Turns out that Moderate heavy states like Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan don’t want to vote for a felon that threatens to jail his enemies.
Good. Let’s hope it keeps up. Polls this far out from the election can sometimes be… non-indicative of the eventual result.
I’m not getting my hopes up
Wow, it’s almost like putting the entire weight of the RNC behind a convicted felon in a rematch against the guy he already lost to once in order to control the voting power of the cult that formed around him is, dare I say it, a bad political move? Like, such a bad political move that even somebody who knows absolutely nothing about politics should have been able to see this one coming?
Imagine how detached from reality you need to be to genuinely believe that getting slapped with a felony conviction will somehow help your campaign.
Imagine how detached from reality you need to be
I agree with you. But I just want to point out that we are far, far past the “imagine if” stage. At this point in time, it is “witness in reality” how detached from reality Trump supporters are.
“Imagine if” sounds dismissive and complacent. These people are an actual threat to everyone, including themselves.
If you aren’t angry about the shit these fucks are pulling, then get angry; if you are already angry, get angrier. Then go out and vote against them.
Drive people who are not voting for Trump to the polls. It’s easy to do and just requires taking a day off work.
haha bs… let me guess, this time around Biden will have 110 million votes! LMAO fake and g…
Crazy how, in a country with 255 million (in 2020) citizens of voting age, more people will come out to vote against a wannabe dictator. What could possibly possess people to want to protect their rights, right!? Must be fake.
Brah… Trump’s opposition is nearly in comatose. Which rights are threatened by Trump? I’m genuinely concerned.
the right to keep and bear arms. he illegally banned bump stocks.
Oh that’s right… I remember that.
i mean there is a charter of human rights and i’d say that american policies routinely violate them, and by leading the government, he’s taking away a whole host of rights, but the same is true of biden, so it’s not like it should be a decisive factor.
“suddenly”…Newsweek, you sound a little pissed?
Heh let’s see who people actually vote for. Polls don’t mean shit.
I mean, you’re right (see most every election before), and we shouldn’t become complacent.
vote early, vote often.
I find it exceedingly hard to believe that a conservative will not vote for Trump when it really comes down to the day. I think there are plenty that will say they won’t all the way up to that point though.
I think a substantial number of voters are going to hold their noses and vote for the shitty candidate their party presented.
It’ll be interesting to see how many people stay home compared to prior elections. People are super political and angry for a variety of reasons, but the choices are awful.
Realistically the best you can hope for is many of them opting to not vote at all.
They don’t even think he’s guilty of any wrong doing, of course they’ll vote for him.
There are plenty of Conservatives who aren’t voting for Trump, they just get drowned out by the extremely loud cultists. Just look up Republicans against Trump.
Yeah the real surprise is why they are still registered with the Republican party when the party leaders clearly have thrown their support behind him.
Because they find voting Democrat to be more distasteful, for whatever reason. I have to imagine the people who swing the swing states have to be a really interesting mix of uninformed and having close relationships with people from both major parties. Like they only know the ideas at super high levels, basically just the slogans and spokespeople. It’s all vibes.
Or I could be way off, I dunno. World’s a wacky place
You can only vote in the primarys if you are registered with the party having the primary.
They probably want to keep being able to vote within the Republican party.
In my state, you can be independent and vote for either.
But yeah, I voted in the Republican primary this time, to vote against Trump, even though I would have wanted Nikki to lose, but would rather risk that than Trump.
Never even occurred to me it would be state specific. But now that you said it, it’s obvious. Thanks
That’s something a swing voter might be likely to do, but it’s not a cause of being a swing voter.
I’m not understanding. Why would a swing voter stay in one party?
Perhaps my point didn’t come across. I’m not trying to explain why a swing voter would stay in one party. I was trying to understand what might cause someone in the US in today’s world to be the kind of person who could feasibly vote for either party when they are wildly different on the major topics in the zeitgeist.
Republicans were gigantic pieces of shit long before Trump.
