Just to get this straight. If I stand outside a voting center and give each person 500 bucks to vote for me. That is illegal? But if I am a Dipshit In Chief and offer 5k that is 100 percent legal?
It's still illegal; it's just that nobody will enforce the law against the orange bastard. The motherfucker was literally convicted of 34 felonies and hasn't paid any fines or faced a minute of jail time, FFS.
Was it illegal for Bernie Sanders to campaign on free medical and college?
Rather than tilt and rave let's approach this from another angle: Trump promised funds from DOGE and balanced budgets on multiple occasions and you're never going to see any of it. He is a liar.
Was it illegal for Bernie Sanders to campaign on free medical and college?
No because that would have been done through normal policy change and actually a thing an elected official should try and do. What Trump is doing (even if it is a lie) is bribery. It's not even remotely the same, and it speaks volumes of your character that you would even try and equate them.
Your suposition is that the power of the purse still applies here. Trump has operated the executive as a collective slush fund, many times using horrible arguments that fail in court and then proceeding anyways. Also he's allocated money from military coup projects like Venezuala to funds not under congressional control illegally.
Bernies plan is to first expand Medicare to all ages. Going off Trump's logic this would be done by directing CMS by executive order to adjust the rates, the treasury department to allocate the necessary trust fund expenditures, the IRS to apply the necessary taxes, and the justice department to aggressively target every single possible violation in the private health insurance industry. Bernie's actual plan is to use the bully pulpit as intended to pressure congress to act in accordance with those changes ahead of time, completely different. That's because Trump moves to erode government into the pockets of the rich and Bernie seeks to build it stronger to benefit everyone. Executive overreach expansion has only been applied to benefit the rich effectively where everywhere else it had failed.
Conservatism is entirely about the laws applying differently to different people. The king is special. The nobles are a little less special. The peasants are trash. The slaves are worse. That's the conservative world. Hierarchy. So of course they don't want to apply rules to their chief.
All the idiots who say this shit think they would be the one to kill Hitler if they were born in Nazi Germany. There's a reason it took a foreign military invading to push him to do it himself.
I've even heard dipshits say "Well America had a Civil War in the past" as if that war was declared by the people and not their governments and fought by their militaries.
there's a major error in that the president, according to legal experts, can't be arrested by anyone but congress and the house, which makes no sense. he should simply be president from a poison at this point.
No. It's just moronic to argue that this is or should be illegal. For fuck's sake, people in this thread are arguing it should be illegal for politicians for run for office promising to establish new government programs or give people money. They're letting their campist impulses cloud their judgment.
Turns out the president is above the law, and can only be impeached, given the rare condition that the opposition party has a supermajority in Congress, of course!
It's very different. One is "I will give YOU money if you vote for me" and the other is "I will give EVERYONE money if I win". The main difference is that one is not discriminating against who people voted for. The first is buying votes, the second is a campaign similar to "I will retroactively lower taxes for this year if I win", which I don't think anyone would see as problematic but it's exactly the same outcome as the one you're finding problem with, i.e. give people money.
It's a stupid campaign because anyone with half a brain understand that he's not going to do it and that that money would have to come from someplace else, but it's still a campaign promise similar to any other promise politicians make to ask you to vote for them.
This is what tips me over the edge, all in on maga now. I’m surely gonna collect the 5k from the dude famous for stiffing contractors and bankrupting casinos
Technically, the equivalent would be you standing outside a polling place with a sign saying “I will give every adult in the area $500 if Candidate X wins”.
Ostensibly, you could just be lying (just like Trump) - and that would probably be covered under your 1st Amendment rights.
It’s stupid, but there is enough of a disconnect between action and reward that it might skirt past.
18 U.S.C. § 597 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 597.
Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and
Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
I didn't realize Ayn Rand's ghost had a lemmy account.
This isn't broken at all. Unless you think every form of government social spending should be illegal, then you shouldn't try to make it a felony for politicians to run for office promising to establish government programs or give people money through acts of Congress. You're advocating for full on libertarianism.
I think you are confusing paying someone a direct bribe for their vote, with infrastructure spending. When you say it isn't broken at all, are you saying that an imperfect dystopia based on power and money is the utopian goal that we all seek? I say a lot is working, but a lot is broken. When you say 'not broken at all' then I cannot believe you have a good understanding of the societal wherewithal.
The first is paying someone to vote and is outlawed by the law you cited. The second has a disconnect between the money and the vote. Everyone gets the money, even those that voted for the other guy. Thus it might be legal.
Sounds to me like this has to be tried in court (unless it has not already) for a legal president to be made, and thus decided if it is legal or not. IANAL
Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate;
"I will give everyone money if I win" is offering money to people for voting. Voting for the candidate is implied, yes, but offering to pay everyone is still offering money to people for voting.
In the description of the law, how is that meaningfully different from promising tax policy changes?
It's not telling people to vote, not vote, or to vote for anyone in particular, and is just a notification of something they'll do if elected.
The implication is that you should vote for them, but you didn't make the offer conditional.
Bribery is easier if you're using other people's money because rather than paying people to do what you want you can make a blanket promise to everyone and let them work through the implications.
I should look forward to Trump getting charged with that, then?
But more seriously, there would be countless lawyers happy to argue that a general statement such as “$500 to every adult in the county if John Smith wins” does not technically break that particular law because it’s not explicitly targeted at any one individual recipient, nor is it contingent on them participating in an election whatsoever.
Just as I’m also sure there would be more than one sympathetic Trump-appointed judge to side with the defendant too.
US laws mean nothing if they aren’t actively being followed.
Though this becomes wishy with politicians/parties. You offering to pay for people's healthcare costs if they vote for your favourite candidate would probably be illegal, but a candidate promising to institute universal healthcare is just a campaign promise, so this law leaves a very legitimate open question of when something a candidate says stops being a campaign promise and starts being a legally problematic bribe, because ultimately all campaign promises boil down to "vote for me and I will do something good for you/something you like".
You could very much argue that a candidate promising UBI is effectively not very different from what Trump promised.
There is a difference between "I will pay you to vote for me" and "I will pay you if I win." The first is certainly illegal, the second should be. In some ways, the second statement reminds me of the phrase, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" Sure, no direct order was given, but the priest still died.
