• RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    Turns out that Moderate heavy states like Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan don’t want to vote for a felon that threatens to jail his enemies.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Wow, it’s almost like putting the entire weight of the RNC behind a convicted felon in a rematch against the guy he already lost to once in order to control the voting power of the cult that formed around him is, dare I say it, a bad political move? Like, such a bad political move that even somebody who knows absolutely nothing about politics should have been able to see this one coming?

    Imagine how detached from reality you need to be to genuinely believe that getting slapped with a felony conviction will somehow help your campaign.

    • szynaptic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      Imagine how detached from reality you need to be

      I agree with you. But I just want to point out that we are far, far past the “imagine if” stage. At this point in time, it is “witness in reality” how detached from reality Trump supporters are.

      “Imagine if” sounds dismissive and complacent. These people are an actual threat to everyone, including themselves.

      If you aren’t angry about the shit these fucks are pulling, then get angry; if you are already angry, get angrier. Then go out and vote against them.

  • Bosht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Why the fuck is Trump even able to run? He’s literally a fucking criminal, and was impeached. I dont understand how our political system or even judicial systems work at this point.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Thought leaders have been raising this issue for years. Among those calling for barring criminals from running for office: some guy named Donald Trump.

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Shouldn’t you have the right to run for office when you have paid back your debt to society?

        I mean if you can get an opponent convicted and it prevents them running, it feels kind of undemocratic.

        BTW I’m not talking about tRump, he should be behind bars since ages already.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          Yeah probably. The same logic ought to be applied to felons who currently lose their right to vote. Rights being treated as privileges…

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      This is how the constitution is written. This scenario was never foreseen and our founders were naive.

    • bluewing@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      He IS a felon. But while he went through the impeachment process several times, he was never convicted. And there is no rule or law that says a felon can’t be president.

      While voting for Trump, or even entertaining his views, is a red flag warning. Like it or not, he is legally entitled to run. Perhaps the rules and laws should be changed. But to do that would require either a unified congress or a super majority of a party willing to do so. And I suspect, that as it currently stands, neither side wants to limit themselves from gaining the power and status of national or state office brings to them for any reason.

      • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        it could also be an amendment to the constitution if enough states agree but that’s probably even less likely.

        and i’m not sure it should be. i could definitely see a world where trump pushes for conviction of a Democrat candidate (remember all the “lock her up” stuff?). i hope the legal system is robust enough to appeal a rogue court situation but at some point it may not be. And elections are time sensitive, would the appeal even finish before the election?

        flawed as it may be this could be the best solution to guard against authoritarianism.

      • Evotech@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        This is by design. So you can’t just get some charges on your opponent and disqualify them

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            29 days ago

            The serious argument about felons being allowed to vote is that voting is a civic duty, and you want felons to re-integrate into society. If they have tons of restrictions following them around for the rest of their lives, they’re always going to be a little bit outside. Feeling like they’re stuck outside of society makes recidivism rates higher, so restoring the right to vote is an important step in rehabilitation.

            It would take a lot of people having felony convictions to be able to seriously sway an election, but given the racially polarized way that the criminal justice system is often applied, I think that’s probably happened.

        • bluewing@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          Oh, I whole heartily agree. There is a lot tit for tat in politics. And rules are meant to be bent and twisted to one’s own end. It could end up being a slippery slope as easily as not.

      • Hugin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Technically he is not a felon until he is sentenced. So he will be a felon on July 11th.

        That said I agree not letting people run from office because of convictions just incentives the state to go after political enemies.

    • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      I dont understand how our political system or even judicial systems work at this point.

      With a lot of grease.

    • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Disclaimer: Fuck Trump.

      That being said, convicted “criminals” should still be able to run for any public office in my opinion. A tyrant CAN capture the judiciary and imprison their political opponents. This is in fact what happened in the Indian elections right now. This is in fact what happened in the US elections in the early 1900s, where a socialist candidate ran for President from prison. What was his crime? Striking when the State had deemed it illegal to do so.

      • Cosmicomical@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        In most us states they take your voting right when you are convicted. This is not compatible with running for president as a convict imo.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          29 days ago

          Have you considered that maybe that’s tyranny as well?

          What if, for example, someone decided to make weed a felony because he couldn’t outright make being black illegal?

            • ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              28 days ago

              There has certainly been a correlation for being black and being charged with possession of weed if that’s what you mean.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              29 days ago

              "You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?

              We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.

              Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

              • John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon

              https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional

            • RBWells@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              29 days ago

              No, a correlation between being black and being arrested for weed. In my city, they made the legal status of the drug indeterminate and gave cops DISCRETION on whether to arrest or cite someone for having pot. Not a felony now in any event, misdemeanor or civil citation or nothing but how do you think this discretion will be used?

              • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                29 days ago

                Nixon did specifically consider weed a hippies and black people thing, but even if that was statistically true selective enforcement was always the plan.

                • Fire Witch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  29 days ago

                  You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?

                  We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.

                  Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

            • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              29 days ago

              Oh sweet summer child, everyone smokes weed. Cannabis prohibition was about giving police the power to arrest anyone they want to - and they used that power to arrest Black people.

              And if you don’t smoke weed? Well what about this little baggy we “found in your pocket”?

              • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                29 days ago

                I really, really, really hate the phrase “Oh sweet summer child”. Is it possible to be any more patronizing? Couldn’t you just say it normally?

                • bc93@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  28 days ago

                  Literally every argument on Lemmy and Reddit reads like two extremely smarmy atheists who think they know everything trying to convince the world that they’re mega smart and their interlocutor is a dumbass. It’s pretty unbearable.

                • Cursed@lemmus.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  28 days ago

                  Not that I care about either of you guys or your argument, but I gotta point out that it’s a phrase intended to be insulting and condescending. You’re just letting the other guy know they got to you by writing this.

      • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Happened in Brazil too in 2016. Corrupt prosecutor (now congressman) worked with corrupt judge (who later became justice minister and is currently a senator) to imprison Lula. He couldn’t run for the presidency and Bolsonaro got it. Later, the Supreme Court found that the case was based on lies and there were coordination between the prosecutor and the judge and they reinstated Lula’s freedom and political rights.

        But now, the tables have turned, and after Bolsonaro’s actions in the failed coup on 2022, the Supreme Court take away Bolsonaro’s political rights and he can’t be a candidates for any office until 2030.

      • VoilaChihuahua@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        I’d like it if anyone convicted of fraud / criminal deceit / murder could never be president, but as our nation’s common sense appears to have withered and died, the intent would eventually be twisted to suit some nefarious purpose.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      Why the fuck is Trump even able to run?

      Because nobody is actually stopping him. Republican state level leaders all love him. Dems are too terrified to threaten him with more than a wrist slap. The police are in his corner. Big Business is bankrolling him. The Media keeps accidentally falling face first onto his dick. And 1:3 Americans still insist he’s better than The Other Guy.

      So he’s still listed on all the ballots. He’s still the GOP’s nominee. And if he wins the lion’s share of electoral college votes (by hook or by crook) he’s going to be the President in January.

    • evatronic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      There are no hard requirements for being president beyond those listed in the Constitution:

      1. Be a natural born US citizen
      2. Be at least 35 years old
      3. Have resided in the US for 14 or more years.

      That’s it. The framers of the Constitution presumably felt being a convicted felon would be enough for an electorate (or the electoral college, at least) to simply not vote for that person.

      • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        also this prevents a rogue prosecutor and judge from convicting a presidential candidate and blocking them from running. this way it is up to the people, whether the conviction is legitimate or not.

        to be clear i am not saying trump’s conviction is illegitimate, just speaking generally. i could definitely see a world where trump pushes for this with a Democrat candidate (remember all the “lock her up” stuff?). i hope the legal system is robust enough to appeal a rogue situation but at some point it may not be.

      • Mio@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        I would like to see more requirements:

        1. Upper age restriction
        2. Does not lie about well known facts from scientist, like Covid-19.
        • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          Upper age restriction

          And what happens when medical science increases life expectancy? U would have to amend the constitution to pass this. Think of how nightmarish it is to do this. Now think of amending this AGAIN when life expectancy increases every year.

          Does not lie about well known facts from scientist, like Covid-19.

          Who decides what “well known facts” are? A particular non-political committee? The supreme court was supposed to be this committee. It clearly became political quickly…

          • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            29 days ago

            And what happens when medical science increases life expectancy?

            Make the upper age limit be average life expectancy minus X years. This has the added bonus of motivating politicians to actually try to increase average life expectancy.

            Who decides what “well known facts” are?

            The scientific community, and certainly not the Supreme Court. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

            • Wiz@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              29 days ago

              The scientific community, and certainly not the Supreme Court.

              Because there are different “scientific communities” - some of them rogue and stupid. I’m not the poster you were responding to, but I would assume that the arbiter of your hypothetical of which scientific communities would be valid would go to the Supreme Court.

              • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                29 days ago

                No. The scientific community policies itself with peer review. The rogue and stupid communities are peer reviewed out of existence. You can submit all the falsified “research” you want, but if your published results can’t be replicated, you will be labeled a quack and your “findings” will go ignored by the rest of the scientific community.

