Trump is not going to accept election results Rough and ugly transition ahead.

[JoeMorgue]

That sounds a bit oxymoronic.

To rational minds, yes. But again "LOL you have standards and don't live up to a strawman version of them 100% of the time while I have no standards and a nihilistic attitude about everything so can never be hypocritical or dramatic so I win" has been the text for a while and the subtext even longer than that.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

We're going to have to have a discussion about what "democracy" means to a lot of posters here, because I guarantee that you don't know what the word means. It's about the power to the masses, and that's it. It's not more democratic when it's more 1-person-1-vote, or when it expands voting rights, if in fact if there's voting at all. Voting isn't even required for democracy to function.

What you're saying is that it's not the kind of democracy you want. That's fine, and I agree, but it's still democratic.

It isn't even democratic anymore, because a minority has more power than the rest of the masses.

 

[Belz...]

"All politicians lie, but Trump is honest about it."

Get a new line Trumpers.

"I don't care if you lie to me so long as I know you're lying" certainly is a strange way of looking at things. It basically is a licence to imagine lies from those who tell the truth and trust the liars more.

 

[Lurch]

If only Trumpers could step outside their limited bubble of a worldview and see themselves as most of the rest of the world does....

It's really that hardcore cult of a base which is calling the shots regarding Drumpf. If they abandoned their naked emperor in fair numbers, the whole rotten edifice of support in Congress would evaporate faster than spit on Arizona summer asphalt.

Those goddamned deplorables are too ******* dumb to see how they're hurting themselves and their country with their blind hatred and fear. Or they really do want to burn it all down.

 

[The Atheist]

If your best defense of Trump is that he was too stupid to understand the facts, that doesn't help him much.

Haha! I like that.

"I like Trump because he's too dumb to realise he's a moron."

Still retains a solid 40% of all Americans who support him.

You have some serious issues in that country right now.

 

[Belz...]

It isn't even democratic anymore, because a minority has more power than the rest of the masses.

"Democracy" doesn't mean "rule of the majority", either.

 

[Cain]

No, I'm talking about demos in some states having more voting power. You might not like it; I might not like it. But it's still voters who decide who's elected.

To that extent, it's undemocratic (and unrepresentative). A critical component of democracy is political equality, often enshrined by counting votes anonymously and equally.

Having elections determined in the House is exceedingly rare, so the US can say it's democratic to the extent it has avoided such contingencies. The same was largely said for the Electoral College as it usually aligned with the popular vote, but recent developments have, according to at least one metric, contributed to downgrading from "full democracy" to "flawed democracy."

 

[Leftus]

They would continue to work for the director of the secret service, who would still report to the director of homeland security. If Trump signed an executive order declaring the election results invalid, would the director of homeland security continue to follow Trumps orders? If so would the, would the director of the Secret Service continue to obey the Director of Homeland security?

One would hope there people do not continue to follow Trumps orders, but there is built in inertia in chains of command so they very well may. The fact that the current (Acting) Director of Homeland Security is a trump supporter doesn’t make me hopeful.

The president doesn't declare elections valid or invalid. Once his term is up, it's up. Once the chief justice swears in whoever wins, that is the new president. If the concern is that the heads of various departments will follow the rule of law to the letter, and obey an EO, then all the new president has to do is invalidate that EO. Because the rule of law made them the President.

 

[Belz...]

To that extent, it's undemocratic

How so? Again, if one is going to claim that it's undemocratic, provide your definition of democracy. I've given mine already, and mine has the advantage of being the actual definition.

A critical component of democracy is political equality

No, a critical component of the democracy YOU want is political equality. That doesn't mean that it's a fundamental of the concept.

 

[CapelDodger]

The president doesn't declare elections valid or invalid. Once his term is up, it's up. Once the chief justice swears in whoever wins, that is the new president. If the concern is that the heads of various departments will follow the rule of law to the letter, and obey an EO, then all the new president has to do is invalidate that EO. Because the rule of law made them the President.

I doubt Trump will try to hang onto power - he hasn't enjoyed Presidenting much anyway - but he won't concede. He's already said very plainly that a Biden win would be proof of a rigged electon, and his Trumptrash cult will follow that line. Trump can go back to what he does enjoy, which is rallies and fawning interviews on Fox and OAN. He will leave the White House in unimaginably bad grace and get deeper into Q-Anon along with about 40% of the population and the entire Republican Party.

As to the legal process, I doubt Trump has any concept of his jeopardy. He's got through life with apparent impunity, and since Barr came on the scene actual impunity, and he'll expect to skate on everything again because he's a winner.

 

[acbytesla]

No, a critical component of the democracy YOU want is political equality. That doesn't mean that it's a fundamental of the concept.

One man, one vote really is. The further away from that, the more undemocratic it is.

With all due respect, I get that you don't agree with this usage. But I believe it is common.

 

[Bob001]

Would Trump be prepared to accept a pardon? There’s a Supreme Court decision, Burdick v US, that says that accepting a pardon implies an acceptance of guilt. I’m not sure if Trump is capable of doing that.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Pardons are also used to reverse miscarriages of justice. If someone who was unjustly convicted is pardoned, it restores him to the legal status he was in before the conviction (it doesn't give him back his money or his time). People can apparently refuse a pardon, but accepting it does not imply guilt, despite Pres. Ford's self-serving interpretation. Joe Arpaio, Scooter Libby etc. didn't admit anything. Roger Stone didn't admit anything to get a commutation, and he sure isn't going to admit anything if/when he his pardoned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think that's necessarily true. Pardons are also used to reverse miscarriages of justice. If someone who was unjustly convicted is pardoned, it restores him to the legal status he was in before the conviction (it doesn't give him back his money or his time). People can apparently refuse a pardon, but accepting it does not imply guilt, despite Pres. Ford's self-serving interpretation. Joe Arpaio, Scooter Libby etc. didn't admit anything. Roger Stone didn't admit anything to get a commutation, and he sure isn't going to admit anything if/when his pardoned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States

I think you're missing something Bob. A pardon doesn't mean you have to admit guilt. Just that the law considers you to be guilty. There is a difference. You should read your link again.