I don't expect to see any response to this statement from law enforcement, just like there wasn't when Musk actually paid people to vote for the conservative judge.
the funny thing about the priest quote is that the king DIDN'T want him killed and him being killing was a nightmare for the King and everyone knew he had him killed.
he was totally above the law, it was just a huge black eye and it made the annoyance of the priest turn into the actual Pope being mad at him and he had to publicly repent, but it appears no one blamed him for the murder but did blame him for expressing the wish to be rid of the priest. although the knights who killed him didn't seem to intent to kill him, but tried to arrest him and he resisted to the point they killed him which isn't better, but it's different than an out right order to execute a known public figure. this was Henry II btw
(I'll note that even states refused to pursue Musk. It appears that you can claim to do something illegal for a few hours on the internet, reap the media rewards, and then edit the post. Political activists, do take note.)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a federal anti-bribery law does not make it a crime for state and local officials to accept a gratuity for acts that they have already taken.
Yes it is illegal for you to do that, as it would be for Trump. But no, Trumps proposed 5k checks to all adult citizens, as I understand it, is legal. I'm pretty disappointed in the other answers. A few relevant points.
Remember the model for sending checks to folks: CARES. Both Biden and Trump have previously done this.
Congress can legally amend and pass laws. Note that the law that makes bribing for votes illegal is not in the constitution, so it requires only the usual legal action to amend it.
I note that the policy Trump proposed isn't discriminatory on who you vote for; your hypothetical does. (I suspect this is irrelevant for the legality, but certainly helps the optics.)
It's hilarious that everyone here is assuming he's not just straight up lying about giving that money to everyone and not just the people who vote Republican.
They are very interested in state voter information.
It is hilarious that every MAGA idiot and apparently you think that he is going to pay anyone that money. He has made similar promises before, breaking his promise time after time.
Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: ‘A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.’
They are two very different things.
In one case you're handing people real money on the street for their vote.
In the other your making a "campaign promise" that everyone knows isn't actually real.
It's a concept known as Kayfabe. A special kind of pretending, where both performer and audience act as if something is real, when both know it isn't. It started with American professional wrestling. Wrestlers would do interviews, even greet fans after the show and sign autographs as their characters, not as themselves.
So no, even his MAGA supporters don't literally believe he'll give them $5k. They just accept is as a promise that he and the Republicans will do good things for them generally. They like the sound of it, even though they know it's not "real".
You might have seen people say "the cruelty is the point" when talking about republicans / right wingers. This is what they're addressing. So many of the actions taken by that side of the aisle are so jaw-droppingly stupid or hypocritical or self-defeating, that trying to make sense of it just leaves anyone capable of critical thinking stuck in a "wtf" loop.
But, the cruelty is the point. You might wonder why they care so much about bathroom security: they don't. They just want to hurt trans people. You might wonder why they care so much about abortion: they don't. They just want to hurt women. You might wonder why they care so much about border security: they don't, they just want to hurt brown people. ...etc.
Any of those you can approach logically and try to explain the reality of how each action they take doesn't accomplish their stated goal... requiring trans men to use their birth gender's restroom will increase the number of men in womens' restrooms; abortion isn't actually against their religion (it's mentioned twice in scripture - once as an accidental result of an assault on a pregnant women, for which the assailant owed her a fine; and once as a fucking how-to guide... the bible does not give a fuck about abortion); how the majority of immigrants aren't here to break a bunch of laws, but just want to work and are indeed critically important to our economy. The red team shoots itself in the foot constantly, which leaves you wondering why the fuck they would do that: it's the cruelty. They don't care about the foot they're shooting, they care about the out-group on the other side of that foot. If they need to harm themselves in order to harm someone else even more, they will.
Start looking at their words and actions through this lens, and suddenly they're a lot less baffling. They make sense, and are predictable... in the worst possible way.
He's campaigning for the Republicans generally during this midterm Republican "convention".
Campaigning for ones-self isn't the only time or way to campaign.
In many countries it is legal to promise a tax rebate when you are in office. Many cons (oops, I mean conservatives) use this as voting bait for people with no critical thinking skills, and then turn around and give their corporate masters and billionaires huge tax cuts that make those same voters loose critical services that makw them pay out of pocket.
In other words, "Heres $200 to vote for me so i can make your life way more expensive on a yearly basis through medical care, less regulation, less infrastructure repair".
This is the same grift, but more blatant and obviously something that would never get fulfilled, which is why the number is so big. Bigger numbers make critical thinking fail harder, especially when times are economically tough. It tends to get cons reelected even when they are not doing well in polls, speaking from the Canadian experience in this.
Laws are as good as they are enforced. Look at speeding in a car. If you don't get caught, if everyone else is doing it and the few cops around aren't bothering to pull anyone over, it's still illegal. Yet it doesn't matter.
Or more comparable, someone of high importance is caught speeding, but when the cop sees who it is they let them go with a "warning", i.e. do nothing. Still illegal, but okay for them to do apparently.
This isn't an enforcement problem. What Trump is doing isn't illegal and it shouldn't be illegal. There's nothing wrong with running for office promising to pass legislation establishing a government program if your side wins. You're arguing for a standard that would have made it impossible to create Medicare, Social Security, or any other government program. Those all started as promises of, "if my side wins, we'll pass a law giving people money."
I see your point. If he was arguing for a law or program. Saying everyone get a check without anything more isn't the same. For one, it isn't going to happen because it would need legislation, which means a bill and a plan to fund it. And it's Trump, so it's not going to happen because he just says things.
Now if he said he's going to propose and make Congress pass a law that gives every adult $1000 each month that is funded through tax increases on higher brackets... suddenly he's pushing for UBI, and that's a great idea. (or the start of one, I think it needs to be more complex than that for cost of living variations)
Reading news requires some reasonable extrapolation and reading between the lines. When a president says, "I'll give everyone $5000," you would have to be pretty dense to not realize that they're just using that as a shorthand for, "I'll use all my power and influence to help pass a law through Congress to give everyone $5000 stimulus checks, or I'll find a way to direct existing appropriations for it." If Trump just says, "I'll give everyone $5,000," what reasonable conclusion can you possibly reach other than it's him proposing an act of Congress? He's certainly not going to pay for it out of his pocket.
They don't say that entire thing because that would be insane. Real people don't talk that way; you can summarize and speak in shorthand. You don't need to spell everything out in excruciating detail.
Presidents always run for office promising this or that. They rarely take the time to spell out the entire legislative process.
"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country," Obama told a conference of Families USA, a health care advocacy group.
By your logic, this was a felony. He wants to establish universal healthcare, a benefit to every American. And he just said he would like to do it. He made no mention of specific laws. So by your logic, this was a bribe.
