And your evidence for the bold claim that the French justice system has been corrupted enough to fabricate and enter false evidence and land a conviction?
What about evidence that french media freedoms have been suppressed so badly that every single news agency has been intimidated into not revealing leaked evidence of fabrication?
Ok, but in general so can any organisation/institution become corrupted. So can your local authority or the upper management of where you work or the local school board or the organisers of your favourite activity club.
Your statement is tantamount to saying “corruption exists and is bad”. Well yeah, it has since people put a name to greed.
Its good to keep an eye out for it, but unless there’s growing evidence for the case that French courts have been corrupted, like how there’s now a mountain’s worth for the US supreme court, then it’s not being skeptical it’s being very cynical.
I agree that it’s not a problem until it is a problem. I think we differ in the way we are vigilant about defending the core of democracy.
Open elections, free speech and free press are very important to defend, even if you happen to dislike the person in question. I’d rather defend free speech of a person I hate than slowly carving away at it, one “victory” at a time. If one person doesn’t have free speech, there is no free speech left.
I see it the same with elections. If anyone can be barred from running in an election, the election isn’t open anymore.
I don’t see it as skeptical versus cynical. Maybe in your eyes. What I’ve seen lately though is that democracy can be over very quickly, or in a way that no one can stop, even if you can see the signs. Look at USA right now, it’s been going down hill for a while now but most people are realizing too late to do anything.
I’m not here to discuss France or their politics because I know nothing about it, nor about Le Pen. People seem to go very much into “it’s fine for now in France”.
So what’s the alternative then? Just let politicians get away with crimes and elect them anyway? Because that doesn’t seem to be going too well for the US.
Yep but that’s what Putin also says before throwing people in jail.
Courts can be corrupted and if that happens, an open election is the last chance before full dictatorship ensues.
Except in her case, it’s been proved that she’s been embezzling. Your argument makes no sense, you’re comparing two completely different situations.
Bro, are you fighting this with whataboutism and false equivalency ? Troll detected opinion rejected
It’s not whataboutism if it’s on the same topic. I just raised a very real example where this is problematic.
In the near future, I bet we will see the same in America.
And what in this is false equivalency? We’re talking about banning criminals from elections, right?
Imma just point and laugh at you now cuz you are either dumb enough to beileve what you are saying or you are a troll
🫵😂
Very mature
Fight the arguments instead if they are so lame.
What you are suggesting is even more dangerous though. Law immunity for politicians is even worse
No I’m saying she should definitely be in jail but rhat shouldn’t stop her from being in the election, if she wants.
And your evidence for the bold claim that the French justice system has been corrupted enough to fabricate and enter false evidence and land a conviction?
What about evidence that french media freedoms have been suppressed so badly that every single news agency has been intimidated into not revealing leaked evidence of fabrication?
I never said it was corrupted. I said in general, courts van be corrupted. See the supreme court of the USA for a recent example.
Ok, but in general so can any organisation/institution become corrupted. So can your local authority or the upper management of where you work or the local school board or the organisers of your favourite activity club.
Your statement is tantamount to saying “corruption exists and is bad”. Well yeah, it has since people put a name to greed.
Its good to keep an eye out for it, but unless there’s growing evidence for the case that French courts have been corrupted, like how there’s now a mountain’s worth for the US supreme court, then it’s not being skeptical it’s being very cynical.
Finally someone who actually wants a debate.
I agree that it’s not a problem until it is a problem. I think we differ in the way we are vigilant about defending the core of democracy.
Open elections, free speech and free press are very important to defend, even if you happen to dislike the person in question. I’d rather defend free speech of a person I hate than slowly carving away at it, one “victory” at a time. If one person doesn’t have free speech, there is no free speech left.
I see it the same with elections. If anyone can be barred from running in an election, the election isn’t open anymore.
I don’t see it as skeptical versus cynical. Maybe in your eyes. What I’ve seen lately though is that democracy can be over very quickly, or in a way that no one can stop, even if you can see the signs. Look at USA right now, it’s been going down hill for a while now but most people are realizing too late to do anything.
I’m not here to discuss France or their politics because I know nothing about it, nor about Le Pen. People seem to go very much into “it’s fine for now in France”.
It’s fine until it isn’t.
Holy mother of false equivalence.
So what’s the alternative then? Just let politicians get away with crimes and elect them anyway? Because that doesn’t seem to be going too well for the US.
The alternative is to punish them like any other citizen: prison or fines. All I’m against is disallowing them to run in elections.
If the people still vote for a convict, obviously the system is broken and needs to be fixed.