Comment on Trump's eligibility

radix@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• oce@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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.

  source

  • Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I think Americans need to realise that Trump won by popular vote- anything to prevent this legally would be undemocratic. You’ll need to change social attitudes or maybe put up a better candidate/run a better campaign in opposition.

    source

    • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I think Americans need to realise that Trump won by popular vote

      That mean that most USians are appalling people.

      As a Latin-American suffering for decades the consequences of US foreign policies, I’m not surprised.

      source

      • sOlitude24k@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Gonna have to second this. We decided that, despite everything, none of it was a dealbreaker.

        It’s definitely tough to accept that 72 million Americans made that choice, and even more than that didn’t even give enough of a shit to turn up to vote.

        It’s disappointing and embarrassing.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I mean making someone ineligible to be president for as long as he is under investigation for insurrection, treason or other crimes against the United States sounds pretty straightforward.

      He could always wait and get back into it the next cycle if the investigation drops.

      source

      • kata1yst@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        It sounds straightforward until it’s used as a weapon by the sitting administration to prevent competition at the ballot box.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        I’d be honest, this makes political suppression easier. Just say this is the case, then next year, oops, all of the top dem candidates are being investigated. If people are dumb enough to want a traitor in office, then they should be able to carry out that stupidity democratically.

        source
    • Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I don’t disagree, but winning popular vote doesn’t always matter

      source
  • scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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.

    source

    • oce@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Come down and read again. The person said social disqualification as opposed to judicial conviction, and I’m saying social disqualification being vague could lead to eadier abuse by the political power.

      source
  • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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

    source
• Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Out of curiosity, can a judge strip someone from their election/vote right as part/alternative to a sentence ? It’s a relatively common sentence for French politicians found guilty of corruptions (Which save the cost of keeping them in prison and limit their ability to re-offend) but no idea whether it’s universal or unique

  source