Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Iphie]

There is no such thing as a fraudulent pardon. I mean, it can be found to be ineffectual if it claims to pardon a crime that isn't covered, like a state crime, but the pardon itself isn't voided.

I can imagine that by fraudulent they mean if the president is provably mentally incompetent or literally physically unable to sign, or a pardon is produced that cannot have been signed by the president due to other factors at the time of granting the pardon. But as said I'm not an expert, I just remember reading it.

also, New Hampshire went democrat, right? since your picture shows it has a full republican governmen and you said this:

And any state that has a Republican Governor and Legislature is almost certainly already voting for a Republican presidential candidate anyway.

So that's the one exception then?

[DarkTZeratul]

I can imagine that by fraudulent they mean if the president is provably mentally incompetent or literally physically unable to sign, or a pardon is produced that cannot have been signed by the president due to other factors at the time of granting the pardon. But as said I'm not an expert, I just remember reading it.

I mean, that's literally what Trump is accusing Biden of, and it's not a thing. If it was signed by the president, and delivered to (and accepted by) the recipient, it's a valid pardon. There's no provision anywhere in the law that a pardon - or anything else for that matter - "doesn't count" if the president is mentally incompetent.

[Mayhem]

Of states fucking around with elections?

Well, gerrymandering, limiting ballot boxes, purging voter rolls, blocking absentee balloting, those sorts of things.

First of all, thanks for the answers.

So being realistic, do you think there are enough states where the legislature is split to swing full republican and make changes like above to secure republican wins for federal elections?

They can't. At least not directly. Each state is separate.

This sounds like a not entirely thought-out system of government. So if, just for example, states were found to have fucked with elections so much that a president gets elected that not enough people voted for, there's nothing other states could do? They would be governed by a President that was wrongfully elected?

[DarkTZeratul]

This sounds like a not entirely thought-out system of government. So if, just for example, states were found to have fucked with elections so much that a president gets elected that not enough people voted for, there's nothing other states could do? They would be governed by a President that was wrongfully elected?

If a state "fucked with elections", that implies that someone in the state government is violating their own electoral laws, in which case the state's Supreme Court would have jurisdiction.

In theory, the two months between the election and the inauguration should be the time to correct any such fuckery. But also, assuming that wide-scale electoral fraud was found to occur after the beneficiaries have already been sworn in, we're just in completely uncharted territory. There are no laws addressing such a possibility, and no mechanisms to redo an election.

But also, it's important to realize that the entire point of the electoral college was that the president wasn't being directly elected, and there would be no opportunity for states to fuck with elections. The idea is that people would vote for electors who know their shit about government and foreign policy, and then those electors would individually decide who they think should be president and vote for them. It's a system that assumed no political parties, no designated nominees, and that a candidate would rarely get a clear majority of electoral votes so the House of Representatives would choose between the ones with the most votes. Unfortunately, this proved to be incredibly naive, and what actually happened is that Washington won unanimously the first two times, and then when he announced he was no longer running the emerging political parties (at the time, the Federalists and Democratic Republicans) gamed the system by nominating electors who had pledged to vote for specific candidates.

As a minor sidenote, the original system had the vice president be whoever came in second. Except one of those electors in 1800 cast a vote for the wrong guy, so instead of Thomas Jefferson having exactly one more vote than Aaron Burr (to ensure that Jefferson would be president and Burr vice president), they were instead tied, sending it to the House of Representatives and causing a rather ugly fight in which Burr openly campaigned for president against his own party's presidential designee. In the end they voted for Jefferson anyway, who completely shut Vice President Burr out of his administration, and soon after an amendment was passed to elect the president and vice president separately.

[PhaelixWW]

I can imagine that by fraudulent they mean if the president is provably mentally incompetent or literally physically unable to sign, or a pardon is produced that cannot have been signed by the president due to other factors at the time of granting the pardon. But as said I'm not an expert, I just remember reading it.

A pardon doesn't need to be written, let alone signed, to be valid. Nothing in the Constitution stipulates that.

Edit: Also, the president is still the president until/unless Article 25 is triggered. They can't retroactively declare a president not a president, even if there were some kind of mental incompetence, of which there's still no legitimate proof in Biden's case.

also, New Hampshire went democrat, right? since your picture shows it has a full republican governmen and you said this:

So that's the one exception then?

All 4 EVs worth, sure.

Of course, their State Constitution covers some of the election process and they don't have enough State Reps to reach the 60% required to even present an Amendment to the people, and likely not the 2/3 vote from the people to enact such an Amendment that would strip the right to vote from those same people.

- - - Updated - - -

This sounds like a not entirely thought-out system of government. So if, just for example, states were found to have fucked with elections so much that a president gets elected that not enough people voted for, there's nothing other states could do? They would be governed by a President that was wrongfully elected?

The president isn't elected by people. The president is elected by the Electoral College, comprised of Electors from each state, apportioned per the Constitution.

