By that logic, we should then remove all barriers to run. If a convicted criminal can run, there's no reason a 28 year old with no criminal background can't.
(Getting this out of the way first: I'm not a Trump supporter.)
Convicted felons can and have run for President in the past. Some campaigns have even been run from prison. Disqualifying somebody from running for office because of a conviction is extremely easy to weaponize. It's the next step in removing somebody's right to vote because of a conviction (a thing we do/have done and shouldn't).
I agree with you on the age thing, though. If you can vote, you should be able to hold office.
I think the charges are pertinent. Anything directly related to undermining the very democracy you seek to lead, should be disqualifying. Likewise anyone convicted of some voter fraud crimes should have their right to vote revoked. Now I don't mean all crimes in this areas. But there are definitely some that should stick around
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
This is the correct answer, in my opinion. Someone that went through a tough patch earlier in life and was convicted of stealing a car or something? Largely irrelevant to their ability to govern, if previous crimes were compensated for (i.e. they served their sentence). Actively inciting a coup to forcefully stay in office? Yeah, that's a deal breaker.
Regardless, if Trump gets convicted of any of these crimes, that mother fucker will be serving prison time. How can he possibly be president if he's in jail? At least, for this 2024 cycle. Honestly, I don't see him lasting another 10 years anyway, so I feel this whole debate will ultimately serve fruitless beyond the 2024 presidency.
Actively inciting a coup to forcefully stay in office? Yeah, that’s a deal breaker.
Sure, now you just need enough evidence to get 12 people (who statistically are going to end up including at least a couple of Republicans and at least one outright Trump supporter) to unanimously agree that he did that and go through the whole process before the election.
How can he possibly be president if he’s in jail?
Can't use the criminal justice system to prevent an elected official from discharging their duties - the most legitimate use of this is to prevent the DC police from being functionally a third house of Congress by detaining people they expect to vote "wrong."
So presumably a Trump convicted of crimes that don't bar him from office (and there are enough different charges in enough courts that he could very well be in prison but not barred from office depending on what sticks) and then elected would be let out for the duration of his term, to the degree required to discharge his duties and put back in the hole at 12:01PM Jan 20, 2029 (like an especially prestigious example of work release). But that's never a bridge we've had to worry about crossing before, so who knows what would actually be done.
The problem is that government isn't a computer. Plenty of corrupt governments convict political opponents of stuff like that all the time to bar them from running.
I agree with the other user, there should be as few barriers to who can run as possible, because the more restrictions there are, the more levers bad actors can pull while having some air of legitimacy.
We have a mechanism for this already: impeachment.
Impeachment. Lmfao.
"You irreversibly damaged our society, we're going to have a very stern talk when your term as leader is up, not before. No, we won't undo any of the damage you caused."
Anything directly related to undermining the very democracy you seek to lead, should be disqualifying.
Some of the things he's been charged with are, but there are SO MANY CHARGES and only some of them would disqualify him from holding office, if convicted. And there's no solid grounds to deny him anything other than an opportunity to flee the courts until he's actually convicted of something.
The problem is it's not the felony, it's the crime; Conspiracy against the government is what disqualifies, not simply a felony
Well, basically, this is the gist of "a republic, if you can keep it". At the end of the day, my boy Montesquieu's words hang over all government like a spectre. Governments rule only by the consent of the governed. If everyone woke up tomorrow and decided we wanted Lenin's mummified goatee to be president, constitution be damned, Biden be damned, it'd be the president.
If this actually works, the next step will be abolishing the two-term limit. "Leave it to the will of the people to decide if they want a dictatorship."
There's a good case to be made that the 35 year old restriction is dumb and should be amended out.
Might as well ditch the citizenship requirement while we're at it.
Elon musk starts sweating
oh god, Elon isn't running for president, is he?? (edit: genuine question asked out of concern that Elon may be running)
Can't. He was born in South Africa.
No thank God but he absolutely would if it wasn't for that pesky "gotta be born here" law.
He’s so damn scared of taking a hard stance on trump. Pathetic, sniveling coward
The "Law and Order" party is now cool with all laws being subject to a popularity contest.
They were never the law and order party. They were and are the put minorities and poor in prison party.
Remember it's all about hurting the right people.
So, the rules matter when they lose to popular vote but win in the Electoral College, but don't matter when they are arrested?
Now you're getting it!
Just saying the quiet part out loud...
What is next on their agenda? Making lynching legal, as it is a decision by the people, for the people, or what?
Left to the American people? So he favors a direct popular vote, without an electoral college?
Funny how convicted felons can have their voting rights taken away, but letting a person who tried to sabotage the voting system to win unfairly run for president again? Suuure!
Not only that, but it's a direct parallel to how the rich have so much more rights than the poor - and the worst part is this guy's fans ARE dirt poor, some may even be felons, who have no right to vote, some of which probably tried to vote illegally because "owning the libs is what matters"... because again, decentralisation, proper vote count, democratic and parliamentary process, this is all bullshit anyways, so let's just game the system!
Like you have to be a special kind of stupid - and I don't mean that in an ableist kind of way, but in a way that this needs to be studied by scientists, because of how absurdly brain-dead it really is.
Like here's a hint: if you set a political precedent where your guy can do it, what's to prevent the other guy from doing it? Does MAGA stand for "make America gullible again"?
I agree with the sentiment that his actions should preclude him from running, but felon disenfranchisement is something that isn't talked about nearly enough and I think it's absolutely insane so many people lose their RIGHT to vote.
Given the surge in felony disenfranchisement laws during the Civil War and after the adoption of the 14th Amendment makes it pretty damn clear that it was to keep black people from voting. And looking at the US map of the 2023 felony disenfranchisement laws, it is pretty damn clear that not much has changed.
Like US states were originally against state police, because their local sheriff and local "court systems" did just fine. Can you guess why state police and also inter-state police collaboration became a thing?
If you said to catch freemen and return them to slavery for jaywalking or looking at a white woman the wrong way, you'd sadly be correct.
The worst part about all this is many who stormed the capital had nice businesses, trucks and income. I agree with the need to study this brain-dead disease though. Either our population is more absurdly stupid than is measurable or they all ate lead paint chips as a child.
What's scary is just how susceptible people are to cults.
Didnt the American People give themselves a constitution and laws already for this reason?
14th 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.
Only the second amendment of the US Constitution counts. Didn't you know that? Duh.
That not true! Racists also value something that resembles the first amendment, because they think it grants them a platform to be vile.
Ah, so he's essentially been disqualified at this point. I suppose a conviction will make that certain.
Unfortunately, innocence until guilt is proven means that merely accusing him of something, no matter how dire or how well backed is not sufficient, he remains innocent by default and thus not disqualified. The courts need to get moving.
I feel that the timing here was always going to be a gamble, but is still very intentional.
Move too slowly and you can't secure a conviction by election day 2024.
Move too quickly, and you have a weaker case, and risk acquittal...and if you do manage to get a conviction, it gives Trump and his legal team time before the election to work out an appeal, overturn, etc.
I feel that these DAs were very, very deliberate in their timing (suggested by how they all got their grand jury indictments within a relatively narrow span of one another) to build as solid a case as they could while still allowing enough time for the trials to play out...but not leaving enough time for Trump's lawyers to try any maneuvering before the election.
Sort of like a team down by two points running their two minute drill, but intentionally slowing it down and calling plays designed to perfectly line up their kicker for a chip shot field goal to win...and suck up as much possible time as they can, ideally having the clock run to zero as the kick is in the air, giving the other team no chance to respond before the end of the game.
When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that's more than mere accusations. And "innocent until proven guilty" is not a legal construct; it's simply a moral standard (or verbatim reminder of local judges to their local jurors when considering information in hopes of limiting their prejudice on information demonstrated during trial).
5th amendment states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
A grand jury indictment determines whether there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of that crime.
You can't treat a person as though they're guilty without due process which is a long way of saying innocent until proven guilty.
When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that’s more than mere accusations.
