Because if they couldn’t, elected officials would just have their opponents brought up on weak technical charges just to get them disqualfied.
“Sir, you have been found guilty of jaywalking. As this is the third time you’ve been charged with this crime, that bumps it up to a felony under the ijustmadethisup act of 1793. The fine will be $50+ court costs. I also have to let you know that because you are a convicted felon, you are no longer allowed to run for office and have been removed from the ballot. Have a nice day.”
You do realize Trump is kind of historic right? Imagine we went from Obama to Biden. Then, try to think of a single president who just went “I’m president so I can do what I want”
Okay, okay. Let’s dispense with the silly insults.
Trump is historic because of his complete and utter disregard for the law - even Nixon knew when it was over. Trump has led about 30% of the populace to believe that election integrity was an issue - but only for the 2020 election. Beyond the general disregard for the common good that the Republicans previously celebrated, he has given them a direction for utter chaos.
Regardless of if you like him or not, he is historic and will be remembered. One can only imagine that Smith will be equally remembered
You joke but this bullshit tactic has been historically used to suppress voter’s rights for over a century. Charge someone with a bullshit felony and they lose their right to vote forever.
Right, but I’m talking about running for office. Using this tactic to prevent people from running for office is an entirely different, and much bigger, can of worms.
While everyone is right about the reasoning, no one brought up the relevant historical example: Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election… which is unfortunate because it’s a good one.
Euegen Debs was a socialist candidate who ran in the 1920 elections after being jailed by Wilson’s Sedition Act of 1918 for opposing the US joining WW1 and the accompanying draft.
Because if you’re able to invalidate your opponent’s candidacy for president, it makes a fascist takeover that much easier. Just change the laws so that any political opposition can’t run against you, and bam your party has indefinite control.
Nope. I’m not sure which law states that a convicted felon can’t vote, but I know for sure it takes quite a few years to change such foundational laws and this will not happen quickly enough.
It can happen for the election after Biden v Trump tho.
Florida just changed their laws on that. As others have said though that Florida laws require it to be finished so if Trump appeals I think that is right out.
That’s an interesting question since it isn’t a Florida felony that he was convicted of. However, the Florida law about felony voting already has several caveats. It only takes effect after the felony stuff is “done” as in time-served, parole done, and relevant fines paid. Then you have the committee approval which for Trump would likely be a high-five.
So, let’s say a political party is somehow at fault for charging and getting a verdict of an opponent. This would make it very easy to block anyone from running against the party in power if they so choose.
The founding fathers saw how much of an issue this would be so limited the reasons for blocking someone from running for office. I don’t think hush money is a good reason (though, doing so to block info that would make him lose an election I think should be but that will be up to the court)
Why can a felon run for president?
Because if they couldn’t, elected officials would just have their opponents brought up on weak technical charges just to get them disqualfied.
“Sir, you have been found guilty of jaywalking. As this is the third time you’ve been charged with this crime, that bumps it up to a felony under the ijustmadethisup act of 1793. The fine will be $50+ court costs. I also have to let you know that because you are a convicted felon, you are no longer allowed to run for office and have been removed from the ballot. Have a nice day.”
Not quite that silly, but you get the idea.
Maybe draw the line at idk, 30 felonies? That should cover any political bs.
You do realize Trump is kind of historic right? Imagine we went from Obama to Biden. Then, try to think of a single president who just went “I’m president so I can do what I want”
He is very historic. The biggest loser, the most lies, the most felonies, the most impeachments… the list can on for literally days.
Okay, okay. Let’s dispense with the silly insults.
Trump is historic because of his complete and utter disregard for the law - even Nixon knew when it was over. Trump has led about 30% of the populace to believe that election integrity was an issue - but only for the 2020 election. Beyond the general disregard for the common good that the Republicans previously celebrated, he has given them a direction for utter chaos.
Regardless of if you like him or not, he is historic and will be remembered. One can only imagine that Smith will be equally remembered
so it’s up to us not to vote for people who have 34 felony charges, got it.
Correction: 34 felony convictions.
34 felony convictions so far.
Well, we’re fucked.
Hah. Fair enough
You joke but this bullshit tactic has been historically used to suppress voter’s rights for over a century. Charge someone with a bullshit felony and they lose their right to vote forever.
Right, but I’m talking about running for office. Using this tactic to prevent people from running for office is an entirely different, and much bigger, can of worms.
While everyone is right about the reasoning, no one brought up the relevant historical example: Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election… which is unfortunate because it’s a good one.
Euegen Debs was a socialist candidate who ran in the 1920 elections after being jailed by Wilson’s Sedition Act of 1918 for opposing the US joining WW1 and the accompanying draft.
I was not familiar with this historical fact, thanks for the info! That’s definitely a good example of why it shouldn’t bar someone outright.
Because if you’re able to invalidate your opponent’s candidacy for president, it makes a fascist takeover that much easier. Just change the laws so that any political opposition can’t run against you, and bam your party has indefinite control.
If felons can’t vote (they should be able to), they sure as shit shouldn’t be able to run for office.
If it makes you feel better, he can’t vote for himself.
This does make me feel better. Thank you.
Wait, why not?
Edit: Oh, right. This isn’t the Honorable Judge Cannon. These are state felonies presided by a judge who understands the government functions
He is a Floridian though, doesn’t it take a “simple” meeting with DeSantis’s hand picked committee to get his voting rights back?
Nope. I’m not sure which law states that a convicted felon can’t vote, but I know for sure it takes quite a few years to change such foundational laws and this will not happen quickly enough.
It can happen for the election after Biden v Trump tho.
Florida just changed their laws on that. As others have said though that Florida laws require it to be finished so if Trump appeals I think that is right out.
That’s an interesting question since it isn’t a Florida felony that he was convicted of. However, the Florida law about felony voting already has several caveats. It only takes effect after the felony stuff is “done” as in time-served, parole done, and relevant fines paid. Then you have the committee approval which for Trump would likely be a high-five.
Can he look over Melanie’s shoulder while she votes for him like last time?
Because when voters feel the punishment was unjust, they can choose to ignore it. For example: Nelson Mandela.
Nelson Mandela ran for president of the US?
I remember that he was the President of the US right before he died
So, let’s say a political party is somehow at fault for charging and getting a verdict of an opponent. This would make it very easy to block anyone from running against the party in power if they so choose.
The founding fathers saw how much of an issue this would be so limited the reasons for blocking someone from running for office. I don’t think hush money is a good reason (though, doing so to block info that would make him lose an election I think should be but that will be up to the court)
Isn’t there a bigger problem than who can run for president at that point?
deleted by creator