Yes, but dipshit in chief is lying to you, but hypothetically it would be legal.
If the 5k were reliant on you voting for hin and not somebody else then that could be illegal, but his lie was that everyone would get the 5k just like he previously lied about 2k stimulus on multiple occasions.
But he is lying.
Biden promised to wipe out student debt and by god he tried it on three or more occasions. Is that illegal? Was it illegal for Bernie Sanders to campaign for free college and medical?
People are downvoting based on what they want the law to be rather than how it actually is. Trump's promise is functionally the same as promising tax cuts, it's just that he knows how to phrase it in a way that makes people feel more directly connected to it.
Saying “I’ll increase quality of life” is not the same as “I’ll give you cash” the first is a normal political promise and the second is a scammer. What everyone else has said and done is not to be compared to this trash bribery. You are right that trump is full of shit but very wrong with your shit both sides argument.
You’re saying there’s a reason he couldn’t just give the money now? That’s the difference. There’s no reason he wouldn’t get it passed through right now he’s just trying to buy votes.
I mean, There's also the more direct approach if one wants to give out bribes in return for votes.. Remember this? Tell me more about how amazing and just the Western Democracy is.
I hate the orange turd but your comparison is not 100% right. He'd gift 5000$ to everyone, not just who voted for him. I think that's still illegal tho
It's not illegal. He gave out those COVID dividend checks and it was the most popular thing he's ever done. It's just a gross incentive for votes. The government needs that money for governance activities. It's like ripping the bathtub out of someone's house and gifting it to them "for free!"
I mean it's probably not typically allowed under any normal laws and regulations, but they can always find a loop hole to do something like that in a legalish manner (like under a state of emergency, or with an executive order SCOTUS upholds, or hijacking a program meant for something else).
I didn't mean he'd give a dime to anybody given the fact that he's a pathological liar but he didn't say "I will give 5000$ to those who vote for me" but "I will give 5000$ to everyone". And since I'm not a lawyer I don't know if that's illegal to say, as opposed to give "gifts" to only those who vote for a certain party
Surely the best response the Democrats could say is "if we win the midterms we'll use Trumps financial plans to give you all 5k"... Trump can hardly then criticise it, it takes away the advantage of the bribe and if they win the midterms they can then declare "it was all bollocks there is no trillion dollars left lieing around to hand out"
One theory for the death of Edgar Allen Poe in Baltimore is that he got caught up in a cooping gang. It is all voter fraud no matter how you handle the details.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
It is a very unfortunate situation, one that definitely affects 70 billion people. But please solve your own problems on your own. So far I've filtered out /Trump/i and still about 30% of the posts are about him.
And even worse, we've seen it done by other presidents in recent memory, like when Biden promised a $2000 COVID aid check if the Dems won Georgia, which they did, and then the amount shrank to $1400.
These stimulus checks were approved and backed by Trump but blocked by the Republican controlled Senate. Biden wasn't offering them as a reward for voting a certain way. He was warning that if those seats were lost Republicans would block the checks. Trump was pushing for these checks publicly
I don't think you read your own article. Joe was already picked and he was referring to the runoffs. The actual situation was that Trump was promising the checks and then when he lost the Republicans blocked the funds for it as punishment for not electing him again. Biden supporting them and needed a majority to overcome the block. The first part of the checks was released under Trump still in December, but no more disbursement was being allowed by congress.
They had a failed attempt to pressure congress which generates 600 dollar checks. Then 1400 was later added to that to "complete" the promise, so while 2600 is better than 2000, it wasn't scummy except to the extent that the Republicans in congress immediately turned on the American people once it was politically advantageous not to deliver.
100% isn't my standard, but I think saying "elect my guys and get money" when the intention is to actually do it when he has power to (and he did) rather than Trump saying it when he absolutely can do it right now with full control of all branches of government. In other words, "do this so we want to help you." Vs "do this so we can help you" very different.
If I stand outside a voting center and promise to give each person 1000$ a month for the rest of their life if they vote for a candidate I like, that's illegal.
It I stand om stage at a campaign and promise that, it's called Universal Basic Income, is a legitimate policy suggestion and perfectly acceptable campaign promise.
So where's the line ?
I understand the answer. My question is simply, why isn't the answer to my comment also the answer to OPs Post ? Legally, the questions are pretty much equivalent, yet I get downvoted to hell for mine, but OP finds nothing but agreement. You people are applying the law differently, because you dislike Trump, but like UBI. And whilst I agree that UBI would he good, amd Trump sucks major ass, the law does not, amd should not, care about that.
Both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters unconditional financial benefit, if the politicians win their election.
You're all hypocrites. Yes Trump is a piece of shit, yes he almost certainly has no intention of following through with this, and yes his motivations are absolutely disgusting, but purely legally it's no different from any other direct financial campaign promise, and if you can't accept that just because Trump is a piece of shit, then you have a problem.
One is just handing out money and the other is passing a written law on the books through the entire legislative process.
Edit: expanding on this since you seem genuine and not a concern troll:
The point of the legislative process is that there are checks and balances. If you write and pass a law, the courts can challenge it. In the end if the law stands it has a much more legitimate mandate from the people.
Also laws are not written and passed by one person, you have to get enough majority consensus from the entire legislative body. Skipping that process is called a dictatorship or monarchy.
(He also has a long history of not paying, but that’s not relevant for the legal difference)
You don't happen to know if other have successfully argued on court that since they had a history of not paying, it is understood by everyone that they were not genuine and would not pay?
Australian politicians have been repeatedly making popular promises around election time, then quietly not doing anything about them after the election.
Candidates who are unlikely to be elected have also been making near impossible promises. They know that the promises don't need to be realistic because they won't be elected, but loft promises will still bring them more votes and more media time.
There should be some form of penalty for not completing an election promise once in power, and any party already in power should only be promising things they're already working on.
So the non encumbant party/candidate can promise to work on ALL problems in a country, but the encumbants are legally prevented from promising to do so, even if they genuinely and legitimately plan on doing so, and simply can't start working on ALL of them at once, and therefore had to limit their current work ?
And wouldn't this just encourage encumbants to start half baked unmotivated work on every issue imaginable, so they can use those issues when campaigning, instead of focsuing their effort on a few important issues, and actually doing something effective to fix those, because that would actually severely limit their campaign talking points.
In your system, governing effectively and efficiently becomes detrimental to a parties ability to campaign.
