this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
343 points (86.4% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3987 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"But the Trumpian part is that even though, or perhaps because, it may be part of a Trump scam, Knight now too may be on the hook for $175 million as it won't automatically get out from underneath its own proffered surety."

Hankey, a billionaire, has already said that his company will be able to post the money for Trump.

He was reacting to a comment on X by lawyer Dave Kingman, who wrote that Knight will not be able to post the $175 million.

"Understand that Knight Specialty has a problem. This bond cannot be approved. Under the CPLR [Civil Practice Laws and Rules] the surety will remain obligated under the bond until a replacement bond is filed. Trump is unlikely to get a replacement bond. Knight Spec will be liable AND Trump won't have a stay [on enforcement]," he wrote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 27 points 7 months ago (2 children)

To actually give an answer, it's because the Constitution very deliberately does not allow criminal convictions to disqualify someone. This was done because it was, and in plenty of places still is, common practice for a government to simply make up charges and arrest any opposition, thus disqualifying them from running.

You always have to look at this kind of stuff from the other side. Would you really want a Trump to be able to disqualify an opposing candidate for running a red light once twenty years ago?

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 months ago

I think it's good that Trump can technically run - but it's fucking embarrassing that he's managed to retain so much support.

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Correct, but I think it's important to add that this is showing that the other systems of checks and balances that were supposed to be in place for frivolous crimes drummed up in the scenarios you're mentioning, are supposed to stop someone like trump from running.

Specifically the RNC and the Electoral college. Both of which have miserably failed in their jobs to prevent a dictator from taking power in the united states. As did our legislative side, fail to convict him on 2 airtight impeachment cases.

This is because the smaller half of our government (republicans), have completely sold out to trump, and there's no turning back from them. They're going to ride this ship into the ground.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're correct, but the fundamental blame for that does lie with the voters, at the end of the day. No amount of structural protections can protect democracy from voters that do not care about it. At that point, they're just ink on a page.

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Agreed.

Which is why voting is so incredibly difficult to do for the people who are the most exploited and marginalized in this country.