The various State Legislatures have the power to decide how those Electors are chosen. In most cases, that process is a simple popular vote, and is codified in the State Constitution. Anything not covered by the State Constitution can be passed as a law, but any change to the State Constitution typically requires a supermajority.

[For_The_Horde]

I hope Trump pursues this very short sighted political goal. Ive never liked the presidential pardon and him voiding it means that jan 6 people can go back to jail

If anything they already technically could. The only actual exception of the president's pardon power is those involving impeachment. Mostly that means he can't stop someone from being impeached or undo impeachments. It could however extend to pardons of people involved in the crimes/misconduct of which the president was impeached for (like treason for example). It's really up to debate and has barely come up before. And yes our founding fathers did argue about this, mostly that they saw the risk of such treason as so slight it wasn't a big deal. Also that treason itself was already an impeachable offense, so as long as the co-conspirator was federal they could impeach them from office too, making them pardon proof. In such case, why risk political witch-hunts when you just make the process longer. The fact it wasn't properly defined in the constitution just makes the interpretation up to the court, likely supreme. As loyal as some justices are to Trump, even they'll pause when it comes to permanently redefining the constitution.

Second other obvious pardon limitation, he can't pardon state crimes. Which hasn't really come up yet but I kinda expect it to sooner rather than later.

Also why don't the states prosecute the Jan 6th insurrectionists? They were threatening members of congress from "every single state" afterall. Pretty sure that's a crime, single they're also representatives of that state. If a resident of (insert state here) intentionally and violently threatened the life/safety of an representative of (same state), is still a state crime. They chose to prosecute it as federal since they were federal employees. Even though these people were tried (and found guilty) still doesn't exempt them from being equally tried at the state level. And no double jeopardy doesn't prevent a person from being prosecuted by both state and federal government for the same crime, dual sovereignty doctrine. Also if a crime violated the laws of multiple states, then each state may press charges. Imagine the tangled web of trials and lawsuits that could happen.

[DarkTZeratul]

Also why don't the states prosecute the Jan 6th insurrectionists? They were threatening members of congress from "every single state" afterall. Pretty sure that's a crime, single they're also residents of that state. If a resident of (insert state here) intentionally and violently threatened the life/safety of another resident of (same state), is still a state crime.

That's not how it works. If I fly to New York and threaten a tourist, it doesn't matter that I'm from California and the tourist is from Idaho, it's still a New York crime. The events of January 6th happened on federal property, against federal employees, thus it is a federal crime.

[PhaelixWW]

If anything they already technically could. The only actual exception of the president's pardon power is those involving impeachment.

That's not really an exception, though. Pardoning is for crimes. There doesn't even need to be a crime in order for someone to be impeached and removed, so a pardon for crimes wouldn't block an impeachment anyway.

It might convince some Congresspeople to vote against such an impeachment/removal, however.

[Iphie]

A pardon doesn't need to be written, let alone signed, to be valid. Nothing in the Constitution stipulates that.

Edit: Also, the president is still the president until/unless Article 25 is triggered. They can't retroactively declare a president not a president, even if there were some kind of mental incompetence, of which there's still no legitimate proof in Biden's case.

That seems a bit of an oversight...I mean that just means that you can say a pardon was granted...

and I don't think Biden was mentally compromised, trump on the other hand...also, I'm not sure trump would be 25th'ed, even if there's incontrovertible evidence since there's no way the republicans would go along with it.

Your democracy (or republic, whatever you wanna call it it) is under tremendous pressure and a LOT of weak points and failures are laid bare. But that's what you get when people are unwilling to acknowledge that rules and laws written 200+ years ago cannot be valid in perpetuity.

[For_The_Horde]

That's not how it works. If I fly to New York and threaten a tourist, it doesn't matter that I'm from California and the tourist is from Idaho, it's still a New York crime. The events of January 6th happened on federal property, against federal employees, thus it is a federal crime.

Sorry, meant to say representative. And it does get muddy when talking about state officials, and about DC in general when it comes to state crimes. Crimes in DC are preferred to be prosecuted as federal since DC is federal, but that doesn't make them federal only crimes.

[PhaelixWW]

That seems a bit of an oversight...I mean that just means that you can say a pardon was granted...

Well, it won't have any force unless law enforcement can check on the existence of the pardon. Which is why the standard procedure is that of any other legal document like an Executive Order.

But it's not required by the Constitution. So you can't invalidate a pardon on "procedural" grounds because there is no necessary procedure.

and I don't think Biden was mentally compromised, trump on the other hand...also, I'm not sure trump would be 25th'ed, even if there's incontrovertible evidence since there's no way the republicans would go along with it.

It's a moot point for pardons. If the pardon happened before the 25th, it'd be valid because the president is still the president. If it happened after the 25th, obviously he would no longer be the president.

Your democracy (or republic, whatever you wanna call it it) is under tremendous pressure and a LOT of weak points and failures are laid bare. But that's what you get when people are unwilling to acknowledge that rules and laws written 200+ years ago cannot be valid in perpetuity.