The difference is that when someone campaigns on UBI, they are talking about laws that they want to pass, through the entire legislative process. Please also see my edit to my first comment that I wrote at the same time you were asking this question.
I also notice that you took time to reply to this comment, but completely ignored the other one where I substantively refute your point. Very intellectually mature and honest of you.
Yes, UBI gives people much, much MORE money than a one time bribe.
If it's so stupid, explain to me what is legally the difference between a politician promising to pass a UBI law of they're elected, and a politician promising to pass a law governing a one time government payment ?
Can't tell the difference between "I will pay you to vote the way I want" vs "I will fight for progressive policies to set a minimum standard quality of life", smh
Did you even read my comment ? I never even came close to claiming the two things are morally/ethically the same, I literally state exact opposite explicitly more than once.
But legally both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters an unconditional direct financial benefit, if the politicians win their election. How are the situations differently LEGALLY ?
163 Comments
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 154 pts · 2d
It's still illegal; it's just that nobody will enforce the law against the orange bastard. The motherfucker was literally convicted of 34 felonies and hasn't paid any fines or faced a minute of jail time, FFS.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 16 pts · 2d
He had a whole goddamn sentencing hearing where they sentenced him to nothing. Explicitly.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · -96 pts · 2d
Was it illegal for Bernie Sanders to campaign on free medical and college?
Rather than tilt and rave let's approach this from another angle: Trump promised funds from DOGE and balanced budgets on multiple occasions and you're never going to see any of it. He is a liar.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 74 pts · 2d
No because that would have been done through normal policy change and actually a thing an elected official should try and do. What Trump is doing (even if it is a lie) is bribery. It's not even remotely the same, and it speaks volumes of your character that you would even try and equate them.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · -62 pts · 2d
Trump's and Bernie's plans would both require congress because the president literally has no access to funds without it.
I worry about people spreading these lies because it is in fact a great policy stance.
Lasherz12@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 2d
Your suposition is that the power of the purse still applies here. Trump has operated the executive as a collective slush fund, many times using horrible arguments that fail in court and then proceeding anyways. Also he's allocated money from military coup projects like Venezuala to funds not under congressional control illegally.
Bernies plan is to first expand Medicare to all ages. Going off Trump's logic this would be done by directing CMS by executive order to adjust the rates, the treasury department to allocate the necessary trust fund expenditures, the IRS to apply the necessary taxes, and the justice department to aggressively target every single possible violation in the private health insurance industry. Bernie's actual plan is to use the bully pulpit as intended to pressure congress to act in accordance with those changes ahead of time, completely different. That's because Trump moves to erode government into the pockets of the rich and Bernie seeks to build it stronger to benefit everyone. Executive overreach expansion has only been applied to benefit the rich effectively where everywhere else it had failed.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · -10 pts · 2d
The DHS and especially ICE also lost funding and shut down a lot of offices for over a month until the GOP passed a reconciliation bill.
Even if overreach is occuring he is not going to pull 1.5 Trillion Dollars out of his ass.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
If it's a great policy stance, they should do it now when they know they have control of both legislatures. Why wait?
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · -2 pts · 1d
https://feddit.online/comment/9646837
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
So you think promising money he'll never give out is a "great policy stance"? Huh???
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 1 pts · 1d
giving out money is a great policy
voting for Trump or believing anything he says is idiocy
the_q@piefed.social · 28 pts · 2d
What a moronic take. Like genuinely.
Akasazh@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2d
The guy is a huge troll, I have tagged them thusly and he has continued to live up to that moniker
9bananas@feddit.org · 2 pts · 1d
my tag just says "moron"
they're not smart enough go earn the troll tag ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Akasazh@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
I do agree, when I tagged the person it wasn't so clear to me, but they seem very consistent.
spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app · 17 pts · 2d
rofl imagine being the fucking clown pretending free medicsl and college would be a bad thing.
Again: Fucking. Clown.
shittydwarf@piefed.ca · 91 pts · 2d
Americans refuse to apply the law to trump for some reason
Edit: Y'all acting like he's been POTUS his whole life. Dude is a career conman-rapist-fraudster
jtrek@startrek.website · 55 pts · 2d
Conservatism is entirely about the laws applying differently to different people. The king is special. The nobles are a little less special. The peasants are trash. The slaves are worse. That's the conservative world. Hierarchy. So of course they don't want to apply rules to their chief.
They are worse than children.
BurgerBaron@quokk.au · 1 pts · 1d
I'm unwilling to post the rules for thee quotes anymore because it doesn't seem to get through to people.
Triumph@fedia.io · 29 pts · 2d
How do you expect that to happen when the fascists own and operate all three branches of government and are hands on with DoJ?
Americans have no choice in the matter, if we're talking about legal channels.
athatet@lemmy.zip · 22 pts · 2d
For real. Like yeah, lemme just waltz my ass on over there and issue a citizens arrest. That will go over splendidly.
FreeAZ@sopuli.xyz · 15 pts · 2d
All the idiots who say this shit think they would be the one to kill Hitler if they were born in Nazi Germany. There's a reason it took a foreign military invading to push him to do it himself.
I've even heard dipshits say "Well America had a Civil War in the past" as if that war was declared by the people and not their governments and fought by their militaries.
Snowclone@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2d
there's a major error in that the president, according to legal experts, can't be arrested by anyone but congress and the house, which makes no sense. he should simply be president from a poison at this point.
moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com · 1 pts · 2d
That reason was decided by the Supreme Court
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 2d
No. It's just moronic to argue that this is or should be illegal. For fuck's sake, people in this thread are arguing it should be illegal for politicians for run for office promising to establish new government programs or give people money. They're letting their campist impulses cloud their judgment.
mrmaplebar@fedia.io · 57 pts · 2d
Turns out the president is above the law, and can only be impeached, given the rare condition that the opposition party has a supermajority in Congress, of course!
Artisian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
Presidential immunity only extends to official acts see here. That said, its so poorly defined as to be irrelevant at the moment.
Still, I suspect distributing checks from the federal government that was not appropriated by congress would very much fail to qualify.
ulkesh@piefed.social · 6 pts · 2d
When there are no consequences, everything is an official act.
BradleyUffner@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 2d
They won't even let you stand outside a polling place and hand out water bottles to people waiting in line.
