this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
299 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2639 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump initially said Kamala Harris shouldn't be “allowed” to run against him. Now he wants her “forced off” the campaign trail.

Ahead of Election Day 2020, Trump said Joe Biden shouldn’t have been “allowed” to run for president. In July 2024, he said Kamala Harris shouldn’t be “allowed” to run, either.

Four months later, as a HuffPost report noted, the former president insisted that the Democratic vice president should now be “forced off” the campaign trail.

In recent weeks, as the GOP nominee has struggled to come up with a coherent closing message, he’s fixated on a handful of preoccupations, including his desire to see Biden return to the ballot, his baseless “60 Minutes” conspiracy theory and his insistence that Harris should stop running against him.


🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AngryCommieKender 45 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Not a good law to pass. The GOP would weaponize that before the ink was dry on the bill.

[–] RegalPotoo 15 points 1 month ago (5 children)

If your country is in a place where you don't think banning felons from holding elected office is good because you are worried that the legislative branch will weaponize the judicial branch to stop their opposition from running, then I'd suggest that the problem isn't one that laws can fix

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It was a forethought, it was intentional. The "founding fathers" may have been super naive and absurd in some situations, but this is one they got correct. You don't want to let the government decide who gets to run in that way because that will almost always be abused no matter what the current society is like.

There are specific situations like what Colorado tried with Trump that makes sense and have a legal history, he was part of an insurrection, but for "standard" felonies it's best that we don't go down that road.

[–] 51dusty 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

nevermind standard felonies. if it were almost any other federal position with access to classified material he'd never get a clearance, along with many other politicians; strictly based on business deals with foreign powers, debt and erratic behavior. why these people don't have to go through the same minimum, non-political checks for access as other federal workers is beyond me.... at the very least, he just doesn't meet the minimum qualifications for access to material needed to perform his job.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If I understand correctly (however dumb I think it is) "we" give him clearance by voting for him. We are supposed to be that check.

That's one place the founders fucked up, but also their system of elections was much different than it is now. I for one wouldn't even be able to vote since I don't own land... They never expected complete fucking morons and propagandized asshats to be voting. I believe they also expected the electors of the electoral college to override a vote for someone as bat shit crazy as Trump...

[–] 51dusty 2 points 4 days ago

i know it's been a while since the og post but I ran across a very good explanation about the clearance stuff and wanted to pay-it-forward for the civil conversation before.

enjoy! 😜

https://theconversation.com/trumps-criminal-conviction-wont-stop-him-from-getting-security-clearance-as-president-243104

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)