• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should a Convicted Felon Be Allowed to Remain on the Presidential Ballot?

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I am not sure I would have been fair if I had been a member of that jury. There is no way to hold Donald Trump responsible for his lies when the pandemic started. I believe he lied thinking he could keep the economy moving while not caring whatsoever about the threat to human life he was increasing with those lies.
All potential jurors were asked if they could be impartial. Seem about half said they could not and were dismissed. From what I can gather, this is pretty typical of most trials.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I am not sure I would have been fair if I had been a member of that jury. There is no way to hold Donald Trump responsible for his lies when the pandemic started. I believe he lied thinking he could keep the economy moving while not caring whatsoever about the threat to human life he was increasing with those lies.
Right at the beginning of this trial, at the beginning of Jury selection the potential Jurors were asked just that question. They were asked if they thought they could be fair and impartial. A great many people walked out at that point. If you were there I assume you would have left at that point.
 

Stonetree

Abducted Member
Premium Member
All potential jurors were asked if they could be impartial. Seem about half said they could not and were dismissed. From what I can gather, this is pretty typical of most trials.
I am aware of what you are pointing out. I am being cynical.
 

Stonetree

Abducted Member
Premium Member
Right at the beginning of this trial, at the beginning of Jury selection the potential Jurors were asked just that question. They were asked if they thought they could be fair and impartial. A great many people walked out at that point. If you were there I assume you would have left at that point.
I feel it takes some 'mettle' to sit on some juries. A jurist can be in danger in some cases.... Yes, I would have informed the judge and legal eagles of my bias.
 

Stonetree

Abducted Member
Premium Member
It refers to claims of being unable to get a fair jury due to the liberal locality which is what Trump is claiming in NY.
Yes, I'm not arguing your reference didn't make a point. I just pointed out the article was about the 'Insurrection'.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
I believe that article refers to the Jan. 6 incident.
It refers to claims of being unable to get a fair jury due to the liberal locality which is what Trump is claiming in NY.
Yes, I'm not arguing your reference didn't make a point. I just pointed out the article was about the 'Insurrection'.
The Jan. 6 event is what brought the appeal to the court, but the decision was that just because the local population is liberal does not by itself taint a jury. The article was about the decision.
 

Stonetree

Abducted Member
Premium Member
It refers to claims of being unable to get a fair jury due to the liberal locality which is what Trump is claiming in NY.

The Jan. 6 event is what brought the appeal to the court, but the decision was that just because the local population is liberal does not by itself taint a jury. The article was about the decision.
Thank you.........Did you send in your primary ballot?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
What risk?
Their voting for someone you dislike?
Them winning an election?
The risk is in allowing a convicted criminal to attain a position of power and authority over others. Especially when "doing time" in our justice system is more likely to increase criminality than to reduce it.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Denying the electorate the opportunity to vote for a candidate is the option that involves imposing ideals on society. Limiting democratic rights is something that should only be done in the most extreme of circumstances.
At some point we have to stop being morons in the name of freedom and start imposing limitations on those that would abuse it. Like convicted criminals ... people that have already shown us that they have no respect for the freedom or well being of others
Someone in prison is, generally, physically incapable of carrying out their duties as an elected official. This isn't the case for someone who's been released. Individual voters are free to hold grudges against candidates as they see fit; if enough of the voters feel the same way, the candidate won't get elected.
Again, maintaining the right to be morons in the name of freedom is not the goal of a sane society.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Should a convicted felon be allowed to remain in the presidential ballot? Why or why not?
But there's no law against running for president and winning an election while imprisoned — or from serving as president from prison.

If he is sentenced to prison and wins the election, Trump's attorneys might argue that sitting presidents can't be imprisoned, just as Trump has argued that sitting presidents can't be indicted.

"You could say there's something inherent in the office of president suggesting that states can't incarcerate people serving in federal office or holding those federal officers," Muller said. "There's a little bit of precedent on this. In some old cases that go back 200 years, there were some disputes about states trying to have cases involving federal officers to remove them from office, and the Supreme Court has been clear that states have no authority to do this."
Trump's New York felony conviction can't keep him from becoming president


The only way to prevent a Trump presidency is by voting on Nov 5th.
 
Top