An indictment is literally a formal accusation. It's the process of charging them with a crime, which federally and in many states requires passing the outline of the prosecution's case by a grand jury for approval to prevent prosecutors from abusing their power (it's very rare for a case brought before a grand jury not to result in an indictment, since it's just the prosecutor arguing why they should be allowed to charge the accused with no defense permitted). Not all states even bother with a grand jury, and in those states anyone the prosecutor's office wants to charge is indicted.
Are you seriously trying to argue that charging someone with a crime is sufficient evidence that they committed the crime to place restrictions on them beyond those meant to prevent them from fleeing justice?
Personally I think anyone should be able to run for president. Regardless of your status. The Constitution is a flawed document. The 2A along with that point should not be in there.
That being said, if the US were to vote in that spot stain again, then they deserve what they get. Just unfair the rest of the world has to deal with it.
Trump didn't win through the popular vote though, he won in a close contest by taking a few states with massive voter suppression. While that was a technical win, it wasn't the US getting what it deserved when most people did not vote for him and even more people likely to vote against him were uunble to vote.
If he wins again it will be through further attempts to manipulate the vote.
That is all true.
And I'd go a step further. Many of us have voted in the minority our entire lives. Not one president has represented my views.
I agree there are some issues with US voting but there also is a reason for their system. It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future. I can understand the reason behind it to some degree.
Unless we voted in absolutely every issue, regardless if the size, democracy for practical reasons will never be perfect. That being said, your point is a completely different issue than being discussed. At minimum democracy should allow any person to run regardless of their status or how we feel about them. Ted Bundy should have been able to run but if he won, that would be very telling about the US voter.
See, this only works if you think everyone in the state is voting in lockstep. They aren't. Let's assume two choices. In a state with 100 people, 64 vote for A and 36 for B. In another state, with 1000 voters, 466 vote for A, 534 for B. A third state with 100 people, 53 vote for A and 47 for B.
That ends up, with an electoral college system, as 2 votes for A and 1 for B. A wins. HOWEVER, only 583 of 1200 people voted for A. 617 people voted for B. Not only are the wishes of the state with 1000 voters devalued, but the minority votes of the people in the smaller states are also devalued, because it is assumed that the STATE votes rather than the PERSON.
There is no reason to keep this system.
As someone in a lower populated state, my vote should not have more of an impact on the presidential election as that role represents the entire country like senators represent an entire state. Making each state a winner take all result makes it even worse, since voter suppression is far more effective in winner take all than if the electoral college votes were proportional to the state's vote.
While the concept of each state having equal standing is a reasonable approach, it has skewed so far from the initial implementation that it could be discarded from everything except the Senate and it would be a far better representation of the country as a whole while still giving small states a lot of power and influence.
It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future.
At the risk of having an extended debate in the finer points of what some wigged weirdos were envisioning hundreds of years ago when they wrote this lauded document, I don't think that the founding fathers necessarily intended that...I think it's unlikely that they knew that some areas of the country would house as many people as multiple states in a single city in the long run.
Wanna know what the wigged weirdos thought?
Slavery.
Half the wigged weirdos had a bunch of people living in their states that they considered property and certainly weren't about to let them vote...but at the same time, they were doing the work of people who would have to live there if not for the slaves.
So they wanted to have their cake and eat it too: they wanted to have their slaves count as population when it came to representation but they weren't remotely considering those same people as population when it came to actual voters.
So you got the 3/5 compromise in it's appalling simplicity, and the electoral college which favored lower population (read: plantation) states by giving them outsized influence over national elections compared to what their actual population would normally warrant.
If that wasn't enough, the EC was also intended as an insurance policy for the elite: if the population ever overwhelmingly elected someone that the elites overwhelmingly opposed, the EC could serve as a last ditch firewall to protect their interests and simply ignore the will of the voters to choose their own leadership.
You'll notice that none of the purposes of the EC are in the interests of the people.
It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future. I can understand the reason behind it to some degree.
Except that "areas" don't vote.
People do.
And the electoral college does nothing but penalize those who live in certain areas while rewarding others who live in different areas with wildly variable power behind their votes.
There's no reason an American living in Wyoming should be able to vote 7 times, but if they move to California they only get one vote...yet that is the system were currently living with...except that instead of describing it as discrete votes, the one single vote is just weighed 7x more, so that the system can deceive people into thinking it's fair and reasonable.
The US Constitution, which outlines many aspects including what the three branches of government are, also outlines disqualifiers for consideration.
You cannot just cherry-pick which few words you like and discard everything else! It's an all-or-nothing thing (as stipulated by the Founding Fathers/signatories and the croonies who've adulterated its intentions/meanings over the years).
It’s not that he actually believes this, it’s that the party’s base has determined that you can’t oppose Trump, so they need to find a reason why people should vote for them instead of Trump while not taking the position that Trump should be in jail.
It’s the usual mental gymnastics. Desantis is doing the exact same thing.
This is the best answer.
An assault on Trump is an assault on the idiots who made it their identity to support him.
They can't let him be insulted.
The only winning move is to just offer a better solution and ignore him.
The only winning move is to just offer a better solution and ignore him.
You'd think a better solution would be easy to find, but they spent so long indoctrinating their own followers to be loyal to names rather than concepts that they now fear these followers may attach to the Trump name.
It's sad how quickly they forget the buttery males. Ol' "lock her up" Hillary "basket of deplorables" Clinton was so deserving of jail time because of those emails, but insurrection and election fraud? Nah. Those are locker room felonies.
The GOP is a joke and the rubes that choose to plug their ears and ignore the obvious are clowns 🤡🇺🇸
It's probably going to be a new Trump party if he's not nominated so for Republicans they need him. It's the same with right wing media. Trump has such broad support that there's no way anyone on the right can effectively oppose him at this point.
There is nothing more cowardly than a Republican.
Does pence know what justice being "left to the people" looks like?
It's fuckin' guillotiney, mate.
Considering they built a guillotine outside the Capitol for him, you'd think he would.
In the interest of accuracy, it was a gallows.
See this is the ridiculous misinformation the left spreads. The rioters were never threatening to kill Pence with a guillotine, it was just a harmless gallows
Ok, fair enough. Maybe that's why he isn't scared of a guillotine.
Pence knows that you never skip neck day so he was never worried. The gallows would snap before his neck.
/s
Republican Logic (or lack there of)
Impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors? “No. That should be left to the people”
Impeachment for treason? “No. That should be left to the people”
Legal repercussions for blatant lawlessness? “No. That should be left to the people”
Losing election because you are a threat to the society? “Lol. That should NOT be left to the people. Find me 11,800 votes right now”
"It should be left to OUR people to decide."
That's what they mean. They know the people that vote for them will largely vote for a fucking Ham Sandwich if it has an R next to its name. So they know that they'll almost certainly never face consequences for anything so long as it's up to the people that vote for them. They can purge voter rolls, strategically close polling places, attack mail in voting. There tons of things they can do which will impact potential Democratic voters more than Republican voters.
Jesus, what an absurd, chickenshit take.
I mean, of course he said that. He's trying to win a republican primary race right now. Would disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of the primary voting repub electorate be a good strategy for accomplishing that?
Yeah, but Trump tried to kill him. I mean I know he has no integrity or shame, but to see it on this level still amazes me.
If your aim is to be the leader of the Republican ticket, your only option is to change Republican voters' minds about that.
There's no reason to run at all if you don't, since the current default Republican position is "he did nothing wrong and the election was stolen, so he deserves another shot at the presidency." You can't run against him and agree with all of those things.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone's likely to change primary voters' minds about that, but it's the only logical strategy a non-Trump Republican could use to win.
he definitely has a cuck fetish
What is beyond bootlicking?
That bit you do in the middle.
Seems to the GOP some parts of the Constitution are merely guidelines. Specifically, the parts that are inconvenient to them.
The cherry picking is their lifeblood.
They already do it with the Bible, what's one more document.
"The card says moops"
It's using any possible angle por gain, cherry picking is just an aspect of that.
So Republicans are going to just gonna act like the 3rd section of the 14th amendment doesn't exist? And they think this is a winning strategy?
