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?

  • radix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    11 days ago

    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.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 days ago

      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.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 days ago

        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.

        • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          I think Americans need to realise that Trump won by popular vote

          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.

          • sOlitude24k@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            11 days ago

            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.

            • AlbertSpangler@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              10 days ago

              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.

        • hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          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.

          • kata1yst@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 days ago

            It sounds straightforward until it’s used as a weapon by the sitting administration to prevent competition at the ballot box.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              11 days ago

              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

              • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 days ago

                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.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  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.

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            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.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        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.

        • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          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.

      • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        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

    • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      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

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    11 days ago

    he hasn’t been charged/convicted of any of the relevant felonies that would preclude service, and nobody is going to make an issue of it; simply because all three branches of government are now under christofascist control. any lawsuits will go to SCROTUS, where they’ll just rubber stamp a decision and cite some bullshit.

    also the 14th gives enforcement to congress, which won’t do anything either.

    • Llamatron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      But why? Why are all these people so happy to protect such a despicable human being who will happily throw any of them under the bus and who has, and will again, sell out their country to anyone who says nice stuff to him and gives him money? It’s absolutely extraordinary.

      And it’s not like it’s a secret. His corruption is there out in the open for all to see. We all see it, we all know it. And yet here we are.

      My mental wellbeing has taken a major hit this last day seeing how so many people would rather burn down our future than vote for a competent black woman.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        11 days ago

        They have been setting the pieces to this eventuality for 60+ years.

        Trump just stumbled onto the very carefully set board, and started messing with it, and exposing the plans in the process. Being the narcissist he is, he is incapable of not using anything he wants, so it forced the Republican establishment’s hand. They had to bring him into since the Presidency is necessary to further the plan, and in turn he also became dangerous since he’s 100% the type of person to use that information to extort the outcome that helps him. I don’t think they really understood how bad an idea that was at the times and now they’re stuck.

      • mortimer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        31
        ·
        11 days ago

        She wasn’t competent. That was the problem. It was going to be much of the same shit under Harris as it was under Biden. Both parties are two sides of the same coin controlled mainly by Zionist lobbyists. It’s an illusion of democracy. The US is fucked. Now it’ll be fucked faster. If I was a US citizen I don’t know how I would’ve voted. In all conscience I couldn’t vote for Harris because of her continued support of genocide in Gaza, but equally there’s no way Trump would get my vote either (because he’s an egotistical lunatic). I guess I’d go for a third party which is marginally a better option than not voting at all.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          Everyone who thinks bOtH sIdEs can stop talking now. You’ve shown how precisely reality-divorced your toxic mentality has been all along. We know you want to spread lies because it makes you happy. But no one wants to hear it. Ever.

          Edit: whoever responded below, know that I’m basking in the glow of not seeing your comments because I blocked your toxicity ❤️

        • kvasir476@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          11 days ago

          “And they hated mortimer because he told the truth”

          Harris was a mediocre candidate who ran a dogshit campaign. If the democrats are smart anyone involved in the decision making levels of the campaign should be blacklisted from ever working with the party again.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 days ago

            They hated Mortimer because his fucked up attitude just destroyed what was left of society. This will spread around the world. Nothing will remain. All because people are too simple minded to understand that flawed people are better than evil people

            • mortimer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 days ago

              Nice. I’m a wrecker of civilisation and I’m not even American and never voted in your pretend illusion of democracy. Your country is Rome before the fall. I will enjoy seeing it sink into the sea. Better learn to swim.

              • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 days ago

                And your disgusting apathetic attitude will result in this reaching your door irrespective of where that is. So great job. You are now blocked

                • mortimer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 days ago

                  I’m going to miss you.

                  The only apethetic attitude I’m aware of is the Democrats’ apathy towards genocide.

              • mortimer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 days ago

                She was dogshit. So fucking dogshit she got beaten by a narcissist. Fuck America! They deserve the president they elected.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      The question I have is why are felony convictions not considered a disqualification for president but they disqualify everyone else from literally almost any job? I knew someone who got a conviction and was hired by chik fil a then later told whoops we missed that on your application sorry can’t hire you.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 days ago

          I do not buy this one bit. I accept that it’s given as a rationale but the only result of it is leaders being above the law and being held to a lower standard than anyone else.

          • FanBlade@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 days ago

            How does it result in that?

            Being eligible to run for president is not a factor in someone being perused for justice.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 days ago

              … did you read the comments above? We’re discussing whether or not we should prevent criminals from running for office. When the answer is “no”, that allows criminals to get into office. I cannot get a job at Piggly fucking Wiggly if I am a felon.

              • FanBlade@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 days ago

                Yes, I did read the comments.

                Aside from perhaps a couple fringe exceptions, there is noting enshrined in law that prevents a felon from getting a job. A company may decide to not hire someone because they are a felon, that is their choosing and not a result of a law.

