If so, then why?

      • Pronell@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        100
        ·
        1 month ago

        Actually the thought is if the government can just imprison you to stop your candidacy, they have too much power.

        Thus they can continue to run.

        • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I would say just don’t break any laws then, but laws can change and people are terrible.

          Edit: Pretty sure you’re all downvoting a misunderstanding.

          I’m saying I get why it’s a thing because people would convict their opponents. Not that I was actually saying well don’t break any laws.

      • essell@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        1 month ago

        Remember, there is a mechanism that prevents criminals from winning elections and holding offices, it’s the one that’s the best one in a democracy. The voters.

        It’s not good to give governments the power to decide who does and doesn’t deserve to hold authority, it is good to let voters decide if someone’s crimes are relevant to the election.

        Sadly, it seems many Americans do not agree with me that trump is not suitable for office. Hopefully enough do that they decide not to vote for him

      • Boozilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 month ago

        Our lack of laws around the POTUS are a glaring. It’s insane that a judge can preside over a case where the defendant is a former president who appointed them. Like Judge Cannon and 3 members of the SCOTUS.

      • Alimentar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Don’t forget, it’s not like he has a right to the presidency. The president is voted in. So technically speaking the people decide if the felonies make a difference or not

      • pdxfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Also, you can’t vote in many regressive, discriminatory states but they’d like up in their Klan hoods to vote this felon into office as there is no restriction on becoming president. Rules for thee

    • not_fond_of_reddit@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      But the kicker is that he isn’t allowed to vote right? New York restore voting rights after you have completed your sentence if I remember correctly.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      Keep in mind that the founding fathers were guilty of what would have been considered a lot of grave crimes by England, which was formerly the jurisdiction that applied to them.

      So they probably wouldn’t have had a huge appetite for blocking political rights of criminals given their recent standing.

    • Sean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      If a convicted felon loses their right to vote, they should not be allowed to run for president.

    • SickofReddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      And if he wins again, he’s going to Pardon everybody who buys one from him. Including himself. Because there’s no law against it, and nobody thought that there ever needed to be for that either.

        • mcherm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          He can appoint two new members to the Supreme Court and then have them rule that Trump, as President, is immune to being prosecuted or held responsible for any state or federal crime but like Bush v. Gore it isn’t a precedent and doesn’t apply to any other President.