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
Yes they will. And based on the past decade I find it really hard to predict what strategies will be winning strategies
Gotta convict him first, unfortunately. You aren't disqualified merely for being accused of doing something, no matter how awful.
Which is, honestly, the way it should be.
If it were just on accusation, or a charge, I have zero difficulty imagining a scenario where a Trump administration DoJ forms cases, no matter how flimsy, against any and every opponent of his, just to get a charge on them to get them DQed from elections up and down the ticket, all across the country, from president all the way down to school board treasurer.
given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof
Saying "We love you" on national TV about seditionists doesn't count as aid or comfort?
So it's only when it comes to the right to bear arms that the constitution actually matters?
As a non US citizen living in Europe US Republican things are confusing to say the least.... 😂
Just like the bible, only certain parts are treated as being meant literally
He's already persona non grata with MAGA. That ship has sailed, Mike; it's over the fucking horizon, buddy. TBH, if he'd taken a hard stance and has been saying "yeah, bitch, that's right, I alone saved democracy and prevented a civil war*, die mad about it", I'd like him a lot more, I'd even consider him a serious contender for the GOP candidacy. But Mike can't seem to decide who he is. One day he wakes up and it's right back to simpering up to Trump and MAGA, and the next day he wakes up and lets MAGA know that he's got the world's biggest case of Ligma. Which is it, Mike: are you a crony with a spine that's weaker than Raditz, or are you a democracy saving, woman avoiding, sigma grinding badass?
*I know that Mike alone didn't save democracy, but, speaking as someone who's never voted Republican his whole life, it's undeniable that Mike played a crucial role in the outcome of J6. It's one of those few moments in history that really was balanced on the point of a knife and Pence did exactly the right thing by consistently refusing to play ball with these fucks.
So he won't be able to vote but he can be President. Hilarious.
Pence showing some old testament level Stockholm syndrome
Incredible how one orange fat man can be this much of a Boogeyman to republicans.
My theory: he's one of, if not the only people in the GOP capable of drawing enough votes to slow/stop the party's actions and record from catching up to it, and the party's sliding out of competition with the democrats...and the party leaders know it.
They don't like him either, but what they like even less is losing their own power, wealth, and prestige...so in the short term at least, Fat Orange Man is their go-to...until and unless an alternative emerges.
The party has tried a similar replacement in DeSantis and it hasn't worked, so it's back to Trump.
The overall direction of the country and the world has been more or less away from the ideals of that party for at least 25 years, and if not for 9/11 and Trump, they'd have been forced to at least make a show of keeping up with the times or be at risk of collapsing as a relevant political bloc.
Once the patriotic wave following 9/11 faded, the party found itself buoyed by the votes and support of a racist backlash to the election of a black president, and rather than choose to take the votes without shifting platform to cater to those voters, instead they slowly but surely steered the party in that direction, openly courting the most backward, hateful, and dogmatic among us.
Conveniently for them, the democratic party put up one of its least popular candidates even as they found a mouthpiece in Trump willing to and skilled at courting these voters and willing to double down on the bullshit he spouted.
Rather than try to distance the party from that nonsense, they've all jumped aboard, and Trump's personality has forced them all to swear loyalty...and now their only option seems to be to back him as long as he wants to play politician, no matter how bad it gets.
Personally, I'm hoping that a combination of multiple convictions and political losses for Trump over the next few years, combined with his eventual death sometime in the next decade, forces the GOP to either wholly reinvent itself, shifting towards/to the American "middle" (still right leaning by global standards), abandoning many of it's worst positions and becoming a more responsible and reasoned platform for conservatism...or that those combined effects cause the party to implode/fracture, finally giving America a chance to have more than two stable, long term, viable political parties.
Hitler 2 - Orange Boogaloo
It's a devils bargain the RNC made when they first championed this brain drain MAGA nonsense.
Now the field is flooded with candidates who can repeat these easy to remember, ultimately meaningless nationalism talking points and the RNC will be split.
Any type of split means the Dems will sweep. The Dems are gonna run one candidate, and it's the incumbent.
So, he’s against the constitution then?
The people did decide already, when it got included in the constitution.
Not a Trump supporter but "people" as in normal people like us didn't really decide the constitution. A few people in a hot room who didn't want to be there did.
The American people have spoken, and have agreed on a law that disqualifies them. Lets put it to a vote and see if we should change that law?
The equation in my mind is, is this guy just trying to show that he’s a Republican team player, or does he actually think that some of Trump’s cult might vote for him if Trump isn’t on the ballot? Or maybe he’s holding on to a hope that if his former boss can stay out of jail long enough to get the nomination, that he might get his old job back?
All bad choices.
So, the first thing to remember about a conservative is that their beliefs aren't based on anything more than what they want. Conservatives build their ideology around their identity, not the other way around. It's certainly not based on rational thought or reality. A conservative decides what is good for them personally, and then looks for ideas and causes that support themselves.
To answer your question, Pence wants to remain relevant. Trump, like it or not, has a devoted following of die-hard supporters. Pence wants to be in the race long enough to have a crack at being the second choice should Trump's legal woes keep him off the ballot. What Pence says and what Pence believes are entirely unrelated.
Fwiw many people applaud Pence for not caving to the pressure from Trump to try to subvert the electoral process. I don't. Pence had neither the authority nor the will to make Trump the winner of the election. Pence did what was best for Pence, and had he attempted to interfere, he would have been equally unsuccessful and would now be considered a coconspirator. I doubt he imagined Trump would still have a loyal following, but that's just because I think Pence is also kind of stupid.
Politics is about perception. Trump voters perceive Pence as the guy who failed them. He wants people to perceive him as the responsible adult during the Trump administration, doing his duty as a Republican and as VP. He also wants donors to perceive him as an influential leader, so they keep giving him money. Of course none of those things are true, so for an outside observer trying to parse the logic of his situation, it's a bit of a play within a play within a bowl of vomit.
He must be so jealous of Dick Cheney, what with him getting credit for being so influential in the administration he was a part of.
He may have expected that sort of administration. Unfortunately, Trump is much stupider and less useful than Bush.
So a convicted felon can lose their right to vote, but they can still be President. Gottit.
So a convicted felon can lose their right to vote, but they can still be President. Gottit.
Who can vote is a decision for each state (subject to various federal restrictions added over time, mostly in the form of Constitutional amendments), who can hold the office of President is determined by the Constitution.
Pence being a spineless coward aside, it depends on what he is convicted of. Trump has been charged with a lot of shit, and some of those charges would not disqualify him from the Presidency while others would.
That needs to be left to the American people
whenever they say something like this you know they're fucking as many people as they can
In other words: I like the two-tier justice system and see no reason why a traitor shouldnt be president. God what a spineless sycophant.
spineless
So this is why he is not afraid of "Hang Mike Pence!" chants.
Pence is being blamed for Trump not being successful in his coup, and his numbers show it. What else does Pence have? Roe V Wade? Voters are furious about that, too. Republicans are trying to save their asses on this overreach, too. Pence is on the wrong side of everything.
Maybe it's a sign.
I'd view that as Pence was on the right side of the coup? Maybe I'm reading that wrong.
He validated the votes and made sure the office was turned over to the person who won the election.
He has shit views on most things, but he did the right thing on that day it seems.
If the crimes didn't include insurrection I'd agree with him. It seems we've carved out a specific exemption for that.
Aren’t elected officials supposed to represent the people? Why don’t they just do their jobs?
I mean, if it was a convicted-for-shoplifting situation, and the person had completed the sentence, that would be one thing. But this? Even seeing it from halfway across the world, what happened was shocking.
Let's put everything up to a direct popular vote. Just direct democracy. Why does Congress get to overrule the "will of the American people" when it makes laws?
Your highschool government class should have covered this. A pure popular vote system is essentially mob rule, and mobs are fucking idiots. The idea is that you vote people into office that are smart, that are trained, that are the best of us.
Correct. The joke is then that Pence is stupider than someone who failed high school civics
How does Mike Pence have any donors? I mean literally who would give him money? He's not even trying to win. Clearly he's not you don't try to win and then do this for your biggest opponent. I mean most of them aren't trying to win. This entire Republican primary is basically just a fundraising endeavor to furnish their own private lavish lifestyles.
