• jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Assuming a corrupt system, yes. But in our current system? Not so much. Trump deserves each of his felony indictments and if it would keep him from buying a gun, which it does, it should block him from being Commander in Chief.

    • ignirtoq@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t think our current system is nearly as robust as you think. Trump’s first term laid that bare.

      So many laws dictating what the president can and can’t do don’t have any actual repercussions for breaking them written in them because it was assumed impeachment would be sufficient. Trump showed that with our current system that means if you can’t guarantee you’ll have 67 votes in the Senate, then those laws may as well not exist. And every week the Supreme Court shows how much “settled case law” isn’t anymore, so with a corrupt high court in his league, even the laws that do have teeth may be subverted.

      We absolutely need to make changes to shore up the system and plug the gaps, but we have to do so with care that we don’t end up handing new, more powerful weapons to the very bad actors we’re trying to protect against.

    • lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      6 months ago

      The problem is not that Trump is under felony indictment. It’s not that he’s a liar, a cheater, a misogynist, narcissist, and elitist. It’s that, knowing this, a lot of people STILL support him for our nation’s top office. That’s how screwed up our populace has become. That’s the problem.

    • nahuse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think it’s important to consider just how… ickily inviolable most (if not all) of the right wing feels about the second amendment. I don’t think this line of logic would carry much weight with that crowd.

      But I agree with what you’re saying. We need much more stringent controls on who is eligible for office.