politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
By that logic, we should then remove all barriers to run. If a convicted criminal can run, there's no reason a 28 year old with no criminal background can't.
(Getting this out of the way first: I'm not a Trump supporter.)
Convicted felons can and have run for President in the past. Some campaigns have even been run from prison. Disqualifying somebody from running for office because of a conviction is extremely easy to weaponize. It's the next step in removing somebody's right to vote because of a conviction (a thing we do/have done and shouldn't).
I agree with you on the age thing, though. If you can vote, you should be able to hold office.
I think the charges are pertinent. Anything directly related to undermining the very democracy you seek to lead, should be disqualifying. Likewise anyone convicted of some voter fraud crimes should have their right to vote revoked. Now I don't mean all crimes in this areas. But there are definitely some that should stick around
cough cough 14th Amendment, Section 3. cough cough
For those who don't want to follow the reference:
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
This is the correct answer, in my opinion. Someone that went through a tough patch earlier in life and was convicted of stealing a car or something? Largely irrelevant to their ability to govern, if previous crimes were compensated for (i.e. they served their sentence). Actively inciting a coup to forcefully stay in office? Yeah, that's a deal breaker.
Regardless, if Trump gets convicted of any of these crimes, that mother fucker will be serving prison time. How can he possibly be president if he's in jail? At least, for this 2024 cycle. Honestly, I don't see him lasting another 10 years anyway, so I feel this whole debate will ultimately serve fruitless beyond the 2024 presidency.
Sure, now you just need enough evidence to get 12 people (who statistically are going to end up including at least a couple of Republicans and at least one outright Trump supporter) to unanimously agree that he did that and go through the whole process before the election.
Can't use the criminal justice system to prevent an elected official from discharging their duties - the most legitimate use of this is to prevent the DC police from being functionally a third house of Congress by detaining people they expect to vote "wrong."
So presumably a Trump convicted of crimes that don't bar him from office (and there are enough different charges in enough courts that he could very well be in prison but not barred from office depending on what sticks) and then elected would be let out for the duration of his term, to the degree required to discharge his duties and put back in the hole at 12:01PM Jan 20, 2029 (like an especially prestigious example of work release). But that's never a bridge we've had to worry about crossing before, so who knows what would actually be done.
The problem is that government isn't a computer. Plenty of corrupt governments convict political opponents of stuff like that all the time to bar them from running.
I agree with the other user, there should be as few barriers to who can run as possible, because the more restrictions there are, the more levers bad actors can pull while having some air of legitimacy.
We have a mechanism for this already: impeachment.
Impeachment. Lmfao.
"You irreversibly damaged our society, we're going to have a very stern talk when your term as leader is up, not before. No, we won't undo any of the damage you caused."
Some of the things he's been charged with are, but there are SO MANY CHARGES and only some of them would disqualify him from holding office, if convicted. And there's no solid grounds to deny him anything other than an opportunity to flee the courts until he's actually convicted of something.
The problem is it's not the felony, it's the crime; Conspiracy against the government is what disqualifies, not simply a felony
If this actually works, the next step will be abolishing the two-term limit. "Leave it to the will of the people to decide if they want a dictatorship."
Well, basically, this is the gist of "a republic, if you can keep it". At the end of the day, my boy Montesquieu's words hang over all government like a spectre. Governments rule only by the consent of the governed. If everyone woke up tomorrow and decided we wanted Lenin's mummified goatee to be president, constitution be damned, Biden be damned, it'd be the president.
Might as well ditch the citizenship requirement while we're at it.
Elon musk starts sweating
oh god, Elon isn't running for president, is he?? (edit: genuine question asked out of concern that Elon may be running)
Can't. He was born in South Africa.
No thank God but he absolutely would if it wasn't for that pesky "gotta be born here" law.
There's a good case to be made that the 35 year old restriction is dumb and should be amended out.