Good news is a lot of them were in bad health in 2020 and refused to wear masks
There’s definitely going to be a shift back in his direction amongst the faithful as conservative media does its work, but the thing to look for is whether than holds for low-information “undecideds” who make up about a third of the electorate. Depending on how much his case stays in the media, how much it affects his own ability to reach voters (i.e., does he get sentenced to prison pending appeals? Does he end up under house arrest with a parole officer looking over his shoulder?), and if people like the Minutemen or Proud Boys engage in violence over it, people in the middle who might have otherwise voted for him on the basis of “economy feel bad, maybe different big man make economy feel better?” might continue to peel away from him, and that’s a greater risk to his chances than what the diehards will or won’t do.
That’s a false dichotomy.
People aren’t necessarily conservative or progressive. Elections are won or lost with undecideds.
Awww for a second I thought the title of the post was the title of the article. Way to get my hopes up 😮💨
It is…
Guess who doesn’t read the news but shows up to vote anyways?
Vote!
Man, I’d love to be an American right now, they have to choose between a senile old man and a convicted criminal to be their leader. It sounds like it came straight from a comedy skit.
You’re slightly off. A senile old man vs a senile old man that’s also a convicted criminal.
You’re forgetting the one with brain fog due to brain worms, who drove his ex wife to suicide, and is an antivaxer.
Is that the same one who is a draft dodging little bitch and raped his ex wife so much that the state of NY changes their spousal rape laws?
deleted by creator
And who flirts with nazism, abuses women, probably colluded with Russia and other autocracies and lies about everything.
It isn’t really that difficult a choice if you can remember just a couple of things from his presidency.
Hey, there are some alternatives! Like senile old conspiracy theory man with brain worms.
Felonious Trump has a nice ring to it.
Sounds like a Harry Potter villain.
I was thinking more like a jazz trombonist.
Please don’t disparage trombonists by implying Trump is one of us
Wah-wah-waaaaah
What else could he play with those tiny hands?
Felonious Trump and the Goblet of Cocaine.
Felonious Trump and the Order of the Adderral.
It works on multiple levels, too. Thelonius Monk’s style was all about embracing dissonance, and Trump is a walking, breathing, dissonance machine. Monk’s dissonance was sonic, and Trump’s is cognitive, but it still works.
*Edit: it works with album titles too! “Felonious Trump: Alone in Manhattan” is fucking hilarious.
well that’s an accomplishment to be sure
Is convicted felon now the convicted felon’s nickname?
I’m all for protest votes and sending a message IF you don’t live in a swing state. People who live in swing states have the privilege of their vote actually mattering in the grand scheme. Please, please hold your nose and vote for Biden. We non-swing staters can take care of sending messages from the safety of our deep reds and blues.
Why the fuck is Trump even able to run? He’s literally a fucking criminal, and was impeached. I dont understand how our political system or even judicial systems work at this point.
Disclaimer: Fuck Trump.
That being said, convicted “criminals” should still be able to run for any public office in my opinion. A tyrant CAN capture the judiciary and imprison their political opponents. This is in fact what happened in the Indian elections right now. This is in fact what happened in the US elections in the early 1900s, where a socialist candidate ran for President from prison. What was his crime? Striking when the State had deemed it illegal to do so.
I’d like it if anyone convicted of fraud / criminal deceit / murder could never be president, but as our nation’s common sense appears to have withered and died, the intent would eventually be twisted to suit some nefarious purpose.
Happened in Brazil too in 2016. Corrupt prosecutor (now congressman) worked with corrupt judge (who later became justice minister and is currently a senator) to imprison Lula. He couldn’t run for the presidency and Bolsonaro got it. Later, the Supreme Court found that the case was based on lies and there were coordination between the prosecutor and the judge and they reinstated Lula’s freedom and political rights.
But now, the tables have turned, and after Bolsonaro’s actions in the failed coup on 2022, the Supreme Court took away Bolsonaro’s political rights and he can’t be a candidates for any office until 2030.
In most us states they take your voting right when you are convicted. This is not compatible with running for president as a convict imo.
Have you considered that maybe that’s tyranny as well?
What if, for example, someone decided to make weed a felony because he couldn’t outright make being black illegal?
Wait is there a correlation between being black and smoking weed?
