Donald Trump's comments at a rally in Minnesota on Saturday led several prominent onlookers to label the former president a "very real threat to democracy" who is preparing another insurrection.
Trump earlier in the day spoke at a Bitcoin conference, where the attendees said his speech was "ramb...
I also don’t doubt that his voters would pull another Jan 6 if he lost. None of it should be taken lightly. These people are sociopaths and a danger to society.
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.
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.
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.
Trump’s a fucking criminal twat, and at best you’re a rube if you are voting for him.
I recognize this, but it’s not a crime to be stupid and fall for his shit.
I also don’t doubt that his voters would pull another Jan 6 if he lost. None of it should be taken lightly. These people are sociopaths and a danger to society.
I don’t either, and we should prepare for that and arrest and prosecute those criminals.
unfortunately no, but the fact that you can even push criminals through presidency is, rather funny.
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.
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.
No, absolutely not. How could one possibly come to this conclusion based on what I said? Are you okay?
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.