Comment on [deleted]

• nomous@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The obvious answer is: because then it would be incredibly easy to target any “undesirable” (who just so happens to be politically active) and come up with a felony to charge them with.

  source

  • LiamMayfair@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    This makes sense. HOWEVER. That’s not really what’s happening here now, is it?

    source

    • Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You can be upset, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to outlaw running for president as a criminal. Russia exists as a case study.

      source
    • mayo@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It’s a problem because it’s not just Trump, it’s whole party that has gone way off the rails. Bundy could run but he wouldn’t win.

      There’s only like 3 rules to becoming president and one is age and other is being an american. The bar is intentionally low.

      source

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Well, one of the rules is not committing treason or sedition and yet we’re still here, so that shows you how useful rules are

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Lionheadbud@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Is it incredibly easy to charge people with felonies?

    source

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It is if you control the judiciary.

      source
    • nomous@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yes.

      source
    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yes actually. There’s a book called three felonies a day all about that.

      source
• Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because a president could then simply jail his opponents. If the people want to have a convicted felon as their president, in the spirit of democracy, nobody has the right to tell them that they can’t

  source