130
Trump's eligibility
(jlai.lu)
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 07 Nov 2024
130 points (93.9% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35868 readers
489 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
What are you saying is the case now? That no one is owning up to supporting Harris or what?
Just observing the major differences in attitude here. I'm agreeing with you, and wondering why the vitriol all being placed on Harris and her campaign, instead of on the voters who actively wanted and then voted for a felon.
I see. Yeah, I am pissed at both, but ultimately voters not giving one single shit pisses me off a lot more than democrats being their typical out of touch selves.
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
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.
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