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:
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
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?
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, as long as it was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
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.
@B2WVBGG7mos7MO
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.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, and disallow politicians that are under investigation for a crime
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
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
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, as long as the crime was not committed while in office
@B6LRZ794wks4W
A politician who has committed a crime wither in office or not shouldn't be allowed to run again, as a politician they should know the law and what their supposed to do and if they feel they can break the law in either setting it shows they aren't fit to run
@B6KCDDM1mo1MO
A politician, formerly convicted of a crime should not be able to run for office. He or she that committed the crime, should be punished in a way, and have the ability to run in office removed from them.
- They chose to convict the crime, so that's on them to deal with the consequences . I say no to the answer.
@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 1yr1Y
That's completely unfair:
(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 1yr1Y
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?
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.
@JackrabbitChris12mos12MO
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)"
@9J5D9FW2yrs2Y
Murderers, rapists, drug traffickers, etc, absolutely not. But for people under witch-hunt trials like Trump, absolutely.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
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...?
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
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.
@9HSSV4P2yrs2Y
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)
@9FJDPVD2yrs2Y
Yes, as long as the crimes were not committed while in office, are not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime, and they are not under investigation while running.
@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.
@8NKP6JT5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as the crime was not violent, financial, or sexual. Felonies shouldn't matter if they've served their sentence.
@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.
@B748NRF1 day1D
Yes, as long as they have not tried to defraud damage or attack the United States or commit treason.
@B73VW4H2 days2D
depends on when the crime was committed, what the crime was, how long they had been doing it for, etc
@B6ZBZJZ5 days5D
Yes, but they need to show that they have learned from their mistake(s) and are prepared to serve with honesty and integrity.
No. After Donald Trump, we should not be allowing criminals to be politicians, especially if the crime was a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime. We should also not allow politicians under investigation for a crime to run.
@B6YR7PV6 days6D
President Trump was convicted of a crime after the statue of limitations had passed, and was wrongfully convicted, I think in general no they should no be allowed to run, but if they have a criminal record they should be able to have a retrial before they run to remove it from their record.
@B6WLWKZ 1wk1W
Yes, as long as it was not a financial, or violent sexual crime, the crime was not committed while in office AND they have finished serving their sentence.
@B6WGYLH1wk1W
yes, if they are reformed and hasn't committed a crime for at least 10 years before running for office
@B6TWRSFRepublican2wks2W
If they are not found guilty they should be able to run. if they are "convicted" and under trial while the campaign is running then they are convicted they should be disqualified.
@B6SQY482wks2W
They are allowed to run for office while being convicted, however if they are found guilty they should be stripped of their role if elected
@B6RRSFQ3wks3W
It really depends. For example, Donald J. Trump, (most beloved president) was "convicted" of 34 "felonies" Most of those were misdemeanors a best, and not a case at worst.
@B6RQ4G73wks3W
If their trial was rigged, unfair, or they were framed then yes they should be able to run for office.
@B6R38433wks3W
I think that if it is a non serious crime then it can be looked past like a speeding ticket for example
@B6R33NXRepublican3wks3W
Yes but only if they have been proven innocent in a court of law and as long as the crime convicted is not a felony, violent, or sexual crime.
@B6Q4V7L3wks3W
No, but with the exception of Eugene Debs in the 1920 presidential election (when Wilson violated the 1st Admendment)
@B6PR5YR3wks3W
yes, but the crime must not be a felony, sex crime, violent crime, or financial crime or committed while in office,
@B6P96QC3wks3W
Yes, But as long as they will not commit that crime again, and If It's not a sexual or a crime of violence.
@B3VGV2T 3wks3W
In the United States, there is no federal constitutional or statutory prohibition against a person with a criminal conviction, including a felony, from running for or serving in most public offices. The U.S. Constitution sets only three specific qualifications for presidential candidates: being a natural-born citizen, being at least 35 years old, and having resided in the U.S. for at least 14 years. While some states and specific types of public offices may have their own disqualification laws for certain crimes (like bribery or treason), a criminal record alone generally does not prevent som… Read more
@B6NQKWM3wks3W
Yes, as long as they finished serving their sentence 14 years prior (akin to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 "be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years") and the crime was not committed while in office.
