2771
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
2771 points (99.3% liked)
News
35849 readers
729 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
So, let them run and voters will decide?
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.
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.
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.
So anyone who is caught with too much weed in a certain state?
Anyone who "resists arrest" at a protest?
No, fuck that. Felons should be able to vote and run for office, unless convicted of treason or insurrection.
Which Trump should be.