• Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is my thing. I feel like barring anyone shouldn’t be necessary. I would imagine if a giant, annoying sack of shit runs for office, they just wouldn’t even come close to winning. They should be able to run given virtually any circumstance and if they’re a terrible person or a criminal, the voters (ideally) would just not vote for that person. The situation we’re currently in is just wild.

    • StinkyOnions@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      10 months ago

      No, they shouldn’t. It’s a privilege to run for president, not a right. If you engage in trying to overthrow the government, you lose all privileges to run for ANY office. If regular jobs can bar you for being a criminal, then the highest office in the country should even be more rigorous. You apologists will be the end of us.

      • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        lmao who in the holy hell am i apologizing for? I’m just saying you would think the american voters would never in a million years vote for someone like trump. You would think that it wouldn’t matter if he was on the ballot because he is so far from adequately filling the station of president that the american voters wouldn’t even give that candidate a second thought on account of… well pretty much everything but let’s go with criminality. the fact that he needs to be barred otherwise he would win the election or come very close is absolutely bonkers. Also, the fact that you not only disagree with the fact that the crux of the problem is the american voter simply cannot be trusted while also calling that apologizing for trump is so crazy

        • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          What is this hypothetical eutopia you’re conflating with the US? Anyone paying attention over the last decade knows how troubled this country really is. There’s a seriously fucked up portion that fluctuates between 20-33% of the country. There’s also roughly 10-15% in addition to that that are so ignorant they’ll let just about anything happen.

          I’m not sure what you mean by “the American voter can’t be trusted”… We voted Trump out in 2020. The problem is conservative voters can’t be trusted not to burn the country down in the face of losing power. I’m not even a Democrat, that’s how clear this has become.

          • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            i feel like we are in complete agreement here but for some reason you don’t think so. I agree the country is troubled. I agree there is a big portion of the voter base that will vote for someone unfit for presidency. I agree there’s also a decent portion that are ignorant or don’t really care what happens. I agree conservative voters can’t be trusted and may cause issues if they lose power… which means they can’t be trusted… unless you’re saying conservatives aren’t American voters somehow?

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      I would imagine if a giant, annoying sack of shit runs for office, they just wouldn’t even come close to winning.

      2016: giant annoying sack of shit is elected

      • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        haha yup. now it’s like a shitty sequel where everything is worse but it still gets made somehow and somehow people pay to see it.

      • wooki@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Law has to be universally applied to all candidates.

        Otherwise dems risk being kept from office.

      • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Are you legitimately saying it’s illegal to vote for a candidate on the ballot if they are a convicted criminal? This is factual incorrect. A candidate must be at least 35 years old, born in the US and have lived there for at least 14 years. I think some states don’t allow felons to run for state and local positions but there aren’t any limitations based on your character or criminal record to run for federal office. Hell you can run from president WHILE in prison if you want. Tiger King did it last election and i believe is planning to run again this year haha. so not only can you run, obviously just voting for and electing them is not illegal…

        • FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          Per the 14th amendment, he was found to be an insurrectionist, so he disqualified himself. Why the fuck is that so hard for you to understand?

          • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            lol it’s not me. I feel like i’m taking crazy pills here. It’s the law of the US. There is NO disqualification of a candidate based on criminality. Again, criminal conviction does NOT affect eligibility or candidacy. Do you think i made the law or something? All i’m saying is any person can run regardless of their criminal record according to the constitution. I’m not quite sure why you are mad at me here…

            • FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Do you even know what the fucking 14th amendment is?

              Here you fucking dunce

              it banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate.

              We aren’t speaking about a criminal record, nor is that the issue at hand. Learn the fucking difference.

              • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                good lord. yes, i know about the 14th amendment. that’s why he’s not on the Colorado ballot. The problem is (like a ton of things in the constitution) it is outrageously vague. It doesnt clarify who is supposed to invoke it, or when, as in before or after a person is elected. the state court could use it, or congress. If the state uses it, it can easily be appealed to supreme court (which it already has in this case, and more than once). The supreme court since 1866 has still never ruled on the meaning or application of the insurrection clause. It has been used before, but (to my knowledge) only three times prior. One was via impeachement, one was just after being elected, one was barred from running. The impeached guy was a judge and never tried to run again. The other two appealed the 14th amendment ruling to the supreme court, they both won, and both ran again and both took office. All that to say, it is not a sturdy leg to stand on and certainly doesn’t make it automatically illegal for someone to run. If it did, he would not be running. If the supreme court votes that the 14th should be invoked then it would be illegal. Lastly, i would urge you to calm the fuck down man. Damn. You all are ornery as fuck around here. I don’t like the man any more than you do but i am just stating the law. As it stands at this very moment, the idiot can legally run.