715

He. Tried. To. Kill. You.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] spicytuna62@lemmy.world 177 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] BanditMcDougal@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago

(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.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

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

[-] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

cough cough 14th Amendment, Section 3. cough cough

[-] MrBananaMan@lemm.ee 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] bassomitron@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheCraiggers@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 year ago

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."

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] MetalJewSolid@sopuli.xyz 93 points 1 year ago

He’s so damn scared of taking a hard stance on trump. Pathetic, sniveling coward

[-] agentsquirrel@sh.itjust.works 92 points 1 year ago

The "Law and Order" party is now cool with all laws being subject to a popularity contest.

[-] pachrist@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 72 points 1 year ago

Left to the American people? So he favors a direct popular vote, without an electoral college?

Ok.

[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago
[-] taanegl@lemmy.ml 54 points 1 year ago

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"?

[-] sudo@lemmy.today 20 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] PoorlyWrittenPapyrus@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] letsgocrazy@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 49 points 1 year ago

There is nothing more cowardly than a Republican.

[-] Spike@feddit.de 47 points 1 year ago

Didnt the American People give themselves a constitution and laws already for this reason?

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 40 points 1 year ago

14th amendment, section 3.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 41 points 1 year ago

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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 45 points 1 year ago

Does pence know what justice being "left to the people" looks like?

It's fuckin' guillotiney, mate.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Considering they built a guillotine outside the Capitol for him, you'd think he would.

[-] Fondots@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

In the interest of accuracy, it was a gallows.

[-] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago

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

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Ok, fair enough. Maybe that's why he isn't scared of a guillotine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] C0unterfactual@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 year ago

Jesus, what an absurd, chickenshit take.

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

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”

[-] EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"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.

[-] aquinteros@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

he definitely has a cuck fetish

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

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?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] axiomaticsquid@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 year ago

What is beyond bootlicking?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Red_October@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Seems to the GOP some parts of the Constitution are merely guidelines. Specifically, the parts that are inconvenient to them.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] MossBear@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Such a cowardly response. Just like most Republicans right now.

[-] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Tigbitties@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

So he won't be able to vote but he can be President. Hilarious.

[-] Mindlight@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

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.... 😂

[-] Cheers@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago

Pence showing some old testament level Stockholm syndrome

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] DTFpanda@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Incredible how one orange fat man can be this much of a Boogeyman to republicans.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] 4am@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

So, he’s against the constitution then?

[-] Savaran@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

The people did decide already, when it got included in the constitution.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

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

[-] mystik@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] Zink@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
715 points (96.0% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4521 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS