this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
123 points (93.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35702 readers
4895 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I apologize for the many questions.

I'm still baffled by all the mess surrounding the US elections. Before blaming the people, I'm wondering how it is even possible that Trump could be eligible in the first place. How could the administration allow him to be represented after all the felonies, including those where he clearly sold his country by sharing top secret information with Putin? It seems there is evidence that he has been a puppet for decades. I mean, isn’t that the definition of a traitor? What were the secret services doing? Wasn’t the FBI created to combat the very thing Trump is? Where is all the anti-communist sentiment that the US has become accustomed to?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

I think there are two answers to this. First, there is a long standing tradition in the US that the new guy doesn't put the old guy in jail.

Look at so many other countries and so much of world history to see how that style of governing is problematic to the transfer of power from one regime to the next and why it causes its own set of problems.

The second, and arguably the most important, is that the American people as a whole can elect whoever the fuck they want to be president, no matter what any mid level beurocrat, judge, lawmaker or even current president or other official says about the issue, even if said person is in jail at the time.

The law and its punishments should still apply to all, including the president and former presidents, however.

[–] bender223@lemmy.today 1 points 3 hours ago

Simple, if you're a white man with money, you can do whatever you want and get away with it.

🤷‍♂️

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 23 points 19 hours ago

Biden appointed a conservative Attorney General who refused to investigate Trump for two and a half years. Biden and his conservative AG (Merrick Garland) allowed Trump to get away with everything. So, here we are.

Neoliberals are conservatives. Always have been.

[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 25 points 22 hours ago

rules don't matter if no one enforces them. republicans have been consolidating power for decades, partly by never holding their own accountable. dems are always held accountable, but usually for things that either don't matter or are entirely false.

Trump isn't held accountable because his supporters control every institution that can, and they want him to be king of america.

[–] Battle_Masker@lemmy.world 26 points 22 hours ago

The Supreme Court has the power to say anything against it but 6 of the justices are down bad for it. And at least one of them are being paid specifically NOT to say anything about it

[–] nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz 12 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Trump won the popular vote, trying to suppress him from running is akin to suppressing democracy.

If we (or 51% of voters) want to be fucked in the ass, then there should be no law that prevents it. As a country we have just voted for continuous fucking ass rape for the next 4 years.

1000011954

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 13 points 13 hours ago

I don’t accept the argument that as long as 51% of people vote for something, it should be good to go. We have a constitution, you realize, and you need more than that to change it. Is the constitution suppressing democracy? You’re talking about a kindergartener’s view of “majority rule,” not American democracy. And thank goodness, because I heartily believe that 51% of people would vote for some ghoulish shit, like boiling immigrant children in oil. And there you’d be, shrugging and saying “ahem - 51%, people.”

Go off and think it through a little better. I’ll be here when you get back.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Lincoln got 40% of the popular vote and there are crimes that make you ineligible to run for a reason.

[–] radix@lemmy.world 98 points 1 day ago (2 children)

He is over 35, a natural born citizen, and has lived in the US for 14 years. He was impeached, but not convicted. Accused of insurrection, but the wheels of justice turned too slowly.

That's the extent of the legal requirements to be eligible to be President. The theory was that any other social disqualifications would be handled at the ballot box.

That theory is now proven to be incorrect, but fixing it takes a constitutional amendment.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 19 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The theory was that any other social disqualifications would be handled at the ballot box.

That theory is now proven to be incorrect, but fixing it takes a constitutional amendment.

That could be a slippery slope too. Imagine a constitutional amendment making someone ineligible because of a "social disqualification" such as sexual orientation.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

In what way would barring felons lead to barring gays? People use the words “slippery slope” to make their point, even though it’s literally the name of a logical fallacy. You have to show HOW one will lead to the next, not just say “a little might lead more!” That, exactly, is the fallacy. Textbook.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Calm down and read again. The person said social disqualification as opposed to judicial conviction, and I'm saying social disqualification being a vague notion could lead to easier abuse by the political power to shut down opposition.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 25 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I think Americans need to realise that Trump won by popular vote- anything to prevent this legally would be undemocratic. You'll need to change social attitudes or maybe put up a better candidate/run a better campaign in opposition.

[–] Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 15 hours ago

I don't disagree, but winning popular vote doesn't always matter

[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

I think Americans need to realise that Trump won by popular vote

That means that most USians are appalling people.

As a Latin-American suffering for decades the consequences of US foreign policies, I'm not surprised.

[–] sOlitude24k@lemmy.myserv.one 13 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Gonna have to second this. We decided that, despite everything, none of it was a dealbreaker.

It's definitely tough to accept that 72 million Americans made that choice, and even more than that didn't even give enough of a shit to turn up to vote.

It's disappointing and embarrassing.

[–] AlbertSpangler@lemmings.world 7 points 20 hours ago

Cunts watched him insult the parents of slain soldiers, mock someone's disability and everything else, and still voted for him multiple times.

Fuck your country.

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I mean making someone ineligible to be president for as long as he is under investigation for insurrection, treason or other crimes against the United States sounds pretty straightforward.