Salamanderwizard@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2d
If you're a Dem. Saw Maga groups outside our local voting polls last election. They were cooking and handing out water.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 1d
Oh no lol that only applies to Democrats.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 2d
It's very different. One is "I will give YOU money if you vote for me" and the other is "I will give EVERYONE money if I win". The main difference is that one is not discriminating against who people voted for. The first is buying votes, the second is a campaign similar to "I will retroactively lower taxes for this year if I win", which I don't think anyone would see as problematic but it's exactly the same outcome as the one you're finding problem with, i.e. give people money.
It's a stupid campaign because anyone with half a brain understand that he's not going to do it and that that money would have to come from someplace else, but it's still a campaign promise similar to any other promise politicians make to ask you to vote for them.
Ioughttamow@fedia.io · 27 pts · 2d
This is what tips me over the edge, all in on maga now. I’m surely gonna collect the 5k from the dude famous for stiffing contractors and bankrupting casinos
thatOneGuy@aussie.zone · 25 pts · 2d
Technically, the equivalent would be you standing outside a polling place with a sign saying “I will give every adult in the area $500 if Candidate X wins”.
Ostensibly, you could just be lying (just like Trump) - and that would probably be covered under your 1st Amendment rights.
It’s stupid, but there is enough of a disconnect between action and reward that it might skirt past.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 34 pts · 2d
No, that's not how that works.
18 U.S.C. § 597 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 597.
Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and
Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 2d
That seems pretty straightforward. So the law is correct, it's just useless because the system founded on these laws is broken.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -1 pts · 2d
I didn't realize Ayn Rand's ghost had a lemmy account.
This isn't broken at all. Unless you think every form of government social spending should be illegal, then you shouldn't try to make it a felony for politicians to run for office promising to establish government programs or give people money through acts of Congress. You're advocating for full on libertarianism.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1d
I think you are confusing paying someone a direct bribe for their vote, with infrastructure spending. When you say it isn't broken at all, are you saying that an imperfect dystopia based on power and money is the utopian goal that we all seek? I say a lot is working, but a lot is broken. When you say 'not broken at all' then I cannot believe you have a good understanding of the societal wherewithal.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -1 pts · 1d
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1d
Well...there is no way I can defend against an argument like that.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -3 pts · 1d
It would be pointless. Your reading skills are not developed enough to merit a proper reply.
elDalvini@discuss.tchncs.de · 10 pts · 2d
"I will give you money if you vote for me"
Is different from
"I will give everyone money if I win"
The first is paying someone to vote and is outlawed by the law you cited. The second has a disconnect between the money and the vote. Everyone gets the money, even those that voted for the other guy. Thus it might be legal.
captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
Sounds to me like this has to be tried in court (unless it has not already) for a legal president to be made, and thus decided if it is legal or not. IANAL
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 1d
Oh I'm REALLY playing devil's advocate on this one
Promising everyone, no exceptions, 5k if you win, is kind of a campaign promise rather than a bribe.
I'm going to shower for 2 hours to get the stench off me now
stringere@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
"I will give everyone money if I win" is offering money to people for voting. Voting for the candidate is implied, yes, but offering to pay everyone is still offering money to people for voting.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
In the description of the law, how is that meaningfully different from promising tax policy changes?
It's not telling people to vote, not vote, or to vote for anyone in particular, and is just a notification of something they'll do if elected.
The implication is that you should vote for them, but you didn't make the offer conditional.
Bribery is easier if you're using other people's money because rather than paying people to do what you want you can make a blanket promise to everyone and let them work through the implications.
thatOneGuy@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 2d
I should look forward to Trump getting charged with that, then?
But more seriously, there would be countless lawyers happy to argue that a general statement such as “$500 to every adult in the county if John Smith wins” does not technically break that particular law because it’s not explicitly targeted at any one individual recipient, nor is it contingent on them participating in an election whatsoever.
Just as I’m also sure there would be more than one sympathetic Trump-appointed judge to side with the defendant too.
US laws mean nothing if they aren’t actively being followed.
Sackett@thelemmy.club · 12 pts · 2d
People in this thread forget that the Supreme Court already gave Trump immunity from prosecution.
NotSafeForWorld@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1d
What if someone says, "5000 will be on the table if I'm really happy. Candidate x winning will make me really happy"?
Devial@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Though this becomes wishy with politicians/parties. You offering to pay for people's healthcare costs if they vote for your favourite candidate would probably be illegal, but a candidate promising to institute universal healthcare is just a campaign promise, so this law leaves a very legitimate open question of when something a candidate says stops being a campaign promise and starts being a legally problematic bribe, because ultimately all campaign promises boil down to "vote for me and I will do something good for you/something you like".
You could very much argue that a candidate promising UBI is effectively not very different from what Trump promised.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com · 24 pts · 2d
If no one prosecuted you for it, it might as well be.
BillCheddar@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 1d
That's the secret to Conservative power in America.
Step 1: Make everything illegal
Step 2: Accept bribes to overlook crimes of allies
Step 3: Punish the shit out of your opponents.
Congrats! America is now Russia, with better food and shittier fascists.
JustPlainDave@lemmy.zip · 22 pts · 2d
The law only matters to us poor folks. It isn't applied to the rich.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 1d
Step 1: Have money.
Step 2: Rape children (and adults).
Step 3: Put an "R" next to your name.
Congrats, you are now immune from consequences.
GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca · 18 pts · 2d
There is a difference between "I will pay you to vote for me" and "I will pay you if I win." The first is certainly illegal, the second should be. In some ways, the second statement reminds me of the phrase, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" Sure, no direct order was given, but the priest still died.
I don't expect to see any response to this statement from law enforcement, just like there wasn't when Musk actually paid people to vote for the conservative judge.
Snowclone@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2d
the funny thing about the priest quote is that the king DIDN'T want him killed and him being killing was a nightmare for the King and everyone knew he had him killed.
SolacefromSilence@fedia.io · 3 pts · 2d
Also funny that their king wasn't above the law... kinda sorta, but still actually had to answer for it to someone.
Snowclone@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
he was totally above the law, it was just a huge black eye and it made the annoyance of the priest turn into the actual Pope being mad at him and he had to publicly repent, but it appears no one blamed him for the murder but did blame him for expressing the wish to be rid of the priest. although the knights who killed him didn't seem to intent to kill him, but tried to arrest him and he resisted to the point they killed him which isn't better, but it's different than an out right order to execute a known public figure. this was Henry II btw
Artisian@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
(I'll note that even states refused to pursue Musk. It appears that you can claim to do something illegal for a few hours on the internet, reap the media rewards, and then edit the post. Political activists, do take note.)
