this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
168 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4517 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
168
Trump is a convicted felon. Here’s why he can still vote today. (www.cnn.com)
submitted 11 hours ago by simplejack@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 71 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (5 children)

Because committing crimes, including felonies, shouldn't prevent you from being involved in politics, because you're still impacted by politics.

Trump, on the other hand, is an extreme case, because his felonies including trying to stop the transfer of power and do a coup to install himself permanently in power. To me, those are more solid reasons to say he shouldn't be able to vote again, way moreso than just being "a felon."

EDIT: Just want to say, I think others are correct, he should still be allowed to vote, but he should be disallowed from running for office. That's a more clear and reasonable way to look at it, I think. Thanks folks.

[–] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

It's almost like there should be a law against somebody like him running for office. Oh wait, there already is, and it's been on the books for 150 years to keep Confederate traitors from holding office. 14th amendment, section 3.

It's fucking insane that he's even on ballots after what he did.

[–] missingno@fedia.io 22 points 10 hours ago (4 children)

If felons should be allowed to vote, I don't think it's worth carving out an exemption for one particular felon. His vote is a drop in the bucket anyway.

What's more important is that this felon should not be allowed to run for office.

[–] dufkm@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

His vote is a drop in the bucket anyway

We are all just drops in the bucket on this blessed day.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

It’s not an exemption for one person if you say that a felony related to undermining an election stops you from being able to vote. I think that’s fair enough.

[–] bananahammock@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 hours ago

If the people want a felon, give them a felon.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 hours ago

That truly is the crux of the issue.

[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 hours ago

The problem is: if he for some reason is elected, he could then invent reasons why other people should not be able to vote or be elected. Or just claim that there are reasons

[–] marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 hours ago

I fully support his being eligible to vote, regardless of past convictions, even if they were for treasonous, seditious behavior.

He should not be eligible to run for office.

Convicted felons should be eligible to vote, whether in prison or not, because as you said, anyone still affected by politics should have a voice. This also includes children, undocumented immigrants, and resident aliens. Anyone living here is impacted by the choices of our representatives and should therefore be able to vote for those representatives. Physical presence should be the only requirement.

[–] Breezy@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Fuck no he shouldnt be allowed to vote nor run for president. This is how we get hitler 2.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

So anyone who's been found guilty of a crime shouldn't be allowed to vote even though once they're out of prison they still pay taxes? Taxation without representation? You don't think they might be interested in voting for people that would have made it so they might not have committed a crime in the first place or that might push for rehabilitation instead of pure punishment or that might be against private prisons?

[–] Breezy@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago

Uh he tried to have a coup. Disqualified! And if you disagree, well you're Disqualified too.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 33 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Being a felon should not bar anybody from voting, that's intentional, and the way it should be. On the other hand, running for office after trying to overturn an election, ehhh, maybe you shouldn't be eligible for office after that. But, hey, what do I know, I just live in this country.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 12 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Voting is a right. Being a candidate is a privilege.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I don't even know that I'd go that far. If we start saying people who have had run ins with the law aren't eligible for office in general, then you can just slap your political opponents with frivolous charges to prevent them from running. This is a special case of outrageous and egregious conduct by a candidate, who quite frankly has a good chance of winning thanks to the right wing media apparatus.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 10 hours ago

Oh sure, there's always that. I failed to make the point that because of the right/privilege distinction, it should be much more difficult to remove someone's right to vote than to remove their privilege to run as a candidate.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 22 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Because he was convicted in New York and according to Florida law the state that he was convicted ins laws apply as far as his voting rights.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The thing is, which law? I can't find it. Florida's website redirects to their constitution and their constitution. Doesn't. Say. That.

It doesn't carve out that exception, and there would need to be a law that automatically reinstated him instead of just never removing him. Because a law that doesn't remove him, violates their constitution.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know, I was parroting the article.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

I know. I'm just annoyed that no news source has backed up this claim with the actual law that supposedly exempts him.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago

Yeah it's really interesting to me that you weren't able to find it. Because that's not the first time I've read that.

And law libraries are pretty thorough.

I've done some digging in them myself.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

That's the thing I've read before, but does

"No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation."

mean that it excludes it when the other state doesn't have a rule removing rights? Maybe a lawyer can explain it to me, but following the links to the actual law seems to contradict what's on the page from how I understand it. Also what's in the page seemed to get edited there as soon as people started asking about it.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

"Until restoration of civil rights" is the important bit. Since NY hasn't removed his civil rights he doesn't have to "restore them".

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I think the important part is that it's florida that'd be removing them, and the rest of it that I didn't copy is how florida restores them. This is Florida's constitution. If we interpreted that way, he can never get them back. Florida took them away and he cannot have them back until NY restores them, which they can't

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago

Well that's the thing Florida doesn't remove them in the first place if the other state doesn't. Your interpretation would create a legal catch-22 which doesn't make sense per the default of people having rights.