• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
newyorkguy said:
Congressman John Lewis said in an interview that he would have difficulty working with president Trump because he views his presidency as "illegitimate." He bases that opinion on the fact a foreign government tried to assist Trump's campaign in an underhanded way. Is saying that treasonous? U.S. intelligence agencies have stated that the evidence they have found supports the idea that Russia did try and assist the Trump campaign. Is that treasonous too?

When Donald Trump accused Obama of being an illegitimate president because he, Obama, was born outside the U.S., was that treasonous? Trump was basing that accusation on a lot less credible evidence than Lewis is. Then, even when Obama produced a birth certificate, Trump refused to retract his accusations. In fact Trump did not publicly acknowledge that Obama was a legitimate U.S. citizen until September 2016.

Is John Lewis indulging in a bit of payback? I would say so and to see Trump react so angrily must be very sweet. Looks like a case of, "People in glass houses..."

Personally, I think the idea that Trump's presidency is tainted by the Russian issue is pretty much an established fact. I'm sorry to say that but I think that is undeniably true. But I also think at some point we -- meaning the American public -- need to move on. We're stuck with Trump and nothing is going to change that.
Click to expand...

First, John Lewis is a disgraceful partisan hack. He also claimed that George W. Bush was an illegitimate President. Personally, I think that kind of talk by a sitting member of Congress should be officially censured, but apparently Democrats, particularly "civil rights icons," get passes on inflammatory rhetoric.

Second, Trump's election wasn't tainted by Russia's involvement. Was Obama's election tainted by the fact that the 90% of the mainstream media (some of it foreign-owned or supported) colluded to report positively about Obama and negatively about McCain and Romney? Was his election tainted by the fact that he had vastly more money to spend on his campaign then either of his opponents (and some of that money was foreign-sourced, in contravention of election law)? Would Hillary's election have been tainted by the fact that she spent twice as much money on her campaign as Trump, and Trump was pounded by negative press and negative advertising, much of it funded by liberal billionaires who do not have the United States' best interests at heart (e.g. Soros, Carlos Slim)?

Well, in a way, yes, it was (or would have been) tainted, but all elections are so tainted. It wouldn't make the President illegitimate, however. The only way that would happen is if the actually voting process itself were corrupted. Which it wasn't.
 
newyorkguy said:
Rather than report this post I will simply point out, you're pretty clearly attacking the arguer not his argument.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Although I have no doubt you will report it, and that I will get another yellow card again (without the ability to challenge it in FMF), because that's how things go for me here.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I said qualitative because a lot of people use quantitative incorrectly on the forum. A judgement on the value of people is qualitative.
Click to expand...

You actually believe that people who support Trump are of lesser value in your judgment than people who don't? Is that based on the averages of each population, or is every Trump supporter of lesser value than every non-supporter? And by value do you mean the person's moral value? Or intelligence? Or actual or potential contribution to society? Do you think altruism is a good value? If so, are Trump supporters less altruistic than non-supporters? I think you need to explain this a little more. Then I can decide if my opinion of you will be qualitatively lesser than it was before.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
That makes me shiver.

You're saying some people have more "value" than others?

That kind of talk harkens back to some very dark times.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that kind of talk, as long as one agrees that the law should treat people equally. Some people are clearly more valuable to society (or to me personally) than others. I don't think that whether or not one supports Trump politically makes for a good measure of such value, however. I support Trump politically, and I think I am a pretty good citizen, for example. And my sister-in-law and her husband are despondent about Trump's election, and I adore both of them.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I have no problem with that kind of talk, as long as one agrees that the law should treat people equally. Some people are clearly more valuable to society (or to me personally) than others. I don't think that whether or not one supports Trump politically makes for a good measure of such value, however. I support Trump politically, and I think I am a pretty good citizen, for example. And my sister-in-law and her husband are despondent about Trump's election, and I adore both of them.
Click to expand...

And my assessment is always person specific. But I have found the things I judge people on, the people I am judging tend to agree that it is a representative position of their group.

For example, a big factor for me is a person's assessment of the "death of the author" style of criticism. Talking to people, I am betting that the core Trump supporters (primary voters) do not hold that style of criticism in much esteem.

ETA Trump as a person is probably the lowest esteem I can have for a person.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
First, John Lewis is a disgraceful partisan hack. He also claimed that George W. Bush was an illegitimate President...
Click to expand...

