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:
@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.
@9nlm4vr131yr1Y
Why does Trump oppose a criminal running for president if he is one himself?
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime
@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.
@B2WVBGG5mos5MO
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, and disallow politicians that are under investigation for a crime
@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
Yes, as long as the crime was not committed while in office
@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 10mos10MO
That's completely unfair:
@Patriot-#1776Constitution10mos10MO
(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 10mos10MO
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-#1776Constitution10mos10MO
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.
@JackrabbitChris10mos10MO
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
@9nlm4vr131yr1Y
He is guilty on all 34 counts if you are not aware.
@9nlm4vr131yr1Y
“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.
@8HJZ39Z5yrs5Y
Minor crimes such as underage drinking and stupid things like that should be allowed but nothing major (rape, pedophilia, etc)
@8LBSJPF5yrs5Y
Question is too broad. This should be on a case by case basis.
@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 all convictions and sentences must be made public knowledge
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.
Yes, as long as it was not violent, financial, or sexual in nature
@8HKRDZR5yrs5Y
It depends. If it was a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime, or if they're under investigation for such, then no. If it was a misdemeanor or other minor crime, or if the investigation/trial for a worse crime proves that they did not commit the crime, then yes.
No Matter how Bad the Offence is As long as he is willing to change to become a better human than being a so called monster
Yes, assuming it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime and they have completed their sentence
@B5XGQ4G7 days7D
Yes, as long as they have served their time AND shown reformation. However that is decided. I believe there's a system for when people are on parole and such that could be helpful.
@B5X5SSW1wk1W
Yes, those crimes should be published and explained. As long as they do not involve sex crimes, violent crimes, or a minor, they should be able to run.
Yes, as long as they have finished serving their sentence or as long as the crime was not committed while in office
@B5WHQLX1wk1W
Depends on what it was, and also if the conviction came from a bias Judicial who only convicted to try and stop them from running, E.G. NYC convicting Trump to try and stop him from running
@B5WGGSH1wk1W
No — except in limited cases. If someone committed a minor, non-violent offense or had a DUI many years ago and has clearly changed, I believe they deserve a second chance. But not a third. People who’ve been convicted of serious crimes, especially ones that reflect on their judgment, values, or abuse of power — particularly during public service — should not be trusted with leadership again. Accountability matters.
@B5WBBGC2wks2W
maybe, as long as they have finished serving their sentence and are voted in by majority of people. I think the state in which the crime was committed should be taken into account by the public but I don't have a full answer for that
@B5VXSRC 2wks2W
Yes, if their crimes are public knowledge and if they have served their full sentence without any parole.
@B5VG2DY2wks2W
Depends on the crime and how long ago it was commited. As well as if the person tried to "fix" themselves in the mean time.
@B5T8BXZ3wks3W
If it’s not a suspicious trial, due to the fact if this questions about trump, it was a couple months before
@B5T7LNW3wks3W
Yes, as long as they have served their time and are not under legal investigation. Also, allow felons to vote.
@B5S8T6T3wks3W
Yes - but info on categories of crimes convicted for should be public and provided / easily available to voters
@B5P54P6 1mo1MO
Yes, as doing so could cause government tyranny towards political opponents, however I would almost never support a criminal candidate
@B5P3CZK1mo1MO
Let's be honest, this will be highly dependent on who it is, what crime they've been convicted of, why they did it, and how I feel about those things.
@B5NCT941mo1MO
Let’s be honest, this in practice is going to be highly dependent on who it is, what they did, why they did it, and how I feel about all those things.
@B5NC94H1mo1MO
Let's be honest, this in practice will be highly dependent on specifically who it is, what they did, why they did it, and how I feel about all three of those things.
@B5N9ZY91mo1MO
Disallow only for politicians under current investigation . Restore this right after they've served time
@B5LTZ2X1mo1MO
yes as long as they have not committed crime in the past five years and have learned from their mistakes
@B5KQKPJ1mo1MO
No, any politician with a felony, past criminal record, or under investigation should be able to run for office
@B5GX4YL2mos2MO
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 2mos2MO
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.
@B5D5WXN2mos2MO
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.
@B5BHMZX2mos2MO
Only if the specific state bans former convicted criminals from running for office, as elections are state rights
@B58LK682mos2MO
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.
@B56KZ862mos2MO
No, disallowing this would result in opposing parties weaponizing the justice system to maintain control over their opponents
@B566T572mos2MO
Yes, as long as they have finished their sentence, are not under investigation, and their crime is not cause for removal from office.
@B566DXP2mos2MO
Yes, as long as is was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime and they have finished serving their sentence
@B55LRRY 2mos2MO
Yes, as long as the office does not deem them violent, incompetent or a poor representation of our country.
@B55JSH42mos2MO
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.
@B4ZG5WQ2mos2MO
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.
@B4WYNVQ2mos2MO
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.
@B4R25B33mos3MO
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.
@B4QGCSWRepublican3mos3MO
Our Justice system is broken and trumped up charges exist, so this question is too complicated and outside the scope of this quiz.
@B4MMNWL 3mos3MO
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 3mos3MO
Yes, because if they are not it will encourage politicians to weaponize the justice system against their political opponents.
@B4KLCSB3mos3MO
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.
@B4JSQDB3mos3MO
A huge portion of presidents are responsible for massive waves of deaths, corruption, and biased agendas.
@B4HK36R3mos3MO
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 3mos3MO
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.
@B4FCJW4Republican3mos3MO
Yes, for the sake of the constitution, democracy, the republic, freedom, federalism, weak government, and checks and balances.
@B4DXGMQ3mos3MO
It should depend on the level of crime convicted. Minor crimes should not impact someone's ability to run for office.
@B4DP9PY3mos3MO
everyone has their own past, but as long as the crime wasn't deadly or hurting someone i think it should be fine
@B4D6KHP3mos3MO
Yes, for the sake of the republic, democracy, freedom, federalism, checks and balances, and weak government.
@B49QRWJ3mos3MO
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.
@B48C66Z3mos3MO
The 14th amendment specifically restricts people who have "rebelled" against the U.S. a position in government.
@B46RDV43mos3MO
It depends on the situation and crimes that one has been convicted for, as well as the manner of which the person was convicted.
@B46LX6SIndependent3mos3MO
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
@B3XQCNCConstitution4mos4MO
Yes, as long as they have finished their serving sentence, did community services, and waited for their criminal background to be clean again
@B3VMHS74mos4MO
Yes, there is nowhere in the constitution that states a criminal conviction should bar someone from running for office.
@B3TKJ964mos4MO
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.
@B3S7THS4mos4MO
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.
@B3RYRHG4mos4MO
yes, if they were duly punished One recent politician was convicted but their sentence was postponed on wining election.
@B3QM2V94mos4MO
Yes as long as they didn't murder someone outside of self defense and don't have any sex charges like 290s
@B3P4HVT4mos4MO
If a politican that was convicted based on an actual crime and not a politically motivated conviction, than no.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
