politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The very existence of a presidential pardon is bizarre and an insult to the judicial branch
Pardons aren't the problem. They exist to provide an avenue for reprieve in cases where the law was applied in an unjust or unintended manner, which is not uncommon. The issue is that we let a corrupt, narcissistic piece of shit become President. Obviously he's going to do terrible things with all the power available to him. It doesn't mean the powers of the office are inherently bad, it means he is.
If one man can single-handedly do anything Trump has done without check or balance, the system does not work imo. Think of the worst person you ever knew. If you don't want them wielding the power, there is too much concentrated power.
The rules have checks and balances. They just mean absolutely nothing when those who are supposed to use them don't do their fucking jobs. Create more rules and they seemingly will just ignore them.
Look at the order to release the Epstein files? Look at how enough dems cave just to give Trump everything he wants.
It doesn't end until people start being replaced or getting killed. That's where America is at and there is plenty of examples from other nations guess this goes down. Time to start reading some new books
Ultimately, the rules work fine for what they were intended to do, which is prevent one branch of government from becoming much more powerful than the other two. However, they don't work well against an entity like the Republican Party, which deliberately subverts multiple branches simultaneously. The rules against executive power have also been weakened over time due to congress ceding power to the president, something the founders hadn't anticipated. They were prepared for greedy bastards that wanted to hoard power, but people giving power away to reduce their own responsibilities or achieve partisan goals was something they hadn't even heard of.
There is no check for presidential pardons. Perhaps the pardon itself is supposed to be a check, but there is nothing to stop a president from pardoning criminals who were already serving completely justified sentences.
How's your(that) first amendment holding up these days?
I'm not saying there's nothing we should do to limit Presidential powers, just that the best thing we can so is not put the worst people in that office. Rules can only do so much. All of them have some kind of loophole. At some point you have to blame the voters for putting people who would abuse those powers in the position to do so.
Trying is a piece of shit, but literally every president does a ton of obvious quid pro quo pardons. Most pardons are bullshit.
Not even unjust or corrupt.
It's for cases where judicial guidelines are too hard, requiring a conviction which doesn't make sense.
It's for (uncontroversial) amnesty when the law is slower than the executive and not retroactive. So stuff like non-violent drug convictions.
It's for adding another chance at parole when the parole board's main concern is something that shouldn't be their focus.
The power of the pardon should be held by the House of Representatives.
It's was supposed to be the executive's check on the judicial, like a veto but instead of bills passed by congress it's convictions made by a federal court. This was of course back when there was some semblance of judicial independence, nonpartisan interpretations of the constitution, and most people acting on good faith and in the best interests of their constituents or the American population at large.
Sadly, we are now ruled by idiots who have co-opted the government apparatus to serve their own interests.
I kind of agree with other commenters that we should do away with the presidential pardon and replace it with a check that is less likely to be abused for personal gain.
In the bests interests of their constituents aside from women, black people, Chinese people, Japanese people, Muslims (and Sikhs as collateral), Native Americans, Hispanic people, poor people of all ethnicities... but yeah most of the rest of the ~~wealthy, white~~ American population has historically been well-served by electoral politics for sure.
The comment was meant to show contrast between politicians who actually use their position to serve a community at all or in general vs politicians who use their positions purely to enrich themselves, often by defrauding their community.
Your statement detracts from the value and accuracy of their statement without adding anything of value to the discussion. And is thus a bad faith response.
Please try to be more productive with your responses in the future. And maybe actually take the time to listen to what others are saying rather than just looking for opportunities to get on your soapbox.
Thanks.
How can my statement "detract from the [...] accuracy of their statement"? That makes no sense.
I will continue speaking out against the mythology of American exceptionalism regardless of whether or not you, or anyone else, approve of me doing so.
The point is that electoral politics have not delivered any meaningful, long-lasting wins to the populations typically ground under the wheels of America. All wins for those groups have been secured by other forms of action, and the reliance on electoral politics to act as a savior has enabled many of those wins to be degraded in recent decades. Suggesting otherwise is promoting mythology, not facts.
Thanks!
Considering Trump is actually selling pardons ... yea, very odd.