I know certain people have said Bush, at least in 2000, was an "illegitimate" president. They base this on the fact Bush lost the popular vote by about a half-million votes, and won the electoral college vote by five votes, 271-266 (one more vote than the minimum), by virtue of winning the Florida vote by less than 600 votes. Bush's brother happened to be the governor of Florida at the time.

That seems fairly rational, to question a winning candidate's 'legitimacy' given the circumstances. I voted for Gore and I remember wondering if possibly the Florida recount would reverse the election result. When it gradually became apparent that wasn't going to happen, I listened to Gore: he said Bush is the president and we need to accept that fact and move on.

Was Trump acting like "a disgraceful partisan hack" when he persisted in questioning Obama's citizenship? When he refused to acknowledge his legitimacy even after Obama produced proof? Why does Trump get a pass but John Lewis doesn't?**

** - Don't bother explaining; I already know the answer. ;)
 
newyorkguy said:
\

Was Trump acting like "a disgraceful partisan hack" when he persisted in questioning Obama's citizenship? When he refused to acknowledge his legitimacy even after Obama produced proof? Why does Trump get a pass but John Lewis doesn't?**

** - Don't bother explaining; I already know the answer. ;)
Click to expand...

Or how abut when Trump insisted that Obama's presidency was illegitimate in 2012 because he (mistakenly) thought Obama had lost the popular vote?
 
newyorkguy said:
I know certain people have said Bush, at least in 2000, was an "illegitimate" president. They base this on the fact Bush lost the popular vote by about a half-million votes, and won the electoral college vote by five votes, 271-266 (one more vote than the minimum), by virtue of winning the Florida vote by less than 600 votes. Bush's brother happened to be the governor of Florida at the time.

That seems fairly rational, to question a winning candidate's 'legitimacy' given the circumstances. I voted for Gore and I remember wondering if possibly the Florida recount would reverse the election result. When it gradually became apparent that wasn't going to happen, I listened to Gore: he said Bush is the president and we need to accept that fact and move on.

Was Trump acting like "a disgraceful partisan hack" when he persisted in questioning Obama's citizenship? When he refused to acknowledge his legitimacy even after Obama produced proof? Why does Trump get a pass but John Lewis doesn't?**

** - Don't bother explaining; I already know the answer. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not defending Trump's past behavior (although I think labeling him a disgraceful partisan hack would be a few light-years off target). In any event, he wasn't a member of the government then, let alone a member of Congress. It is not irresponsible for a private citizen to proclaim the President is illegitimate. It probably happens millions of times a day, and it has negligible effect.
 
sunmaster14 said:
First, John Lewis is a disgraceful partisan hack. He also claimed that George W. Bush was an illegitimate President. Personally, I think that kind of talk by a sitting member of Congress should be officially censured, but apparently Democrats, particularly "civil rights icons," get passes on inflammatory rhetoric.

Second, Trump's election wasn't tainted by Russia's involvement. Was Obama's election tainted by the fact that the 90% of the mainstream media (some of it foreign-owned or supported) colluded to report positively about Obama and negatively about McCain and Romney? Was his election tainted by the fact that he had vastly more money to spend on his campaign then either of his opponents (and some of that money was foreign-sourced, in contravention of election law)? Would Hillary's election have been tainted by the fact that she spent twice as much money on her campaign as Trump, and Trump was pounded by negative press and negative advertising, much of it funded by liberal billionaires who do not have the United States' best interests at heart (e.g. Soros, Carlos Slim)?

Well, in a way, yes, it was (or would have been) tainted, but all elections are so tainted. It wouldn't make the President illegitimate, however. The only way that would happen is if the actually voting process itself were corrupted. Which it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Well...

dictionary.com said:
legitimate
[adjective, noun li-jit-uh-mit; verb li-jit-uh-meyt]

adjective 1. according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.


2. in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
3. born in wedlock or of legally married parents: legitimate children.


4. in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion.


5. resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right: a legitimate sovereign.


6. not spurious or unjustified; genuine: It was a legitimate complaint.


7. of the normal or regular type or kind.
Click to expand...

Trump's claim that Obama was not a legitimate President in the legal sense was based on the lie that Obama was not born in the USA. Lewis' opinion that Trump is not a "legitimate" President is based on the apparent fact that a foreign power that wishes us ill interfered in the election in a material way to help elect him. Idiotic false equivalences aside, this is an actual problem that Trump still needs to deal with, and his pathetic narcissistic rage at Lewis does nothing but demonstrate his intractable ignorance and immaturity and manifest unfitness for the job of President.
 
