> As Trump is arguing? Should they be able to murder, rape, commit arson, cannibalism, etc. while in office, and enjoy total immunity from prosecution?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 week ago, 35 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,293,870
@previous (D)
So, if a president, say, on international TV, took alive baby and cannibalized it alive, he should be immune from any legal consequences?
Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,293,875
@previous (A)
If you would rather see problems happen a million times because a president doesn't pass your purity test, you're unable to assess the situation.
There's two options, and the other one has cannibalized babies too, or something equally as heinous.
Choosing between too imperfect choices, their policies are going to overshadow their personal lives. Trump is a better option than Biden. Trump paid a prostitute to be quiet, and Biden wants to put the economy and social mores into a place where everyone will be a prostitute.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 27 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,293,877
@previous (A)
When they are making decisions that affect millions of lives in wars, healthcare, and human rights, yes. Their personal choices are overshadowed by policy consequences.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,293,898
Obama murdered tens of thousands with drones and bush murdered millions with his illegal war and Clinton covered up the death of those train track kids
> As Trump is arguing? Should they be able to murder, rape, commit arson, cannibalism, etc. while in office, and enjoy total immunity from prosecution?
If Trump solicited CP from a child, do you think he should be immune, or is his crime too disgusting in your opinion?
> So, if a president, say, on international TV, took alive baby and cannibalized it alive, he should be immune from any legal consequences?
But you see, Trump isn't arguing that this would be a good thing to do. He's arguing that he cannot be criminally convicted for something done in an official capacity as President. This has long been held to be true, though never tested in a court of law. Saying that something is true isn't the same as saying it should be
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 week ago, 31 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,293,967
@previous (H)
Silly me. The real, much more reasonable thing that his lawyers literally, actually argued is that he should be able to assassinate a political opponent. Much more reasonable.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 week ago, 8 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,293,978
@1,293,970 (A)
It seems to be more about entertaining silly hypothetical extremes. Either side of this coin has absolutely mental hypotheticals you can imagine. If the courts rashly make a bad ruling on this it will have wild consequences. If they leave the question unanswered, the status quo is maintained. The best solution is somewhere in between, as with most things.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 week ago, 32 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,293,989
@previous (J)
Maybe! But that would be pretty difficult to pull off from behind bars since in MY hypothetical Biden was impeached, removed from office and found guilty of the manslaughter of thousands of innocent children
Anonymous D replied with this 1 week ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,293,992
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Yes thousands of deaths through executive actions are OK. When a president kills one in their personal life that matters more than the policy decisions they make according to some here.
Trump needs to take out his opposition quickly so he can focus on making america great again. Pragmatism > moral purity tests
Anonymous H replied with this 1 week ago, 12 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,293,993
@previous (D)
Imagine if the courts allow a bad flare up of TDS to ruin the lives of every future US president. Every action will come under this same question: "Was this motivated by personal interests?" Thousands of court cases per month. The executive branch would grind to a halt.