Of course you do; you're still appear not to be reading what I'm writing. You used to be better than this here but seem to have fallen off a bit in recent years, occasionally becoming rather gruff in your responses objecting to another's point of view, especially with newer/unrecognized posters (I'm not new, but didn't post as much in my early years).
I did not. Not entirely, at any rate. My opening statement was "While this isn't untrue..."
Yes, my first examples used former presidents. When you attacked it, I explained why, and that I did not mean they did not need to be incarcerated. I did not say Clinton should have been jailed. I clarified that accountability does not necessarily mean jail time. And I definitely did not allude to a cheering working class as Clinton (or whichever president) was being walked into whichever correctional facility for lying about his interaction with an intern.
This would be a good example of the type of thing I was pointing to, only it doesn't stop there of course.
And now you're back to this. Allentown, the part of this that's a bit sad for me is that ~20 years ago (when you were closer to my age now) I used to read some of your posts here and learned a good deal. I happened to agree with a good portion of them, but felt either way that I still had more to learn about the past, and experience a little more in the present, before I could make significant contributions to some of the discussion.
In some ways, this shouldn't need to be. That is, people shouldn't necessarily feel ostracized from a group discussion because they have nothing to contribute. I can still admit you have far more granular knowledge about certain topics than I do. And I'm alright with that. We all (typically) bring something to a discussion. The back-and-forth with respect to individual contributions is a part of productive discourse, enabling us to come away with new perspectives.
Fast forward to now, and you appear much more maligned to an outsider's point of view. I didn't enter this conversation as your enemy; you positioned me that way. You skimmed the surface, made mine a shallow argument (how would I, or anyone, think jailing a few former presidents fixes the entire legal system?), and shut out any clarifications I tried to make beyond that.
How can I? You write that you've mentioned other inequalities, I have as well. But the vast majority of your stance has been "laser-focused" on jailing former presidents. So I'm tied to trying to correct that false/mistaken narrative, but it appears you either aren't reading very much, or don't want to.
People shouldn't feel attacked on here simply for trying to present an opinion in an open and respectful way. The part of me that enjoyed reading your thoughts in years gone by has now been disappointed to see how quickly you turn on others' thoughts now.
I remember toward the end of the season user RolenRules posted a thought using some statistics in a GDT and you practically climbed down his throat, citing 'lazy statistical takes'. I thought it was harsh, as I could tell he was a new and/or infrequent poster that wasn't attempting to be 'lazy' or otherwise conniving with the numbers he presented. Indeed, he apologized to you and said he try harder, and was met with...silence. I then stepped in and encouraged him to keep sharing thoughts, it's how we all learn in a respectful forum.
You used to be a part of keeping things open, while also adding a good amount of insight. It made this site something to be cherished. Now you seem to be burrowing yourself into a cranky corner where you're spending more time talking than listening. It's hurting the discourse, and I don't want to see that aspect of this site fade away with the OGs of pre-2001 say their watch is done.
I've digressed enough; returning to the focal point, I will once again say that I have no desire to see Clinton in jail. Or Bush. But January 6 should show how far people who feel maligned by a system will go at the rantings of a lunatic. Now, the source of their malaise may have some elements of the unreasonable (maybe somebody does think Clinton should be behind bars. Oh, wait...) But that is why I think we have to be careful but marked in how Trump is ultimately handled. As discussed above, I think something will need to be done beyond a simple pardon in order for him to be removed from the position he continues to play in trying to tear down the democracy.
I would enjoy hearing your thoughts not only on what reasonable measures you think would be effective in that situation (house arrest doesn't take away his ramblings through other various avenues) as well those that might begin to repair some of the other flaws facing our legal system. I alluded to the nuances as well; it won't be an easy fix.