The fact that Pence can turn around and start sucking off of Trump again, even after Trump literally tried to have him lynched for doing his job, shows how spineless the Republicans really are
If the people want to elect a convicted criminal, disqualifying him isnt going to solve the real problem you have
That's true, it won't, but the opportunities for solving the root problem(s) are much less with said convicted criminal in power than they are with him in prison.
Okay, then YOU should be disqualified alongside him, you Vanilla Tic-Tac.
I mean Pence decided not to leave it to the American people when Trump encouraged them to hang him. He ran away and hid.
Bro they want to murder you!
He didn't accept it last time the American people rejected him.
If Trump os convicted, then by default he is Disqualified per the United States Consitution. Only a 2/3 majority vote in Congress can overcome that.
So brave
This is a level of over-the-top milquetoast fence-sitting that only Mike Pence can achieve...
The Republicans are a fucking caricature of themselves, I swear.
Of course he said that because if Trump is disqualified because of J6, then so would also half the GOP's varsity team from Congress. I think if all of Trump's in-government co-conspirators (just to name a few, but not an exhaustive list: Meadows, Scott, Hawley, Boebert, Gaetz, Greene, etc.) were expelled and never allowed to return to government, I'm pretty sure at least half those seats would go to middle of the road Democrats (I mean at least Boebert's seat, minimum) and the GOP would lose their razor thin margin in the Senate.
I think this is one of the many major reasons Pence keeps towing this line for Trump.
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit."
W.C. Fields
Pandering much?
The fear of the Cheeto Pudding among GOP contenders is almost funny. But not really.
It might be funny but it also makes perfect sense.
Trump is the defacto face of the party now, win or lose, so anyone who wants to take his place on the ballot in 24 has to walk the impossible tightrope of being different enough from him to get moderate Republicans to vote for them in the primary, while also being enough like him to somehow get loyal trump voters to vote for them instead of him.
It can't be done.
It'd be very different if Trump were out of the picture (not running, term limited, convicted and in prison for insurrection, or dead) and the primary field didn't include the OG responsible for the way the party looks and acts now.
In that scenario, you have a field not including trump, with everyone trying their own blend of trump republicanism, traditional conservatism, and whatever else made them unique in the field. But instead, as long as he's in the discussion, they have to somehow be more popular than the party figurehead, and find ways to be different from him while not criticizing anything he says or does, or risk immediately setting his entire base against them.
Thanks, great insight. Does getting the VP nomination also factor in to the play, or are they under the assumption the indictments will prevent a second term?
Who's to say, but if I had to guess? Neither.
If anything, I'd bet their game is a longer view: how to take advantage of another possible trump presidency, balanced against positioning to take advantage of the fallout of another trump loss...with another possible scenario being that another candidate somehow manages to win the primary, in which case the trump loyalists won't control the party and it'll be advantageous to not look too trumpy in that case, just trumpy enough to maintain appearances as a proud and loyal republican.
It's a tightrope I'm glad I don't have to negotiate.
Their complacency and servitude is bizarre. I struggle to believe they'd just publicly demean themselves over and over again without being blackmailed or threatened but it looks like humiliation rolls off them like water from a ducks back.
Not related to the headline/article, I'd just like to comment on funniness the picture, from left to right: confused disbelief, dismissive disbelief, indignant disbelief. Much furrowing of brows, such concern.
While Trump is obviously a POS and I'd love for him to be banned from running, not allowing anyone to run for office from prison would set a really dangerous precedent.
The 14th amendment disqualifies him. Prison is irrelevant, but the constitution is just as irrelevant when it is just selectively ignored for convenience.
Its untested and a legal gray area whether or not the 14th forbids running for president.
It would be because of prison; it would be because of leading an insurrection. These aren't even close to the same.
Pence must have mob ops on him too. Roger stone we want to see the American mafia crumble. Quit being naive people there's more to politics... It's not just a few bad actors it's organized crime that'll do anything for power and control, while they place blame on petty criminals.
Your comment changed everything
What a coward.
pence has always been an idiot
He is technically correct, the best kind of correct. If convicted of anything he is currently being tried for, he would remain legally able to run for president. Whether or not I morally agree with him running, the constitution doesn't concern itself much with my personal morals.
The fact that Pence can turn around and start sucking off of Trump again, even after Trump literally tried to have him lynched for doing his job, shows how spineless the Republicans really are
You triple posted
Ah, did I? Unfortunately I can't see the duplicates, but thanks for letting me know
Also pence and he should make me his vice president because then he would be reelected for sure
Say what you want about Pence but he's not going to claim something about the constitution that he doesn't believe is true, even if it helps him. That is like, his whole thing.
I'm gonna say that that's not true, I think it was anyone else he would absolutely say they shouldn't be allowed to run. I guarantee you that if it was Biden or any other Democrat he would absolutely not be giving them this same treatment.
Unpopular opinion: I agree with Pence. If Trump can win the presidency, after everything, then this stupid country deserves everything he can dish out. The "American experiment" was a failure.
I say this knowing that in MAGA land, people like me will be swinging from lampposts. But at least I'll be spared Empress Ivanka leading us in the climate wars.
Unpopular opinion: while I share your morbid curiosity, you are including children who have no say in the matter and people like us who can see past his bullshit.
Even the majority of us who told him to fuck off? We deserve to die?
Fully agree. No one should be prevented from voting or from running for office.
Many laws are based on practical reasons. Forbidding a criminal to run for president is one. Or will you be ok if for example Putin ran for the american presidency letting the people decide?
I'd say that choosing a foreign-born person as your example is inaccurate because the US Constitution requires the President to be born on US soil. But seeing that the last time the Republicans put forward a foreign-born US national as a presidential contender, everyone glossed over the issue, and only ivory-tower types wondered about the Constitutional issue (e.g., who even has standing, as the concept is currently understood, to enforce the provision?) perhaps your hypothetical is right on point.
I'm fine with reasonable limits on who can run. I don't agree with letting politicians freely decide who can run by passing laws.
Representatives. They speak for you because your population elected them to represent you, don't like your politicians and their decisions then look inwards.
We need strong constraints for what laws politicians can pass. As a principle, I don't think politicians should get to decide who can run against them or who can vote for them.
If you like your politicians: I would suggest you should look inwards.
Stop voting against your interests.
Can you expand on what you mean?
Two party system, gerrymandering, first past the post, no preferential voting. These are all systems used to rig your elections that you and your countrymen voted for.
You voted and got the representatives that represent the will of the people, and the will of the American people either wants these things or is uneducated as to why they shouldn't want these things, but again, all are result of the choices of the people of your country.
Americans act like their voting is disenfranchised, yeah it is, because you chose to disenfranchise it.
I didn't vote for any of this. No one alive did. The system is rigged and deeply entrenched.
Americans act like their voting is disenfranchised, because it is - not much of a choice available to be made.
What are you talking about? Society is a work in progress not a "it wasn't my choice" situation. You get handed what you get handed and you fix it or fuck it while you've got it before you hand it to the next generation. You are not unique, every society is the same.
Americans have gotten exactly what they chose, and they chose to vote for representatives from amongst themselves to remove their own ability to choose effectively and/or maintain the grift.
Why haven't you voted for representatives that want to remove these systems? Because people that want to remove these systems don't represent the majority of your population so those choices don't exist. Simple as that.
Want politicians and representatives that represent your interests? Well if there isn't one, someone has to become one, which means you either choose to step up and represent your ideals yourself and represent other people like you by actively engaging in the system, or you don't, and you sit down and take a big ol' chug from that oversized mug of shut the fuck up, because in a democracy your vote is your only voice and the American people sold theirs to grifters for a broken promise.
Capitalism at it's finest.
I don't really disagree with any of this.
The system is rigged and entrenched - not open to change. It is bad, but not so bad that enough people will risk changing it.
For us to call ourselves a free nation, you have to allow someone deplorable a full and fair election...it fucking sucks, but that's a cornerstone of the foundation of democracy and freedom.
