7 ms·
> No reason why the US can't have the same. There's one big reason the US can't have the same: the ruling class don't want it. This isn't some gordian knot. W
by mullingitover 2y ago
> No reason why the US can't have the same.
There's one big reason the US can't have the same: the ruling class don't want it.
This isn't some gordian knot. We could have it tomorrow if the ruling class had their feet held to the fire. The fact that we don't is a result of the system working exactly as intended.
The richest person in the world is out in broad daylight shoveling bribes to voters as fast as he can transfer the money, and not only is he not getting arrested, he never will be. It's a dark subsection of a very dark chapter.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ryandrake 2y agoA person who can't even legally own a gun due to his status as a felon is about to become commander and chief of the military. "Dark subsection" is pretty mild.
- gottorf 2y agoThe commander-in-chief isn't leading a charge at the front lines, so whether or not he can legally own a gun has no bearing; otherwise, we'd have to demand that every elected official has direct, hands-on experience in everything that they legislate, regulate, or judge. Well, perhaps that wouldn't be so horrible, after all... I personally find the way he came to be a felon to be a darker subsection, but your mileage may vary, of course.
- anigbrowl 2y agoWhat you are missing about the analogy is that the US military is effectively the largest gun on the planet.
- gottorf 2y agoI assume your point is that a felony conviction is evidence of an unsound mind that justifies prohibiting someone from owning a firearm, and that this translates to leading our military. The analogy falls apart if said felony conviction is unjust or otherwise has no bearing on one's ability to lead the military. By and large, American voters think so, with two-thirds of those polled thinking that what he was convicted of is a nothingburger[0]. [0]: https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-indictment-hush-money-poll-b3d9a555993faf22e6ebfaf798bfbd2b https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-indictment-hush-money...
- ryandrake 2y agoThe analogy only falls apart if you are applying a double standard. You might say "Certain kinds of felonies don't indicate a person is unfit to wield a weapon/the military, and certain kinds do." I'm a supporter of the 2A and I'd listen to that. As long as you intend to apply that across the population. But if you're saying "A bunch of people don't like this particular conviction against this particular person, so we should have a separate standard for him," well that not how the rule of law works.
- kelipso 2y agoWhat is a presidential pardon then? Maybe not how rule of law works but it's how democracy works.
- gottorf 2y agoA presidential pardon is an enumerated power of the office under the supreme law of the land, so it's hard to argue that it isn't rule of law.
- gottorf 2y agoIf we're talking about the rule of law, there is no law against a convicted felon from either being elected President or being the commander-in-chief. There is only the irony (as the GP brought up) of someone who cannot legally possess a firearm being in charge of the military, but neither irony nor hypocrisy is yet illegal. So I see no problem here. Is your point that a convicted felon should be legally barred from holding office? Then there is a straightforward legal process to achieve your goals. However, I caution you that politically motivated prosecutions have existed before Trump and will exist after, and that there's probably a better reason than mere oversight that the Constitution places so few limits on who can be voted President.
- nomel 2y agoThis could be seen as protection for candidates against lawfare, which is widely used in tyrannical governments.
- krapp 2y agoI mean, of all the reasons to oppose Trump being commander in chief, much less President, that seems the least relevant.
- janalsncm 2y ago> the ruling class don't want it Too cynical and defeatist for my taste. The difference between the “ruling class” and you is that politicians know what it takes to get support from large donors. A typical Senator spends most of their day figuring that out in fact. But at the end of the day politicians still need votes, not dollars. One way to swing the balance back would be to make support contingent on support for (and accomplishment of) popular goals.
- pc86 2y agoAs long as people see their chosen political party as their hometown sports team and the other political party as a bunch of demonic goblins looking to murder and imprison them and their families, that will never happen. If you're not willing to vote for either political party to achieve your supported goals, you're part of the problem and a big part of why the country is the way it is.