I apologize for the many questions.

I’m still baffled by all the mess surrounding the US elections. Before blaming the people, I’m wondering how it is even possible that Trump could be eligible in the first place. How could the administration allow him to be represented after all the felonies, including those where he clearly sold his country by sharing top secret information with Putin? It seems there is evidence that he has been a puppet for decades. I mean, isn’t that the definition of a traitor? What were the secret services doing? Wasn’t the FBI created to combat the very thing Trump is? Where is all the anti-communist sentiment that the US has become accustomed to?

  • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
    22·
    18 days ago

    The theory was that any other social disqualifications would be handled at the ballot box.

    That theory is now proven to be incorrect, but fixing it takes a constitutional amendment.

    That could be a slippery slope too. Imagine a constitutional amendment making someone ineligible because of a “social disqualification” such as sexual orientation.

    • SkyeStarfall
      2·
      18 days ago

      As if a queer president could get elected these days

      In the end worrying about this hypothetical is what made the situation actually life-threatening to queer people

    • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      18 days ago

      In what way would barring felons lead to barring gays? People use the words “slippery slope” to make their point, even though it’s literally the name of a logical fallacy. You have to show HOW one will lead to the next, not just say “a little might lead more!” That, exactly, is the fallacy. Textbook.

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        3·
        17 days ago

        Calm down and read again. The person said social disqualification as opposed to judicial conviction, and I’m saying social disqualification being a vague notion could lead to easier abuse by the political power to shut down opposition.