The U.S. Constitution does not prevent convicted felons from holding the office of the President or a seat in the Senate or House of Representatives. Individuals who have been convicted of sedition, seditious conspiracy, treason, conspiracy to defraud the United States or selling information on national defense may not run for federal office. Cities and States may prevent convicted felons from holding statewide and local offices.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@9GN5KWP2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as they’ve finished serving their sentence and parole, the crime wasn’t committed in office, and the crime isn’t sexual, financial, or violent in nature. Also disqualify politicians under investigation for a crime.
@93ZN5DW3yrs3Y
No, except for Donald Trump, who has been the victim of way too many politicized witch hunts - Donald Trump should be allowed to run for any office regardless of the biased results of the Fake Jan 6 institutional witch hunt
@NameIGuessLolSocialist 9mos9MO
That's completely unfair:
@Patriot-#1776Constitution9mos9MO
(1) No one is below the law, either. Political opposition should not be persecuted or we are no longer a free county.
(2) All or nothing thinking is stupid and imprudent, there is nuance to most situations. And this guy is only saying that people who are falsely convicted for political purposes should be allowed to run.
(3) Trump's guilt verdict was decided by a rigged Kangaroo Court run by a Far-Left lunatic, funded by George Soros, whose campaign promise was to lock Trump up.
@NameIGuessLolSocialist 9mos9MO
Please provide a reference for:
“(3) Trump's guilt verdict was decided by a rigged Kangaroo Court run by a Far-Left lunatic, funded by George Soros, whose campaign promise was to lock Trump up.”
I am not saying that political opposition should be persecuted, in fact I think Trump and other criminal candidates should be allowed to run. You say we should not persecute political opposition as well, yet you support a candidate that will “order [his] government to deny entry to all communists and all Marxists” if elected.
I admit I did not grasp that this answer was about political persecution only; thank you for clarifying that.
Finally, about this apparent "Kangaroo Court," I must ask for something to back this up. Where did you hear this at?
@Patriot-#1776Constitution9mos9MO
Unfortunately you may have to pay to see this, but George Soros outright admits in the leftist Wall Street Journal news that he is funding "reform prosecutors" like Alvin Bragg, who is mentioned. This is a well known high-profile Democrat mega-donor whose leftist political leanings are no secret. George Soros, who is in bed with the regime, bought himself a prosecutor to take down his political opposition. He's just coming out and saying it here.
@JackrabbitChris9mos9MO
Political opposition should indeed be protected, but that doesn't mean we should give a free pass to anyone claiming persecution. Nuance is crucial, so let's apply it to your points. Take Richard Nixon, for example. He was pardoned to avoid further division, but his crimes were real. Should we have allowed him to run again, arguing that his prosecution was politically motivated?
If we're talking about nuance, then let's be consistent. Not every conviction is a witch hunt. By discrediting the justice system wholesale, we risk undermining the rule of law itself. How do you propose we discern genuine political persecution from legitimate legal accountability without compromising the integrity of our legal system?
"No, except for (candidate I like)"
@9J5D9FW1yr1Y
Murderers, rapists, drug traffickers, etc, absolutely not. But for people under witch-hunt trials like Trump, absolutely.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
If a charge sinks in it is because he actually committed the crime, it is not a witch-hunt, and he openly plans to actually do so HIMSELF when he gets into office, as he has openly and loudly stated. Under his administration, independent executive agencies will become his, and that ESPECIALLY includes the DOJ, so who’s actually trying to go for a witch-hunt here?
Have you read the Bill of Rights, prohibiting seizure of private property, searching without a warrant, etc, as done at Mar-A-Lago, or the Amendments prohibiting punishment without a fair trial, which can scarcely be interpreted as a court packed unanimously by people who hate your guts? Or do you simply not care...?
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
Mar-a-Lago had a warrant, it was not a seizure as much as an investigation, and he was not punished as he is STILL in court for said documents being found in the house. The documents were 13,000 in number, many including nuclear-related information, and info on national security interests. He pled not guilty to over 35 charges, and still remains in court, with the Biden Administration trying to stay as far away from the case as possible as a show of peace. You think the DOJ is weaponized? There’s little proof in that direction, but regardless, wait until you hear what trump wants to do with the entire DOJ once he gets back himself.
