As an outsider that’s pretty wild. So you can’t buy a firearm but you can be president and control them all. Like what?
Actually the thought is if the government can just imprison you to stop your candidacy, they have too much power.
Thus they can continue to run.
I would say just don’t break any laws then, but laws can change and people are terrible.
Edit: Pretty sure you’re all downvoting a misunderstanding.
I’m saying I get why it’s a thing because people would convict their opponents. Not that I was actually saying well don’t break any laws.
Sure, but a corrupt government can fabricate evidence to keep their enemies silenced.
Look at Russia and their treatment of Alexei Navalny.
Or just regular ass black people in America.
Or the topic of this post
Might be a reasonable argument if you didn’t have 76 years of his rotten behavior as precedent in processing the decision made by a jury of his peers…
just don’t break any laws then
A very naïve idea :-(
Especially when you get into archaic laws that aren't enforced or widely known.
Remember, there is a mechanism that prevents criminals from winning elections and holding offices, it's the one that's the best one in a democracy. The voters.
It's not good to give governments the power to decide who does and doesn't deserve to hold authority, it is good to let voters decide if someone's crimes are relevant to the election.
Sadly, it seems many Americans do not agree with me that trump is not suitable for office. Hopefully enough do that they decide not to vote for him
We've got these things called "social media" that are built expressly for the purpose of influencing people to buy more stuff (literally in the name: influencers). And if it can get people to part with their money, you can be sure the same tools can be used to get people to vote against their own interests.
We thought the internet was a tool to spread democracy. We were wrong. The Internet is a tool used to undermine democracy, so long as people using the Internet are not strongly inoculated against organized interests, foreign, and domestic.
Who thought the intent was to spread Democracy?
The Internet's been both very good and very bad for Democracy. Without the internet, most people would be at the mercy of CNN or Fox to explain all the horrible things Donny Two Scoops has done.
The concern of the founding fathers was that one state would have political reasons to rush a trial and get a legitimate candidate convicted of a crime in their court. If the conviction was legitimate, it was supposed to be handled by the Electors of the Electoral College.
If the conviction is legitimate, the Electoral College has ways to shut that down.
Our lack of laws around the POTUS are a glaring. It's insane that a judge can preside over a case where the defendant is a former president who appointed them. Like Judge Cannon and 3 members of the SCOTUS.
Don't forget, it's not like he has a right to the presidency. The president is voted in. So technically speaking the people decide if the felonies make a difference or not
Also, you can't vote in many regressive, discriminatory states but they'd like up in their Klan hoods to vote this felon into office as there is no restriction on becoming president. Rules for thee
As an outsider that’s pretty wild. So you can’t buy a firearm but you can be president and control them all. Like what?
Actually the thought is if the government can just imprison you to stop your candidacy, they have too much power.
Thus they can continue to run.
I would say just don’t break any laws then, but laws can change and people are terrible.
Edit: Pretty sure you’re all downvoting a misunderstanding.
I’m saying I get why it’s a thing because people would convict their opponents. Not that I was actually saying well don’t break any laws.
Sure, but a corrupt government can fabricate evidence to keep their enemies silenced.
Look at Russia and their treatment of Alexei Navalny.
Or just regular ass black people in America.
Or the topic of this post
Might be a reasonable argument if you didn’t have 76 years of his rotten behavior as precedent in processing the decision made by a jury of his peers…
A very naïve idea :-(
Especially when you get into archaic laws that aren't enforced or widely known.
Remember, there is a mechanism that prevents criminals from winning elections and holding offices, it's the one that's the best one in a democracy. The voters.
It's not good to give governments the power to decide who does and doesn't deserve to hold authority, it is good to let voters decide if someone's crimes are relevant to the election.
Sadly, it seems many Americans do not agree with me that trump is not suitable for office. Hopefully enough do that they decide not to vote for him
We've got these things called "social media" that are built expressly for the purpose of influencing people to buy more stuff (literally in the name: influencers). And if it can get people to part with their money, you can be sure the same tools can be used to get people to vote against their own interests.
We thought the internet was a tool to spread democracy. We were wrong. The Internet is a tool used to undermine democracy, so long as people using the Internet are not strongly inoculated against organized interests, foreign, and domestic.
Who thought the intent was to spread Democracy?
The Internet's been both very good and very bad for Democracy. Without the internet, most people would be at the mercy of CNN or Fox to explain all the horrible things Donny Two Scoops has done.
The concern of the founding fathers was that one state would have political reasons to rush a trial and get a legitimate candidate convicted of a crime in their court. If the conviction was legitimate, it was supposed to be handled by the Electors of the Electoral College.
If the conviction is legitimate, the Electoral College has ways to shut that down.
Our lack of laws around the POTUS are a glaring. It's insane that a judge can preside over a case where the defendant is a former president who appointed them. Like Judge Cannon and 3 members of the SCOTUS.
Don't forget, it's not like he has a right to the presidency. The president is voted in. So technically speaking the people decide if the felonies make a difference or not
Also, you can't vote in many regressive, discriminatory states but they'd like up in their Klan hoods to vote this felon into office as there is no restriction on becoming president. Rules for thee
Cant vote either