this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
199 points (95.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35890 readers
1246 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If so, then why?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 169 points 5 months ago (10 children)

He can, because there's no law against it. Probably nobody thought there'd ever need to be!

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 73 points 5 months ago (8 children)

As an outsider that’s pretty wild. So you can’t buy a firearm but you can be president and control them all. Like what?

[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 145 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.de 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 94 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but a corrupt government can fabricate evidence to keep their enemies silenced.

Look at Russia and their treatment of Alexei Navalny.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Or just regular ass black people in America.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

just don’t break any laws then

A very naïve idea :-(

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] essell@lemmy.world 45 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We've got these things called "social media" that are built expressly for the purpose of influencing people to buy more stuff (literally in the name: influencers). And if it can get people to part with their money, you can be sure the same tools can be used to get people to vote against their own interests.

We thought the internet was a tool to spread democracy. We were wrong. The Internet is a tool used to undermine democracy, so long as people using the Internet are not strongly inoculated against organized interests, foreign, and domestic.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 27 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The concern of the founding fathers was that one state would have political reasons to rush a trial and get a legitimate candidate convicted of a crime in their court. If the conviction was legitimate, it was supposed to be handled by the Electors of the Electoral College.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 25 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If the conviction is legitimate, the Electoral College has ways to shut that down.

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months 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 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months 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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 44 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My man Eugen Debbs ran from prison in the early 1900s. He was thrown in prison for speaking out again the war (the first amendment wasn’t much protection back in the day).

It is good that he could run, since he was a political prisoner. He advocated for the common man against the corrupt institutions.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

Agreed. There are situations where it totally makes sense to have a felon run for president. This isn’t one of them

[–] not_fond_of_reddit@lemm.ee 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He's a Florida resident now, but I believe they also take away the right to vote for felons until their sentence is complete.

[–] not_fond_of_reddit@lemm.ee 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Florida… HAHAHAHA, this is effin’ to good to be true… in Florida you risk lose your voting rights FOREVER!!!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

I find it wild that a felon loses their right to vote, but they could run for office. So he could run for president, but he can't vote for himself. 🤨

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] symthetics@lemmy.world 94 points 5 months ago (6 children)

You'd think the bad publicity alone would be enough to destroy any chance of election. You'd think.

[–] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 19 points 5 months ago

Yeah, one would really think

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Not when he has been creating a narrative since 2020 that he was the real winner of that election and all these court cases are just designed to try and stop him from being President.

His supporters have bought the premium subscription to this narrative, so nothing is going to change their minds. In fact, the more court cases there are, the more support he gets.

Even though going after him for his alleged crimes is the right thing to do, I actually wish they'd just let him fade into obscurity instead. Because all it has ended up doing is helping his campaign.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] OlPatchy2Eyes@lemmy.world 80 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Yes, and it's important that felons be able to run for president. Were that not the case, a corrupt enough system could just disqualify anyone that would seek to oust it.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago (4 children)

This is true.

But, it must also be pointed out that that's another case of good faith actors getting fucked by assholes. In theory this sounds good, like free speech and tolerance for all. But when you are dealing with criminals and sociopaths those virtues get used against you.

[–] OlPatchy2Eyes@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Absolutely, and it's infuriating. The only thing that can stand between criminals and sociopaths is the vote, and a too much of the vote is controlled by morons.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 71 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yup! Because that's the law. The original idea was to keep people in power from being able to outmaneuver their opponents by having them arrested. That was back when politicians and corporations had some level of public accountability though.

[–] LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

So felons can run for president, they just can't vote for who they want though?

[–] meeeeetch@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

Debs ran from prison (for the high crime of telling people that WWI was none of our business and people shouldn't enlist to get turned toa pink mist in Belgium) in 1920

As for voting as a felon, that varies state to state. I don't think there's anyplace that allows people to vote from prison, but quite a few states let convicted felons vote once they've completed their sentence and any parole that follows it (and in some states, pay additional fines, which sounds a bit like a poll tax to me, but I'm not one of our nine kritarchs, so what do I know about that sort of thing?)

As for people running for office when they couldn't vote, Elizabeth Cady Stanton ran for office well before she could have voted, and the first woman elected to Congress (Jeanette Rankin) was elected in 1916, several years before women's suffrage was added to the constitution, though her state, Montana, had allowed women to vote already.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Sadly, Florida, where Trump lives, defers to the State of conviction, and in NY, as long as you aren't currently in prison, you can vote.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 52 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The Constitution spells out who is eligible to run for President, and does not say criminals are ineligible. It's as simple as that.

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 5 months ago (5 children)

I do find it odd that you guys put so much emphasis on a document written in a time nothing like today.

Like surely it should evolve, but I can see how that would go right now so it’s probably for the best.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 41 points 5 months ago

We do amend the Constitution from time to time, but it takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, plus ratification by 3/4 of states. so it's quite a high bar.

[–] wagesj45@kbin.run 23 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Just because an idea is old, doesn't mean its a bad idea. And we do have mechanisms for modifying the constitution. We just don't do it often because it requires a lot of agreement.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 42 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Yep, cause the constitution doesn’t forbid felons from running for president.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] dudinax@programming.dev 34 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The congress can still impeach Trump for a third time even though he's not in office, and if the Senate convicts, they can ban him from ever holding public office again.

[–] LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world 29 points 5 months ago

I'll take things that'll never happen for $100

[–] clueless_stoner@feddit.nl 27 points 5 months ago (2 children)

yes, felons can campaign for president and be elected. technically it's even legal for the president to be locked behind bars while serving.

[–] beefbaby182@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

The sad part is that despite being a convicted felon he will most likely never see the inside of a jail cell.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yes. And he's not the first to run a campaign from prison (though he likely won't go to prison for the 34 felonies. Prison is extremely rare for those kinds of charges. even if he wasn't trump.)

some more info

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 18 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Yes. The constitution is actually shockingly specific about what the qualifications are. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

No other qualifications can be considered, barring a Constitutional Amendment.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yes, and there's precedent that he can still run even if he's imprisoned.

Debs ran for president in the 1920 election while imprisoned in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.

[–] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Convicted felons can't vote so he can't vote for himself. 🤣

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

The current record for number of US presidental votes received while in prison is about 1,000,000. Eugene V. Debs is the record holder, and that election was in 1920. Trump just may beat him this year. There is no law that says you can't be president while in prison.

load more comments
view more: next ›