Why the fuck is Trump even able to run? He’s literally a fucking criminal, and was impeached. I dont understand how our political system or even judicial systems work at this point.
That being said, convicted “criminals” should still be able to run for any public office in my opinion. A tyrant CAN capture the judiciary and imprison their political opponents. This is in fact what happened in the Indian elections right now. This is in fact what happened in the US elections in the early 1900s, where a socialist candidate ran for President from prison. What was his crime? Striking when the State had deemed it illegal to do so.
Happened in Brazil too in 2016. Corrupt prosecutor (now congressman) worked with corrupt judge (who later became justice minister and is currently a senator) to imprison Lula. He couldn’t run for the presidency and Bolsonaro got it. Later, the Supreme Court found that the case was based on lies and there were coordination between the prosecutor and the judge and they reinstated Lula’s freedom and political rights.
But now, the tables have turned, and after Bolsonaro’s actions in the failed coup on 2022, the Supreme Court took away Bolsonaro’s political rights and he can’t be a candidates for any office until 2030.
No, a correlation between being black and being arrested for weed. In my city, they made the legal status of the drug indeterminate and gave cops DISCRETION on whether to arrest or cite someone for having pot. Not a felony now in any event, misdemeanor or civil citation or nothing but how do you think this discretion will be used?
Nixon did specifically consider weed a hippies and black people thing, but even if that was statistically true selective enforcement was always the plan.
You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
"You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon
Oh sweet summer child, everyone smokes weed. Cannabis prohibition was about giving police the power to arrest anyone they want to - and they used that power to arrest Black people.
And if you don’t smoke weed? Well what about this little baggy we “found in your pocket”?
Not that I care about either of you guys or your argument, but I gotta point out that it’s a phrase intended to be insulting and condescending. You’re just letting the other guy know they got to you by writing this.
Based, but I never denied that. I gave them the benefit of the doubt because I’ve unironically seen people saying stuff like this without realizing that it has a negative connotation.
I never understood the logic behind that. What’s the reason for it?
Are we afraid that all of the criminals will form a Crime Party and campaign to legalize burglary and murder? 😈
Or do we think the type of person who would commit a violent crime is going to be incentivized to not commit a crime because of losing their right to vote, in a country where half the people don’t vote anyway?
Before I mug this old lady, I really should consider that this upcoming election has huge ramifications and I really don’t want to risk losing my right to vote. I don’t mind jail, community service, or monetary fines; it’s voting that might prevent me from commiting this offense. 🤓
No, I think it’s more likely that some people don’t want other people who are disproportionately convicted of crimes (you know, those people) to have a voice.
I’d like it if anyone convicted of fraud / criminal deceit / murder could never be president, but as our nation’s common sense appears to have withered and died, the intent would eventually be twisted to suit some nefarious purpose.
Those people never realized their stance is just as idiotic as “I cross the street without looking both ways because if they run me over, they’ll have to pay”… or “I have the seat belt on, I can crash at top speed and nothing will happen to me”
There are no hard requirements for being president beyond those listed in the Constitution:
Be a natural born US citizen
Be at least 35 years old
Have resided in the US for 14 or more years.
That’s it. The framers of the Constitution presumably felt being a convicted felon would be enough for an electorate (or the electoral college, at least) to simply not vote for that person.
also this prevents a rogue prosecutor and judge from convicting a presidential candidate and blocking them from running. this way it is up to the people, whether the conviction is legitimate or not.
to be clear i am not saying trump’s conviction is illegitimate, just speaking generally. i could definitely see a world where trump pushes for this with a Democrat candidate (remember all the “lock her up” stuff?). i hope the legal system is robust enough to appeal a rogue situation but at some point it may not be.
And what happens when medical science increases life expectancy? U would have to amend the constitution to pass this. Think of how nightmarish it is to do this. Now think of amending this AGAIN when life expectancy increases every year.
Does not lie about well known facts from scientist, like Covid-19.