If the DOJ isn't weaponised, why did it shield Hunter Biden by preventing social media users from sharing the laptop information, with the stated intent of rigging the 2020 election by inhibiting the free circulation of information for the sake of the Biden campaign? Why, despite Biden being found to by directly involved in multiple dealings with Ukrainian businesses with which he possibly shared sensitive government information, has the President not been as thoroughly investigated as Donald Trump? Why did Al Gore never get investigated for denying the results of the 2000 election, or… Read more
@9nlm4vr1312mos12MO
He is guilty on all 34 counts if you are not aware.
@9nlm4vr1312mos12MO
“Trump, absolutely.”
Trump is a madman.
Yes, as long as they’ve finished serving their sentence, the crime wasn’t sexual, violent, or financial in nature, and it wasn’t committed in office. Also disqualify politicians under investigation for a crime.
@9HSSV4P1yr1Y
No, and disallow politicians who have a lot of legal issues and have a criminal record. Politicians convicted of felonies should NOT be allowed to run for office at all. But Donald Trump should be allowed to because the democrats do whatever they can to make him look bad.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime
@8HJZ39Z5yrs5Y
Minor crimes such as underage drinking and stupid things like that should be allowed but nothing major (rape, pedophilia, etc)
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes
@97KFKCF3yrs3Y
The voters have the right to choose with their votes in that election whether or not it disqualifies him from office. The government shouldn't ban anyone from running, voters have the right to vote against them.
@B2WVBGG4mos4MO
A "No" answer here creates an incentive for fake convictions and for banning political movements you don't like. No significant number of people think that both Eugene Debs and Donald Trump should have been kept from running.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No
@9FMNPCK2yrs2Y
If someone has a criminal record, they can not be as easily trusted as someone who has committed a crime. If someone has committed a crime, they should not represent our country.
@9nlm4vr1312mos12MO
Why does Trump oppose a criminal running for president if he is one himself?
@8LBSJPF5yrs5Y
Question is too broad. This should be on a case by case basis.
Yes, but all convictions and sentences must be made public knowledge
@9DCSVZT 2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as it wasn't a violent felony.
@8J7KX625yrs5Y
Yes, but only certain crimes. If they are "white collar" crimes they have no business in a position of power where they can do more of that.
Drug possession or speeding, clearly shouldn't prevent someone from holding office.
Violent or sexual assualt convictions OR DUIs should not be allowed to run for office.
Yes, as long as the crime was not a violent or sexual felony
Yes, but only if it wasn’t a violent, sexual, financial, or felony crime, if they’ve finished serving their sentence and parole, and if the crime wasn’t committed while in any office.
@8K94YGT5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence, and all details related to the crime(s) are released to the public
@8TNZ6YL4yrs4Y
Serving a sentence isn't enough. At the same time, people shouldn't be forever bound by the mistakes of their past. Since we're talking about running for government office, I think it would be important to ensure that there's a set period of time where a person doesn't reoffend before they go into office. Maybe it's 3 years for local and 5 for federal with a clear path available for what's expected. There may also be times on the local level where if a person is meeting the markers on this path they can be fast-tracked through the system.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence
@9FNCP6ZIndependent2yrs2Y
If future felons know that voting will be one of the privileges that they will never have if they are convicted, this migh is r people from committing crimes
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, and disallow politicians that are under investigation for a crime
Yes, as long as it was not violent, financial, or sexual in nature
@B5LTZ2X2wks2W
yes as long as they have not committed crime in the past five years and have learned from their mistakes
@B5KQKPJ2wks2W
No, any politician with a felony, past criminal record, or under investigation should be able to run for office
@B5GX4YL3wks3W
As long as they have finished their sentence, as long as the crime was not committed while in office, as long as it wasn't violent, financial, sexual or political regardless if it was a felony or a misdemeanor
@B5F7XZG 4wks4W
I think that if it was one crime where someone made a stupid mistake and recognized it and did their time they should still be allowed to run. But if they repeatedly commit crimes (including any felonies, violent acts, financial, or sexual crimes) they should not be allowed to run because you can see that this is a person who doesn't value learning from mistakes.
@B5D5WXN4wks4W
It depends, if they are real charges and not politically motivated or implemented to restrict a candidates ability to run for office for political reasons so that the other party can win easier.
