Readit NewsDead Comment
Disclaimer: I don't support Le Pen. I also don't support banning her from running, but it's harder for me to understand and argue why I feel that way. I think it's a combination of:
- If people would elect a "bad" leader, disqualifying them delays the problem. They'll eventually elect another bad leader or revolt. Unless the bad candidate is only popular for a temporary reason, but that may not always be the case.
- Disqualifying someone because they broke a law is bad, because anyone can be "breaking a law"; every nation has many laws and they can be misinterpreted. Related: the situation in Turkey.
- Counterpoint: a self-interested party will disqualify whoever they want. But written laws (even guidelines) matter in the long-term because borderline party-supporters need justification to stay supportive, and people revert to laws. See: countries (like Turkey and Russia) using laws to justify banning candidates instead of "because we said so".
Keeping the rules simple (e.g. "anyone can run for office, whoever gets the most votes wins") makes it harder for an adversary to break them while retaining support. Keeping Democracy makes it more likely that an "adversary" will lose power, because such parties tend to become unpopular. If Democracy leads to a "bad" party consistently winning, why have it?
In fact, maybe it's necessary for a Democracy to have a "really bad" candidate win every once in a while, so people know what is bad. Then, the approach people should take is to ensure that the leader can't make rapid, far-reaching changes, so they can't ruin Democracy or people's lives in a single term. Just far-reaching enough for people to realize they made a mistake; then regular elections should be frequent, or there should be a quick way to get a snap election, so the bad leader is replaced.
She stole money from the EU, an act she did after being voted MP. She couldn’t have done it if she had not been elected. So, basically she was elected, stole money and she still should not be barred from the next presidential election after she allowed that ban law to be voted?
She chose the path, she should face the consequences.
Wikipedia has 4 thumbs down 1 thumbs up and is grade B. Tor has 0 thumbs down 3 thumbs up and is grade C.
DuckDuckGo has only 1 thumbs down: "Instead of asking directly, this Service will assume your consent merely from your usage." and is grade B, presumably because of this. Startpage is grade A, has no thumbs down, but going on startpage does not prompt me to agree to anything either.
Regarding Startpage, It's not mandatory to show the cookie banner if you don't track. Startpage doesn't track you at all, so it's grade A.
Wikipedia has that all the bad things happen to your account except for the tracking, but you can still use Wikipedia without using an account. I agree that it's a B.
I'm not familiar enough with Tor to answer that grade.
It was a clear setup