Democracy and freedom work within the law. You are free to run if you haven't broken it.
By that logic, we should then remove all barriers to run. If a convicted criminal can run, there's no reason a 28 year old with no criminal background can't.
(Getting this out of the way first: I'm not a Trump supporter.)
Convicted felons can and have run for President in the past. Some campaigns have even been run from prison. Disqualifying somebody from running for office because of a conviction is extremely easy to weaponize. It's the next step in removing somebody's right to vote because of a conviction (a thing we do/have done and shouldn't).
I agree with you on the age thing, though. If you can vote, you should be able to hold office.
I think the charges are pertinent. Anything directly related to undermining the very democracy you seek to lead, should be disqualifying. Likewise anyone convicted of some voter fraud crimes should have their right to vote revoked. Now I don't mean all crimes in this areas. But there are definitely some that should stick around
cough cough 14th Amendment, Section 3. cough cough
For those who don't want to follow the reference:
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
This is the correct answer, in my opinion. Someone that went through a tough patch earlier in life and was convicted of stealing a car or something? Largely irrelevant to their ability to govern, if previous crimes were compensated for (i.e. they served their sentence). Actively inciting a coup to forcefully stay in office? Yeah, that's a deal breaker.
Regardless, if Trump gets convicted of any of these crimes, that mother fucker will be serving prison time. How can he possibly be president if he's in jail? At least, for this 2024 cycle. Honestly, I don't see him lasting another 10 years anyway, so I feel this whole debate will ultimately serve fruitless beyond the 2024 presidency.
Sure, now you just need enough evidence to get 12 people (who statistically are going to end up including at least a couple of Republicans and at least one outright Trump supporter) to unanimously agree that he did that and go through the whole process before the election.
Can't use the criminal justice system to prevent an elected official from discharging their duties - the most legitimate use of this is to prevent the DC police from being functionally a third house of Congress by detaining people they expect to vote "wrong."
So presumably a Trump convicted of crimes that don't bar him from office (and there are enough different charges in enough courts that he could very well be in prison but not barred from office depending on what sticks) and then elected would be let out for the duration of his term, to the degree required to discharge his duties and put back in the hole at 12:01PM Jan 20, 2029 (like an especially prestigious example of work release). But that's never a bridge we've had to worry about crossing before, so who knows what would actually be done.
The problem is that government isn't a computer. Plenty of corrupt governments convict political opponents of stuff like that all the time to bar them from running.
I agree with the other user, there should be as few barriers to who can run as possible, because the more restrictions there are, the more levers bad actors can pull while having some air of legitimacy.
We have a mechanism for this already: impeachment.
Impeachment. Lmfao.
"You irreversibly damaged our society, we're going to have a very stern talk when your term as leader is up, not before. No, we won't undo any of the damage you caused."
Some of the things he's been charged with are, but there are SO MANY CHARGES and only some of them would disqualify him from holding office, if convicted. And there's no solid grounds to deny him anything other than an opportunity to flee the courts until he's actually convicted of something.
The problem is it's not the felony, it's the crime; Conspiracy against the government is what disqualifies, not simply a felony
Well, basically, this is the gist of "a republic, if you can keep it". At the end of the day, my boy Montesquieu's words hang over all government like a spectre. Governments rule only by the consent of the governed. If everyone woke up tomorrow and decided we wanted Lenin's mummified goatee to be president, constitution be damned, Biden be damned, it'd be the president.
If this actually works, the next step will be abolishing the two-term limit. "Leave it to the will of the people to decide if they want a dictatorship."
There's a good case to be made that the 35 year old restriction is dumb and should be amended out.
Might as well ditch the citizenship requirement while we're at it.
Elon musk starts sweating
oh god, Elon isn't running for president, is he?? (edit: genuine question asked out of concern that Elon may be running)
Can't. He was born in South Africa.
No thank God but he absolutely would if it wasn't for that pesky "gotta be born here" law.
He’s so damn scared of taking a hard stance on trump. Pathetic, sniveling coward
The "Law and Order" party is now cool with all laws being subject to a popularity contest.
They were never the law and order party. They were and are the put minorities and poor in prison party.
Remember it's all about hurting the right people.
So, the rules matter when they lose to popular vote but win in the Electoral College, but don't matter when they are arrested?
Now you're getting it!
Just saying the quiet part out loud...
What is next on their agenda? Making lynching legal, as it is a decision by the people, for the people, or what?
Left to the American people? So he favors a direct popular vote, without an electoral college?
Ok.
Abusive Relationship 101
Funny how convicted felons can have their voting rights taken away, but letting a person who tried to sabotage the voting system to win unfairly run for president again? Suuure!
Not only that, but it's a direct parallel to how the rich have so much more rights than the poor - and the worst part is this guy's fans ARE dirt poor, some may even be felons, who have no right to vote, some of which probably tried to vote illegally because "owning the libs is what matters"... because again, decentralisation, proper vote count, democratic and parliamentary process, this is all bullshit anyways, so let's just game the system!
Like you have to be a special kind of stupid - and I don't mean that in an ableist kind of way, but in a way that this needs to be studied by scientists, because of how absurdly brain-dead it really is.
Like here's a hint: if you set a political precedent where your guy can do it, what's to prevent the other guy from doing it? Does MAGA stand for "make America gullible again"?
I agree with the sentiment that his actions should preclude him from running, but felon disenfranchisement is something that isn't talked about nearly enough and I think it's absolutely insane so many people lose their RIGHT to vote.
Given the surge in felony disenfranchisement laws during the Civil War and after the adoption of the 14th Amendment makes it pretty damn clear that it was to keep black people from voting. And looking at the US map of the 2023 felony disenfranchisement laws, it is pretty damn clear that not much has changed.
Like US states were originally against state police, because their local sheriff and local "court systems" did just fine. Can you guess why state police and also inter-state police collaboration became a thing?
If you said to catch freemen and return them to slavery for jaywalking or looking at a white woman the wrong way, you'd sadly be correct.
The worst part about all this is many who stormed the capital had nice businesses, trucks and income. I agree with the need to study this brain-dead disease though. Either our population is more absurdly stupid than is measurable or they all ate lead paint chips as a child.
What's scary is just how susceptible people are to cults.
Didnt the American People give themselves a constitution and laws already for this reason?
14th amendment, section 3.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
Only the second amendment of the US Constitution counts. Didn't you know that? Duh.
That not true! Racists also value something that resembles the first amendment, because they think it grants them a platform to be vile.
Ah, so he's essentially been disqualified at this point. I suppose a conviction will make that certain.
Unfortunately, innocence until guilt is proven means that merely accusing him of something, no matter how dire or how well backed is not sufficient, he remains innocent by default and thus not disqualified. The courts need to get moving.
I feel that the timing here was always going to be a gamble, but is still very intentional.
Move too slowly and you can't secure a conviction by election day 2024.
Move too quickly, and you have a weaker case, and risk acquittal...and if you do manage to get a conviction, it gives Trump and his legal team time before the election to work out an appeal, overturn, etc.
I feel that these DAs were very, very deliberate in their timing (suggested by how they all got their grand jury indictments within a relatively narrow span of one another) to build as solid a case as they could while still allowing enough time for the trials to play out...but not leaving enough time for Trump's lawyers to try any maneuvering before the election.
Sort of like a team down by two points running their two minute drill, but intentionally slowing it down and calling plays designed to perfectly line up their kicker for a chip shot field goal to win...and suck up as much possible time as they can, ideally having the clock run to zero as the kick is in the air, giving the other team no chance to respond before the end of the game.
When Grand Juries have concluded that an official indictment is warranted, that's more than mere accusations. And "innocent until proven guilty" is not a legal construct; it's simply a moral standard (or verbatim reminder of local judges to their local jurors when considering information in hopes of limiting their prejudice on information demonstrated during trial).
5th amendment states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
A grand jury indictment determines whether there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of that crime.
You can't treat a person as though they're guilty without due process which is a long way of saying innocent until proven guilty.
