Can someone smarter than me help me understand how the United States seems to have completely given up on forcing presidents to divest their business interests while in the presidency?

Writer. Building @pinatacloud. Working on simple static site hosting https://orbiter.host \ https://polluterofminds.com

You and I would both agree a company that hires for a crypto role, would probably want someone knowledgeable about crypto, and we would both agree that you have to be in crypto to get that knowledge. For some reason this logic shouldn't work for government, then we wonder why government can't get anything done.

There’s a difference between having experience in an industry and being actively involved. Divestment is an important tool to protect against corruption. Is it perfect, no? But does it mitigate corruption? I believe so, yes

That's not even a falsifiable question 🤣 

Yes, sure. People want to do that, but probably the only real meaningful path to that has been the creation of A.I.

20th Century President's have always been leaders in business and well connected elites in the United States, except for a few like Roosevelt who's career was propelled via war.

19th century presidents were all basically lawyers, so you may have a point with divesting business interests there, but then you're asserting the only people who should be presidents are lawyers and the military.

And you don’t think there has been a history of mitigating business interests while in the White House? You think it’s always been this way?

Not possible. This is a talking point by every out of power political party.

Key business relationships and real estate is the backbone of American society. Every politician is long US assets in the short term or long term. Every politician has exposure to these assets via themselves or their families. They are by definition connected regardless if they like it or not.