@B5BHMZX4wks4W
Only if the specific state bans former convicted criminals from running for office, as elections are state rights
@B58LK681mo1MO
As long as they finished their sentence, and their crime wasn’t committed in office.But if they’re under investigation they shall be removed from office or can’t run.
@B56KZ861mo1MO
No, disallowing this would result in opposing parties weaponizing the justice system to maintain control over their opponents
@B566T571mo1MO
Yes, as long as they have finished their sentence, are not under investigation, and their crime is not cause for removal from office.
@B566DXP1mo1MO
Yes, as long as is was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime and they have finished serving their sentence
@B55LRRY 1mo1MO
Yes, as long as the office does not deem them violent, incompetent or a poor representation of our country.
@B55JSH41mo1MO
Yes, as long as it wasn’t a felony, violent, financial, substance related (excluding marijuana and alcohol crimes, as long as it wasn’t not an offense repeated more than 2x), or sexual crime.
@B4ZG5WQ1mo1MO
Was the crime committed real or a media story to give an opponent a disadvantage? So long as they can run our country efficiently then sure.
@B4WYNVQ1mo1MO
yes, but they should be required to disclose this info, both in their campaign and having some kind of symbol next to them on the ballot if they've committed a crime, and different symbols for misdemeanors vs felonies
@B4TFWH42mos2MO
Yes, and abolish the current prison system in favor of one emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration into society, rather than strict confinement.
@B4R25B32mos2MO
Some crimes can be forgiven and some cannot but different people have different opinions and that can lead to a good or bad situation nothing in the middle if you have killed, raped, or abuse power you don’t have to me is a crime one that cannot be forgiven but stealing out the a store or etc are crimes that may be forgiven but there’s also a factor in accountability can that person take accountability for the things she or he has done rather they where right and ended wrong or wrong ended right.
@B4QGCSWRepublican2mos2MO
Our Justice system is broken and trumped up charges exist, so this question is too complicated and outside the scope of this quiz.
@B4MMNWL 2mos2MO
This is a gotcha question because Trump was unfairly targeted and convicted by a corrupt system. I would have said no, until I fully understood how lawfare works.
@B4M68WJ 2mos2MO
Yes, because if they are not it will encourage politicians to weaponize the justice system against their political opponents.
@B4KLCSB2mos2MO
Yes let the people decide who they choose to vote for. If someone has undeniably committed a crime then people won't vote for them.
@B4JSQDB2mos2MO
A huge portion of presidents are responsible for massive waves of deaths, corruption, and biased agendas.
@B4HK36R2mos2MO
I believe that people can be misconvicted and there is more crimes than we know that happens and I believe if you want to convict one candidate while being on the topic you should pick out the rest of the illegal things that happens within the government
@B4FSZNB 2mos2MO
yes, only if they have gotten a degree for college and after their sentence they seem mature enough to become a person in the office.
@B4FCJW4Republican2mos2MO
Yes, for the sake of the constitution, democracy, the republic, freedom, federalism, weak government, and checks and balances.
@B4DXGMQ2mos2MO
It should depend on the level of crime convicted. Minor crimes should not impact someone's ability to run for office.
@B4DP9PY2mos2MO
everyone has their own past, but as long as the crime wasn't deadly or hurting someone i think it should be fine
@B4D6KHP2mos2MO
Yes, for the sake of the republic, democracy, freedom, federalism, checks and balances, and weak government.
@B49QRWJ2mos2MO
If the crimes are real and not a hoax to take down political opponents, then the answer is No. They should not run for office. If the politician was wrongfully accused in order to gain political advantage, then those involved should be charged with treason and the politician should be granted the right to run.
@B48C66Z2mos2MO
The 14th amendment specifically restricts people who have "rebelled" against the U.S. a position in government.
@B46RDV42mos2MO
It depends on the situation and crimes that one has been convicted for, as well as the manner of which the person was convicted.
@B46LX6SIndependent2mos2MO
i don't think so depending on the severity of the crime, if it's a felony no absolutely not, but if it's a mis demeanor then yes
@B45BYBT3mos3MO
They should be allowed to hold office unless convicted of a immoral crime such as: murder, manslaughter, rape, ponzi schemes, DUI's etc.
