this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
1796 points (97.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
5706 readers
3328 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:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
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.
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.
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...
Under an authorisation government though I assume the law would be rescinded, so it's not really protecting anybody.
I mean becoming an authoritarian government to prevent an authoritarian government doesn't really make sense
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.
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.
Sometimes you need to fight fire with fire
/s
It probably wouldn't be allowed under an authoritarian government though...
of course not. the american "system of checks and balances" only works if everyone plays by the rules.
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.
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?
I feel like they should introduce a rule that says that if you're more bronzer than flesh, you're not allowed to stand.