An indictment is literally a formal accusation. It's the process of charging them with a crime, which federally and in many states requires passing the outline of the prosecution's case by a grand jury for approval to prevent prosecutors from abusing their power (it's very rare for a case brought before a grand jury not to result in an indictment, since it's just the prosecutor arguing why they should be allowed to charge the accused with no defense permitted). Not all states even bother with a grand jury, and in those states anyone the prosecutor's office wants to charge is indicted.
Are you seriously trying to argue that charging someone with a crime is sufficient evidence that they committed the crime to place restrictions on them beyond those meant to prevent them from fleeing justice?
Personally I think anyone should be able to run for president. Regardless of your status. The Constitution is a flawed document. The 2A along with that point should not be in there.
That being said, if the US were to vote in that spot stain again, then they deserve what they get. Just unfair the rest of the world has to deal with it.
Trump didn't win through the popular vote though, he won in a close contest by taking a few states with massive voter suppression. While that was a technical win, it wasn't the US getting what it deserved when most people did not vote for him and even more people likely to vote against him were uunble to vote.
If he wins again it will be through further attempts to manipulate the vote.
That is all true.
And I'd go a step further. Many of us have voted in the minority our entire lives. Not one president has represented my views.
I agree there are some issues with US voting but there also is a reason for their system. It allows lower populated areas to not bexome a minority and a bit more power over their future. I can understand the reason behind it to some degree.
Unless we voted in absolutely every issue, regardless if the size, democracy for practical reasons will never be perfect. That being said, your point is a completely different issue than being discussed. At minimum democracy should allow any person to run regardless of their status or how we feel about them. Ted Bundy should have been able to run but if he won, that would be very telling about the US voter.
See, this only works if you think everyone in the state is voting in lockstep. They aren't. Let's assume two choices. In a state with 100 people, 64 vote for A and 36 for B. In another state, with 1000 voters, 466 vote for A, 534 for B. A third state with 100 people, 53 vote for A and 47 for B.
That ends up, with an electoral college system, as 2 votes for A and 1 for B. A wins. HOWEVER, only 583 of 1200 people voted for A. 617 people voted for B. Not only are the wishes of the state with 1000 voters devalued, but the minority votes of the people in the smaller states are also devalued, because it is assumed that the STATE votes rather than the PERSON.
There is no reason to keep this system.
As someone in a lower populated state, my vote should not have more of an impact on the presidential election as that role represents the entire country like senators represent an entire state. Making each state a winner take all result makes it even worse, since voter suppression is far more effective in winner take all than if the electoral college votes were proportional to the state's vote.
While the concept of each state having equal standing is a reasonable approach, it has skewed so far from the initial implementation that it could be discarded from everything except the Senate and it would be a far better representation of the country as a whole while still giving small states a lot of power and influence.
At the risk of having an extended debate in the finer points of what some wigged weirdos were envisioning hundreds of years ago when they wrote this lauded document, I don't think that the founding fathers necessarily intended that...I think it's unlikely that they knew that some areas of the country would house as many people as multiple states in a single city in the long run.
Wanna know what the wigged weirdos thought?
Slavery.
Half the wigged weirdos had a bunch of people living in their states that they considered property and certainly weren't about to let them vote...but at the same time, they were doing the work of people who would have to live there if not for the slaves.
So they wanted to have their cake and eat it too: they wanted to have their slaves count as population when it came to representation but they weren't remotely considering those same people as population when it came to actual voters.
So you got the 3/5 compromise in it's appalling simplicity, and the electoral college which favored lower population (read: plantation) states by giving them outsized influence over national elections compared to what their actual population would normally warrant.
If that wasn't enough, the EC was also intended as an insurance policy for the elite: if the population ever overwhelmingly elected someone that the elites overwhelmingly opposed, the EC could serve as a last ditch firewall to protect their interests and simply ignore the will of the voters to choose their own leadership.
You'll notice that none of the purposes of the EC are in the interests of the people.
Except that "areas" don't vote.
People do.
And the electoral college does nothing but penalize those who live in certain areas while rewarding others who live in different areas with wildly variable power behind their votes.
There's no reason an American living in Wyoming should be able to vote 7 times, but if they move to California they only get one vote...yet that is the system were currently living with...except that instead of describing it as discrete votes, the one single vote is just weighed 7x more, so that the system can deceive people into thinking it's fair and reasonable.
The US Constitution, which outlines many aspects including what the three branches of government are, also outlines disqualifiers for consideration.
You cannot just cherry-pick which few words you like and discard everything else! It's an all-or-nothing thing (as stipulated by the Founding Fathers/signatories and the croonies who've adulterated its intentions/meanings over the years).
It’s not that he actually believes this, it’s that the party’s base has determined that you can’t oppose Trump, so they need to find a reason why people should vote for them instead of Trump while not taking the position that Trump should be in jail.
It’s the usual mental gymnastics. Desantis is doing the exact same thing.
This is the best answer.
An assault on Trump is an assault on the idiots who made it their identity to support him.
They can't let him be insulted.
The only winning move is to just offer a better solution and ignore him.
You'd think a better solution would be easy to find, but they spent so long indoctrinating their own followers to be loyal to names rather than concepts that they now fear these followers may attach to the Trump name.
It's sad how quickly they forget the buttery males. Ol' "lock her up" Hillary "basket of deplorables" Clinton was so deserving of jail time because of those emails, but insurrection and election fraud? Nah. Those are locker room felonies.
The GOP is a joke and the rubes that choose to plug their ears and ignore the obvious are clowns 🤡🇺🇸
It's probably going to be a new Trump party if he's not nominated so for Republicans they need him. It's the same with right wing media. Trump has such broad support that there's no way anyone on the right can effectively oppose him at this point.
There is nothing more cowardly than a Republican.
Does pence know what justice being "left to the people" looks like?
It's fuckin' guillotiney, mate.
Considering they built a guillotine outside the Capitol for him, you'd think he would.
In the interest of accuracy, it was a gallows.
See this is the ridiculous misinformation the left spreads. The rioters were never threatening to kill Pence with a guillotine, it was just a harmless gallows
Ok, fair enough. Maybe that's why he isn't scared of a guillotine.
Pence knows that you never skip neck day so he was never worried. The gallows would snap before his neck.
/s
Republican Logic (or lack there of)
Impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors? “No. That should be left to the people”
Impeachment for treason? “No. That should be left to the people”
Legal repercussions for blatant lawlessness? “No. That should be left to the people”
Losing election because you are a threat to the society? “Lol. That should NOT be left to the people. Find me 11,800 votes right now”
"It should be left to OUR people to decide."
That's what they mean. They know the people that vote for them will largely vote for a fucking Ham Sandwich if it has an R next to its name. So they know that they'll almost certainly never face consequences for anything so long as it's up to the people that vote for them. They can purge voter rolls, strategically close polling places, attack mail in voting. There tons of things they can do which will impact potential Democratic voters more than Republican voters.
Jesus, what an absurd, chickenshit take.
I mean, of course he said that. He's trying to win a republican primary race right now. Would disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of the primary voting repub electorate be a good strategy for accomplishing that?
Yeah, but Trump tried to kill him. I mean I know he has no integrity or shame, but to see it on this level still amazes me.
If your aim is to be the leader of the Republican ticket, your only option is to change Republican voters' minds about that.
There's no reason to run at all if you don't, since the current default Republican position is "he did nothing wrong and the election was stolen, so he deserves another shot at the presidency." You can't run against him and agree with all of those things.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone's likely to change primary voters' minds about that, but it's the only logical strategy a non-Trump Republican could use to win.
he definitely has a cuck fetish
What is beyond bootlicking?
That bit you do in the middle.
Seems to the GOP some parts of the Constitution are merely guidelines. Specifically, the parts that are inconvenient to them.
The cherry picking is their lifeblood.
They already do it with the Bible, what's one more document.
"The card says moops"
It's using any possible angle por gain, cherry picking is just an aspect of that.
So Republicans are going to just gonna act like the 3rd section of the 14th amendment doesn't exist? And they think this is a winning strategy?