Who decides what “well known facts” are? A particular non-political committee? The supreme court was supposed to be this committee. It clearly became political quickly…
And what happens when medical science increases life expectancy?
Make the upper age limit be average life expectancy minus X years. This has the added bonus of motivating politicians to actually try to increase average life expectancy.
Who decides what “well known facts” are?
The scientific community, and certainly not the Supreme Court. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
The scientific community, and certainly not the Supreme Court.
Because there are different “scientific communities” - some of them rogue and stupid. I’m not the poster you were responding to, but I would assume that the arbiter of your hypothetical of which scientific communities would be valid would go to the Supreme Court.
No. The scientific community polices* itself with peer review. The rogue and stupid communities are peer reviewed out of existence. You can submit all the falsified “research” you want, but if your published results can’t be replicated, you will be labeled a quack and your “findings” will go ignored by the rest of the scientific community.
No government-affiliated judicial body is involved in verifying science, because judges are experts in law, not science.
instead of this I would like to see independent physical and mental acuity tests performed and released publicly. no need to bring age into it if they are fit. and if they aren’t fit they shouldn’t be able to run even if they’re young.
Sure but I also want that the person to be able to last the whole 4 years period without running into any of those health issues with time. Might be hard to get the health measurements right and get people to accept it. Easier for people to just understand the person did not meet the age criteria.
Thought leaders have been raising this issue for years. Among those calling for barring criminals from running for office: some guy named Donald Trump.
Because nobody is actually stopping him. Republican state level leaders all love him. Dems are too terrified to threaten him with more than a wrist slap. The police are in his corner. Big Business is bankrolling him. The Media keeps accidentally falling face first onto his dick. And 1:3 Americans still insist he’s better than The Other Guy.
So he’s still listed on all the ballots. He’s still the GOP’s nominee. And if he wins the lion’s share of electoral college votes (by hook or by crook) he’s going to be the President in January.
In Germany, if you’re in jail you can’t be elected into office. You can however always cast your vote even from jail (except for rare and extreme political crimes such as terrorism, starting a war and such)
He IS a felon. But while he went through the impeachment process several times, he was never convicted. And there is no rule or law that says a felon can’t be president.
While voting for Trump, or even entertaining his views, is a red flag warning. Like it or not, he is legally entitled to run. Perhaps the rules and laws should be changed. But to do that would require either a unified congress or a super majority of a party willing to do so. And I suspect, that as it currently stands, neither side wants to limit themselves from gaining the power and status of national or state office brings to them for any reason.
Oh, I whole heartily agree. There is a lot tit for tat in politics. And rules are meant to be bent and twisted to one’s own end. It could end up being a slippery slope as easily as not.
it could also be an amendment to the constitution if enough states agree but that’s probably even less likely.
and i’m not sure it should be. i could definitely see a world where trump pushes for conviction of a Democrat candidate (remember all the “lock her up” stuff?). i hope the legal system is robust enough to appeal a rogue court situation but at some point it may not be. And elections are time sensitive, would the appeal even finish before the election?
flawed as it may be this could be the best solution to guard against authoritarianism.
Why the fuck is Trump even able to run? He’s literally a fucking criminal, and was impeached. I dont understand how our political system or even judicial systems work at this point.
Disclaimer: Fuck Trump.
That being said, convicted “criminals” should still be able to run for any public office in my opinion. A tyrant CAN capture the judiciary and imprison their political opponents. This is in fact what happened in the Indian elections right now. This is in fact what happened in the US elections in the early 1900s, where a socialist candidate ran for President from prison. What was his crime? Striking when the State had deemed it illegal to do so.
Happened in Brazil too in 2016. Corrupt prosecutor (now congressman) worked with corrupt judge (who later became justice minister and is currently a senator) to imprison Lula. He couldn’t run for the presidency and Bolsonaro got it. Later, the Supreme Court found that the case was based on lies and there were coordination between the prosecutor and the judge and they reinstated Lula’s freedom and political rights.
