this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024

1853 points (97.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

microblogmemes@lemmy.world

12,081 readers

10,551 active

2,361 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
Absolutely no NSFL content.
Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 3 years ago

moderators

ReadyUser31@lemmy.world

aeronmelon@lemmy.world

needanke@feddit.org

Decision Time (infosec.pub)

submitted 2 years ago by barkingspiders@infosec.pub to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world

310 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] python@programming.dev 29 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Genuine question, but why is Trump even allowed to run? I vaguely know that there are some restrictions on who can become President (you have to be a certain age and be born in the USA iirc), how can it be that "Hasn't been convicted for any crimes recently" isn't a requirement?

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] lime@feddit.nu 41 points 2 years ago (2 children)

because political dissidents who are in jail for trying to overthrow a dictatorship should also be able to run. it's one of those unfortunate situations where this would be a good thing to have under an authoritarian government...

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 19 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

Under an authorisation government though I assume the law would be rescinded, so it's not really protecting anybody.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I mean becoming an authoritarian government to prevent an authoritarian government doesn't really make sense

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

That's like saying we shouldn't send anyone to prison because some of them might be innocent. You have to try your best with a system but that system has to be robust enough that it cannot be abused otherwise it will end up being abused.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Contravariant@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

If you want a system that cannot be abused then don't remove the safeguards designed to fix mistakes.

Allowed innocents to be released from prison, and allow the disenfranchised to regain their voting rights.

This is why there is always a higher power to overrule previous decisions, and when it comes to elections there is no higher power than a majority.

parent

[–] paw@feddit.org 0 points 2 years ago

Sometimes you need to fight fire with fire

/s

parent

[–] thedarkfly@feddit.nl 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

It probably wouldn't be allowed under an authoritarian government though...

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] lime@feddit.nu 12 points 2 years ago

of course not. the american "system of checks and balances" only works if everyone plays by the rules.

parent

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

He is literally barred from running by the Constitution because he committed an insurrection. Unfortunately the House, Senate, and Supreme Court are all somewhere between 50 and 67% Christofascist traitors.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

He literally isn't. If he literally was, he wouldn't be running. He literally should be, by a literal interpretation of the law, but that's literally not what's happened.

parent

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 2 years ago

I feel like they should introduce a rule that says that if you're more bronzer than flesh, you're not allowed to stand.

parent

[–] Contravariant@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

It's one of those safe-guards that democracy implements that's currently having rather unintended consequences.

The reasoning is that taking away voting rights is far too easy to abuse, and if a majority of people agree with whomever you wanted to prevent from voting/getting elected then you're fucked anyway.

Which, incidentally, is looking like a very real possibility right now.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] rdri@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

That reasoning is missing a crucial part: even if you're fucked anyway, why is it still okay to put a criminal in charge? Will it improve anything? Or do we think of the "fucked" condition very differently?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Contravariant@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Democracy isn't really meant to prevent something the majority wants.

If the majority wants a criminal to lead the country they'll elect them, or someone with the same policies, or someone who promises to put the criminal in power. The end result isn't all that different, and the latter two could be worse in some ways.

In a democracy the majority rules, and should they decide to put a lunatic in charge, well, that would be the least of your problems.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] rdri@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

I'm sorry but that doesn't seem logical. If you don't care about general good state of things, why would you care about the majority? People refer to democracy as a good thing because the US showed how it improves the system, lives etc.

The equality aspect itself is what I'd like to support. But when you find the majority being uneducated to understand what they are doing - something is going wrong with our assumptions about how things should work. An idiot should not be highly respected. A criminal should not have the power over people's lives. These things should have been more basic than democracy principles in everyone's mind, no?

parent