this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
198 points (95.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35311 readers
795 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
 

If so, then why?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 74 points 3 months ago (8 children)

As an outsider that’s pretty wild. So you can’t buy a firearm but you can be president and control them all. Like what?

[–] [email protected] 146 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Actually the thought is if the government can just imprison you to stop your candidacy, they have too much power.

Thus they can continue to run.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I would say just don’t break any laws then, but laws can change and people are terrible.

Edit: Pretty sure you’re all downvoting a misunderstanding.

I’m saying I get why it’s a thing because people would convict their opponents. Not that I was actually saying well don’t break any laws.

[–] [email protected] 95 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but a corrupt government can fabricate evidence to keep their enemies silenced.

Look at Russia and their treatment of Alexei Navalny.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Or just regular ass black people in America.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

just don’t break any laws then

A very naïve idea :-(

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Especially when you get into archaic laws that aren't enforced or widely known.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Remember, there is a mechanism that prevents criminals from winning elections and holding offices, it's the one that's the best one in a democracy. The voters.

It's not good to give governments the power to decide who does and doesn't deserve to hold authority, it is good to let voters decide if someone's crimes are relevant to the election.

Sadly, it seems many Americans do not agree with me that trump is not suitable for office. Hopefully enough do that they decide not to vote for him

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We've got these things called "social media" that are built expressly for the purpose of influencing people to buy more stuff (literally in the name: influencers). And if it can get people to part with their money, you can be sure the same tools can be used to get people to vote against their own interests.

We thought the internet was a tool to spread democracy. We were wrong. The Internet is a tool used to undermine democracy, so long as people using the Internet are not strongly inoculated against organized interests, foreign, and domestic.

[–] dudinax 3 points 3 months ago

Who thought the intent was to spread Democracy?

The Internet's been both very good and very bad for Democracy. Without the internet, most people would be at the mercy of CNN or Fox to explain all the horrible things Donny Two Scoops has done.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The concern of the founding fathers was that one state would have political reasons to rush a trial and get a legitimate candidate convicted of a crime in their court. If the conviction was legitimate, it was supposed to be handled by the Electors of the Electoral College.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If the conviction is legitimate, the Electoral College has ways to shut that down.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago

Our lack of laws around the POTUS are a glaring. It's insane that a judge can preside over a case where the defendant is a former president who appointed them. Like Judge Cannon and 3 members of the SCOTUS.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Don't forget, it's not like he has a right to the presidency. The president is voted in. So technically speaking the people decide if the felonies make a difference or not

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Also, you can't vote in many regressive, discriminatory states but they'd like up in their Klan hoods to vote this felon into office as there is no restriction on becoming president. Rules for thee

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Cant vote either