But now, the tables have turned, and after Bolsonaro’s actions in the failed coup on 2022, the Supreme Court took away Bolsonaro’s political rights and he can’t be a candidates for any office until 2030.
In most us states they take your voting right when you are convicted. This is not compatible with running for president as a convict imo.
Have you considered that maybe that’s tyranny as well?
What if, for example, someone decided to make weed a felony because he couldn’t outright make being black illegal?
Wait is there a correlation between being black and smoking weed?
No, a correlation between being black and being arrested for weed. In my city, they made the legal status of the drug indeterminate and gave cops DISCRETION on whether to arrest or cite someone for having pot. Not a felony now in any event, misdemeanor or civil citation or nothing but how do you think this discretion will be used?
Nixon did specifically consider weed a hippies and black people thing, but even if that was statistically true selective enforcement was always the plan.
It’s baffling to me how info like this is public and people still believe the republicans were the good guys.
Ah, that makes more sense.
"You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional
Oh sweet summer child, everyone smokes weed. Cannabis prohibition was about giving police the power to arrest anyone they want to - and they used that power to arrest Black people.
And if you don’t smoke weed? Well what about this little baggy we “found in your pocket”?
I really, really, really hate the phrase “Oh sweet summer child”. Is it possible to be any more patronizing? Couldn’t you just say it normally?
Not that I care about either of you guys or your argument, but I gotta point out that it’s a phrase intended to be insulting and condescending. You’re just letting the other guy know they got to you by writing this.
Based, but I never denied that. I gave them the benefit of the doubt because I’ve unironically seen people saying stuff like this without realizing that it has a negative connotation.
deleted by creator
Yup. Also:
New cool word discovered!
There has certainly been a correlation for being black and being charged with possession of weed if that’s what you mean.
I never understood the logic behind that. What’s the reason for it?
Are we afraid that all of the criminals will form a Crime Party and campaign to legalize burglary and murder? 😈
Or do we think the type of person who would commit a violent crime is going to be incentivized to not commit a crime because of losing their right to vote, in a country where half the people don’t vote anyway?
No, I think it’s more likely that some people don’t want other people who are disproportionately convicted of crimes (you know, those people) to have a voice.
I’d like it if anyone convicted of fraud / criminal deceit / murder could never be president, but as our nation’s common sense appears to have withered and died, the intent would eventually be twisted to suit some nefarious purpose.
Funny how 8 years ago, people kept saying “don’t worry about Trump, there are checks and balances in place”. None of that talk this time around!
Because there’s now an infrastructure built up around him with plans on how to override those checks and balances (Project 2025).
We also saw the checks and balances do fuckall because they were captured by fellow criminals.
Those people never realized their stance is just as idiotic as “I cross the street without looking both ways because if they run me over, they’ll have to pay”… or “I have the seat belt on, I can crash at top speed and nothing will happen to me”
There are no hard requirements for being president beyond those listed in the Constitution:
That’s it. The framers of the Constitution presumably felt being a convicted felon would be enough for an electorate (or the electoral college, at least) to simply not vote for that person.
also this prevents a rogue prosecutor and judge from convicting a presidential candidate and blocking them from running. this way it is up to the people, whether the conviction is legitimate or not.
to be clear i am not saying trump’s conviction is illegitimate, just speaking generally. i could definitely see a world where trump pushes for this with a Democrat candidate (remember all the “lock her up” stuff?). i hope the legal system is robust enough to appeal a rogue situation but at some point it may not be.
I would like to see more requirements:
And what happens when medical science increases life expectancy? U would have to amend the constitution to pass this. Think of how nightmarish it is to do this. Now think of amending this AGAIN when life expectancy increases every year.
Who decides what “well known facts” are? A particular non-political committee? The supreme court was supposed to be this committee. It clearly became political quickly…
Make the upper age limit be average life expectancy minus X years. This has the added bonus of motivating politicians to actually try to increase average life expectancy.
