2684
TRUMP GUILTY ON ALL 34 COUNTS
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
2684 points (100.0% liked)
News
23622 readers
2770 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Good now that he's a convicted felon he can't run for president just like you can't vote, right? ...right? Fuck this system.
There are scenarios in which you'd support a felon running for office, it's just this particular felon we have an issue with
No, I support keeping felons off the ballot because Republicans are the ones that stripped ex-cons of their right to vote.
How is a criminal voting more dangerous then becoming President? That was the right wing's justification for taking away former inmates right to vote.
People with felonies shouldn't have been disenfranchised. That is obviously wrong.
That doesn't mean you should also do something that's wrong in response. Just because at this particular moment there would be an advantage to felons being forbidden from going on the ballot, doesn't mean that will always hold true in the future. What happens in 20 years when the Cop City protestors try to run for elected office and are forbidden because of the bullshit charges they incurred protesting?
I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm keeping you accountable for the damage your side has already done. If you don't like it why don't you restore the voting rights of ex-cons and admit it was yet another way to subvert democracy by sealing votes away from people you know will not vote for you.
Buddy, I like to argue with conservatives too but you genuinely will not find any on Lemmy and I am certainly not one myself.
Felon disenfranchisement did not become popular or widespread until after the Civil War. No points for guessing that the potion of the population also most like to be prosecuted for felonies just happen to be black men.
So we shouldn't hold Trump and the GOP accountable now for some hypothetical in 20 years. In the meantime the GOP continues to win elections now and for years to come because of voter suppression?
It's unrealistic that we will suddenly pass a law between now and November preventing felons from holding office. It could happen after that, but then it won't be applied to Trump, it will be applied to people on the left.
two wrongs don't make a right
Kindergarten platitudes don't work in the real world.
Restricting people's rights to make a point doesn't either
So restore the rights of millions of people that you stripped away and not just your party toadie.
What makes you think I support that traitor? I just think your idea is bad
Allowing a felon to run is a legitimate check and balance that the people can have against the government.
It allows for the people to correct someone convicted of a crime by an unjust law. It allows for correcting (actual) political persecution.
This is a healthy thing.
That said. Fuck disenfranchisement. Directly fix that.
Sure felonies should be considered on a case by case basis, but there are many felons I'd have an issue with running for office, not just this particular one.
I only have a problem with this one running because he's the only one with a chance of winning
That's not true. There are other felons with a chance at winning, they just haven't been convicted yet.
Oh yeah? Who?
That's good bait, but I'm still not taking it. I repeat my stance, felonies should be considered on a case by case basis, but there are many felons I’d have an issue with running for office, not just this particular one.
"Case by case" for political office is so obviously open to corruption you shouldn't bother with it though, and felony definitions are already weaponized as they are between drugs and protest laws.
Hell, for that matter, isn't a public record of convictions already your best version of a case by case system?
Each voter can decide which crime matters to them..
I'm probably more likely to vote for someone that caught a felony for protesting.
It's not case by case, but crime by crime. It should be decided on a basis of rule of law as to which specific crimes, such as those reflecting character and not just a lapse in judgement.
Trump has many convictions reflecting on his character in this one trial.
Problem with that is you can't attack someone's character in court unless they try to use it as a defense so there's no way that's getting into the constitution in our lifetimes.
You absolutely can reference character. It just isn't itself evidence of other crimes.
Practically I think that all felons shouldn't be able to run for office given the nature of the system. Ideally it would be case by case, but yes it would be corrupted and used by those in power to stop people from running. We either need to allow felons to vote and allow felons to run for president, OR do not allow felons to vote and do not allow felons to run for president. Right now the system makes no fucking sense.
What's the felony charge for protesting called?
My state has a law on the books specifying Abuse of a Sports Official as a felony. As in, "Hey you, the umpire's a bum."
As you have observed, the situation has gotten quite out of hand.
So, let them run and voters will decide?
I read that he could be taken off the ballot in some places, but I haven't verified that.
Eugene Debs ran for president from prison. He got 3.4% of the vote.
Fuck trump, but convicted felons have to be eligible for office to prevent abuse. If all it took was a felony, any opposition leader would just have some nonsense charges brought against them to make them ineligible.
This was also a key motivator of the war on drugs: criminalize the drugs that black people and anti-war protesters used, and they can be stripped of their voting rights.