338
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] warm@kbin.earth 27 points 3 months ago

Why can a felon run for president?

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 75 points 3 months ago

Because if they couldn't, elected officials would just have their opponents brought up on weak technical charges just to get them disqualfied.

"Sir, you have been found guilty of jaywalking. As this is the third time you've been charged with this crime, that bumps it up to a felony under the ijustmadethisup act of 1793. The fine will be $50+ court costs. I also have to let you know that because you are a convicted felon, you are no longer allowed to run for office and have been removed from the ballot. Have a nice day."

Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.

[-] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 15 points 3 months ago

Maybe draw the line at idk, 30 felonies? That should cover any political bs.

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago

You do realize Trump is kind of historic right? Imagine we went from Obama to Biden. Then, try to think of a single president who just went "I'm president so I can do what I want"

[-] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 15 points 3 months ago

He is very historic. The biggest loser, the most lies, the most felonies, the most impeachments..... the list can on for literally days.

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 months ago

Okay, okay. Let’s dispense with the silly insults.

Trump is historic because of his complete and utter disregard for the law - even Nixon knew when it was over. Trump has led about 30% of the populace to believe that election integrity was an issue - but only for the 2020 election. Beyond the general disregard for the common good that the Republicans previously celebrated, he has given them a direction for utter chaos.

Regardless of if you like him or not, he is historic and will be remembered. One can only imagine that Smith will be equally remembered

[-] big_slap@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

so it's up to us not to vote for people who have 34 felony charges, got it.

[-] EpeeGnome@lemm.ee 15 points 3 months ago

Correction: 34 felony convictions.

[-] villainy@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

34 felony convictions so far.

[-] pivot_root@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Well, we're fucked.

[-] warm@kbin.earth 5 points 3 months ago

Hah. Fair enough

[-] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.

You joke but this bullshit tactic has been historically used to suppress voter's rights for over a century. Charge someone with a bullshit felony and they lose their right to vote forever.

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Right, but I'm talking about running for office. Using this tactic to prevent people from running for office is an entirely different, and much bigger, can of worms.

[-] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

While everyone is right about the reasoning, no one brought up the relevant historical example: Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election... which is unfortunate because it's a good one.

Euegen Debs was a socialist candidate who ran in the 1920 elections after being jailed by Wilson's Sedition Act of 1918 for opposing the US joining WW1 and the accompanying draft.

[-] sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 3 months ago

I was not familiar with this historical fact, thanks for the info! That's definitely a good example of why it shouldn't bar someone outright.

[-] nova@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago

Because if you're able to invalidate your opponent's candidacy for president, it makes a fascist takeover that much easier. Just change the laws so that any political opposition can't run against you, and bam your party has indefinite control.

[-] trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 months ago

If felons can't vote (they should be able to), they sure as shit shouldn't be able to run for office.

[-] joyjoy@lemm.ee 18 points 3 months ago

If it makes you feel better, he can't vote for himself.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

This does make me feel better. Thank you.

[-] Chocrates@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

He is a Floridian though, doesn't it take a "simple" meeting with DeSantis's hand picked committee to get his voting rights back?

[-] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That's an interesting question since it isn't a Florida felony that he was convicted of. However, the Florida law about felony voting already has several caveats. It only takes effect after the felony stuff is "done" as in time-served, parole done, and relevant fines paid. Then you have the committee approval which for Trump would likely be a high-five.

[-] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Nope. I'm not sure which law states that a convicted felon can't vote, but I know for sure it takes quite a few years to change such foundational laws and this will not happen quickly enough.

It can happen for the election after Biden v Trump tho.

[-] Chocrates@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Florida just changed their laws on that. As others have said though that Florida laws require it to be finished so if Trump appeals I think that is right out.

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Wait, why not?

Edit: Oh, right. This isn't the Honorable Judge Cannon. These are state felonies presided by a judge who understands the government functions

[-] rigatti@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Can he look over Melanie's shoulder while she votes for him like last time?

[-] Peer@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 months ago

Because when voters feel the punishment was unjust, they can choose to ignore it. For example: Nelson Mandela.

[-] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Nelson Mandela ran for president of the US?

[-] MorrisonMotel6@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

I remember that he was the President of the US right before he died

[-] sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So, let's say a political party is somehow at fault for charging and getting a verdict of an opponent. This would make it very easy to block anyone from running against the party in power if they so choose.

The founding fathers saw how much of an issue this would be so limited the reasons for blocking someone from running for office. I don't think hush money is a good reason (though, doing so to block info that would make him lose an election I think should be but that will be up to the court)

[-] warm@kbin.earth 1 points 3 months ago

Isn't there a bigger problem than who can run for president at that point?

this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
338 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18883 readers
6049 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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