(This is a parody for all who were unawere)

  • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    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?

    • liyunxiao
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

        • liyunxiao
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          If Biden was convicted of a high crime, absolutely. That’s only be constitutional.

          • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            So if the courts who are the actual constitutional check said Biden could run you would support Trump stopping him?

            • liyunxiao
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              The courts aren’t the check in the case we’re talking about, the jury is.

              • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                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

                • liyunxiao
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  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.

                  • Obviously courts can bring contempt charges, but only during and after a trial.