I’m going to try to restart aldiboronti’s thread. It seems that there is a larger effort to invalidate the Presidential election than we’ve seen before - even more than Florida 2000 or the birther movement. Here’s a list of the efforts I have seen so far along with my thoughts.
The current leaked documents and the fact that maybe possibly Trump is compromised by the Russians, or is it that his staff may have known about the hacking?
I don’t think this is the Dems so much as a couple media outlets trying to get a story out before every one else did.
Hamilton electors trying to get the Electoral College to overturn the election.
I fully support the Electoral College as currently constructed by the Constitution to act as an independent body.
Bringing up the Emoluments Clause and the bigger picture of the possible conflicts of interest.
I guess the difference is that the foreign rulers gave money to the Clinton Foundation rather than her indirectly as a matter of business and so she was not in violation of it. :rolleyes: As for the general conflict of interest issue, I think Trump’s financial situation is unique enough that tradition may not apply but there is always the threat of impeachment and if the Pubs don’t want to impeach then the Dems may be controlling the House after 2018.
How Trump is unqualified.
35 years old or older? Check
Natural-born citizen? Check
14 year resident? Check
Seems like he’s qualified.
I think this is also part of the meme of how Hillary was “the most experienced candidate ever” which I would beg to differ with. I would also point out that when Obama ran his experience was questioned and the Dems said it was a non-issue. Now if the issue is his experience then let’s talk about that and can he run the country like a multi-trillion dollar business but saying he is “unqualified” does nothing but serve to make his election look illegitimate - like when the job requires a bachelor’s degree but Son-Of-Old-Friend gets it without any degree.
My take overall? It seems like the Dems are trying to out-Pub the Pubs and so I guess aldiboronti is right* but I actually admire the Dems for learning how 21st Century American Politics work. What I cannot respect is that while the Pub knew full well what they were doing when trying to de-legitimize Obama’s presidency (his inexperience, the fact the he was born in the Kingdom of Hawai’i [the annexation was illegal], etc.) the Dems seem blind to their own candidate’s failings and were parroting the “Should have elected Hillary” chant. Now they are attacking Trump on his own merits.
Self-hijack: The whole Birther bullshit sets a pretty high bar for trying to make a Presidency illegitimate but that’s why I think the Dems need to move away from saying he’s unqualified to inexperienced. Not being an NBC would disqualify a candidate and make their election illegitimate. Was Obama “qualified”? Then so is Trump.
We had the same fucking argument with Palin. “Unqualified” is just short hand for “doesn’t have what it takes to get the job done.” Fewer syllables, you see.
To repeat a clarification that has been constantly brought up in these discussions, you’re confusing the concepts of “qualified” and “eligible”.
Nobody has ever put forth any serious argument that Trump is not legally eligible to run for or to serve as President.
Likewise, I’m not aware of any serious efforts to rule Trump’s election “illegitimate” or to prevent him from taking office on the grounds of electoral illegality.
The issue of whether Trump is qualified for the position of President, or whether his campaign and election were conducted honestly, is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Unqualified, in this case, means “I don’t think he can do the job”. Trump might fail spectacularly at being president, which I’m confident in saying he won’t, but the idea that he’s unqualified for the job is rather dubious.
He’s a billionaire. And whereas you can become a millionaire through sheer luck, it takes a lot more than luck-- and is far outside of the realms of anything an “idiot” or a “failure” could accomplish-- to become a billionaire, much less a multi-billionaire.
No I am not. I think the Dems use “unqualified” because it has the connotation of making him ineligible or illegitimate and to say “Oh no, we mean ‘unqualified’ as in lacking the necessary experience.” is equivocating. I think The Dems are being very deliberate using that word instead of “inexperienced”.
Trump’s problem is not that he’s an idiot or a failure. (He clearly did OK in business.) It’s that he has no experience with, and a very unsophisticated understanding of, politics and policy and he’s too arrogant to learn.
I agree that the other thread shouldn’t have been locked. I don’t know if it’s kosher or not but I’m going to repost my post that no one got a chance to respond to:
E-DUB wtore: "It began in '92 when Bill Clinton “picked” what was supposed to be the Republicans electoral lock on the White House. Bob Dole said bitterly, of Clinton’s mere plurality of the popular vote, “We’ll (meaning the Republicans) just have to represent the (whatever percentage it was) that didn’t vote for him.” And Bill Clinton was the first modern President not to get the traditiopnal “honeymoon” period.