                An individuals eligibility for running for president does not impact whether or not justice, as defined by our laws, is perused against them.

                If I’m understanding correctly you think that criminals should not be eligible. It appeared that you were arguing that in our current system folks are able to be above the law because they are eligible to run from president. I was asking how someone’s eligibility causes them to be above the law.

                I know things are very emotional now and that totally makes sense and perhaps is leading to the hostility of your comments. With that in mind I feel I have presented what I’ve set out to and will not reply to your further.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 days ago

                  enshrined in law

                  Ah yes, the only thing that matters. Hey guys I can’t afford groceries so I’ll go back to robbing people – it’s okay though, not enshrined in law! I’ll just flash my “felon: I can’t get a job anywhere” card at the cops and they’ll be on their way!

                  My obvious point that I clearly stated was that if ordinary citizens cannot even support themselves after being convicted (often wrongly btw), then why do politicians get away with it scot fucking free?

  • glitchdx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    11 days ago

    rules don’t matter if no one enforces them. republicans have been consolidating power for decades, partly by never holding their own accountable. dems are always held accountable, but usually for things that either don’t matter or are entirely false.

    Trump isn’t held accountable because his supporters control every institution that can, and they want him to be king of america.

  • Battle Masker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    11 days ago

    The Supreme Court has the power to say anything against it but 6 of the justices are down bad for it. And at least one of them are being paid specifically NOT to say anything about it

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    Biden appointed a conservative Attorney General who refused to investigate Trump for two and a half years. Biden and his conservative AG (Merrick Garland) allowed Trump to get away with everything. So, here we are.

    Neoliberals are conservatives. Always have been.

  • nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 days ago

    Trump won the popular vote, trying to suppress him from running is akin to suppressing democracy.

    If we (or 51% of voters) want to be fucked in the ass, then there should be no law that prevents it. As a country we have just voted for continuous fucking ass rape for the next 4 years.

    1000011954

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      I don’t accept the argument that as long as 51% of people vote for something, it should be good to go. We have a constitution, you realize, and you need more than that to change it. Is the constitution suppressing democracy? You’re talking about a kindergartener’s view of “majority rule,” not American democracy. And thank goodness, because I heartily believe that 51% of people would vote for some ghoulish shit, like boiling immigrant children in oil. And there you’d be, shrugging and saying “ahem - 51%, people.”

      Go off and think it through a little better. I’ll be here when you get back.

  • Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    I don’t think it’s democratic to ban people with a criminal record from voting or running. If the people want to vote someone like that in, then who’s to stop them

    • babybus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 days ago

      It also means that your opponent can’t stop you from running by prosecuting you like it happens in countries like Russia.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        Yeah. I think an example also is the UK- It’s quite controversial, but Bobby Sands MP was elected from prison. Many people do see that as a good thing and a good exercise of democracy.

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 days ago

    I think there are two answers to this. First, there is a long standing tradition in the US that the new guy doesn’t put the old guy in jail.

    Look at so many other countries and so much of world history to see how that style of governing is problematic to the transfer of power from one regime to the next and why it causes its own set of problems.

    The second, and arguably the most important, is that the American people as a whole can elect whoever the fuck they want to be president, no matter what any mid level beurocrat, judge, lawmaker or even current president or other official says about the issue, even if said person is in jail at the time.

    The law and its punishments should still apply to all, including the president and former presidents, however.

  • bender223@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    Simple, if you’re a white man with money, you can do whatever you want and get away with it.

    🤷‍♂️

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    It’s simply a nazi infestation.

    And then this weird limp dickness in the Democrats that compromising and doing nothing is the cure for cancer.

    Vast numbers of people maliciously paused their duties in a thousand ways to let him through. They installed him, is how he got eligible. Because you’re absolutely right, he was and still is ineligible in a thousand ways.

    And then the cockroaches came out of the walls.

  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    I mean, isn’t that the definition of a traitor?

    The definition of treason is very clear and very narrowly defined in the COTUS, and this does not meet the definition.

    • innermeerkat@jlai.luOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      10 days ago

      Article III, Section 3. The definition states:

      “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

      Calling for civil war and aiding an authoritarian country such as Russia, which is well known for being a long-time enemy and wants nothing more than the fall and decadence of the US, raises the question: if what Trump is doing is not treason, according to the Constitution, then I don’t know what is.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        10 days ago

        You really can’t think of anything more obviously a case of treason than what you believe trump has done?

        The guy is loyal only to himself, no doubt. But, I don’t even see how it would fit this definition at all, and I can easily come up with many things more obviously a violation. Also keep in mind that Russia is not an enemy; we are not at war with them. They are an adversary.

  • Bear@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 days ago

    We have laws and legal procedures for due process and we presume innocence until proven guilty.