5 ms·

The candidate who was just voted into power is a convicted felon awaiting sentencing and also awaiting 2(?) other criminal trials which are now probably going t

The candidate who was just voted into power is a convicted felon awaiting sentencing and also awaiting 2(?) other criminal trials which are now probably going to just disappear. It's objectively a failure of democracy.

Jensson 2y ago
Are criminals not allowed to be elected?
- bormaj 2y ago
  Convicted felons cannot legally run for office
  - nradov 2y ago
    No. The Constitution doesn't bar convicted felons from running for office. Perhaps it should but that would require an Amendment.
  - CyberDildonics 2y ago
    He was convicted of 34 felonies.
- NotMichaelBay 2y ago
  They are, apparently, which is why it's a failure. He was also awaiting trial for interference in the previous election. The irony would be amusing if it weren't so seriously wrong.
  - snickerbockers 2y ago
    >They are, apparently, which is why it's a failure. The purpose of the criminal justice system is not be a cudgel with which to eliminate political opponents. The infamous "34 felonies" were from a state trial in New York; the state of New York does not get to arbitrarily deny the rest of the country their choice in president. Evidently the rest of the country does not consider these to be serious enough to disqualify him from holding office.
    - NotMichaelBay 2y ago
      I'm aware the felonies were from New York. Despite that, he still made it on the ballot in New York, didn't he? Do you not find it _insane_ that he was awaiting a federal trial to determine whether he was guilty of interference in the previous election, was allowed to run, won, and will now make that trial just disappear? I agree that it could be abused by an authoritarian to silence political rivals. But there are plenty of laws that can and already are abused, including to prevent justice from being served. For example, the several people close to Trump that were pardoned by him right before he left his 1st term.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  I mean, he'd be ineligible to join the military, but can run it. He'd fail a security clearance, but can hand them out. Many states forbid felons from even voting. "You can be president from a jail cell" is likely to be a "well that wouldn't happen" oversight on the Founding Fathers' plate, not an intentional design.
  - snickerbockers 2y ago
    dude the founding fathers were all british subjects who committed an act of high treason against the crown. They were well aware that criminal prosecutions can be politicized and applied selectively. If somebody can commit a felony and still get voted in by more than half the country that reflects poorly on the criminal justice system not the election.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > dude the founding fathers were all british subjects who committed an act of high treason against the crown Because they objected to a powerful, unaccountable ruler with absolute immunity to the law. > They were well aware that criminal prosecutions can be politicized and applied selectively. And that's why they set up checks and balances, three branches of government, the Bill of Rights, etc. instead of a monarch. Asserting this means they wanted a monarch is... odd. > If somebody can commit a felony and still get voted in by more than half the country that reflects poorly on the criminal justice system not the election. I mean, yeah - the criminal justice system is clearly flawed here, as he's fundamentally getting away with the crimes. Garland fucked up by waiting too long; a judge Trump appointed successfully delayed the most serious criminal proceedings until they became meaningless, etc. The election reflects poorly on the people. Which wouldn't have come as a big surprise to the Founding Fathers, who didn't really trust the people all that much - that's why we have the electoral college, after all.
8note 2y ago
If people want him in, maybe those laws aren't great? I'm no Trump fan, but I'd much sooner trust an election over a judge and jury to decide who should be in charge
- NotMichaelBay 2y ago
  To use an example from history, Hitler was convicted and served prison time for attempting a coup. He was able to use the trial to spread his ideas. He rose back to power over the next several years due to his and the Nazi Party's popularity, and became Chancellor. I'm no historian but, logically, if he was convicted of treason, he should never have been allowed to hold any position in the German government ever again, regardless of how popular he was.

Jensson 2y ago

Are criminals not allowed to be elected?

bormaj 2y ago
Convicted felons cannot legally run for office
- nradov 2y ago
  No. The Constitution doesn't bar convicted felons from running for office. Perhaps it should but that would require an Amendment.
- CyberDildonics 2y ago
  He was convicted of 34 felonies.
NotMichaelBay 2y ago
They are, apparently, which is why it's a failure. He was also awaiting trial for interference in the previous election. The irony would be amusing if it weren't so seriously wrong.
- snickerbockers 2y ago
  >They are, apparently, which is why it's a failure. The purpose of the criminal justice system is not be a cudgel with which to eliminate political opponents. The infamous "34 felonies" were from a state trial in New York; the state of New York does not get to arbitrarily deny the rest of the country their choice in president. Evidently the rest of the country does not consider these to be serious enough to disqualify him from holding office.
  - NotMichaelBay 2y ago
    I'm aware the felonies were from New York. Despite that, he still made it on the ballot in New York, didn't he? Do you not find it _insane_ that he was awaiting a federal trial to determine whether he was guilty of interference in the previous election, was allowed to run, won, and will now make that trial just disappear? I agree that it could be abused by an authoritarian to silence political rivals. But there are plenty of laws that can and already are abused, including to prevent justice from being served. For example, the several people close to Trump that were pardoned by him right before he left his 1st term.
ceejayoz 2y ago
I mean, he'd be ineligible to join the military, but can run it. He'd fail a security clearance, but can hand them out. Many states forbid felons from even voting. "You can be president from a jail cell" is likely to be a "well that wouldn't happen" oversight on the Founding Fathers' plate, not an intentional design.
- snickerbockers 2y ago
  dude the founding fathers were all british subjects who committed an act of high treason against the crown. They were well aware that criminal prosecutions can be politicized and applied selectively. If somebody can commit a felony and still get voted in by more than half the country that reflects poorly on the criminal justice system not the election.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > dude the founding fathers were all british subjects who committed an act of high treason against the crown Because they objected to a powerful, unaccountable ruler with absolute immunity to the law. > They were well aware that criminal prosecutions can be politicized and applied selectively. And that's why they set up checks and balances, three branches of government, the Bill of Rights, etc. instead of a monarch. Asserting this means they wanted a monarch is... odd. > If somebody can commit a felony and still get voted in by more than half the country that reflects poorly on the criminal justice system not the election. I mean, yeah - the criminal justice system is clearly flawed here, as he's fundamentally getting away with the crimes. Garland fucked up by waiting too long; a judge Trump appointed successfully delayed the most serious criminal proceedings until they became meaningless, etc. The election reflects poorly on the people. Which wouldn't have come as a big surprise to the Founding Fathers, who didn't really trust the people all that much - that's why we have the electoral college, after all.

8note 2y ago

If people want him in, maybe those laws aren't great? I'm no Trump fan, but I'd much sooner trust an election over a judge and jury to decide who should be in charge

NotMichaelBay 2y ago
To use an example from history, Hitler was convicted and served prison time for attempting a coup. He was able to use the trial to spread his ideas. He rose back to power over the next several years due to his and the Nazi Party's popularity, and became Chancellor. I'm no historian but, logically, if he was convicted of treason, he should never have been allowed to hold any position in the German government ever again, regardless of how popular he was.