Joe Exotic posts on instagram that his husband was deported by ICE after years of shilling for Donald Trump.

  • Aconite@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Remember how last time Trump won he ordered a chauffeur to pull up to the prison because he was sure Trump would pardon him? This guys loves the leopard buffet.

  • stebo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 days ago

    He’s gay and married to an immigrant and still voted trump? I knew magaheads were dense but this is neutron star level density!

      • Renohren@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        Wait. I’m French so this made my brain fry.

        In the US prisoners have their constitutional rights removed?

        • JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          Oh it’s worse than that.

          This is maybe not well known outside the US - the US Constitution specifically carves out an exception in the 13th amendment - the amendment which made slavery illegal* in the US - which allows convicted criminals to be used as slaves.

          We also have in our fifth amendment that anyone can be deprived of their right to life, liberty or property via the due process of the law.

          So, via these two aspects of these amendments, you can technically be deprived of any rights you might hold once you are convicted of a crime and placed in prison. Of course, that is not exactly true. You do still have rights and many lawyers make it their livelihoods to try to secure prisoners their rights. At the same time, though, it’s really not much consolation, since we still absolutely do use prisoners as slave labor, and constantly overlook the unjust abuse and killing of prisoners.

          * While Illegal on paper, slavery was still carried out for a century after. Emancipation happened in 1863, 13th amendment in 1865, but there were still cases of privately owned slaves as recently as 1963

        • InputZero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          Yup! In America convicted felons are not allowed to vote in federal elections and depending on the law of the state they are not allowed to vote in state or municipal elections either. As a result of these policies a disproportionate amount of black and Latino communities have had their right to vote stripped away.

          • woelkchen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Yup! In America convicted felons are not allowed to vote in federal elections

            Joe Exotic should just get elected as president. For whatever reason that’s OK.

          • Renohren@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            I checked it out and about 4.4 million US citizens cannot vote (excluding the real 51st state: Puerto-Rico) including 1/19 blacks. That’s crazy, it’s as if the country is setup for a one party system from the get go. You don’t need huge prisoner cohorts to make the 3% difference needed for you to remain in power while maintaining an illusion of democracy.

            • SippyCup@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 days ago

              This was by design and started shortly after the civil war. During reconstruction when the South was effectively occupied there was a decade or so where it looked like black people might actually enjoy some enfranchisement. But then the dirty compromise happened and Jim Crow took over. Suddenly black people were going to jail for the most minor infractions, and if they couldn’t get them to break the law, they just lied and said they did anyway.

            • Strider@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 days ago

              German here.

              Amazing, right? I found out a few years ago. Between this, gerrymandering and 2 right parties, that hasnt been a democracy for a long time.

              • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 days ago

                You have to understand that it’s impressive we got as democratic as we are. Our democracy began with caususes of landowning white men above the age of 21. We were in many ways modeled after the Roman republic, which was also a clusterfuck

          • Restis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            So… Does this mean the current sitting American president couldn’t vote in the last election?

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              It’s a matter of state law, as most election stuff is. Trump could vote because he’s a resident of Florida and Florida only bars people convicted of felonies in Florida from voting, and only then until they have fully completed the punishment laid upon them (meaning both any custodial sentence and any fines). Trump was convicted of felonies in New York, so Florida doesn’t care and Trump could vote.

              EDIT: I was incorrect regarding Florida law. Florida also bans people convicted of crimes from voting in Florida if the state where they were convicted would prevent them from voting. This doesn’t impact Trump because New York does not do this.

            • addison@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              He was convicted in a state court, not a federal court, so the rules are a bit different.

              Additionally, elections are administered at the state level, rather than federally, so his home state of Florida makes the rules allowing or disallowing his vote.

              CNN wrote a piece about it on election day.

        • WraithGear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Listen. In the us, …. Well…

          Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

          -13th Amendment almost abolishing slavery.

        • Match!!@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          you should look at America’s use of prison (slave) labor, if you haven’t already

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          they are also legally slaves! the 13th amendment didn’t remove slavery completely:

          Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

          BFE

  • frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 days ago

    Hahaha, you think a gay dude’s getting one of Trump’s golden tickets for US citizenship? I mean come on, has he even raped any women? Remember, trans ones don’t count!

    • icmpecho@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      i absolutely hate this, and at the same time, you’re entirely on point here. it’s beginning to feel a lot like sex crimes are a rite of passage to the new regime, bonus points if it’s a hate crime directed at a trans person

      • WarlockoftheWoods@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        What do you mean “sex crimes”? There’s about to be no such thing by the end of the next 4 years. Women won’t be able to report crimes

        • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          I’m pretty certain they’ll still be able to report a crime, but it becomes selectively enforced and used to control people.

          Or they encourage victims to speak up, then force them to marry their rapist and remove all agency from them in that marriage to prevent them from speaking about it again.

          Or both.

          Or something worse than all of the above.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        I’m honestly surprised they haven’t lowered the age of consent to 12 whilst accusing transpeople of being pedos at the same time somehow.

  • 1995ToyotaCorolla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    These people never seem to realize that maybe he was the baddie after all and instead try leaning into it even harder in some attempt to appease him. It’s frustrating how frequently this happens.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Good! NO MORE IMMIGRANTS! But if he had $5Million I would also be ok with him coming back because RICH PEOPLE are BETTER then ME!

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Wait he’s actually gay? I never knew that

    How do you deport a husband anyway, doesn’t marriage guarantee citizenship?

    • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      doesn’t marriage guarantee citizenship?

      Not really in practice. There are other stories of spouses married to US citizens and being the parent to US babies. These guys are literally ripping families apart. They did it the first time and they are doing it now.

      There is a ‘path’ but the hoops you would have to jump through mean you’ll self deport and be away from your family for a very long time(by design). The immigration system is backed up after all. Plus what ever stable job you had will be gone after the months to years long wait.

      • Kitathalla@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Even 20+ years ago, it was a struggle. I had a boss who had married someone from Guatemala (I think, or maybe Peru? it’s been a decade since I talked to him) while he was in the military overseas, and ended up having a child with her. When he came back, it took TWO YEARS, the wife and child left behind in south america the entire time, to get them approved to come and live back in the states.

        edit: 20+ years ago, not 15. I forgot how long it had been since I worked for him.

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      You cannot change your status if you weren’t “inspected on arrival” (have a visa) and you’re banned from re-entering the country to be “inspected” for a decade after you leave. So if you overstay your visa you could change to permanent residence since you were “inspected” but if you never had a visa in the first place there’s no pathway to legal residence even if you’re married to an American citizen and have American citizen children.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        You know what? No. “Husband” “Wife” and “Spouse” have a legal meaning that has ramifications in tax and contract law, so I can only assume (especially from someone of his ethical caliber) that using such language is attempted fraud.

        • Pregnenolone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          lol okay word police.

          I’m sure this keeps you up at night tossing and turning that someone used the word husband when it wasn’t technically correct under the strict definition of ThE lEgAl SyStEm

          • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            Okay so, other than “husband” and “woman” are there any other words the left don’t want to allow defining? How long is this list going to get?

            • OccultIconoclast@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              Hello I’m the left’s official spokesperson and I think I can clear up this confusion.

              A woman is someone who wants to be a woman.

              A husband is someone who wants to be a husband and has consent from the person they’re a husband of.

              Both of these words are identities, and letting people be who they want to be when it doesn’t affect other people is one of the values of the left. So you can go ahead and extend this reasoning to all personal identities that don’t harm others, and I think that answers your question.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            People can do whatever they want with their relationships, but if they want a union recognized by the government and the advantages conferred by that, then yes the state can regulate that