"You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
- John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon
https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional
No, a correlation between being black and being arrested for weed. In my city, they made the legal status of the drug indeterminate and gave cops DISCRETION on whether to arrest or cite someone for having pot. Not a felony now in any event, misdemeanor or civil citation or nothing but how do you think this discretion will be used?
Nixon did specifically consider weed a hippies and black people thing, but even if that was statistically true selective enforcement was always the plan.
You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
Ah, that makes more sense.
Oh sweet summer child, everyone smokes weed. Cannabis prohibition was about giving police the power to arrest anyone they want to - and they used that power to arrest Black people.
And if you don’t smoke weed? Well what about this little baggy we “found in your pocket”?
I really, really, really hate the phrase “Oh sweet summer child”. Is it possible to be any more patronizing? Couldn’t you just say it normally?
deleted by creator
Not that I care about either of you guys or your argument, but I gotta point out that it’s a phrase intended to be insulting and condescending. You’re just letting the other guy know they got to you by writing this.
There has certainly been a correlation for being black and being charged with possession of weed if that’s what you mean.
I never understood the logic behind that. What’s the reason for it?
Are we afraid that all of the criminals will form a Crime Party and campaign to legalize burglary and murder? 😈
Or do we think the type of person who would commit a violent crime is going to be incentivized to not commit a crime because of losing their right to vote, in a country where half the people don’t vote anyway?
Before I mug this old lady, I really should consider that this upcoming election has huge ramifications and I really don’t want to risk losing my right to vote. I don’t mind jail, community service, or monetary fines; it’s voting that might prevent me from commiting this offense. 🤓
No, I think it’s more likely that some people don’t want other people who are disproportionately convicted of crimes (you know, those people) to have a voice.
This is how the constitution is written. This scenario was never foreseen and our founders were naive.
Thought leaders have been raising this issue for years. Among those calling for barring criminals from running for office: some guy named Donald Trump.
Shouldn’t you have the right to run for office when you have paid back your debt to society?
I mean if you can get an opponent convicted and it prevents them running, it feels kind of undemocratic.
BTW I’m not talking about tRump, he should be behind bars since ages already.
Yeah probably. The same logic ought to be applied to felons who currently lose their right to vote. Rights being treated as privileges…
I’m pretty sure the last guy to run for office from a cell was a socialist.
Why the fuck is Trump even able to run?
Because nobody is actually stopping him. Republican state level leaders all love him. Dems are too terrified to threaten him with more than a wrist slap. The police are in his corner. Big Business is bankrolling him. The Media keeps accidentally falling face first onto his dick. And 1:3 Americans still insist he’s better than The Other Guy.
So he’s still listed on all the ballots. He’s still the GOP’s nominee. And if he wins the lion’s share of electoral college votes (by hook or by crook) he’s going to be the President in January.
I dont understand how our political system or even judicial systems work at this point.
With a lot of grease.
Note: “grease” is old slang for money.
I prefer “kabloingie”, personally.
He IS a felon. But while he went through the impeachment process several times, he was never convicted. And there is no rule or law that says a felon can’t be president.
While voting for Trump, or even entertaining his views, is a red flag warning. Like it or not, he is legally entitled to run. Perhaps the rules and laws should be changed. But to do that would require either a unified congress or a super majority of a party willing to do so. And I suspect, that as it currently stands, neither side wants to limit themselves from gaining the power and status of national or state office brings to them for any reason.
Technically he is not a felon until he is sentenced. So he will be a felon on July 11th.
That said I agree not letting people run from office because of convictions just incentives the state to go after political enemies.
This is by design. So you can’t just get some charges on your opponent and disqualify them
By the same logic felons should be allowed to vote. Instead you got the war on drugs
they should.
Wait, Trump isn’t allowed to vote now? Lol if true.
The serious argument about felons being allowed to vote is that voting is a civic duty, and you want felons to re-integrate into society. If they have tons of restrictions following them around for the rest of their lives, they’re always going to be a little bit outside. Feeling like they’re stuck outside of society makes recidivism rates higher, so restoring the right to vote is an important step in rehabilitation.
