[crazygringo]

Two sentences previous, I literally stated:

> Look at what's happening in Turkey, where the popular opposition candidate was just barred from running.

Are you aware of the current situation in Turkey? If that's not bold evidence, I literally don't know what is.

[surgical_fire]

Exceptional what happens in Turkey does not resemble in the slightest what happens in France.

If France failed to punish Le Pen, they would be takinya step into creating their own French Erdogan.

[crazygringo]

> does not resemble in the slightest what happens in France.

Are you really so sure?

Why was she the only one barred from running from office? Why not the other eight officials also found guilty?

[surgical_fire]

> Are you really so sure?

Yes.

> Why was she the only one barred from running from office?

Because she was judged by an independent court and found guilty of embezzlement.

> Why not the other eight officials also found guilty?

I would have to read the decision to give this answer. Many things are considered when a judge gives out a sentence. Two murders may result in different prison length depending on circumstances, for example.

[crazygringo]

Obviously this could turn into a very long conversation.

I'll just leave you with this considered analysis:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/04/01/why-marine-le-p...

Particularly:

> The crimes of which Ms Le Pen has been convicted are serious, but not of the same order. France’s harsh sentence in this case limits the choice of citizens who are capable of judging for themselves who should get their vote. By creating a mechanism that politicians might be thought to have co-opted, the law encourages talk of conspiracy—especially if, like Ms Le Pen, the barred politician belongs to a party that is founded upon a suspicion of the elites.

> The danger of courts aggressively sentencing politicians is that both the law and the courts become seen as partisan. Judiciaries rely on citizens accepting verdicts with which they disagree. Elections are supposed to generate consent for the incoming government. A poll after Ms Le Pen’s conviction found just 54% of French thought she was treated like any other accused, a narrow margin of confidence in judicial independence. Among RN voters, 89% thought she was singled out for political reasons.

[surgical_fire]

> France’s harsh sentence in this case limits the choice of citizens who are capable of judging for themselves who should get their vote.

That vote would be tainted by her embezzlement of campaign funds. The rest of this analysis is void once the author fails to consider how badly democracy can be damaged once election regulations are not respected.

Of course, the author may jave ulterior motives, and wants to defend Le Pen in this case because he wants to see democracy in Europe weakened from within. But I sm giving the benefit of doubt here and presuming stupidity rather than malice.

[crazygringo]

But voters would decide how much the embezzlement continued to matter, after she had already served time and paid a large fine. That would be the actual democratic outcome. Letting the people choose, as opposed to taking away their choice.

You, on the other hand, are presenting Marine Le Pen as a threat to democracy, presumably because you don't like the far right. But you're just one voter. Why not trust the electorate? Voters chose Giorgia Meloni and I don't see Italian democracy falling apart.

I'm not far right at all. I'm not even right. But I worry it's dangerous and will backfire to take choice away from an electorate because of some misuse of funds (that didn't benefit herself financially) that she is already being heavily punished for at a personal level. She's being punished. Voters shouldn't be by taking away their right to choose.