“Not being president” is not a punishment. Just the absence of a reward for her corruption. If the worst she had was “not being rewarded”, then what stops every other crook from attempting to seize power?
Absence of a reward is not a consequence for breaking the rules. A consequence for breaking the law is the actual punishment, and that also serves as a warning to any other people wanting to do the same.
That’s what’s wrong with the system we currently have, and I’m glad at least she got prison out of it. Leniency is what got us here. There’s got to be actual hard consequences for mocking the system. Rules are only as good as the willingness to apply consequences for breaking them. It’s that simple.
I mean, for one thing there is plenty of proof that harsher criminal punishments do not reduce crime in any way, so there’s that for the US-style “just jail more people for longer” nonsense.
But also, it doesn’t follow that leniency is what got you here when she has literally been punished with the penalty you were hoping for in the first place. It sure makes it sound like you were primed to think this was too lenient no matter what it was.
So whataboutism, distorting my words to suit your point and strawmen are your answers. Good to know rather early this conversation isn’t going anywhere, since both of us will always be right and wrong at the same time, according to each other.
One crook or two facing consequences does not excuse all the others that consistently get away. Specially the ones we don’t even know about. She’s just “the one that was caught this time”, with plenty more in line like her waiting for their chance to succeed where she could not. And your willingness to see her “not-reward” as if it was an actual punishment written in the law for her crimes speaks volumes - to the point it makes me wonder what potential role or benefit you’re getting (or hoping to get) from such a system. And before you twist my words to say you’re “not french”, or “not a politician”, know that what I’m saying goes way beyond one person, one position or one nation, so that logic won’t cut it.
Almost makes me think you’re primed to automatically defend scum like her no matter how corrupt she was. Anyways I don’t think this will be a productive discussion for either of us, so forgive me for not participating further.
It’s your prerogative, but I will clarify the point.
For one thing, her “not reward” is not a “not reward”, it is an actual punishment, codified in the criminal code of many democratic countries, where the penalty is the removal of the right to participate in elections or hold public office. This is a right all citizens have that is removed for a period of time as a punishment for a crime. It is a literal punishment. You are factually wrong.
Second, naming fallacies doesn’t meant hey happened. I did not bring up anybody else into this conversation, so not whataboutism, I did not misquote or rephrase your argument, so no strawman and the fact that I pointed out an inconsistency in your point doesn’t mean I “distorted” it.
And finally, I am not primed to “defend scum like her”. I have not, in fact, defended her at any point. She’s been found guilty of a crime, which makes her a criminal. What I am not is a demagogue willing to argue that harsher penalties, and specifically harsher penalties for people I don’t like, are the correct solution when every piece of serious research and information I have says they’re not. If it doesn’t help when the US does it to poor people for racist reasons it doesn’t help when aimed at politicians. Criminal penalties must be dissuasive, but that bar is pretty low and there is no proof that harsher penalties lead to more compliance.
“Not being president” is not a punishment. Just the absence of a reward for her corruption. If the worst she had was “not being rewarded”, then what stops every other crook from attempting to seize power?
Absence of a reward is not a consequence for breaking the rules. A consequence for breaking the law is the actual punishment, and that also serves as a warning to any other people wanting to do the same.
That’s what’s wrong with the system we currently have, and I’m glad at least she got prison out of it. Leniency is what got us here. There’s got to be actual hard consequences for mocking the system. Rules are only as good as the willingness to apply consequences for breaking them. It’s that simple.
That is some pretzel logic.
I mean, for one thing there is plenty of proof that harsher criminal punishments do not reduce crime in any way, so there’s that for the US-style “just jail more people for longer” nonsense.
But also, it doesn’t follow that leniency is what got you here when she has literally been punished with the penalty you were hoping for in the first place. It sure makes it sound like you were primed to think this was too lenient no matter what it was.
So whataboutism, distorting my words to suit your point and strawmen are your answers. Good to know rather early this conversation isn’t going anywhere, since both of us will always be right and wrong at the same time, according to each other.
One crook or two facing consequences does not excuse all the others that consistently get away. Specially the ones we don’t even know about. She’s just “the one that was caught this time”, with plenty more in line like her waiting for their chance to succeed where she could not. And your willingness to see her “not-reward” as if it was an actual punishment written in the law for her crimes speaks volumes - to the point it makes me wonder what potential role or benefit you’re getting (or hoping to get) from such a system. And before you twist my words to say you’re “not french”, or “not a politician”, know that what I’m saying goes way beyond one person, one position or one nation, so that logic won’t cut it.
Almost makes me think you’re primed to automatically defend scum like her no matter how corrupt she was. Anyways I don’t think this will be a productive discussion for either of us, so forgive me for not participating further.
Cheers.
It’s your prerogative, but I will clarify the point.
For one thing, her “not reward” is not a “not reward”, it is an actual punishment, codified in the criminal code of many democratic countries, where the penalty is the removal of the right to participate in elections or hold public office. This is a right all citizens have that is removed for a period of time as a punishment for a crime. It is a literal punishment. You are factually wrong.
Second, naming fallacies doesn’t meant hey happened. I did not bring up anybody else into this conversation, so not whataboutism, I did not misquote or rephrase your argument, so no strawman and the fact that I pointed out an inconsistency in your point doesn’t mean I “distorted” it.
And finally, I am not primed to “defend scum like her”. I have not, in fact, defended her at any point. She’s been found guilty of a crime, which makes her a criminal. What I am not is a demagogue willing to argue that harsher penalties, and specifically harsher penalties for people I don’t like, are the correct solution when every piece of serious research and information I have says they’re not. If it doesn’t help when the US does it to poor people for racist reasons it doesn’t help when aimed at politicians. Criminal penalties must be dissuasive, but that bar is pretty low and there is no proof that harsher penalties lead to more compliance.