this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
99 points (100.0% liked)
U.S. News
2228 readers
26 users here now
News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.
Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Post the original source of information as the link.
- If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
- Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
- Social media is not a news source.
For World News, see the News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
are we really supposed to be cheering for higher-ups deciding who we're allowed to vote for?
You’re still allowed to vote for him if all the glue you’ve huffed hasn’t made you forget how to write out a name on a line.
He’s just not allowed to be on the ballot because the court determined he sacrificed his eligibility to hold the office by trying to take the office by force, which he did.
This was a decision based on him not following the rules we all need to abide by. And when you do that, there are SUPPOSED to be consequences. In fact, USA is being WAY to lenient on him.
If a candidate were foreign born, they'd be ineligible. If they were under 35, they'd be stricken as well.
We have rules regarding eligibility. If you break those rules, you're no longer eligible.
If a state court removed a candidate because they discovered that they were actually a Canadian citizen, removing them from the ballot isn't "deciding" who we're allowed to vote for. It's applying the rules.