S Truman was exempt from the two term limit enacted during his presidency.

mdhb 1y ago
Don’t feed people that kind of nonsense trying to pretend it’s the same situation. It’s fine to just call a spade a spade or in this case to call corruption corruption.
- LorenDB 1y ago
  I'm not trying to discount corruption. I'm just saying that there is precedent for this sort of thing.
  - hypeatei 1y ago
    There is also precedent for divesting from your businesses before taking office but that hasn't happened.
- lesuorac 1y ago
  Previous / current behavior is nearly always exempted from legislation. Same reason why salary increases for senators and etc affect the _next_ session instead of the current one. Chances are the current administration is already running awfoul of existing laws (especially the part where TrumpCoin conferred actually benefits to its holders). But given the lack of appetite from the current majority parties at enforcing the law I don't expect any changes. Can't wait for anything besides FTTP to become more widespread.
johnecheck 1y ago
That's not what's happening here. It's not a one-time Trump exception, it just doesn't apply to presidents. To me, it's completely obvious that this legislation should apply to the president. All the legislators know that too. Perhaps they're afraid. Perhaps they're ambitious. Either way, I'm not a fan.
- LorenDB 1y ago
  To quote the article: > Hawley also said the legislation would ban the next president and vice president from holding or trading individual stocks while in office, meaning the legislation wouldn't affect President Trump. If I am reading this correctly, it does apply to future presidents, right?
  - johnecheck 1y ago
    Apologies, I missed that line. The '[the act] would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from trading or holding individual stocks' made me think it only applied to them.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ourmandave 1y ago

And this is just about individual stocks, completely separate from the 1000's of Conflicts of Interest. https://theweek.com/politics/trumps-conflicts-of-interest https://theweek.com/politics/trumps-conflicts-of-interest

JKCalhoun 1y ago
Yeah, and we can't even agree on what should be the low hanging fruit. We have a long road still to go.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

onionisafruit 1y ago

There’s a much bigger chance of the president signing something that doesn’t restrict him personally.