He. Tried. To. Kill. You.

    • BanditMcDougal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      (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.

      • meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

          • MrBananaMan@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            52
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

        • bassomitron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Actively inciting a coup to forcefully stay in office? Yeah, that’s a deal breaker.

            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.

            How can he possibly be president if he’s in jail?

            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.

        • Zalack@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Cabrio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.”

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Anything directly related to undermining the very democracy you seek to lead, should be disqualifying.

          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.

      • Hexarei@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is it’s not the felony, it’s the crime; Conspiracy against the government is what disqualifies, not simply a felony

    • TheCraiggers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.”

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • elscallr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a good case to be made that the 35 year old restriction is dumb and should be amended out.