The scientific community, and certainly not the Supreme Court. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Because there are different “scientific communities” - some of them rogue and stupid. I’m not the poster you were responding to, but I would assume that the arbiter of your hypothetical of which scientific communities would be valid would go to the Supreme Court.
No. The scientific community polices* itself with peer review. The rogue and stupid communities are peer reviewed out of existence. You can submit all the falsified “research” you want, but if your published results can’t be replicated, you will be labeled a quack and your “findings” will go ignored by the rest of the scientific community.
No government-affiliated judicial body is involved in verifying science, because judges are experts in law, not science.
Do you know how long it takes to replicate another’s studies? Sometimes that never happens.
Are you suggesting that the United States Supreme Court weighs in on scientific studies that haven’t been replicated yet?
instead of this I would like to see independent physical and mental acuity tests performed and released publicly. no need to bring age into it if they are fit. and if they aren’t fit they shouldn’t be able to run even if they’re young.
Sure but I also want that the person to be able to last the whole 4 years period without running into any of those health issues with time. Might be hard to get the health measurements right and get people to accept it. Easier for people to just understand the person did not meet the age criteria.
Thought leaders have been raising this issue for years. Among those calling for barring criminals from running for office: some guy named Donald Trump.
Shouldn’t you have the right to run for office when you have paid back your debt to society?
I mean if you can get an opponent convicted and it prevents them running, it feels kind of undemocratic.
BTW I’m not talking about tRump, he should be behind bars since ages already.
Yeah probably. The same logic ought to be applied to felons who currently lose their right to vote. Rights being treated as privileges…
I’m pretty sure the last guy to run for office from a cell was a socialist.
Because nobody is actually stopping him. Republican state level leaders all love him. Dems are too terrified to threaten him with more than a wrist slap. The police are in his corner. Big Business is bankrolling him. The Media keeps accidentally falling face first onto his dick. And 1:3 Americans still insist he’s better than The Other Guy.
So he’s still listed on all the ballots. He’s still the GOP’s nominee. And if he wins the lion’s share of electoral college votes (by hook or by crook) he’s going to be the President in January.
In Germany, if you’re in jail you can’t be elected into office. You can however always cast your vote even from jail (except for rare and extreme political crimes such as terrorism, starting a war and such)
He IS a felon. But while he went through the impeachment process several times, he was never convicted. And there is no rule or law that says a felon can’t be president.
While voting for Trump, or even entertaining his views, is a red flag warning. Like it or not, he is legally entitled to run. Perhaps the rules and laws should be changed. But to do that would require either a unified congress or a super majority of a party willing to do so. And I suspect, that as it currently stands, neither side wants to limit themselves from gaining the power and status of national or state office brings to them for any reason.
This is by design. So you can’t just get some charges on your opponent and disqualify them
By the same logic felons should be allowed to vote. Instead you got the war on drugs
they should.
Wait, Trump isn’t allowed to vote now? Lol if true.
Oh, I whole heartily agree. There is a lot tit for tat in politics. And rules are meant to be bent and twisted to one’s own end. It could end up being a slippery slope as easily as not.
Technically he is not a felon until he is sentenced. So he will be a felon on July 11th.
That said I agree not letting people run from office because of convictions just incentives the state to go after political enemies.
it could also be an amendment to the constitution if enough states agree but that’s probably even less likely.
and i’m not sure it should be. i could definitely see a world where trump pushes for conviction of a Democrat candidate (remember all the “lock her up” stuff?). i hope the legal system is robust enough to appeal a rogue court situation but at some point it may not be. And elections are time sensitive, would the appeal even finish before the election?
flawed as it may be this could be the best solution to guard against authoritarianism.
look at the aileen cannon situation. if that’s not a rogue court, i don’t know what is
exactly, imagine her overseeing a BS felony trial on Biden or whatever other D candidate.
With a lot of grease.
Note: “grease” is old slang for money.
I prefer “kabloingie”, personally.
This is how the constitution is written. This scenario was never foreseen and our founders were naive.