To be honest, any government is a house of cards. They all exist only so long as the powers agree that it exists. If enough people in authority wish to circumvent established law, nothing can stop them from toppling the whole system, regardless of the framework.

[DarkTZeratul]

Sorry, meant to say representative. And it does get muddy when talking about state officials, and about DC in general when it comes to state crimes. Crimes in DC are preferred to be prosecuted as federal since DC is federal, but that doesn't make them federal only crimes.

It's not that muddy. They trespassed on federal property and threatened/assaulted federal employees, it's a federal crime. You can't just say something is a state crime because someone from the state was tangentially involved. And to be perfectly frank, they never actually threatened any of the representatives. Not directly. Congress got evacuated and none of the rioters were ever even in the same room.

[Pannonian]

Pretty sure the supreme court will find a way to agree with Trump on voiding pardons. If a democratic president comes along of course the supreme court will suddenly have a change of heart, and democrats will just say "ok" and drop it.

[NED funded]

There is no perfect system. You can invent the perfect political system and people hungry enough will always find ways to subvert it. Hungary didnt descent into authoritarianism suddenly. Its an EU country with many checks and balances built into it

[Pannonian]

There is no perfect system. You can invent the perfect political system and people hungry enough will always find ways to subvert it. Hungary didnt descent into authoritarianism suddenly. Its an EU country with many checks and balances built into it

Oh please, tell us all you know about Hungary.

You might want to start in the 19th century with the complex situation in the habsburg monarchy, and the hungarians... and that's being kindly ... being a pain in the ass. This has been going on for 2 centuries by now (sorry @Flarelaine). And no, 30 years of democracy vs. 275 years of democracy is a difference imo.


Hungary is very good of picking their raisins, especially from a perceived bigger "subjugator" (though taking money from the big bad subjugator is always okay of course).

Big difference as well: Hungary is kept in check by the EU.

[Muzjhath]

Whats the over under of this judge getting a bullet by some crazy maga guy since they are really going in on the judge atm.

- - - Updated - - -



lol yea, like, idiots just dont really understand that democrats have zero power in congress right now. Republicans will just overturn the filibuster if dems do their one possible obstruction. America voted for this, enjoy republicans having unchecked power for at least another year and a half.

A thing the Democrats could do.
Not show up to any votes. Be there and delay in every committee, then not be there for votes forcing the GOP to make sure enough of their members show up to reach a qorum.

- - - Updated - - -

Every level of government in the US (local, state and federal) will be need to be purged of MAGAts/Trump cultists.

Don't forget about the billionaires backing it all.

If you don't remove those and that class nothing is solved

[Mayhem]

The president isn't elected by people. The president is elected by the Electoral College, comprised of Electors from each state, apportioned per the Constitution.

The various State Legislatures have the power to decide how those Electors are chosen. In most cases, that process is a simple popular vote, and is codified in the State Constitution. Anything not covered by the State Constitution can be passed as a law, but any change to the State Constitution typically requires a supermajority.

Yes, I know of the Electoral College, but as you say yourself, the process for choosing the electors is in most cases by simple popular vote.

So what you are saying is, even if other states know that one party gets suppressed (legally according to state law) in other states so much so that the popular vote doesn't decide who becomes president they couldn't do anything about it?

[Gabriel]

There is no perfect system. You can invent the perfect political system and people greedy enough will always find ways to subvert it. Hungary didnt descent into authoritarianism suddenly. Its an EU country with many checks and balances built into it

Fixed that for you.

[En Sabah Nur]

They know the shit they say is wrong, at some level. But agreeing with it shows they're part of the "in" group

I legitimately feel sorry for you. You're so eager to justify your shitty ideology that you'll jump into a delusional sinkhole and still swim downwards.

Reminder that you guys are talking about a person that was (or at least pretended to be) a left-leaning voter, but quite literally said "If you can't beat em, join em" after Trump won.

If they weren't pretending all along, it is genuinely just about being on the side of whoever won. There is no real conviction there, they just want to be a "winner." If they were pretending all along, I think you can literally see that the brain rot has gotten worse and worse since Trump won. Besides posting links and then running away, they always seem to be the easiest links to debunk, which seems to be what people like this revel in doing. Maybe its a kink.

[PhaelixWW]

So what you are saying is, even if other states know that one party gets suppressed (legally according to state law) in other states so much so that the popular vote doesn't decide who becomes president they couldn't do anything about it?

Correct. But again, in any situation in which the state changes those laws, that state would already have to be pretty much a shoo-in for the party that would benefit from the change. So it's not likely to change the result of a presidential election much at all, at least right away.

And if they started doing that in some states, you'd likely see a backlash in the states that are still in play, leading to more chance that that party would ultimately lose the election.

- - - Updated - - -

Reminder that you guys are talking about a person that was (or at least pretended to be) a left-leaning voter, but quite literally said "If you can't beat em, join em" after Trump won.

Nobody believes that poster was a left-leaning voter.