Now begins a 7-page long back-and-forth of trying to unravel the myriad of bylaws and exemptions that allow someone to pretend they have a consistent set of standards on when it is or is not appropriate to proclaim the President illegitimate in an offhand comment. Because it certainly can't be the hollow rationalizations and cognitive dissonance it clearly appears to be at first glance.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Now begins a 7-page long back-and-forth of trying to unravel the myriad of bylaws and exemptions that allow someone to pretend they have a consistent set of standards on when it is or is not appropriate to proclaim the President illegitimate in an offhand comment. Because it certainly can't be the hollow rationalizations and cognitive dissonance it clearly appears to be at first glance.
Click to expand...

Hey! Some of us actually think the meaning of words is a substantive discussion.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
i agree that Lewis has no good reason for his statement, and all institutions (including the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton) have acknowledged his electoral victory.
Trump has reason to criticise him for this remark.

But he is out of line to attack him for his work, past or present.

It's another of those cases were Trump could have scored big if he didn't use his twitter account without letting someone screen it.
Click to expand...

For the record, I'm on Lewis' side. Maybe we need to wait for more evidence but the fact Trump won by cheating, that he got a small lead in three states while Clinton got almost 3 million more votes both are good reasons for Lewis' stand.

Some legislators including Obama have chosen peaceful transition over democratic rule. Challenging the legitimacy of an election is too big a step for them.

But all these self righteous assertions that those of us who are more concerned about POTUS Trump than we are about challenging an election is just that, self righteous. I respect the decision to chose peaceful transition over 'how dare anyone challenge the legitimacy of an election'. I don't agree. But the argument is one of values and opinions, not facts.
Can you say with absolute certainty that Trump didn't coordinate with the Russians to cheat? Can you say with certainty that Comey didn't wrongly interfere with his personal rant on the emails and his last minute letter to Congress, associating Clinton with Weiner along with reopening a closed case only to close it again a few days later because he had nothing, all the while refusing to comment on the ongoing investigation of a Trump team/Russia connection didn't unfairly interfere with the election?

I know the Trump camp would like to distract us all, claiming Clinton lost due to her own actions. I don't buy it. Trump won because Russia and Comey wrongly interfered in the election. A peaceful transition is not the most important thing to me, or Lewis, or plenty of other people.

When the Trump disaster hits, I hope that will motivate a Constitutional amendment to end the Electoral College. Had this been a democracy, the people would have made the right choice. With the Electoral College, a minority of deceived voters elected a con man and the disaster has already started.
 
WilliamSeger said:
...Lewis' opinion that Trump is not a "legitimate" President is based on the apparent fact that a foreign power that wishes us ill interfered in the election in a material way to help elect him...
Click to expand...

The other fact that I think needs pointing out, Lewis did not call a press conference to announce he considered Trump's presidency to be illegitimate: AKA, "not of the normal or regular type or kind." He was asked during an NBC-TV interview did he think he would be able to work with President Trump? Lewis said it would be difficult because for starters, he does not view Trump as a legitimate president given the involvement of the Russian government in trying to influence support for Trump's candidacy. Lewis based that opinion on the findings of several U.S. intelligence agencies. This issue isn't going to go away, not at least until Trump himself addresses it head on.

The underlying issue is, based on American standards the present regime in Russia is terrible. They routinely use false imprisonment and murder against Russians who oppose them. They have invaded neighboring nations. While in office Russian leaders have looted billions of dollars from state companies being privatized. The fact is, the Russians tried to help Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton because they clearly felt having Trump in the White House would be better for them, the Russian government, than having Hillary Clinton there. I think most rational people should be very concerned about why the Russian government would think that. What that says about Trump and his presidency.
 
I haven't got a time machine or know a reliable way to contact the Dead,
but I think Trump is exactly the candidate the Electoral College was supposed to avoid.
So I believe Trump is illegitimate by the spirit, but not the text of the Constitution.

However, unless we can find a way to quantify the impact Russian meddling had on the election (which we never will), Trump must be considered sufficiently dutifully elected.

Instead of arguing about this, let's get the Impeachment paperwork started. Leave the reason blank, we will soon have something to write in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom