• 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    Sure felonies should be considered on a case by case basis, but there are many felons I’d have an issue with running for office, not just this particular one.

    • Wilzax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      I only have a problem with this one running because he’s the only one with a chance of winning

      • 3volver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s good bait, but I’m still not taking it. I repeat my stance, felonies should be considered on a case by case basis, but there are many felons I’d have an issue with running for office, not just this particular one.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          6 months ago

          “Case by case” for political office is so obviously open to corruption you shouldn’t bother with it though, and felony definitions are already weaponized as they are between drugs and protest laws.

          Hell, for that matter, isn’t a public record of convictions already your best version of a case by case system?

          Each voter can decide which crime matters to them…

          I’m probably more likely to vote for someone that caught a felony for protesting.

          • Esqplorer
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s not case by case, but crime by crime. It should be decided on a basis of rule of law as to which specific crimes, such as those reflecting character and not just a lapse in judgement.

            Trump has many convictions reflecting on his character in this one trial.

            • zaph@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              Problem with that is you can’t attack someone’s character in court unless they try to use it as a defense so there’s no way that’s getting into the constitution in our lifetimes.

              • Esqplorer
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                You absolutely can reference character. It just isn’t itself evidence of other crimes.

          • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            weaponized

            My state has a law on the books specifying Abuse of a Sports Official as a felony. As in, “Hey you, the umpire’s a bum.”

            As you have observed, the situation has gotten quite out of hand.

          • 3volver@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            Practically I think that all felons shouldn’t be able to run for office given the nature of the system. Ideally it would be case by case, but yes it would be corrupted and used by those in power to stop people from running. We either need to allow felons to vote and allow felons to run for president, OR do not allow felons to vote and do not allow felons to run for president. Right now the system makes no fucking sense.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              6 months ago

              So anyone who is caught with too much weed in a certain state?

              Anyone who “resists arrest” at a protest?

              No, fuck that. Felons should be able to vote and run for office, unless convicted of treason or insurrection.

              Which Trump should be.