Yes they will. And based on the past decade I find it really hard to predict what strategies will be winning strategies
Gotta convict him first, unfortunately. You aren't disqualified merely for being accused of doing something, no matter how awful.
Which is, honestly, the way it should be.
If it were just on accusation, or a charge, I have zero difficulty imagining a scenario where a Trump administration DoJ forms cases, no matter how flimsy, against any and every opponent of his, just to get a charge on them to get them DQed from elections up and down the ticket, all across the country, from president all the way down to school board treasurer.
Saying "We love you" on national TV about seditionists doesn't count as aid or comfort?
So it's only when it comes to the right to bear arms that the constitution actually matters?
As a non US citizen living in Europe US Republican things are confusing to say the least.... 😂
Just like the bible, only certain parts are treated as being meant literally
He's already persona non grata with MAGA. That ship has sailed, Mike; it's over the fucking horizon, buddy. TBH, if he'd taken a hard stance and has been saying "yeah, bitch, that's right, I alone saved democracy and prevented a civil war*, die mad about it", I'd like him a lot more, I'd even consider him a serious contender for the GOP candidacy. But Mike can't seem to decide who he is. One day he wakes up and it's right back to simpering up to Trump and MAGA, and the next day he wakes up and lets MAGA know that he's got the world's biggest case of Ligma. Which is it, Mike: are you a crony with a spine that's weaker than Raditz, or are you a democracy saving, woman avoiding, sigma grinding badass?
*I know that Mike alone didn't save democracy, but, speaking as someone who's never voted Republican his whole life, it's undeniable that Mike played a crucial role in the outcome of J6. It's one of those few moments in history that really was balanced on the point of a knife and Pence did exactly the right thing by consistently refusing to play ball with these fucks.
So he won't be able to vote but he can be President. Hilarious.
Pence showing some old testament level Stockholm syndrome
Incredible how one orange fat man can be this much of a Boogeyman to republicans.
My theory: he's one of, if not the only people in the GOP capable of drawing enough votes to slow/stop the party's actions and record from catching up to it, and the party's sliding out of competition with the democrats...and the party leaders know it.
They don't like him either, but what they like even less is losing their own power, wealth, and prestige...so in the short term at least, Fat Orange Man is their go-to...until and unless an alternative emerges.
The party has tried a similar replacement in DeSantis and it hasn't worked, so it's back to Trump.
The overall direction of the country and the world has been more or less away from the ideals of that party for at least 25 years, and if not for 9/11 and Trump, they'd have been forced to at least make a show of keeping up with the times or be at risk of collapsing as a relevant political bloc.
Once the patriotic wave following 9/11 faded, the party found itself buoyed by the votes and support of a racist backlash to the election of a black president, and rather than choose to take the votes without shifting platform to cater to those voters, instead they slowly but surely steered the party in that direction, openly courting the most backward, hateful, and dogmatic among us.
Conveniently for them, the democratic party put up one of its least popular candidates even as they found a mouthpiece in Trump willing to and skilled at courting these voters and willing to double down on the bullshit he spouted.
Rather than try to distance the party from that nonsense, they've all jumped aboard, and Trump's personality has forced them all to swear loyalty...and now their only option seems to be to back him as long as he wants to play politician, no matter how bad it gets.
Personally, I'm hoping that a combination of multiple convictions and political losses for Trump over the next few years, combined with his eventual death sometime in the next decade, forces the GOP to either wholly reinvent itself, shifting towards/to the American "middle" (still right leaning by global standards), abandoning many of it's worst positions and becoming a more responsible and reasoned platform for conservatism...or that those combined effects cause the party to implode/fracture, finally giving America a chance to have more than two stable, long term, viable political parties.
Hitler 2 - Orange Boogaloo
It's a devils bargain the RNC made when they first championed this brain drain MAGA nonsense.
Now the field is flooded with candidates who can repeat these easy to remember, ultimately meaningless nationalism talking points and the RNC will be split.
Any type of split means the Dems will sweep. The Dems are gonna run one candidate, and it's the incumbent.
So, he’s against the constitution then?
The people did decide already, when it got included in the constitution.
Not a Trump supporter but "people" as in normal people like us didn't really decide the constitution. A few people in a hot room who didn't want to be there did.
The American people have spoken, and have agreed on a law that disqualifies them. Lets put it to a vote and see if we should change that law?
The equation in my mind is, is this guy just trying to show that he’s a Republican team player, or does he actually think that some of Trump’s cult might vote for him if Trump isn’t on the ballot? Or maybe he’s holding on to a hope that if his former boss can stay out of jail long enough to get the nomination, that he might get his old job back?
All bad choices.
So, the first thing to remember about a conservative is that their beliefs aren't based on anything more than what they want. Conservatives build their ideology around their identity, not the other way around. It's certainly not based on rational thought or reality. A conservative decides what is good for them personally, and then looks for ideas and causes that support themselves.
To answer your question, Pence wants to remain relevant. Trump, like it or not, has a devoted following of die-hard supporters. Pence wants to be in the race long enough to have a crack at being the second choice should Trump's legal woes keep him off the ballot. What Pence says and what Pence believes are entirely unrelated.
Fwiw many people applaud Pence for not caving to the pressure from Trump to try to subvert the electoral process. I don't. Pence had neither the authority nor the will to make Trump the winner of the election. Pence did what was best for Pence, and had he attempted to interfere, he would have been equally unsuccessful and would now be considered a coconspirator. I doubt he imagined Trump would still have a loyal following, but that's just because I think Pence is also kind of stupid.
Politics is about perception. Trump voters perceive Pence as the guy who failed them. He wants people to perceive him as the responsible adult during the Trump administration, doing his duty as a Republican and as VP. He also wants donors to perceive him as an influential leader, so they keep giving him money. Of course none of those things are true, so for an outside observer trying to parse the logic of his situation, it's a bit of a play within a play within a bowl of vomit.
He must be so jealous of Dick Cheney, what with him getting credit for being so influential in the administration he was a part of.
He may have expected that sort of administration. Unfortunately, Trump is much stupider and less useful than Bush.
So a convicted felon can lose their right to vote, but they can still be President. Gottit.
Who can vote is a decision for each state (subject to various federal restrictions added over time, mostly in the form of Constitutional amendments), who can hold the office of President is determined by the Constitution.
Pence being a spineless coward aside, it depends on what he is convicted of. Trump has been charged with a lot of shit, and some of those charges would not disqualify him from the Presidency while others would.
whenever they say something like this you know they're fucking as many people as they can
In other words: I like the two-tier justice system and see no reason why a traitor shouldnt be president. God what a spineless sycophant.
So this is why he is not afraid of "Hang Mike Pence!" chants.
Pence is being blamed for Trump not being successful in his coup, and his numbers show it. What else does Pence have? Roe V Wade? Voters are furious about that, too. Republicans are trying to save their asses on this overreach, too. Pence is on the wrong side of everything. Maybe it's a sign.
I'd view that as Pence was on the right side of the coup? Maybe I'm reading that wrong.
He validated the votes and made sure the office was turned over to the person who won the election. He has shit views on most things, but he did the right thing on that day it seems.
If the crimes didn't include insurrection I'd agree with him. It seems we've carved out a specific exemption for that.
Aren’t elected officials supposed to represent the people? Why don’t they just do their jobs?
I mean, if it was a convicted-for-shoplifting situation, and the person had completed the sentence, that would be one thing. But this? Even seeing it from halfway across the world, what happened was shocking.
Let's put everything up to a direct popular vote. Just direct democracy. Why does Congress get to overrule the "will of the American people" when it makes laws?
Your highschool government class should have covered this. A pure popular vote system is essentially mob rule, and mobs are fucking idiots. The idea is that you vote people into office that are smart, that are trained, that are the best of us.
Correct. The joke is then that Pence is stupider than someone who failed high school civics
How does Mike Pence have any donors? I mean literally who would give him money? He's not even trying to win. Clearly he's not you don't try to win and then do this for your biggest opponent. I mean most of them aren't trying to win. This entire Republican primary is basically just a fundraising endeavor to furnish their own private lavish lifestyles.
