He. Tried. To. Kill. You.

    • panchzila@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Many laws are based on practical reasons. Forbidding a criminal to run for president is one. Or will you be ok if for example Putin ran for the american presidency letting the people decide?

      • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d say that choosing a foreign-born person as your example is inaccurate because the US Constitution requires the President to be born on US soil. But seeing that the last time the Republicans put forward a foreign-born US national as a presidential contender, everyone glossed over the issue, and only ivory-tower types wondered about the Constitutional issue (e.g., who even has standing, as the concept is currently understood, to enforce the provision?) perhaps your hypothetical is right on point.

      • Tilted@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m fine with reasonable limits on who can run. I don’t agree with letting politicians freely decide who can run by passing laws.

          • Tilted@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We need strong constraints for what laws politicians can pass. As a principle, I don’t think politicians should get to decide who can run against them or who can vote for them.

            If you like your politicians: I would suggest you should look inwards.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        For us to call ourselves a free nation, you have to allow someone deplorable a full and fair election…it fucking sucks, but that’s a cornerstone of the foundation of democracy and freedom.