@B6NBM6N4wks4W
Yes, as long as it wasn’t a felony. If felons can’t vote in most cases, why should they be able to run?
@B6N99CL4wks4W
Depends on the crime, if it was something small such as like, petty theft then no. However, if it was something worse like murder than they absolutely should not.
@B6LSB6FWomen’s Equality4wks4W
No, we should allow a criminal to be in office, they could put us in danger or even make bad decisions that could lead to bad things.
@B6LDT364wks4W
From a neutral stance, I believe that no president is good, even if they are convicted of a crime or not.
@B6L7VYG4wks4W
Yes, people use lawfare on their opponents all the time. If the public wants someone to be their representative, then it'd be democratic.
@B6L3JHZ4wks4W
Yes, as long as it happened at least 20 years prior, and was not a felony, violent, financial, or sexual crime
No, even if they have finished their sentences. As well as, if their crime was not as bad then I still don't think that they can be allowed to run for office. Even if they have had a really bad crime then no they should not be allowed to run for office. The reason why is because if you have been sentenced then they just should be able to run for office.
@B6HKJJB1mo1MO
Yes, but only if they are convicted in a reasonable trial and the jury must be unanimous in their decision, no split decision will suffice.
Deleted1mo1MO
Criminal should run the offices, vote, and involve in politics and let prisoner have rights and reform the justices system, but not high risk prisoners!
@B6G2MDCIndependent1mo1MO
As long as they finished serving their sentence and it was not a violent, financial, or sexual crime nor are they under investigation
@B65SZ4T2mos2MO
Yes, but they must finish serving their sentence and should not be allowed if under investigation for a serious crime
@B643MSY2mos2MO
If they are found innocent they should be able to run but if found guilty they shouldn't be able to run
@B63KTYL2mos2MO
As long as they arent currently serving a sentence let em try they would be eaten alive of they were a jerk by the public
@B5ZKV65Independent 2mos2MO
I would have said Yes but then I seen what they did to Trump. Strong No to prevent election tampering via corruption in the courts.
Deleted2mos2MO
YES... if the crime was not against the public trust, sufficient time has passed, rehabilitation is demonstrable, transparency is total, and no disqualifying moral corruption is involved. Leadership must remain redemptive—but never permissive.
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
@B5XGQ4G3mos3MO
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.
@B5X5SSW3mos3MO
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
@B5WHQLX3mos3MO
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
@B5WGGSH3mos3MO
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.
@B5WBBGC3mos3MO
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 3mos3MO
Yes, if their crimes are public knowledge and if they have served their full sentence without any parole.
@B5VG2DY3mos3MO
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.
@B5T8BXZ3mos3MO
If it’s not a suspicious trial, due to the fact if this questions about trump, it was a couple months before
@B5T7LNW3mos3MO
Yes, as long as they have served their time and are not under legal investigation. Also, allow felons to vote.
@B5S8T6T3mos3MO
Yes - but info on categories of crimes convicted for should be public and provided / easily available to voters
@B5P54P6 4mos4MO
Yes, as doing so could cause government tyranny towards political opponents, however I would almost never support a criminal candidate
@B5P3CZK4mos4MO
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.
@B5NCT944mos4MO
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.
@B5NC94H4mos4MO
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.
@B5N9ZY94mos4MO
Disallow only for politicians under current investigation . Restore this right after they've served time
@B5LTZ2X4mos4MO
yes as long as they have not committed crime in the past five years and have learned from their mistakes
@B5KQKPJ4mos4MO
No, any politician with a felony, past criminal record, or under investigation should be able to run for office
@B5GX4YL4mos4MO
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 4mos4MO
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.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
