[mullingitover]

> No reason why the US can't have the same.

There's one big reason the US can't have the same: the ruling class don't want it.

This isn't some gordian knot. We could have it tomorrow if the ruling class had their feet held to the fire. The fact that we don't is a result of the system working exactly as intended.

The richest person in the world is out in broad daylight shoveling bribes to voters as fast as he can transfer the money, and not only is he not getting arrested, he never will be. It's a dark subsection of a very dark chapter.

[ryandrake]

A person who can't even legally own a gun due to his status as a felon is about to become commander and chief of the military. "Dark subsection" is pretty mild.

[nomel]

This could be seen as protection for candidates against lawfare, which is widely used in tyrannical governments.

[krapp]

I mean, of all the reasons to oppose Trump being commander in chief, much less President, that seems the least relevant.

[gottorf]

The commander-in-chief isn't leading a charge at the front lines, so whether or not he can legally own a gun has no bearing; otherwise, we'd have to demand that every elected official has direct, hands-on experience in everything that they legislate, regulate, or judge. Well, perhaps that wouldn't be so horrible, after all...

I personally find the way he came to be a felon to be a darker subsection, but your mileage may vary, of course.

[anigbrowl]

What you are missing about the analogy is that the US military is effectively the largest gun on the planet.

[gottorf]

I assume your point is that a felony conviction is evidence of an unsound mind that justifies prohibiting someone from owning a firearm, and that this translates to leading our military.

The analogy falls apart if said felony conviction is unjust or otherwise has no bearing on one's ability to lead the military. By and large, American voters think so, with two-thirds of those polled thinking that what he was convicted of is a nothingburger[0].

[0]: https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-indictment-hush-money...

[ryandrake]

The analogy only falls apart if you are applying a double standard.

You might say "Certain kinds of felonies don't indicate a person is unfit to wield a weapon/the military, and certain kinds do." I'm a supporter of the 2A and I'd listen to that. As long as you intend to apply that across the population.

But if you're saying "A bunch of people don't like this particular conviction against this particular person, so we should have a separate standard for him," well that not how the rule of law works.

[kelipso]

What is a presidential pardon then? Maybe not how rule of law works but it's how democracy works.

[gottorf]

If we're talking about the rule of law, there is no law against a convicted felon from either being elected President or being the commander-in-chief. There is only the irony (as the GP brought up) of someone who cannot legally possess a firearm being in charge of the military, but neither irony nor hypocrisy is yet illegal. So I see no problem here.

Is your point that a convicted felon should be legally barred from holding office? Then there is a straightforward legal process to achieve your goals. However, I caution you that politically motivated prosecutions have existed before Trump and will exist after, and that there's probably a better reason than mere oversight that the Constitution places so few limits on who can be voted President.

[rat87]

I think it would be very difficult to present an honest nonpartisan case arguing that Trump is not guilty of

1. The case he has been convicted of 2. The cases that are still in progress 3. Many things he hasn't been charged with yet.

But if you want to do so I'll try to listen. The case you listed isn't even the case he has been convicted of so far. But I don't blame you for the mixup there's so many crimes people may have trouble confusing them.

[gottorf]

> The case you listed isn't even the case he has been convicted of so far

The source I cited refers to Trump's "hush money" convictions (over falsifying business records), which to my knowledge is the only criminal case that went through to the end of a trial and resulted in a felony conviction[0]. Is this untrue?

> an honest nonpartisan case arguing that Trump is not guilty

The argument is that the prosecution of these cases is partisan to begin with; that is, no one not named "Donald Trump" would have been prosecuted for the same matters on hand to the same degree. Obviously neither I nor anybody else can prove this claim, so you be the judge.

MLK Jr. was legally harangued throughout his life, with many arrests and two felony indictments. In 1960, he became the first person in Alabama to ever be charged with felony perjury over tax returns. Are we to believe that he really was the first Alabamian to cheat on taxes? Had he been convicted, would you seriously believe that justice had been served, or would you instead think of the whole thing as partisan lawfare?

Imagine this scenario: you see a line of cars on the highway all going 20 miles an hour above the speed limit, but only one gets pulled over. You have reasons to suspect that it's because the local sheriff doesn't like the driver, but you have no means of proving that. The logical counterarguments could be A) the officer happened to only see him; B) everyone was observed to be speeding and if the sheriff's department had more resources, then everyone would have been pulled over, but out of practical necessity only one car could be pulled over and it happened to be him; or C) actually, it was in fact just him who was speeding and nobody else. I don't find any of those to be persuasive in Trump's case.

[0]: https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/trump-criminal-in..., last updated August 2024

[janalsncm]

> the ruling class don't want it

Too cynical and defeatist for my taste. The difference between the “ruling class” and you is that politicians know what it takes to get support from large donors. A typical Senator spends most of their day figuring that out in fact.

But at the end of the day politicians still need votes, not dollars. One way to swing the balance back would be to make support contingent on support for (and accomplishment of) popular goals.

[pc86]

As long as people see their chosen political party as their hometown sports team and the other political party as a bunch of demonic goblins looking to murder and imprison them and their families, that will never happen.

If you're not willing to vote for either political party to achieve your supported goals, you're part of the problem and a big part of why the country is the way it is.

[janalsncm]

We don’t have to let perfect be the enemy of the good. The majority of Americans are non-partisan and just want results.

[adamc]

Statistically, current voting patterns do not -- AT ALL -- support that contention.

[janalsncm]

What statistics are those?

[adamc]

Statistics on how many Americans lock into stances on who they will vote for, relatively early in the election. The "middle" is thought to be maybe 10% if that.