He could always wait and get back into it the next cycle if the investigation gets dropped or if he's proven innocent.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 2 hours ago

I'd be honest, this makes political suppression easier. Just say this is the case, then next year, oops, all of the top dem candidates are being investigated. If people are dumb enough to want a traitor in office, then they should be able to carry out that stupidity democratically.

[–] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It sounds straightforward until it's used as a weapon by the sitting administration to prevent competition at the ballot box.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 8 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You know, because every president commits a little light treason here and there! Same as speeding in a car. It's not that big of deal /s

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Dude, this isn't really a hypothetical. We've already seen this exact tactic get used in places like Russia. You just bring bullshit charges against whoever opposes you. The veracity of the charges is completely irrelevant.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

This idea rejects the idea that we can put any faith in our courts, even if we add extra measures to make them more trustworthy. If this is true, why bother even faking any of this shit? Let's just all begin thinking of ourselves as slaves and our leaders as untouchable gods.

[–] LucidNightmare@lemm.ee 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I swear after this election, people have become so.. senseless on here. Wildly different just a few weeks ago when we were sticking up and actively promoting Harris and her policies.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

What are you saying is the case now? That no one is owning up to supporting Harris or what?

[–] LucidNightmare@lemm.ee 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Just observing the major differences in attitude here. I'm agreeing with you, and wondering why the vitriol all being placed on Harris and her campaign, instead of on the voters who actively wanted and then voted for a felon.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

I see. Yeah, I am pissed at both, but ultimately voters not giving one single shit pisses me off a lot more than democrats being their typical out of touch selves.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works 6 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Out of curiosity, can a judge temporarily strip someone from their election/vote right as part/alternative to a sentence ? It's a relatively common sentence for French politicians found guilty of corruptions (Which save the cost of keeping them in prison and limit their ability to re-offend) but no idea whether it's universal or unique

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, isn’t that the definition of a traitor?

The definition of treason is very clear and very narrowly defined in the COTUS, and this does not meet the definition.

[–] innermeerkat@jlai.lu 17 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Article III, Section 3. The definition states:

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Calling for civil war and aiding an authoritarian country such as Russia, which is well known for being a long-time enemy and wants nothing more than the fall and decadence of the US, raises the question: if what Trump is doing is not treason, according to the Constitution, then I don’t know what is.

[–] WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago

Laws are only for people without money.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -4 points 13 hours ago

You really can't think of anything more obviously a case of treason than what you believe trump has done?

The guy is loyal only to himself, no doubt. But, I don't even see how it would fit this definition at all, and I can easily come up with many things more obviously a violation. Also keep in mind that Russia is not an enemy; we are not at war with them. They are an adversary.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (2 children)

he hasn't been charged/convicted of any of the relevant felonies that would preclude service, and nobody is going to make an issue of it; simply because all three branches of government are now under christofascist control. any lawsuits will go to SCROTUS, where they'll just rubber stamp a decision and cite some bullshit.

also the 14th gives enforcement to congress, which won't do anything either.

[–] llamatron@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (15 children)

But why? Why are all these people so happy to protect such a despicable human being who will happily throw any of them under the bus and who has, and will again, sell out their country to anyone who says nice stuff to him and gives him money? It's absolutely extraordinary.

And it's not like it's a secret. His corruption is there out in the open for all to see. We all see it, we all know it. And yet here we are.

My mental wellbeing has taken a major hit this last day seeing how so many people would rather burn down our future than vote for a competent black woman.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

They have been setting the pieces to this eventuality for 60+ years.

Trump just stumbled onto the very carefully set board, and started messing with it, and exposing the plans in the process. Being the narcissist he is, he is incapable of not using anything he wants, so it forced the Republican establishment's hand. They had to bring him into since the Presidency is necessary to further the plan, and in turn he also became dangerous since he's 100% the type of person to use that information to extort the outcome that helps him. I don't think they really understood how bad an idea that was at the times and now they're stuck.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

The question I have is why are felony convictions not considered a disqualification for president but they disqualify everyone else from literally almost any job? I knew someone who got a conviction and was hired by chik fil a then later told whoops we missed that on your application sorry can't hire you.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

So you can't weaponize the courts against your political opponents.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

I do not buy this one bit. I accept that it's given as a rationale but the only result of it is leaders being above the law and being held to a lower standard than anyone else.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] small44@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Bush crimes against humanity didn't prevent him from being eligible to a second term

[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 15 points 1 day ago

Because his voters didn't consider the victims human in the first place.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I don't think it's democratic to ban people with a criminal record from voting or running. If the people want to vote someone like that in, then who's to stop them

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

The fact that Jan 6 wasn't the tipping point still boggles the mind.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

It's simply a nazi infestation.

And then this weird limp dickness in the Democrats that compromising and doing nothing is the cure for cancer.

Vast numbers of people maliciously paused their duties in a thousand ways to let him through. They installed him, is how he got eligible. Because you're absolutely right, he was and still is ineligible in a thousand ways.

And then the cockroaches came out of the walls.

load more comments
view more: next ›