Akasazh@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
That's a funny typo
oyzmo@piefed.social · 15 pts · 2d
Everything is legal when everyone let you write the rules.
Tja@programming.dev · 3 pts · 2d
Or ignore the rules that someone else wrote to prevent you from doing the thing.
Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1d
It's also legal to give someone money after the fact for a job well done, and it's definitely not a bribe.
stringere@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 1d
From June 26 2024:
Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1d
We live in the stupidest timeline.
TheNextMuon@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
He will not give the money. He makes a promise. He breaks the promise. Please people - don't be stupid. Do not believe this idiot.
hanrahan@slrpnk.net · 13 pts · 2d
do you have supreme court immunity?
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1d
Well he did make it so tha tnothing he does in office is illegal, even if it’s illegal.
Artisian@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 2d
Yes it is illegal for you to do that, as it would be for Trump. But no, Trumps proposed 5k checks to all adult citizens, as I understand it, is legal. I'm pretty disappointed in the other answers. A few relevant points.
itisileclerk@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
Also if you have sex with a minor is illegal but if you are the President then it's OK.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 1d
It's hilarious that everyone here is assuming he's not just straight up lying about giving that money to everyone and not just the people who vote Republican.
They are very interested in state voter information.
smeenz@lemmy.nz · 8 pts · 1d
Nobody is getting any money
Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Oh people will get money. It's just that the ones who will get aren't the ones who need it
TheNextMuon@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
It is hilarious that every MAGA idiot and apparently you think that he is going to pay anyone that money. He has made similar promises before, breaking his promise time after time.
nanometer1625@thelemmy.club · 7 pts · 23h
No, it's not legal, but at this point there are no federal officials left who are willing to enforce the law when Republicans break it.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23h
Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: ‘A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.’
Naive@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2d
Welcome to America
Karmanopoly@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2d
newton@feddit.online · 7 pts · 2d
There will never be a payout of 5 k ,from taco, all lies
A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com · 1 pts · 2d
But the far right pretending to be socialists and for the workers is a long tradition dating back to at least 1920.
newton@feddit.online · 1 pts · 2d
Do you mean lying?
Steve@communick.news · 7 pts · 2d
They are two very different things.
In one case you're handing people real money on the street for their vote.
In the other your making a "campaign promise" that everyone knows isn't actually real.
MarieMarion@literature.cafe · 3 pts · 2d
Question from far away: do even the basic, illiterate, red-capped MAGAts not believe it? Or is the fanbase waiting for its manna?
Steve@communick.news · 6 pts · 2d
Believe it's true literally?
No
It's a concept known as Kayfabe. A special kind of pretending, where both performer and audience act as if something is real, when both know it isn't. It started with American professional wrestling. Wrestlers would do interviews, even greet fans after the show and sign autographs as their characters, not as themselves.
So no, even his MAGA supporters don't literally believe he'll give them $5k. They just accept is as a promise that he and the Republicans will do good things for them generally. They like the sound of it, even though they know it's not "real".
MarieMarion@literature.cafe · 2 pts · 15h
The way my kid kept pretending to believe in Santa for two years. I saw her point then. Thank you.
Murse@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 2d
I think they know Trump is full of shit, they just don't care so long as he's 'hurting the right people'.
They'd let Trump shit in their mouth if it meant a 'librul' would have to smell it.
MarieMarion@literature.cafe · 1 pts · 15h
Yeah. Well. Thanks. It's so absurd my mind reels thinking about it.
Murse@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 13h
You might have seen people say "the cruelty is the point" when talking about republicans / right wingers. This is what they're addressing. So many of the actions taken by that side of the aisle are so jaw-droppingly stupid or hypocritical or self-defeating, that trying to make sense of it just leaves anyone capable of critical thinking stuck in a "wtf" loop.
But, the cruelty is the point. You might wonder why they care so much about bathroom security: they don't. They just want to hurt trans people. You might wonder why they care so much about abortion: they don't. They just want to hurt women. You might wonder why they care so much about border security: they don't, they just want to hurt brown people. ...etc.
Any of those you can approach logically and try to explain the reality of how each action they take doesn't accomplish their stated goal... requiring trans men to use their birth gender's restroom will increase the number of men in womens' restrooms; abortion isn't actually against their religion (it's mentioned twice in scripture - once as an accidental result of an assault on a pregnant women, for which the assailant owed her a fine; and once as a fucking how-to guide... the bible does not give a fuck about abortion); how the majority of immigrants aren't here to break a bunch of laws, but just want to work and are indeed critically important to our economy. The red team shoots itself in the foot constantly, which leaves you wondering why the fuck they would do that: it's the cruelty. They don't care about the foot they're shooting, they care about the out-group on the other side of that foot. If they need to harm themselves in order to harm someone else even more, they will.
Start looking at their words and actions through this lens, and suddenly they're a lot less baffling. They make sense, and are predictable... in the worst possible way.
0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 2d
It's not a campaign promise. He's already elected!
Steve@communick.news · 5 pts · 2d
He's campaigning for the Republicans generally during this midterm Republican "convention".
Campaigning for ones-self isn't the only time or way to campaign.
Malica@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 1d
Law means nothing in a coup
Routhinator@startrek.website · 6 pts · 1d
In many countries it is legal to promise a tax rebate when you are in office. Many cons (oops, I mean conservatives) use this as voting bait for people with no critical thinking skills, and then turn around and give their corporate masters and billionaires huge tax cuts that make those same voters loose critical services that makw them pay out of pocket.
In other words, "Heres $200 to vote for me so i can make your life way more expensive on a yearly basis through medical care, less regulation, less infrastructure repair".
This is the same grift, but more blatant and obviously something that would never get fulfilled, which is why the number is so big. Bigger numbers make critical thinking fail harder, especially when times are economically tough. It tends to get cons reelected even when they are not doing well in polls, speaking from the Canadian experience in this.
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 5 pts · 2d
Laws are as good as they are enforced. Look at speeding in a car. If you don't get caught, if everyone else is doing it and the few cops around aren't bothering to pull anyone over, it's still illegal. Yet it doesn't matter.
Or more comparable, someone of high importance is caught speeding, but when the cop sees who it is they let them go with a "warning", i.e. do nothing. Still illegal, but okay for them to do apparently.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 2d
This isn't an enforcement problem. What Trump is doing isn't illegal and it shouldn't be illegal. There's nothing wrong with running for office promising to pass legislation establishing a government program if your side wins. You're arguing for a standard that would have made it impossible to create Medicare, Social Security, or any other government program. Those all started as promises of, "if my side wins, we'll pass a law giving people money."