It would take a lot of people having felony convictions to be able to seriously sway an election, but given the racially polarized way that the criminal justice system is often applied, I think that’s probably happened.
Oh, I whole heartily agree. There is a lot tit for tat in politics. And rules are meant to be bent and twisted to one’s own end. It could end up being a slippery slope as easily as not.
it could also be an amendment to the constitution if enough states agree but that’s probably even less likely.
and i’m not sure it should be. i could definitely see a world where trump pushes for conviction of a Democrat candidate (remember all the “lock her up” stuff?). i hope the legal system is robust enough to appeal a rogue court situation but at some point it may not be. And elections are time sensitive, would the appeal even finish before the election?
flawed as it may be this could be the best solution to guard against authoritarianism.
look at the aileen cannon situation. if that’s not a rogue court, i don’t know what is
exactly, imagine her overseeing a BS felony trial on Biden or whatever other D candidate.
Funny how 8 years ago, people kept saying “don’t worry about Trump, there are checks and balances in place”. None of that talk this time around!
Those people never realized their stance is just as idiotic as “I cross the street without looking both ways because if they run me over, they’ll have to pay”… or “I have the seat belt on, I can crash at top speed and nothing will happen to me”
Because there’s now an infrastructure built up around him with plans on how to override those checks and balances (Project 2025).
We also saw the checks and balances do fuckall because they were captured by fellow criminals.
There are no hard requirements for being president beyond those listed in the Constitution:
- Be a natural born US citizen
- Be at least 35 years old
- Have resided in the US for 14 or more years.
That’s it. The framers of the Constitution presumably felt being a convicted felon would be enough for an electorate (or the electoral college, at least) to simply not vote for that person.
also this prevents a rogue prosecutor and judge from convicting a presidential candidate and blocking them from running. this way it is up to the people, whether the conviction is legitimate or not.
to be clear i am not saying trump’s conviction is illegitimate, just speaking generally. i could definitely see a world where trump pushes for this with a Democrat candidate (remember all the “lock her up” stuff?). i hope the legal system is robust enough to appeal a rogue situation but at some point it may not be.
I would like to see more requirements:
- Upper age restriction
- Does not lie about well known facts from scientist, like Covid-19.
Upper age restriction
And what happens when medical science increases life expectancy? U would have to amend the constitution to pass this. Think of how nightmarish it is to do this. Now think of amending this AGAIN when life expectancy increases every year.
Does not lie about well known facts from scientist, like Covid-19.
Who decides what “well known facts” are? A particular non-political committee? The supreme court was supposed to be this committee. It clearly became political quickly…
And what happens when medical science increases life expectancy?
Make the upper age limit be average life expectancy minus X years. This has the added bonus of motivating politicians to actually try to increase average life expectancy.
Who decides what “well known facts” are?
The scientific community, and certainly not the Supreme Court. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
The scientific community, and certainly not the Supreme Court.
Because there are different “scientific communities” - some of them rogue and stupid. I’m not the poster you were responding to, but I would assume that the arbiter of your hypothetical of which scientific communities would be valid would go to the Supreme Court.
No. The scientific community polices* itself with peer review. The rogue and stupid communities are peer reviewed out of existence. You can submit all the falsified “research” you want, but if your published results can’t be replicated, you will be labeled a quack and your “findings” will go ignored by the rest of the scientific community.
No government-affiliated judicial body is involved in verifying science, because judges are experts in law, not science.
Do you know how long it takes to replicate another’s studies? Sometimes that never happens.
Upper age restriction
instead of this I would like to see independent physical and mental acuity tests performed and released publicly. no need to bring age into it if they are fit. and if they aren’t fit they shouldn’t be able to run even if they’re young.
Sure but I also want that the person to be able to last the whole 4 years period without running into any of those health issues with time. Might be hard to get the health measurements right and get people to accept it. Easier for people to just understand the person did not meet the age criteria.
In Germany, if you’re in jail you can’t be elected into office. You can however always cast your vote even from jail (except for rare and extreme political crimes such as terrorism, starting a war and such)