The fact that Pence can turn around and start sucking off of Trump again, even after Trump literally tried to have him lynched for doing his job, shows how spineless the Republicans really are
If the people want to elect a convicted criminal, disqualifying him isnt going to solve the real problem you have
That's true, it won't, but the opportunities for solving the root problem(s) are much less with said convicted criminal in power than they are with him in prison.
Okay, then YOU should be disqualified alongside him, you Vanilla Tic-Tac.
I mean Pence decided not to leave it to the American people when Trump encouraged them to hang him. He ran away and hid.
Bro they want to murder you!
He didn't accept it last time the American people rejected him.
If Trump os convicted, then by default he is Disqualified per the United States Consitution. Only a 2/3 majority vote in Congress can overcome that.
So brave
This is a level of over-the-top milquetoast fence-sitting that only Mike Pence can achieve...
The Republicans are a fucking caricature of themselves, I swear.
Of course he said that because if Trump is disqualified because of J6, then so would also half the GOP's varsity team from Congress. I think if all of Trump's in-government co-conspirators (just to name a few, but not an exhaustive list: Meadows, Scott, Hawley, Boebert, Gaetz, Greene, etc.) were expelled and never allowed to return to government, I'm pretty sure at least half those seats would go to middle of the road Democrats (I mean at least Boebert's seat, minimum) and the GOP would lose their razor thin margin in the Senate.
I think this is one of the many major reasons Pence keeps towing this line for Trump.
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit."
Pandering much?
The fear of the Cheeto Pudding among GOP contenders is almost funny. But not really.
It might be funny but it also makes perfect sense.
Trump is the defacto face of the party now, win or lose, so anyone who wants to take his place on the ballot in 24 has to walk the impossible tightrope of being different enough from him to get moderate Republicans to vote for them in the primary, while also being enough like him to somehow get loyal trump voters to vote for them instead of him.
It can't be done.
It'd be very different if Trump were out of the picture (not running, term limited, convicted and in prison for insurrection, or dead) and the primary field didn't include the OG responsible for the way the party looks and acts now.
In that scenario, you have a field not including trump, with everyone trying their own blend of trump republicanism, traditional conservatism, and whatever else made them unique in the field. But instead, as long as he's in the discussion, they have to somehow be more popular than the party figurehead, and find ways to be different from him while not criticizing anything he says or does, or risk immediately setting his entire base against them.
Thanks, great insight. Does getting the VP nomination also factor in to the play, or are they under the assumption the indictments will prevent a second term?
Who's to say, but if I had to guess? Neither.
If anything, I'd bet their game is a longer view: how to take advantage of another possible trump presidency, balanced against positioning to take advantage of the fallout of another trump loss...with another possible scenario being that another candidate somehow manages to win the primary, in which case the trump loyalists won't control the party and it'll be advantageous to not look too trumpy in that case, just trumpy enough to maintain appearances as a proud and loyal republican.
It's a tightrope I'm glad I don't have to negotiate.
Their complacency and servitude is bizarre. I struggle to believe they'd just publicly demean themselves over and over again without being blackmailed or threatened but it looks like humiliation rolls off them like water from a ducks back.
Not related to the headline/article, I'd just like to comment on funniness the picture, from left to right: confused disbelief, dismissive disbelief, indignant disbelief. Much furrowing of brows, such concern.
While Trump is obviously a POS and I'd love for him to be banned from running, not allowing anyone to run for office from prison would set a really dangerous precedent.
The 14th amendment disqualifies him. Prison is irrelevant, but the constitution is just as irrelevant when it is just selectively ignored for convenience.
Its untested and a legal gray area whether or not the 14th forbids running for president.
It would be because of prison; it would be because of leading an insurrection. These aren't even close to the same.
Pence must have mob ops on him too. Roger stone we want to see the American mafia crumble. Quit being naive people there's more to politics... It's not just a few bad actors it's organized crime that'll do anything for power and control, while they place blame on petty criminals.
Your comment changed everything
What a coward.
pence has always been an idiot
He is technically correct, the best kind of correct. If convicted of anything he is currently being tried for, he would remain legally able to run for president. Whether or not I morally agree with him running, the constitution doesn't concern itself much with my personal morals.
The fact that Pence can turn around and start sucking off of Trump again, even after Trump literally tried to have him lynched for doing his job, shows how spineless the Republicans really are
You triple posted
Ah, did I? Unfortunately I can't see the duplicates, but thanks for letting me know
Also pence and he should make me his vice president because then he would be reelected for sure
Say what you want about Pence but he's not going to claim something about the constitution that he doesn't believe is true, even if it helps him. That is like, his whole thing.
I'm gonna say that that's not true, I think it was anyone else he would absolutely say they shouldn't be allowed to run. I guarantee you that if it was Biden or any other Democrat he would absolutely not be giving them this same treatment.
The dude in the middle looks AI generated
This is why.
Unpopular opinion: I agree with Pence. If Trump can win the presidency, after everything, then this stupid country deserves everything he can dish out. The "American experiment" was a failure.
I say this knowing that in MAGA land, people like me will be swinging from lampposts. But at least I'll be spared Empress Ivanka leading us in the climate wars.
Unpopular opinion: while I share your morbid curiosity, you are including children who have no say in the matter and people like us who can see past his bullshit.
Even the majority of us who told him to fuck off? We deserve to die?
Fully agree. No one should be prevented from voting or from running for office.
Many laws are based on practical reasons. Forbidding a criminal to run for president is one. Or will you be ok if for example Putin ran for the american presidency letting the people decide?
I'd say that choosing a foreign-born person as your example is inaccurate because the US Constitution requires the President to be born on US soil. But seeing that the last time the Republicans put forward a foreign-born US national as a presidential contender, everyone glossed over the issue, and only ivory-tower types wondered about the Constitutional issue (e.g., who even has standing, as the concept is currently understood, to enforce the provision?) perhaps your hypothetical is right on point.
I'm fine with reasonable limits on who can run. I don't agree with letting politicians freely decide who can run by passing laws.
Representatives. They speak for you because your population elected them to represent you, don't like your politicians and their decisions then look inwards.
We need strong constraints for what laws politicians can pass. As a principle, I don't think politicians should get to decide who can run against them or who can vote for them.
If you like your politicians: I would suggest you should look inwards.
Stop voting against your interests.
Can you expand on what you mean?
Two party system, gerrymandering, first past the post, no preferential voting. These are all systems used to rig your elections that you and your countrymen voted for.
You voted and got the representatives that represent the will of the people, and the will of the American people either wants these things or is uneducated as to why they shouldn't want these things, but again, all are result of the choices of the people of your country.
Americans act like their voting is disenfranchised, yeah it is, because you chose to disenfranchise it.
I didn't vote for any of this. No one alive did. The system is rigged and deeply entrenched.
Americans act like their voting is disenfranchised, because it is - not much of a choice available to be made.
What are you talking about? Society is a work in progress not a "it wasn't my choice" situation. You get handed what you get handed and you fix it or fuck it while you've got it before you hand it to the next generation. You are not unique, every society is the same.
Americans have gotten exactly what they chose, and they chose to vote for representatives from amongst themselves to remove their own ability to choose effectively and/or maintain the grift.
Why haven't you voted for representatives that want to remove these systems? Because people that want to remove these systems don't represent the majority of your population so those choices don't exist. Simple as that.
Want politicians and representatives that represent your interests? Well if there isn't one, someone has to become one, which means you either choose to step up and represent your ideals yourself and represent other people like you by actively engaging in the system, or you don't, and you sit down and take a big ol' chug from that oversized mug of shut the fuck up, because in a democracy your vote is your only voice and the American people sold theirs to grifters for a broken promise.
Capitalism at it's finest.
I don't really disagree with any of this.
The system is rigged and entrenched - not open to change. It is bad, but not so bad that enough people will risk changing it.
For us to call ourselves a free nation, you have to allow someone deplorable a full and fair election...it fucking sucks, but that's a cornerstone of the foundation of democracy and freedom.
Democracy and freedom work within the law. You are free to run if you haven't broken it.
The Constitution says otherwise, though.