2 Jun 2023 11:18 pm
Son? I'm 72. Just sayin'
Now that defies reality. . Prosecutions of the Presidents, Prime Ministers, etc., of leaders in 'first world' (western developed nations) are not that uncommon.We do not imprison ex presidents. It's low budget. It's third world. It's nonwhite.
There are several examples of first world countries that have prosecuted their Presidents or Prime Ministers in the last 50 years. For instance, South Korea has investigated and convicted five former presidents starting in the 1990s. In France, former President Nicolas Sarkozy was sentenced to prison for corruption and influence peddling In Israel, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust
With due respect, Cannonpointer, but your reply presents several potential logical fallacies, weak arguments, and vague comments. To wit:I mean, MAYBE, given that we no longer even TRY to hide that we are a kleptocracy run by oligarchs. But even then, we STILL have an anglo-saxon sense of decency that runs through the oligarchy.
Besides that, it is retarded to think a prosecutor can prove the case without showing the documents to the jury. The documents are the proof duh. You can't just pinky swear about the nature of the documents. So in order to bust trump by pretending he violated national security, the prosecutor will have to violate national security. Pretty stupid. It's not what's done.
- Ad Hominem Fallacy: You resort to this fallacy when you use the term "retarded" to dismiss the argument presented. Instead of engaging with the points directly, you resort to a derogatory term.
- Appeal to Tradition: You imply that because something has never been done in the past, like prosecuting an ex-president, it shouldn't be done now. This viewpoint doesn't account for potential changes in societal values, conditions, or our understanding of the law.
- Cultural Stereotyping: Your comments about Bolivia, the Third World, and "nonwhite" societies imprisoning ex-presidents are irrelevant to the argument at hand and exhibit cultural stereotyping. The debate should focus on whether a potential legal violation has occurred, regardless of what other countries do.
- Straw Man Fallacy: When you claim that the argument is about "busting Trump by pretending he violated national security," you misrepresent the original argument, creating a straw man. The argument presented is not about "pretending" but revolves around the potential legal implications of mishandling classified documents.
- Assuming a False Dilemma: You insist that the case can only be proven by showing the documents to the jury, implying this would violate national security. This perspective overlooks the various mechanisms in legal proceedings for dealing with sensitive information, such as closed hearings, or the use of declassified summaries and excerpts. The choice isn't binary between maintaining national security and prosecuting a case.
- Lack of Evidential Support: Your claim about an "anglo-saxon sense of decency that runs through the oligarchy" is vague and lacks clear, supporting evidence.