369
submitted 10 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Jacob Chansley, sentenced to three years for his role in the Capitol riots, will run as a libertarian in Arizona.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 172 points 9 months ago

The 14th Amendment disqualifies him.

[-] procrastitron@lemmy.world 141 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It only applies if he took an oath to uphold the constitution prior to committing the treason.

I.E. government officials and ex military personnel who took place in the Jan 6 riots would be disqualified, but not every random yahoo that was there.

EDIT: Others have pointed out that he is ex-military, so it looks like the 14th amendment does apply to him after all.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nocturne213@lemm.ee 120 points 10 months ago

will run as a libertarian in Arizona

Neither of these surprises me.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 62 points 9 months ago

Libertarians are just Republicans in disguise

[-] halferect@lemmy.world 37 points 9 months ago

Libertarians are even worse, they are like anarchist Republicans. Slamming two dumb political ideas into one really dumb political idea and acting like they are very smart about it.

[-] Fester@lemm.ee 20 points 9 months ago

Republicans have to deal with being constantly proven wrong on everything, but Libertarians enjoy that their fantasy ideology will never be tested in the real world. That makes them feel immune to obvious criticisms, and therefore “very smart.”

[-] halferect@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

They did test it and it failed completely. A book was written about it. A libertarian walks into a bear. So you can point and laugh at libertarians any time you want

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fubo@lemmy.world 108 points 9 months ago

Jacob Chansley can eat a whole cauldron of gently boiled dicks.

[-] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago

He's vegan or something. Remember how butthurt he was in prison because the food wasn't up to his standards?

White people, man...

[-] modifier@lemmy.ca 12 points 9 months ago

I hope that, once a year, at the most inopportune possible time of that year, he shits himself loudly and thoroughly. For all the years of his life.

[-] Piecemakers3Dprints@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago
[-] CthuluVoIP@lemmy.world 55 points 9 months ago

He has very specific dietary needs. His mommy said so.

[-] saltnotsugar@lemm.ee 23 points 9 months ago

Don’t ruin a whole batch of cocks by overheating!

[-] metallic_substance@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Vigorous boiling or stirring may cause dicks to break up while cooking and nobody wants that

[-] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Yeah cooked dicks is a dish best served whole

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Retention of texture while emphasizing natural flavour

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Is this like, an ordeal you think he should go through, or are you saying that you know for a fact, that this man can slurp down a whole caludron of al-dente dicks?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 56 points 9 months ago

Good deal. Let him siphon off the republican vote.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 39 points 9 months ago

Gee, let me think about it. According to this article he may be uniquely suited to run as a Republican.

In an interview, defense lawyer Albert Watkins said that officials at the federal Bureau of Prisons, or BOP, have diagnosed his client Jacob Chansley with transient schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety.

If you throw in a low IQ, he'll do well with Republican voters.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 37 points 9 months ago

Felons can't run for office

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

I'm pretty sure they can and do.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 36 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

In 2016, the libertarian convention had a guy strip to his underwear on stage. At the convention debate, one of the candidates was boo'd for saying you shouldn't be able to sell heroin to five year olds.

The QAnon Shaman isn't the craziest thing in the Libertarian Party. They are not serious people.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 35 points 9 months ago

will run as a libertarian in Arizona.

Well at least we won't have to worry about him winning.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 30 points 9 months ago
[-] Uglyhead@lemmy.world 45 points 9 months ago

If you’re part of an insurrection, you shouldn’t be able to run for any public office anywhere.

If Germany would have had this same rule/law the whole world in this timeline would look completely different.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 19 points 9 months ago

Unfortunately, yeah. Can’t vote but can be voted into office.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 37 points 9 months ago

No he can’t. Jan 6 was an insurrection. He’s absolutely ineligible

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago

No. He's ex-military, 14th amendment applies.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same...

He took an oath as a member of the military, he also took part in insurrection.

From the court documents:

The crimes charged in the indictment involve active participation in an insurrection attempting to violently overthrow the United States Government. By Chansley’s own admissions to the FBI and news media, the insurrection is still in progress and he intends to continue participating.

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

You and I might agree that it applies, but how much do you want to bet that some Trump appointed judges decide that it doesn't apply and kill any effort to remove him from the ballot?

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 6 points 9 months ago

Ya’ll keep saying these things like I don’t already know, but regardless of what the 14th amendment says, or his military background, ultimately that determination will be made by a court decision, because if nothing else he will sue the state if they choose to take him off the ballot. I didn’t make the rules, or the legal system.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] uphillbothways@kbin.social 8 points 9 months ago

As much as I want to say no, to my knowledge he technically hadn't "previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States" so I think he'd be eligible under Amendment 14, Section 3, article 1... quoted here in full:

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Though, he had previously been in the US Navy, and the Navy oath of enlistment begins ""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic....," he was not even an officer in the Navy let alone in a legislative, executive or judicial branch position.

Pretty sure he would be eligible to run this time, whereas trump would not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago

This guy is t elligible…. Trump might be able to weasel it, but this guy was an insurrectionist through and through.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 22 points 9 months ago

Getting some "Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho"-vibes from this, lol

[-] throbbing_banjo@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

For all his flaws, Camacho at least tried to enlist the help of, and listen to, people he knew were smarter than him. And at the end of the day, he tried to help his people.

This guy just wants to play dress up and smear shit on the walls.

[-] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

He and Bimbert can have a dumb-off for that seat.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

He'd best have a good security detail. If anything goes awry, a bunch of Leftists are going to be peacefully asking him pointed questions that might make him uncomfortable.

If you're assuaged to believe that winning means everything, I can't speak for you. It assumes that you start and stay on the same side of any moral argument and you have to fight for it to the end regardless of if new evidence nullifies your opinion.

That's not how humans understand each-other. Humans garner nuance and discern things in new and meaningful ways over time and social interaction. We understand others - people that we can identify with in profound ways even if they don't necessarily share our point of view.

I would give him a moment of our time - maybe 30 seconds if he doesn't state one of the over-used vitriolic statements on the Bingo cards that I will be handing out now.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 12 points 9 months ago

I feel bad for Jamiroquai that this asshole stole their mascot

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 7 points 9 months ago

He should be required to wear that costume the entire time on the campaign trail.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 47 points 9 months ago
[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No argument here. But if he’s out and running, no one should forget what a weirdass goofball he is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

You'd be more productive sticking a fork in an outlet, Jacob.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Republicans stopped using "cuck" as an insult because the person who epitomizes what they're all about wore horns.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

What a crazy world we live in.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
369 points (94.9% liked)

politics

18789 readers
2815 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS