[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.

[surgical_fire]

> But voters would decide how much the embezzlement continued to matter

This is not up to voters to decide. If Le Pen murdered someone it wouldn't be up to voters for decide if the murder mattered.

Politicians don't have a separate legal system for them that allow voters to be judges. They are subject to the same intependent judiciary.

All the rest of your response falls apart after that.