• Python
    link
    fedilink
    English
    336 months ago

    Genuine question, but why is Trump even allowed to run? I vaguely know that there are some restrictions on who can become President (you have to be a certain age and be born in the USA iirc), how can it be that “Hasn’t been convicted for any crimes recently” isn’t a requirement?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      246 months ago

      He is literally barred from running by the Constitution because he committed an insurrection. Unfortunately the House, Senate, and Supreme Court are all somewhere between 50 and 67% Christofascist traitors.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        36 months ago

        He literally isn’t. If he literally was, he wouldn’t be running. He literally should be, by a literal interpretation of the law, but that’s literally not what’s happened.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It’s one of those safe-guards that democracy implements that’s currently having rather unintended consequences.

      The reasoning is that taking away voting rights is far too easy to abuse, and if a majority of people agree with whomever you wanted to prevent from voting/getting elected then you’re fucked anyway.

      Which, incidentally, is looking like a very real possibility right now.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        That reasoning is missing a crucial part: even if you’re fucked anyway, why is it still okay to put a criminal in charge? Will it improve anything? Or do we think of the “fucked” condition very differently?

    • Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      56 months ago

      I feel like they should introduce a rule that says that if you’re more bronzer than flesh, you’re not allowed to stand.

    • lime!
      link
      fedilink
      English
      436 months ago

      because political dissidents who are in jail for trying to overthrow a dictatorship should also be able to run. it’s one of those unfortunate situations where this would be a good thing to have under an authoritarian government…

        • lime!
          link
          fedilink
          English
          136 months ago

          of course not. the american “system of checks and balances” only works if everyone plays by the rules.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        19
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Under an authorisation government though I assume the law would be rescinded, so it’s not really protecting anybody.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          116 months ago

          I mean becoming an authoritarian government to prevent an authoritarian government doesn’t really make sense

          • paw
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16 months ago

            Sometimes you need to fight fire with fire

            /s

          • Echo Dot
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16 months ago

            That’s like saying we shouldn’t send anyone to prison because some of them might be innocent. You have to try your best with a system but that system has to be robust enough that it cannot be abused otherwise it will end up being abused.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              36 months ago

              If you want a system that cannot be abused then don’t remove the safeguards designed to fix mistakes.

              Allowed innocents to be released from prison, and allow the disenfranchised to regain their voting rights.

              This is why there is always a higher power to overrule previous decisions, and when it comes to elections there is no higher power than a majority.