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 2 pts · 1d
I see your point. If he was arguing for a law or program. Saying everyone get a check without anything more isn't the same. For one, it isn't going to happen because it would need legislation, which means a bill and a plan to fund it. And it's Trump, so it's not going to happen because he just says things.
Now if he said he's going to propose and make Congress pass a law that gives every adult $1000 each month that is funded through tax increases on higher brackets... suddenly he's pushing for UBI, and that's a great idea. (or the start of one, I think it needs to be more complex than that for cost of living variations)
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1d
Reading news requires some reasonable extrapolation and reading between the lines. When a president says, "I'll give everyone $5000," you would have to be pretty dense to not realize that they're just using that as a shorthand for, "I'll use all my power and influence to help pass a law through Congress to give everyone $5000 stimulus checks, or I'll find a way to direct existing appropriations for it." If Trump just says, "I'll give everyone $5,000," what reasonable conclusion can you possibly reach other than it's him proposing an act of Congress? He's certainly not going to pay for it out of his pocket.
They don't say that entire thing because that would be insane. Real people don't talk that way; you can summarize and speak in shorthand. You don't need to spell everything out in excruciating detail.
Presidents always run for office promising this or that. They rarely take the time to spell out the entire legislative process.
For example, consider this article from 2008 and the following Obama quote:
By your logic, this was a felony. He wants to establish universal healthcare, a benefit to every American. And he just said he would like to do it. He made no mention of specific laws. So by your logic, this was a bribe.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 5 pts · 2d
Yes, but dipshit in chief is lying to you, but hypothetically it would be legal.
If the 5k were reliant on you voting for hin and not somebody else then that could be illegal, but his lie was that everyone would get the 5k just like he previously lied about 2k stimulus on multiple occasions.
But he is lying.
Biden promised to wipe out student debt and by god he tried it on three or more occasions. Is that illegal? Was it illegal for Bernie Sanders to campaign for free college and medical?
But Trump is lying to you.
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 2d
People are downvoting based on what they want the law to be rather than how it actually is. Trump's promise is functionally the same as promising tax cuts, it's just that he knows how to phrase it in a way that makes people feel more directly connected to it.
PwnTra1n@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
Saying “I’ll increase quality of life” is not the same as “I’ll give you cash” the first is a normal political promise and the second is a scammer. What everyone else has said and done is not to be compared to this trash bribery. You are right that trump is full of shit but very wrong with your shit both sides argument.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2d
is there any rule that say a president cant scam the people?
PwnTra1n@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Only fraud charges
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · -1 pts · 2d
It is when you have to spend money to get quality of life such as education and healthcare.
PwnTra1n@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
Spending taxpayer money on quality of life is something that is expected of politicians, are you implying you expect cash handouts the same way?
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 0 pts · 2d
Thats how the pandemic stimulus checks worked.
PwnTra1n@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
With a specific quid pro quo nature? You really are a fucking moron you know that?
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 0 pts · 1d
Trump specifically said everyone gets the 5k. He's a lying piece of shit who breaks laws every day but this is a bad example of that.
PwnTra1n@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
You’re saying there’s a reason he couldn’t just give the money now? That’s the difference. There’s no reason he wouldn’t get it passed through right now he’s just trying to buy votes.
RandomHugs@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
I mean, There's also the more direct approach if one wants to give out bribes in return for votes.. Remember this? Tell me more about how amazing and just the Western Democracy is.
tired_n_bored@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
I hate the orange turd but your comparison is not 100% right. He'd gift 5000$ to everyone, not just who voted for him. I think that's still illegal tho
DrQuickbeam@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
It's not illegal. He gave out those COVID dividend checks and it was the most popular thing he's ever done. It's just a gross incentive for votes. The government needs that money for governance activities. It's like ripping the bathtub out of someone's house and gifting it to them "for free!"
DrQuickbeam@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I mean it's probably not typically allowed under any normal laws and regulations, but they can always find a loop hole to do something like that in a legalish manner (like under a state of emergency, or with an executive order SCOTUS upholds, or hijacking a program meant for something else).
tired_n_bored@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
We're fucked
TheNextMuon@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I hate the orange turd and your observation is about 100% wrong. He will not pay anyone. He will keep the money himself.
tired_n_bored@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
I didn't mean he'd give a dime to anybody given the fact that he's a pathological liar but he didn't say "I will give 5000$ to those who vote for me" but "I will give 5000$ to everyone". And since I'm not a lawyer I don't know if that's illegal to say, as opposed to give "gifts" to only those who vote for a certain party
darreninthenet@piefed.social · 2 pts · 2d
Surely the best response the Democrats could say is "if we win the midterms we'll use Trumps financial plans to give you all 5k"... Trump can hardly then criticise it, it takes away the advantage of the bribe and if they win the midterms they can then declare "it was all bollocks there is no trillion dollars left lieing around to hand out"
PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S@anarchist.nexus · 2 pts · 2d
Laws protect the rich and bind the poor. The law is operating exactly as intended.
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 18h
He’s been doing multiple crimes a day for most of his life. The thing about a “law” is that unless it’s enforced it doesn’t mean shit
Simulation6@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 2d
One theory for the death of Edgar Allen Poe in Baltimore is that he got caught up in a cooping gang. It is all voter fraud no matter how you handle the details.
Sibbo@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 2d
I guess that heavily depends on jurisdiction.
glimse@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2d
This is most r/nostupidquestions thing that has ever been asked here. It's just bait.
napkin2020@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 2d
It is a very unfortunate situation, one that definitely affects 70 billion people. But please solve your own problems on your own. So far I've filtered out
/Trump/iand still about 30% of the posts are about him.Fleppensteijn@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2d
There's just one country whose political problems are spammed all over. They should find their own communities.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 2d
Yes.
And even worse, we've seen it done by other presidents in recent memory, like when Biden promised a $2000 COVID aid check if the Dems won Georgia, which they did, and then the amount shrank to $1400.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.social · 3 pts · 2d
Biden wasn’t president at that time.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2d
Totally man.
Wasn't Biden out here promising $2000 checks. Nope. No sir-ee.
workerONE@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2d
These stimulus checks were approved and backed by Trump but blocked by the Republican controlled Senate. Biden wasn't offering them as a reward for voting a certain way. He was warning that if those seats were lost Republicans would block the checks. Trump was pushing for these checks publicly
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2d
Okay.
