this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
435 points (98.2% liked)

NonCredibleDiplomacy

158 readers
1 users here now

Shitposting about geopolitics, diplomacy, and current events for shits and giggles

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
435
Tariffs (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by [email protected] to c/noncrediblediplomacy
 

(This is a parody for all who were unawere)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] piccolo 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The same courts that gave immunity to the president for "official acts"?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes the same courts that did that. POTUS shouldn’t be preventing the opposition from running candidates.

[–] piccolo 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Being a poltical opposition shouldnt be a shield from consequences. Anyone else, he would have been labeled a terrorist and sent off to gitmo. But i guess US has always been a veil democracy anyway, so im not really suprised once the remaining illusions eroded away.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It isn’t a shield from consequences. The courts and DOJ were prosecuting him.

There is NO situation where elected officials should be deciding who can oppose them in a democratic electoral system.

[–] piccolo 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Badly but that doesn’t change that Biden shouldn’t interfere.

[–] piccolo 3 points 1 week ago

Why not? He could make the executive decision to stop the madness and force their hands to actually put forth a trial. He could done it and immediately resigned and let the system decide if his actions were justified. I understand its really not a great thing to undermine democracy... but if he truely believe democracy was already being undermined, then an exetreme act with benevolent intention should be allowed so as long those actions are proven justifiably.