Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

TwilightZone

(28,834 posts)

3. Anything of that nature would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Reply to I_UndergroundPanther (Original post)

Sat Nov 2, 2024, 10:50 PM

Nov 2

And we know the likelihood of that happening anytime in the foreseeable future. Zero.

"We would disqualify a person suffering from active psychosis from running because thier mental health. "

Mental health isn't a disqualifying condition. There are few requirements placed on prospective candidates, and we are all pretty familiar with those.

As for authoritarians, you'd have a difficult time gaining a consensus, because a significant chunk of the electorate is just fine with them, a fact which has become obvious.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

obnoxiousdrunk rictofen

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Maybe it's time [View all] I_UndergroundPanther Nov 2 OP

Damn! imanamerican63 Nov 2 #1

I'd say at least you can't be a convicted felon. duncang Nov 2 #2

While a good idea in theory, Claustrum Nov 2 #4

Anything of that nature would require a Constitutional Amendment. TwilightZone Nov 2 #3

NOBODY WHO IS UNDER CRIMINAL INDICTMENT---- Jack Valentino Nov 2 #5

Lincoln quite famously battled lifelong clinical depression Sympthsical Nov 2 #6