I apologize for the many questions.
I’m still baffled by all the mess surrounding the US elections. Before blaming the people, I’m wondering how it is even possible that Trump could be eligible in the first place. How could the administration allow him to be represented after all the felonies, including those where he clearly sold his country by sharing top secret information with Putin? It seems there is evidence that he has been a puppet for decades. I mean, isn’t that the definition of a traitor? What were the secret services doing? Wasn’t the FBI created to combat the very thing Trump is? Where is all the anti-communist sentiment that the US has become accustomed to?
He is over 35, a natural born citizen, and has lived in the US for 14 years. He was impeached, but not convicted. Accused of insurrection, but the wheels of justice turned too slowly.
That’s the extent of the legal requirements to be eligible to be President. 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.
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.
That means that most USians are appalling people.
As a Latin-American suffering for decades the consequences of US foreign policies, I’m not surprised.
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.
Cunts watched him insult the parents of slain soldiers, mock someone’s disability and everything else, and still voted for him multiple times.
Fuck your country.
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 gets dropped or if he’s proven innocent.
It sounds straightforward until it’s used as a weapon by the sitting administration to prevent competition at the ballot box.
You know, because every president commits a little light treason here and there! Same as speeding in a car. It’s not that big of deal /s
Dude, this isn’t really a hypothetical. We’ve already seen this exact tactic get used in places like Russia. You just bring bullshit charges against whoever opposes you. The veracity of the charges is completely irrelevant.
This idea rejects the idea that we can put any faith in our courts, even if we add extra measures to make them more trustworthy. If this is true, why bother even faking any of this shit? Let’s just all begin thinking of ourselves as slaves and our leaders as untouchable gods.
I swear after this election, people have become so… senseless on here. Wildly different just a few weeks ago when we were sticking up and actively promoting Harris and her policies.
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.
I don’t disagree, but winning popular vote doesn’t always matter
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
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.
Calm down and read again. The person said social disqualification as opposed to judicial conviction, and I’m saying social disqualification being a vague notion could lead to easier abuse by the political power to shut down opposition.
Out of curiosity, can a judge temporarily 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