                No government-affiliated judicial body is involved in verifying science, because judges are experts in law, not science.

                • Wiz@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  28 days ago

                  Do you know how long it takes to replicate another’s studies? Sometimes that never happens.

        • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          28 days ago

          Upper age restriction

          instead of this I would like to see independent physical and mental acuity tests performed and released publicly. no need to bring age into it if they are fit.

    • theonyltruemupf@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      In Germany, if you’re in jail you can’t be elected into office. You can however always cast your vote even from jail (except for rare and extreme political crimes such as terrorism, starting a war and such)

    • myrmidex@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Funny how 8 years ago, people kept saying “don’t worry about Trump, there are checks and balances in place”. None of that talk this time around!

      • meeeeetch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Because there’s now an infrastructure built up around him with plans on how to override those checks and balances (Project 2025).

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          We also saw the checks and balances do fuckall because they were captured by fellow criminals.

      • exanime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Those people never realized their stance is just as idiotic as “I cross the street without looking both ways because if they run me over, they’ll have to pay”… or “I have the seat belt on, I can crash at top speed and nothing will happen to me”

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    Good. Let’s hope it keeps up. Polls this far out from the election can sometimes be… non-indicative of the eventual result.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    Yup, this is why we follow it over time.

    It went from pro Biden, to waffling back and forth, to pro Trump, to waffling back and forth, and now, here we are!

    Let’s check the usual suspects:

    Arizona: Tie, Biden+2, Trump+2-+4 Waffling.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/arizona/

    Nevada: Trump +3
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/nevada/

    New Mexico: No useful polling.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/new-mexico/

    Georgia: Trump +5/+6
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/georgia/

    North Carolina: Trump +8
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/north-carolina/

    Pennsylvania: Biden +1/+2 to Trump +2 Waffling
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/

    Michigan: Tie to Trump+1 Waffling
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/

    Wisconsin: Biden +2/+7 to Trump +1 Waffling
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/wisconsin/

    Minnesota: Tie, Biden+2, Trump +3/+5 Waffling
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/minnesota/

    What this looks like mapped out:

    This actually is an improvement for Biden who had been losing several of these.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        I’m excited for RFK to take a couple states and Congress votes in Trump. That’s not going to be a shit show at all. And I know that’s what’s going to happen because we’re in the timeline where things just keep getting worse. I think we split from the prime timeline sometime around Reagan.

      • finley@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        29 days ago

        The US is mostly empty space, sparsely inhabited by republicans. Democrats are often gathered in major population centers and seem less visible in this form of representation, due to their geographic concentration, but that’s a misrepresentation.

        This graphic better illustrates this, representing the 2020 presidential election (from NYT)

      • 31337@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Rural populations lean red. Not exactly sure why that is. I guess contributing factors are that rural people tend to be more religious, bigoted, “independent” of public infrastructure and community, and pro-gun. I think Republicans also give more lip service to rural economic conditions, and visit rural parts more often. Democrats seem to largely ignore rural America, and even sometimes express contempt for them.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        A lot of it is low population and lots of square miles.

        Take my state for example… We voted for Biden, but if you check it county by county:

        You’d be right to go "Well, wait, how does that work?

        See those 3 giant counties in the lower right hand corner? That’s Lake, Harney, and Malheur county from left to right.

        Here’s how they voted in 2020:

        Lake
        Biden - 792 - 18.15%
        Trump - 3,470 - 79.53%

        Harney
        Biden - 894 - 19.95%
        Trump - 3,475 - 77.55%

        Malheur
        Biden - 3,260 - 27.62%
        Trump - 8,187 - 69.36%

        There’s more cattle than people down there, of course it goes Red.

        Now if you look at the top of the map, you’ll see a sliver of dark blue, that’s Multnomah County, i.e. where most of the people live.

        Biden - 367,249 - 79.21%
        Trump - 82,995 - 17.90%

        It really doesn’t matter how many square miles turn red, it’s the people who do the voting.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          It really doesn’t matter how many square miles turn red, it’s the people who do the voting.

          Inside of states for popular elections this is true. However, that giant area of red is over-represented at just about every level of government, from the electoral college to Congress to state legislatures.

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    29 days ago

    I’m all for protest votes and sending a message IF you don’t live in a swing state. People who live in swing states have the privilege of their vote actually mattering in the grand scheme. Please, please hold your nose and vote for Biden. We non-swing staters can take care of sending messages from the safety of our deep reds and blues.