The Democrats also engaged in some “delegitimization” of “W” Bush, but it’s an easier thing when the guy actually does get fewer votes (hello, trump) than his opponent. "
And add that when a candidate elected with less than a plurality of the popular vote starts “governing” like he won, well, bigly, a little “delegitimateization” is probably in order just to remind him of that little fact.
If you were applying for job as an airline pilot, assuming you’re old enough and physically and mentally able enough, would your resume contain your eligibility or qualifications?
Well, Trump’s lack of experience is not his only fault. There’s his utter lack of intelligence. And of any interest in making up for that lack of experience–what about those briefings he’s skipped? Then there’s his disposition–Tweeting at midnight to express his hurt feelings? And his background–he inherited millions but how many truly successful businesses is he running? (Hey, what about those tax returns that he’s told us he will never release?)
And he ran an ugly campaign, using racism, xenophobia, etc., to bring out the very worst among us. And he is much too close to Putin–as a “useful idiot” or not.
Trump led the charge to make President Obama “illegitimate”–by expressing doubt he was born a US Citizen. Per the current US laws, he will be sworn in as President. Even though millions of us voted for Her, rather than Him–not enough of us turned out. That’s the Electoral College–and the Apportionment Act of 1911.
Please, tell us why we should be polite & say only nice things.
One, considering he just won an election that the majority of political pundits predicted he’d lose spectacularly against the person who some were calling “the most experienced candidate ever”, I think he has some understanding of politics. Two, no president had ever had a comprehensive knowledge of every area of, for lack of better word,s public and foreign policy-- that’s why they have advisors and cabinet appointments. Three, I’m curious as to where our how you’ve concluded Trump is too arrogant to learn. Again, you don’t become a billionaire by thinking you know everything or being inflexible.
Agreed. I think this will help Trump a lot. Not enough, but a lot.
Business is something he does know. His father was in the business before him, and he learned it growing up, and by this point he has 50 years of experience in a variety of businesses. So his thinking he knows everything about it is not as much of a hindrance there. But when he’s transferring to a new field, he has to appreciate that there’s a lot to learn and he needs to start from the bottom up. Nothing he’s said gives any indication that he understands this at all.
Trump has the political sophistication of a caller to a talk-show (and the emotional maturity of a spoiled kid).
All that said, I’m hopeful that his appointees and congressional leadership will save him, as above.
I take it you guys and gals will never figure out why you lost? It’s amazing that when faced with two propositions, you choose to believe the most ridiculous one (of you voted for Trump is because your a racist/sexist/bigot/etc). I actually think you’re projecting here. And given the left’s post-election penchant for rioting, looting, beating up, attacking and calling for the wholesale murder of people who either voted for Trump, didn’t vote for Hillary or didn’t vote at all, I feel there’s a lot of truth to that statement.
It takes more than luck to win the presidency, especially when the entire political establishment is against you.
Trump isn’t even in office yet, and he’s shown more willingness to compromise, try to reach across the isle and sit down with people who disagree with him than Mr. “I won/elections have consequences/Republicans need to get to the back of the bus”.
I don’t know where this idea that Trump is unwilling to learn comes from. It’s certainly not borne out of evidence. Even a cursory glance at the election would show you that he’s willing to admit he can’t do everything/that he knows everything (he went from trying to run the campaign himself to delegating duties).
Where have you been for the past eight years when Obama was literally talking down to half of America (remember his “God and guns” comment?) and openly mocking/talking down to other world leaders?
True, in the sense that Joe the Plumber would not have lucked into winning the election. But Trump was lucky in that what he was selling happened to be what a large part of the electorate was buying in this particular election. I don’t believe he had any sort of unique insight about anything.
I agree that Obama had an arrogant attitude towards Republicans. But that’s not to say he has an unsophisticated understanding of politics or policy. To the contrary. The issue you’re noting with Obama is that his attitude was “I’m right, you’re wrong, you should be happy if I throw you a crumb here and there and in exchange support my major policies”. That’s not the same thing as a guy whose grasp of what’s going on is weak, as Trump’s is.