(This is a parody for all who were unawere)
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
331 points (98.3% liked)
NonCredibleDiplomacy
129 readers
406 users here now
Shitposting about geopolitics, diplomacy, and current events for shits and giggles
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Biden had no role in that investigation as it would be extremely inappropriate for him to do so.
Except it wouldn't be, since he was not a political opponent after jan 6th. He also absolutely had a role, the idea the head of the executive branch doesn't control the doj is and always has been an open lie. The existence of pot shops in legal states is the most obvious proof of that.
The elected leader in a democratic republic like the USA cannot stop candidates from running without becoming a dictator. This is intro level poli sci stuff.
There is a difference between permitting states to decriminalize cannabis and electoral interference.
They actually can, it's called doing their job and charging the individual with high crimes against the US that they've committed. There's no difference between a presidential candidate and a citizen.
No it isn’t. It is inappropriate for any candidate to utilize their office to prevent opposition. That is how authoritarian societies work not democratic republics. You should have been taught this in secondary/high school (ages 14-18 if you aren’t American).
How would you react if Trump had banned Bernie Sanders ir Biden from running in 2020 over perceived charges? Do you not see how easily misused that power would be?
The DOJ lead by the USAG should handle the prosecution without input from POTUS. That is what happened.
What you are suggesting is the kind of clownish fantasy that would get you laughed out of any courtroom. That’s how failed democracies work. That is not how systems should work. You are literally advocating corruption.
The norms you're citing are all perfectly correct - but no democracy can survive if these norms are able to protect literal traitors. The fact that a coup was attempted should have resulted in swift and frightfully intense penalties for all involved. Unhung traitors poison republics.
Yes, and the list of people who dropped the ball on that prosecution does not and cannot include his political opponent.
Ceding your point for the sake of discussion, if that is a single point of failure for, in the emerging situation, the entire government, shouldn't we have been talking about reforms? This whole notion of a democratic republic whose existence is predicated on norms is easily destroyed by one weirdo.
I don't have all the answers, but at least tell me you see how fragile it all is. The most powerful country in history should not be designed to resist traitorous elements this weakly.
The DOJ, Congress and the courts all should have stopped this. The fact is a HUGE chunk of America knows fuckall about the government or how governing works (Lemmy is no exception). The public chose fascism.
The Electoral College chose fascism. For all your pedantry you lose points on precision.
If we are being pedantic the electoral college did so because of the electorate.
I don't think you have a strong grasp on the electoral college. Nor do you understand how the vote is suppressed in the US and the fact that population center votes count for less than rural ones.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/14/politics/restrictive-voting-laws-brennan-report/index.html
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020
Advocating for suspected criminals to face charges and go to trial in a timely manner is authoritarian.
Well that's just absolutely ridiculous. I sincerely hope you understand this is why Trump won and why the US won't exist by the end of the decade. Please don't fuck up something so simple in your next country.
When the person being tried is a current and former opponent in an election yes it us and anyone suggesting otherwise needs remedial education in the difference between societies with rule of law and those without.
You’re in a tech job, aren’t you?
So in order to commit any crime, including murder, which Trump can be charged with as he committed a felony where individuals died, you just need to run for office.
Weird, I've heard this line of reasoning on fox news before.
You never answered how the tech job is working out.
That’s not what Im saying at all and I have no idea why you would conclude that given how many times I have clearly stated the issue to you.
You stated a falsehood, outright misinformation. I am attempting to let you understand why your incredibly short sided point of view is wrong.
In your world, with the words you have stated, all presidential candidates are immune to prosecution. That's obviously incorrect, therefore you entire basis of objections is wrong.
No, I did not and you repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding on how democracy works.
Suggesting Biden should intervene in the electoral process is suggesting an action only seen in authoritarian states.
You have an incredibly flawed understanding of philosophy or how anything works here. Is this because you don’t live in a democracy and only understand how authoritarian states like China works?
If you think you have to let murderers free because of democracy, you don't support democracy, you support murder.
An investigation ending in a jury trial is not, by any standard, despotic nor authoritarian.
However refusing to bring charges against someone in your same political class because they ran against you or might do so in the future absolutely is authoritarian and is the sign of an oligarchy wherein those with enough money are free from consequences.
If in 2020 Trump prevented Biden from running would you support that?
If Biden was convicted of a high crime, absolutely. That's only be constitutional.
So if the courts who are the actual constitutional check said Biden could run you would support Trump stopping him?
The courts aren't the check in the case we're talking about, the jury is.
Im talking about SCOTUS and the federal courts. Those Courts are the check on the executive branch. The executive branch is not the check on itself.
Even if we were talking about a jury that would still ge part of the courts
Neither scotus nor the federal courts can bring charges, only oversee trials for said charges, or in the case of scotus, determine whether laws are constitutional and were followed during trial.*
Therefore the executive, as has always been it's role would have to bring charges.