Conservatives deserve a candidate that isn't a felon
I could not agree with you more.
Conceptually, a conservative presence in American politics is a good thing. In its current form, well….
Conceptually, a conservative presence in American politics is a good thing
Not really, no. The entire philosophy of conservatism is sticking to/going back to the old ways AKA standing in the way of progress. The US has plenty of THAT from the economic elite who want to keep calling the shots without politicians helping them.
Which is why I said in its current form, not so much.
Having a dissenting voice can at times help ensure whether or not you’re on the right track. That’s why I said conceptually it’s good, or at least it can be.
Which is why I said in its current form, not so much
The current form isn't even conservatism, it's just full blown fascism.
Having a dissenting voice can at times help ensure whether or not you’re on the right track.
True in principle, but not when that dissenting voice drags you further in the wrong direction you were already heading, as is the case in a to party system where both parties are right of center and the one closest to the center is pathologically obsessed with compromise for the sake of compromise and the other one is ideologically opposed to ever compromising.
That’s why I said conceptually it’s good, or at least it can be.
I still disagree. The concept of an opposition party is good. The concept of a center right to right wing led party having an opposition party to the right and none to the left isn't.
We’re completely in agreement, you just rephrased the point I was making.
Honestly yeah. And being under the retirement age would be nice too. Unfortunately, politicians are not great people.
To the mod removing my posts, this is a pro-conservative post with a pro-conservative source. So why was the last one removed citing rule 2?
Presumably because the modern conservative viewpoint only favors the rule of law being applied to poor minorities and leftists.
Rich people, and especially rich white people, are supposed to be above the law (unless they're dirty leftists).
So by the modern standard, upholding the rule of law over a rich white right-winger is actually not conservative.
I'm not sure what it is then though. Maybe "woke?"
As much as I agree with you, I still want to make a good faith attempt to hear their logic so I can say I tried.
I wouldnt call it woke, if I was more conspiracy inclined, maybe Russian style dictatorship.
Orange has positioned himself as the outsider and acts like this entire thing was a witch hunt. Convicting him didnt do much. Hell, come November, I'm still voting for the lesser of two evils, but Im not happy about it.
My bigger concern at this point is my state governer, mayor, and sheriff. Being real, they affect my day to day way than the president, and its not like the states give a shit about federal law anymore, with weed, 2a sanctuaries, illegal sanctuaries, that sort of thing.
To your point about voting for the lesser of two evils and your other point about your bigger concern being the more local officials, where do you think they fall on the political spectrum based on the issues they raise, and does your vote align with their interests?
Most mayors have very little power. Most of the time there is a city manager or a city council that has the power. In my town, a conservative mayor was elected, and the liberals were freaking out.
The position is unpaid, volunteer and has no real power. It is people freaking out because they don't understand the powers of a mayor.
U
They've told people posts will be removed if it doesn't align with the story they want told lol
I’m giving them an opportunity to directly state as much. I don’t expect them to, but here’s their chance.
Oh I know. I've done it all before. Same deal, Fox source nothing bad. Still got removed. They don't care.
Yeah I remember the guy that got banned for “homophobia” on a thread having absolutely nothing to do with the subject 😂
Yeah, that dude was going around calling people "softy", which is homophobia adjacent, and tbh, most modding is just horrid judgement calls, and sometimes you judge wrong. But if you're too lenient, you get daily slapfights and thats no good either.
Modding is surprisingly hard. Ask me how I know, Im about the most public about my modding fuckups.
I don’t doubt that you have to walk a line and sometimes make mistakes. We’re all human, here.
But not only did the specific comments removed have nothing to do with that wording, that’s also not very homophobia-adjacent at all.
While I appreciate the work you do and your attempts to be fair and balanced here, that explanation does not fit with the specific thread I’m talking about, nor is it reason enough to constitute a ban on that user’s account, even if he was being a bit of a turd. That one was a mistake.
It definitely was a mistake. I mean the Nazi word ban was stupidity, but at least that only fucked up this sub and got my account banned from half of lemmy. The homophobia reason messed it up for his account too, that was just wrong of us to do.
I truly appreciate you saying that, and will openly admit I’ve made some mistakes here as well. All we can do is try to do better :)
Trump is a criminal.
God I would have loved to have been on that Jury. During the selection process when they ask "do you have any reason to be biased against the defendant?" I'd be like "Oh I recognize him! He sold steaks from The Sharper Image 20 years ago. I remember as soon as I saw the commercial I hopped in my car and tore ass to the LaGuardia airport but by the time I got there they'd been discontinued. What's he been up to since then?"
Quick! I need a Black Guy to walk down the street with a Joint in his hand so I can Pretend to care about Law And Order again!
HAHAHAHAHAH
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/donald-trump-trial-guilty-hillary-clinton-b2556563.html
Gaslight
Obstruct
Project <— Trump was here
If anyone was wondering, a convict can run for president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
Wild that the constitution disqualifies people with “high crimes or misdemeanors” but not felonies.
Not really? Think about how dangerous it would be if all you had to do to disqualify your political opponents was parade them through a kangaroo court and send them to jail? That's basically what Russia is.
At the end of the day, the American people should have final say in choosing their leader. Of course, this comes with the caveat that an electorate has to be willing to participate, and be able to tell when someone isn't fit for presidency. It also comes with the asterisk that you can't run for president after committing treason, or like an act of terrorism, but I think everyone is kinda in agreement on that.
Complete immunity is how you get a king, not a President.
The risk of a kangaroo court is why the system consists of a trial by jury of one’s peers, along with an appeals process.
The risk of an actual kangaroo court sending an innocent political rival to prison is therefore, a non-issue.
When this topic arose, I thought a felony would preclude you from office. I was a bit surprised it does not.
I agree with your assessment as to why it shouldn't, but I still found it a tad surprising.
It’s because it should, ethically.
It makes no sense that you could be restricted from holding office because of one minor crime but not from a worse one.
A minor crime doesn't preclude you either. I believe you are talking about impeachment which is a different topic entirely. Impeachment is a political process and has nothing to do with criminal law.
Nope, not impeachment. Misdemeanor, which is lesser than a felony.
I have no clue what you are referencing since that isn’t a requirement to be elected for president. High crimes and misdemeanors is about impeachment.
I understand it’s not laid out in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement that Presidents not be criminals, but the only reason a President can be impeached for them is because a criminal president is a short step from a tyrant.
While it doesn’t prevent them from running for President, the framers clearly understood that we cannot tolerate having a criminal as President.
I'm not sure you understand impeachment. It is a political process that has nothing to do with criminal charges. I am not sure the point you are trying to make because you seem to be conflating unrelated things.
I think you’re just refusing to see the logic that because impeachment is intended to charge an official for conduct and present the possibility that they may deserve to be removed from office, it only makes sense that acts which are cause for impeachment are ones we don’t want our officials doing.
So if a President commits a crime and is impeached, it is possible they may be removed from office for that crime.
So if the President then does a worse crime as a public citizen does it not stand to reason that they’re probably not a good fit for the job?
It’s only as political a process as the sitting congress wants it to be. It was intended as a legitimate consequence for a potential tyrant.
I'm sad that I completely forgot 34 was also impeached multiple times. What a shit show.
Imo, what should be done is no crime can disqualify you from office. That would prevent any corrupt judge from convicting candidates for political reasons.
That’s not a President. That’s a king.
What would you rather have, King George or Putin? Two awful sides of the same coin imo.
Neither, but thanks to trial by jury of our peers and the ability to appeal we don’t have to settle for one or the other.
Elected representatives should have to answer to the same laws and face the same consequences they impose upon us.
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
