Should we lock up our political opponents?

[Slartibartfast]

Here is an article about someone wanting to lock up his political opponents, is this a good idea?

 

[mrjurrs]

Poll lacks context.

 

[Demon]

Because they have committed crimes or just because they're of a different party?

 

[noonereal]

Here is an article about someone wanting to lock up his political opponents, is this a good idea?

It's a terrible idea. I hope to God we never come to that however if Trump is somehow reelected it will.

Conversely criminals can't be ignored because they false scream political prosecution.

 

[noonereal]

Poll lacks context.

Which is why it should not be ansewered.

It's like most polls here. Poorly thought out and constructed.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Consider the two tracks:
1) Trump is Biden's political opponent. The DoJ (allegedly independently of Biden) wants to "lock up" Trump for actual crimes he committed. Seeing that Trump is now a private citizen, and putting aside my personal bias that I don't think any former President should be locked up, Trump will face accountability for actions he's taken over the course of his life (some of which are -very- recent) if they are proven to be illegal in a court of law and he is convicted for said illegal actions.

2) Trump is every Democrat's (and some Republicans') opponent. The DoJ, in concert with Trump, will "lock up" Trump's opponents for the actions they took to hold him accountable in a court of law for what they believed were illegal actions. In Trump's ideal world, there is no trial, and the DoJ -- if not Trump -- is judge, jury, and executioner (at least until a new President takes over) for an action that his opponents took, which (transparently or not) at least -seemed to- follow due process, while due process is denied for his opponents.

Now, that's not to say that people on Track 1 could not, in theory fabricate evidence, bring false charges, etc. Those on Track 1 who theoretically did that would also be held accountable. Track 2 eliminates the legal process and accountability entirely, which casts doubt more so on Trump than it does on the people he jailed (or at least in would in a perfectly logical world )

The track you prefer, when presented this way, speaks volumes about how much respect one has for the "order' part of the phrase" "Law and Order."

 

[mrjurrs]

Consider the two tracks:
1) Trump is Biden's political opponent. The DoJ (allegedly independently of Biden) wants to "lock up" Trump for actual crimes he committed. Seeing that Trump is now a private citizen, and putting aside my personal bias that I don't think any former President should be locked up, Trump will face accountability for actions he's taken over the course of his life (some of which are -very- recent) if they are proven to be illegal in a court of law and he is convicted for said illegal actions.

2) Trump is every Democrat's (and some Republicans') opponent. The DoJ, in concert with Trump, will "lock up" Trump's opponents for the actions they took to hold him accountable in a court of law for what they believed were illegal actions. In Trump's ideal world, there is no trial, and the DoJ -- if not Trump -- is judge, jury, and executioner (at least until a new President takes over) for an action that his opponents took, which (transparently or not) at least -seemed to- follow due process, while due process is denied for his opponents.

Now, that's not to say that people on Track 1 could not, in theory fabricate evidence, bring false charges, etc. Those on Track 1 who theoretically did that would also be held accountable. Track 2 eliminates the legal process and accountability entirely, which casts doubt more so on Trump than it does on the people he jailed (or at least in would in a perfectly logical world )

The track you prefer, when presented this way, speaks volumes about how much respect one has for the "order' part of the phrase" "Law and Order."

So you believe the former President is above the law?

 

[noonereal]

Consider the two tracks:
1) Trump is Biden's political opponent. The DoJ (allegedly independently of Biden) wants to "lock up" Trump for actual crimes he committed. Seeing that Trump is now a private citizen, and putting aside my personal bias that I don't think any former President should be locked up, Trump will face accountability for actions he's taken over the course of his life (some of which are -very- recent) if they are proven to be illegal in a court of law and he is convicted for said illegal actions.

2) Trump is every Democrat's (and some Republicans') opponent. The DoJ, in concert with Trump, will "lock up" Trump's opponents for the actions they took to hold him accountable in a court of law for what they believed were illegal actions. In Trump's ideal world, there is no trial, and the DoJ -- if not Trump -- is judge, jury, and executioner (at least until a new President takes over) for an action that his opponents took, which (transparently or not) at least -seemed to- follow due process, while due process is denied for his opponents.

Now, that's not to say that people on Track 1 could not, in theory fabricate evidence, bring false charges, etc. Those on Track 1 who theoretically did that would also be held accountable. Track 2 eliminates the legal process and accountability entirely, which casts doubt more so on Trump than it does on the people he jailed (or at least in would in a perfectly logical world )

The track you prefer, when presented this way, speaks volumes about how much respect one has for the "order' part of the phrase" "Law and Order."

