• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 7th, 2023

help-circle









  • Fair point, it’s not a de facto legalization. However, I have to question the intent behind allowing for such varied interpretations of presidential immunity. Confining it to official or unofficial leaves an insane amount of wiggle room, when they could have decided to allow for real scrutiny within the context of an action and whose purposes it actually serves.

    As it stands, a conversation between a president and election officials, regardless of context, is an official act. Presidents are allowed to talk to people in an official capacity, so regardless of what is said during those conversations, it’s completely fine? Why not provide any guidelines on what constitutes an official act? It’s just too broad for anything other than a “I’m sure people will just be cool” acceptance, which is exactly why we find ourselves in this situation to begin with.

    (Edited to add what I’m told is called a “para-graph”)











  • I think so. I get the same sort of articles pushed on me in my news feed, like “How this 20 year old’s side hustle allowed her to buy a house with cash!” It feels sometimes like a narrative being pushed by media conglomerates to keep people hopeful or to sway public opinion, but I assume the actual answer is that those articles generate a reliable number of clicks and therefore revenue.

    So yeah, it’s infuriating to consider that people are being manipulated like that, but in most cases it doesn’t really affect me, so my fury stays at a mild level.

    It sounds like you think this shouldn’t be here, but do you think it’s not worth talking about or that we should all be more than mildly infuriated?