 

[Bob001]

I think you're missing something Bob. A pardon doesn't mean you have to admit guilt. Just that the law considers you to be guilty. There is a difference. You should read your link again.

Again, a pardon can be issued in cases where someone is indisputably not guilty. Granting a pardon does not mean "we know this guy should never have been arrested but he's guilty anyway." And after a pardon you are restored to the state that prevailed before you were convicted. The law does not consider you to be guilty.

Do you mean this?

After President Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, intimates said that the President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision that suggested that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt. Legal scholars have questioned whether that portion of Burdick is meaningful or merely dicta.[2] Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974.[3] However, the reference related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders.[4]

One narrow opinion in one unusual case doesn't make law or policy for the entire federal legal establishment.

 

[acbytesla]

Again, a pardon can be issued in cases where someone is indisputably not guilty. Granting a pardon does not mean "we know this guy should never have been arrested but he's guilty anyway."

Do you mean this?
One judge's narrow opinion in one unusual case doesn't make law or policy for the entire federal legal establishment.

Yes I mean that. And you're the one who provided the citation. Like it or not, that is the standing case law. It is also the legal opinion of the 38th President.

And if it didn't include an implication of guilt why would anyone EVER turn it down?

And another thing. That wasn't just "some judge's" opinion. That is a Supreme Court decision written by Justice McKenna in an 8 to 1 decision.

 

[Belz...]

One man, one vote really is. The further away from that, the more undemocratic it is.

With all due respect, I get that you don't agree with this usage. But I believe it is common.

Then you should be able to find a definition that agrees with you. You're simply confusing your preferences with the meaning of the word.

 

[Cain]

How so? Again, if one is going to claim that it's undemocratic, provide your definition of democracy. I've given mine already, and mine has the advantage of being the actual definition.

That's funny. What was your definition -- "power to the masses"? Yet, as SGM pointed out, you have a minority (by virtue of geography) thwarting the masses.

After not only failing to consistently follow your own definition, it's amusing you would maintain an idiosyncratic view contra virtually everyone arguing against you when words generally mean what people think they mean. These terms are socially constituted (and their meanings can change between ancient Athens and modern D.C.).

Just to illustrate how out of touch your view is, the people who want to keep the system as it is almost always argue that the holy Framers did not intend create a democracy (and this is where people abuse another term, parroting the line "we're a republic, not a democracy"). In other words, there's broad-agreement by ideological foes on what democracy means.

In the US especially, there's an abiding belief that democracy entails the one person, one vote principle (popularized by Chief Justice Earl Warren in the sixties when states malapportioned districts).

No, a critical component of the democracy YOU want is political equality. That doesn't mean that it's a fundamental of the concept.

Except it's not really a normative claim. It's democratic theory 101. Read Robert Dahl.

The only sensible way to argue against this application of democratic principles is to invoke the principles of federalism, not redefine what democracy means. Of course that would mean a battle of ideas rather than semantics.

 

[Bob001]

Yes I mean that. And you're the one who provided the citation. Like it or not, that is the standing case law. It is also the legal opinion of the 38th President.

And if it didn't include an implication of guilt why would anyone EVER turn it down?

And another thing. That wasn't just "some judge's" opinion. That is a Supreme Court decision written by Justice McKenna in an 8 to 1 decision.

I rephrased my post when I realized my error -- and before your post. In this specific case, a journalist rejected a pardon because it was intended to force him to testify to a grand jury, in effect forcing him to give up his Fifth Amendment protections and betray his obligations as a journalist. That's certainly an unusual circumstance, rarely applicable anywhere else. And the President is not authorized to issue legal opinions.

And you haven't addressed what it means when a victim of injustice is pardoned. Do you think that means he was always guilty anyway? What court decision supports that view?

 

[Belz...]

That's funny. What was your definition -- "power to the masses"? Yet, as SGM pointed out, you have a minority (by virtue of geography) thwarting the masses.

What's funny is that fail of yours right there. You're confusing "mass" with "majority". I assure you, they are not the same. Your entire argument collapses from there. Maybe you should read for comprehension next time, as you look much more foolish trying to mock someone when you can't even get the basics right.

The concept of democracy is in opposition to the rule of one, or of a small, elite class. It doesn't mean that the "demos" are the majority, or that they have equal say in government. I don't know why it's so ******* hard to just say "it's not the kind of demoracy I want" rather than twist words to try to fit objective reality to your own preferences.

Except it's not really a normative claim.

What in the blue hell are you babbling about?

 

[acbytesla]

I rephrased my post when I realized my error -- and before your post. In this specific case, a journalist rejected a pardon because it was intended to force him to testify to a grand jury, in effect forcing him to give up his Fifth Amendment protections and betray his obligations as a journalist. That's certainly an unusual circumstance, rarely applicable anywhere else. And the President is not authorized to issue legal opinions.

And you haven't addressed what it means when a victim of injustice is pardoned. Do you think that means he was always guilty anyway? What court decision supports that view?

Guilty in the eyes of the law, yes. A pardon is a grant of clemency for one's acts, period. While it does remove consequences of a conviction, the conviction remains FOREVER on record.

The President can issue a pardon, but he may not overturn a conviction.