I am asking here because all the political subs don’t allow a question, and US politics used to seemed so simple until to understand this man came along.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “All”? If you can’t even get all dentists to agree you should use toothpaste, I doubt it. More importantly, he’s not convicted of anything yet

      • rusticus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        He doesn’t need a conviction. He’s already admitted being involved enough in Jan 6 to be disqualified. That’s my point - the Constitution says he’s out.

        You can argue (likely correctly) that the 14th amendment will be ignored but that’s a different issue. Will we defend the constitution or ignore it?

        • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It still doesn’t matter what the constitution says if the courts never convict him of the crimes that would disqualify him from running. He needs to serve time and be prevented from running, but I don’t think either will happen

          • rusticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Minor point, but did you actually read the article? The 2 constitutional scholars from the Federalist Society say that he is already disqualified - it’s not necessary to “convict him” as he has already been involved and complicit in the insurrection.

    • themajesticdodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      This answer doesn’t address the question. Did you comment on the wrong post or are you just generally always this confused?