this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
119 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19091 readers
3409 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
 

The cronyism keeps coming.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

While prestigious, I have to think the type of lawyer who wants Trump for a client is hardly goingbto want to do heavy government work for a civil servant's salary. Surely there's way more cash in skip-and-falls and "get six divorce punches on your loyalty club card and the 7th is free".

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

The cash is in the favors you can do for people, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that ~~bribes~~ gratuities are perfectly legal. It's no accident that Trump now wants to remove taxes on "tips". As of right now, if you "tip" your Deputy AG to fix a case for you, it needs to be reported to the IRS. If there are no taxes on "tips", they are not reportable to anyone, and no pesky reporter can report your "tip" income.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Wow, this is entirely too plausible. Why isn't their reporting on it?

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

There was, when the ruling first came down. Responsible journalists tend to operate on events, with facts that can be verified. When the ruling happened, there were a lot of "Here's what this means" articles, talking in the abstract about things that haven't happened yet. They only got published because they were timely because of the ruling.

Now, we have no actual information that this guy is gonna grift "gratuitues" out of his position, other than he's a Trump insider and that's what they do. But responsible outlets won't report on it unless there is clear evidence.

Now if we find out there are facts backing up the idea, these responsible journalists have already done a lot of the legwork, so they just add the new facts and can publish something timely again.