• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nah, it’s the way it should be; jailing a political opponent should absolutely not be a way for someone in power to stop people from voting for someone. It’s just sad that this is going to protect an actual criminal.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      so you’re saying a political opponent should be immune? Period?

      Because for the entire history of american politics, from the founding until now, that has never been the case. The president is no more immune than any average person, because the president is literally an average person, this is in the federalist papers.

      Like i don’t disagree, jailing someone to prevent them from running is absurd, but there are more nuanced and complete solutions to this problem like, having a functional justice system for example.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        so you’re saying a political opponent should be immune? Period?

        No, absolutely not. How could one possibly come to this conclusion based on what I said? Are you okay?

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          why would you ever argue for immunity in any other manner? The president already has a form of acting immunity, like most politicians in office currently hold.

          Most official presidential acts are not something a president can be charged for, using the military for example.