@B43LLHNRepublican3mos3MO
If it is obvious that the crime does not stand and that it was a set up in an attempt to sabotage a campaign, yes.
@B42SHY73mos3MO
I definitely think if you commit a felony you should not be allowed to run for office if every other felon in America if not allowed to have a government job
@B3XQCNCConstitution3mos3MO
Yes, as long as they have finished their serving sentence, did community services, and waited for their criminal background to be clean again
@B3VMHS73mos3MO
Yes, there is nowhere in the constitution that states a criminal conviction should bar someone from running for office.
@B3TKJ963mos3MO
I believe if a personal had committed a sexual, felony,financial, or violent crime, or committed a crime while in office, they should not be allowed to run for office.
@B3S7THS3mos3MO
Yes, as long as thety have finished serving their sentence, it was not committed while they were in office, while they are under investigation, and it was not a felony, violent, financial, or secual crime.
@B3RYRHG3mos3MO
yes, if they were duly punished One recent politician was convicted but their sentence was postponed on wining election.
@B3QM2V93mos3MO
Yes as long as they didn't murder someone outside of self defense and don't have any sex charges like 290s
@B3P4HVT3mos3MO
If a politican that was convicted based on an actual crime and not a politically motivated conviction, than no.
@B3NPQWV3mos3MO
If the crime that they are convicted of is a very serious one that can lead to death or other serious things and not only that but the ones accusing him/her has enough proof to have a good case then No. If not and its a little crime then yes. Americans will still get to vote if they are worthy of the presidential spot or not.
No, our public officials should ALWAYS be model citizens who are well equipped with the moral & ethical capacity to lead by example.
@ThunderRoseIndependent 3mos3MO
Yes, as revolutionaries of dictatorial governments should be allowed to run under the notion of benefiting the people.
@B3MP6C63mos3MO
Yes but it depends on the situation of not only the crime but rather or not prosecution was from political retaliation
@B3H8PHJ 3mos3MO
Yes, but the specific crimes that determine ineligibility should correspond with whoever cannot vote
@B3KC9DL3mos3MO
Yes, and depends on the crime if it was bad enough they shouldn't be running they probably will not get elected
@B2J5C7VLibertarian 5mos5MO
This question is not valid since the DOJ and the FBI have both been proven without a doubt to be corrupt and politically motivated.
@B2GWG5TJustice party member5mos5MO
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence and long as it was not a felony, violent, and sexual crime
@B2G8MYL5mos5MO
Yes, as long as it was not violent, financial, or sexual. The workforce also needs reform to stop discrimination of individuals who have been convicted of a crime.
@B2G39Z95mos5MO
I think post politicians are already committing crimes anyway and the media and gov hides it. No matter my opinion it will still happen
@B2DFYZW5mos5MO
No, if they're is such a proof that the crime was violent in nature, or that their was financial benefit to a substantial degree.
@B2C7JBJ5mos5MO
If a judge officially sentences a politician to serve time in prison for their crime, they are convicted and should not be allowed to run. However, when facts are manipulated and word games are played the truth is not being told and the politician should have a right to run for office.
@amydumler 5mos5MO
No but only relevant if conviction upheld after appeal. An initial conviction in a lower court prior to appeal should not count.
@B2B3DCM5mos5MO
Yes, as long as they are not currently on probation or parole, the crime wasn't committed in office, the crime wasn't violent, financial, sexual, or a Federal offence.
@B28ZXZV5mos5MO
It depends. But I'm anti-democratic. I don't believe it is the best form of governance. I would prefer monarchy or anarcho-capitalism
@B284JTHRepublican5mos5MO
Depends on the crime, but no one under investigation or awaiting trial should be eligible to run for office.
@B27RBJL5mos5MO
Depends on the crime and the situation. For misdemeanors, yes. But anyone who is being investigated for a crime or is on trial should not be allowed to run.
Yes- but with restrictions to avoid activist judges/lawmakers convicting people to prevent them from being in politcs
@B24K37K6mos6MO
depends on the crime because if its a crime like j-walking then no but if its a serious crime then no
@B24D5LP6mos6MO
Mostly no, and don't allow it if they are under investigation. But there might need to be exceptions depending on what the crime was and if they've done what was required of them to make penance.
Join in on more popular conversations.