You realize that's the same thing, right? Elect my guys and you get money.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.social · 4 pts · 2d
That article was from Jan 5, 2021.
Lasherz12@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
I don't think you read your own article. Joe was already picked and he was referring to the runoffs. The actual situation was that Trump was promising the checks and then when he lost the Republicans blocked the funds for it as punishment for not electing him again. Biden supporting them and needed a majority to overcome the block. The first part of the checks was released under Trump still in December, but no more disbursement was being allowed by congress.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
Yes, the situation isn't 100% one-to-one, but it's similar enough to what Donald is doing.
"Elect my guys and you get money." (And the messaging at the time was 100% like that.)
Though the scummy nature of promising people $2000 of their own money and only approving $1400 is notable.
Lasherz12@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
They had a failed attempt to pressure congress which generates 600 dollar checks. Then 1400 was later added to that to "complete" the promise, so while 2600 is better than 2000, it wasn't scummy except to the extent that the Republicans in congress immediately turned on the American people once it was politically advantageous not to deliver.
100% isn't my standard, but I think saying "elect my guys and get money" when the intention is to actually do it when he has power to (and he did) rather than Trump saying it when he absolutely can do it right now with full control of all branches of government. In other words, "do this so we want to help you." Vs "do this so we can help you" very different.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 2d
Biden has also been very well known for 40+ years for not paying contractors, so we should have known his word wasn't good.
Oh wait now hold on...
Lasherz12@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Devial@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 2d
If I stand outside a voting center and promise to give each person 1000$ a month for the rest of their life if they vote for a candidate I like, that's illegal.
It I stand om stage at a campaign and promise that, it's called Universal Basic Income, is a legitimate policy suggestion and perfectly acceptable campaign promise.
So where's the line ?
I understand the answer. My question is simply, why isn't the answer to my comment also the answer to OPs Post ? Legally, the questions are pretty much equivalent, yet I get downvoted to hell for mine, but OP finds nothing but agreement. You people are applying the law differently, because you dislike Trump, but like UBI. And whilst I agree that UBI would he good, amd Trump sucks major ass, the law does not, amd should not, care about that.
Both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters unconditional financial benefit, if the politicians win their election.
You're all hypocrites. Yes Trump is a piece of shit, yes he almost certainly has no intention of following through with this, and yes his motivations are absolutely disgusting, but purely legally it's no different from any other direct financial campaign promise, and if you can't accept that just because Trump is a piece of shit, then you have a problem.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 25 pts · 2d
One is just handing out money and the other is passing a written law on the books through the entire legislative process.
Edit: expanding on this since you seem genuine and not a concern troll:
The point of the legislative process is that there are checks and balances. If you write and pass a law, the courts can challenge it. In the end if the law stands it has a much more legitimate mandate from the people.
Also laws are not written and passed by one person, you have to get enough majority consensus from the entire legislative body. Skipping that process is called a dictatorship or monarchy.
Devial@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2d
So then what's (legally) the difference between a candidate promising UBI and what Trump did ?
18107@aussie.zone · 15 pts · 2d
Trump is already in power and could give the money at any time. He is deliberately tying it to voting.
(He also has a long history of not paying, but that's not relevant for the legal difference)
captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
You don't happen to know if other have successfully argued on court that since they had a history of not paying, it is understood by everyone that they were not genuine and would not pay?
Devial@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 2d
So then why isn't EVERY campaign promise by the encumbant president/party problematic in the same way ?
18107@aussie.zone · 6 pts · 2d
In my opinion️, they should be.
Australian politicians have been repeatedly making popular promises around election time, then quietly not doing anything about them after the election.
Candidates who are unlikely to be elected have also been making near impossible promises. They know that the promises don't need to be realistic because they won't be elected, but loft promises will still bring them more votes and more media time.
There should be some form of penalty for not completing an election promise once in power, and any party already in power should only be promising things they're already working on.
Devial@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2d
So the non encumbant party/candidate can promise to work on ALL problems in a country, but the encumbants are legally prevented from promising to do so, even if they genuinely and legitimately plan on doing so, and simply can't start working on ALL of them at once, and therefore had to limit their current work ?
And wouldn't this just encourage encumbants to start half baked unmotivated work on every issue imaginable, so they can use those issues when campaigning, instead of focsuing their effort on a few important issues, and actually doing something effective to fix those, because that would actually severely limit their campaign talking points.
In your system, governing effectively and efficiently becomes detrimental to a parties ability to campaign.
18107@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 2d
That's shifting the goal posts a bit.
Some form of prevention for knowingly making false election promises is a good start.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2d
The difference is that when someone campaigns on UBI, they are talking about laws that they want to pass, through the entire legislative process. Please also see my edit to my first comment that I wrote at the same time you were asking this question.
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 2d
Holy fuck this is the stupidest take I ever heard. Congrats!
Edit because it's stupid: universal basic income isnt a onetime bribe.
Devial@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 2d
So you're saying my comment is a worse take than literally everything MAGAt and Trump have done and said over the past years ? Really ?
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 1d
This is like child logic. Are you under 18? Because thatll explain it.
Devial@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Literally just going by what you said. Verbatim.
I also notice that you took time to reply to this comment, but completely ignored the other one where I substantively refute your point. Very intellectually mature and honest of you.
Devial@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 2d
Yes, UBI gives people much, much MORE money than a one time bribe.
If it's so stupid, explain to me what is legally the difference between a politician promising to pass a UBI law of they're elected, and a politician promising to pass a law governing a one time government payment ?
flandish@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
direct payment in exchance for a vote.
the former in your example benefits even those who do not vote for you.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 2d
Yeah I agree. There's a lot of campist motivated reasoning in these threads.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 2d
One difference is that you'd be lying avputbthe former whereas the latter would be a political thing you'd kinda have to do
Devial@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 2d
A) who says I'm lying
B) in what utopia do you live where politicians never break campaign promises
BlindFrog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Can't tell the difference between "I will pay you to vote the way I want" vs "I will fight for progressive policies to set a minimum standard quality of life", smh
Devial@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
Did you even read my comment ? I never even came close to claiming the two things are morally/ethically the same, I literally state exact opposite explicitly more than once.
But legally both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters an unconditional direct financial benefit, if the politicians win their election. How are the situations differently LEGALLY ?