Especially given that prosecutions are often racially biased, and sometimes politically biased.

If an opponent with a criminal record can’t run, you incentivize an immoral president to have their political opponents charged with anything they can think of.

OTOH, the American electorate is filled with idiots. You would hope that people would see through a purely political conviction and not let that stop them. But, the reality is probably the opposite, a serial killer who ate his victims could run, and if the party got behind that candidate, half the electorate would not know he was a serial killer, or they’d vote for him anyhow, or they’d think his conviction was just a psy-op and his victims were crisis actors.

What does any of that have to do with presidential immunity? He could have done that at any time if he wanted to, but he doesn’t want to because he deeply believes in the system, and because people wouldn’t do it even if he called for it to happen.

He could murder congresspeople, but he can’t dissolve congress.

Immunity from prosecution doesn’t mean he can pass laws.

Theoretically he could murder members of the other branches of government until the remaining ones did what he wanted, but it doesn’t let him pass new laws or unilaterally change the constitution.

Especially when the alternative is a glass of poison. A warm, flat beer is not going to kill you, even though it might taste disgusting.

The worst thing is that you don’t get to choose whether you’re drinking the warm, flat beer or the poison. Depending on where you live your vote might not even matter. A bunch of uninformed and misinformed idiots in a few random states will decide for you which you’re drinking.

Make it so felons cannot run for president

How does immunity let him do that?

Doing that would require changing the constitution. Legally, this would let him go and scribble new words on the paper version of the constitution. He would be immune from the charge of vandalism. But, that wouldn’t actually change the constitution.

1. Those aren’t things that would otherwise be crimes. He doesn’t have immunity from procedure, he has immunity for crimes. He kill the justices, or kidnap them and lock them up in some undisclosed location. He has immunity in those cases. But expanding the court would require passing a law. Passing a law is not an action that the President takes, regardless of any presidential immunity. As for felons not being able to become presidents, any law congress passed to say that would be unconstitutional, because the constitution lays out the only requirements to become a US president. The constitution also limits the ways in which the constitution could be changed, and none of that is within the powers of a president. He could kill Trump, but he can’t change the rules about who’s allowed to be president.

2. He still believes that the system works. He thinks the checks and balances work. He believes that, regardless of the recent Supreme Court ruling, that he’s not immune, so he won’t commit crimes like that. The result might be that the final president of the Republic thought it was more important to follow tradition and live the values that he thought the president should hold, than to do what was necessary to prevent the Republic from becoming a dictatorship.

Changing the electoral system means passing laws.

The people who pass laws are elected representatives.

The current electoral system works well for the current elected representatives (kinda by definition, because it’s what got them elected).

So, the laws won’t get changed because the people who have the power to pass the new law aren’t going to pass a law that disadvantages them.

Case in point, the Liberal Party of Canada promised that if elected they’d reform the electoral system and get rid of first past the post. But, of course, FPTP is a massive advantage for the two main parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. So, when they won the election, they quickly backed out of that promise. The only parties still promising to get rid of FPTP are the smaller parties who would have a big advantage if FPTP went away – but, of course, these small parties can’t win elections because of FPTP, so their promises to get rid of it are empty because they will never be in a position to make that change.

That’s virtua, not virtual.

Yep. Because stealing is a crime that goes back thousands of years. It was an old crime by the time the 10 commandments were written down. Meanwhile, copyright infringement is a new thing that’s maybe a few centuries old at most, and it’s a lot more morally ambiguous. Is it wrong to infringe on a monopoly that the government has given a corporation over the sharing of a tangible expression of an idea? Maybe sometimes? Maybe not other times?

One woman can deliver a baby in an hour, if she’s a doctor or a midwife.

Their are other misteaks people make aswell, alot of people don’t know english good.

Most people don’t live in Northern Ontario.

Most Ontarians live in cities.

Humans are descended from apes, humans are apes, and humans are cousins of the other modern apes.

We’re not descended from chimpanzees, but both we and chimpanzees descend from another ape.

Piracy has never been stealing. It’s copyright infringement. The two are completely different.

Also, most people are nearly athiests.

Christians deny the existence of Zeus, Ra, Mars, Shiva, Odin, Thor, Kali, Horus, Tew, Huitzilopochtli, Pele, Erra… Of all the gods and goddesses that people have ever said exist, Christians don’t believe in any of them other than their one god. Even Hindus, who have a pantheon with multiple gods, generally don’t believe in the gods of other religions.

I really dislike using the term “virtual” for online meetings. It implies the meeting isn’t real, or isn’t authentic, or like it’s imaginary. The meeting simply uses video cameras instead of a conference room.

Backed by $1 in the legacy banking system

Yes, other memecoins used to also be pegged to the dollar, but they lost their peg, like TerraUSD and Tether.

which represents exactly $1.

Until it doesn’t.

It’s no different than a number in your banks database, except it’s in your custody, like cash.

And it’s not a real currency, it’s a memecoin.

Is your bank’s database a currency?

No, my bank’s database is a database, it refers to a currency that is real because it is accepted for paying taxes, fines, etc.

but I’m happy to teach you about the industry if you’re interested

There’s nothing you could teach that would be valuable to learn. You seem to be in on the grift, looking for another person to get in on the pyramid scheme. Good luck with that, but I’m not interested.

Like a number in the database at your bank. No different than that.

Except that my bank stores dollars, not memecoins.

Are you saying that is a different concept than usdc

Yes, because “USDC” isn’t a currency.