5mo ago

Decision Time

318 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?
- 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  Under an authorisation government though I assume the law would be rescinded, so it's not really protecting anybody.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
  
  Sometimes you need to fight fire with fire
  /s
  
  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.
  
  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.
- 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.
- I feel like they should introduce a rule that says that if you're more bronzer than flesh, you're not allowed to stand.
- 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?
  
  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.
  
  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?

318 comments