The courts rule on fact which is why Trump lost the 61 election fraud cases he brought.

Trump will likely be convicted for teh same reason he lost. Facts matter.

Getting this country back to facts is maybe the most important thing we can do to preserve this country.
If Trump or any President can do anything, we then have a King not a president,

 

[Caiman]

if they break the law, lock them up.

Seems simple

 

[noonereal]

So you believe the former President is above the law?

Yes he does.

 

[upsideguy]

Here is an article about someone wanting to lock up his political opponents, is this a good idea?

The poll question implies should our political opponents be locked up, because they are political opponents ..... of course not, that is idiotic. Being a political opponent is not a crime.

It would be a perversion of logic, however, to extend my statement to mean that guilty of crimes should not be locked up because they are my political opponents, of course they should. Being a political opponent does not exempt you from penalties associated with your criminal behavior.

Sorry, but this is a silly, nonsensical postulate. And, by definition, I am engaging in silliness even answering this, but I did.

Of course the article that triggered the question was what Trump suggested. It surely well illustrates why the man has absolutely no business ever being President. It also suggests that his supporters are actually irresponsible voters for considering an unqualified candidate (they ought to have the voting cards yanked for lack of judgement. Not serious here, but Trump supporters should really soul search on this).

Trump should be locked up, not for saying this, but for the numerous crimes he has committed.

 

[Cardinal]

Here is an article about someone wanting to lock up his political opponents, is this a good idea?

Before I click on that link, is the premise that locking up the person is to be done on the basis that the person is a political opponent, or is the fact that this person is a political opponent incidental to the point?

 

[Bucky]

So you believe the former President is above the law?

Should we put Bush and Cheney on trial for war crimes?

Be careful about what precedent you want to set.

Don't pretend the majority of U.S. presidents have some blood on their hands.

 

[Cardinal]

Should we put Bush and Cheney on trial for war crimes?

Be careful about what precedent you want to set.

Don't pretend the majority of U.S. presidents have some blood on their hands.

Well, technically, the precedent for locking people up for war crimes was set a good number of years ago.

 

[mrjurrs]

Should we put Bush and Cheney on trial for war crimes?

Be careful about what precedent you want to set.

Don't pretend the majority of U.S. presidents have some blood on their hands.

There is a difference between war crimes and other crimes. The war crimes would likely be a part of their duties as President/VP. If however they committed those crimes (just kill all those prisoners instead of taking them to the brig) I am in favor of charging the commanders with war crimes, especially if the soldiers that committed the acts were charged.

 

[Cardinal]

[finally clicks link]

Welp, that answers the hell out of that.

The answer to the poll question is "**** no."

 

[SILVER SURFER]

Needs an "all the above" option. Lock up political opponents? No. Lock up criminals (who also may be political opponents)? Yes.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Before I click on that link, is the premise that locking up the person is to be done on the basis that the person is a political opponent, or is the fact that this person is a political opponent incidental to the point?

Its about Hillary Clinton so ... Its on the basis of simply being a political opponent (to Trump)

 

[soap box]

Before I click on that link, is the premise that locking up the person is to be done on the basis that the person is a political opponent, or is the fact that this person is a political opponent incidental to the point?

It's about Trump saying he would want to see his opponents prosecuted because he feels that is what's happening to him.

I am your retribution, and all that jazz.

 

[Demon]

Its about Hillary Clinton so ... Its on the basis of simply being a political opponent (to Trump)

On that basis, no.

 

[Cardinal]

Its about Hillary Clinton so ... Its on the basis of simply being a political opponent (to Trump)

Is there a reason you didn't add this distinction to the poll, or was that an honest oversight?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Is there a reason you didn't add this distinction to the poll, or was that an honest oversight?

I was eating a late lunch and was probably distracted.

 

[RedAkston]

So you believe the former President is above the law?

Trump, Clinton or both?

 

[mrjurrs]

Trump, Clinton or both?

Responding to this "...and putting aside my personal bias that I don't think any former President should be locked up..." I would answer your question by saying-the one that is subject to criminal indictments.

 

[lwf]

Here is an article about someone wanting to lock up his political opponents, is this a good idea?

If they are tried and convicted of committing jailable offenses, then absolutely.