He is legitimately elected as President.
The failure of the opposing party lies directly upon the shoulders of Hillary. Years of preparation for this election, tons of money for the campaign, A worshiping idolization from most media.
It was her election to lose and she did it well.
He is both an asshole and a legitimate President.
He is both an asshole and seems at this point to be the legitimate President. Need more info.
Terrible suggestion, my bipartisan friend. It’s the IE in your OP that made my suggestion necessary.
Lewis MAY have meant that Trump’s daddy never married that lady orangutan.
Plenty of people are still complaining about those results to this day.
Unless you can prove that Russia hacked ballot results and gave him a false victory, he is a legitimate president.
Legitimate. Idiotic, but legitimate.
You miss the point rather spectacularly. The ie, as I have already stated, clarified the definition which I chose to use. If you prefer another one then you know how to start another thread. Continuing to insist on other definitions in this thread is completely besides the point. Others in their replies may use other definitions, that is their privilege. It is not your privilege to insist that I cannot use the definition that I chose.
I do hope you understand now, it’s rather laborsome to have to continually explain.
Not illegitimate, just an inexplicably bad choice like if half the voters showed up at the polls with a fauxhawk.
Except in this case we know why the guy said Trump was not legitimate (Russian hacking of e-mails), and that does not cause the election to be “not legitimate”. Not to mention we have no way of knowing what might have happened in some alternate universe.
Electoral shenanigans are as American as apple pie. The elections of Adams-6 in 1824 and Hayes in 1876 went against popular vote winners and left bitterness. JFK in 1960 probably cheated in both Illinois and Texas; Nixon might have been the proper winner. But Nixon returned the favor in 1968 with treason: he scuttled the Vietnam peace talks to prevent Humphrey victory. In 1972 he directed criminal activity against the Democrats — is that considered an “illegitimate victory” if he would have won in a landslide anyway?
There is strong evidence that the Bush-Reagan team made a deal with Iran to help defeat Jimmy Carter in 1980; this allegation is supported by then-Iranian President Abulhassan Bani Sadr, National Security Council member Gary Sick, and former Reagan/Bush campaign staffer and White House analyst Barbara Honegger.
The infamous “butterfly ballot” cost Gore the election of 2000. Is proof of GOP malice required to use this to declare that election “illegitimate”? Lies against Kerry were needed for Bush re-election in 2004. Does that make the election “illegitimate”? Or are lies just part of the game? Shifting the blame for Cheney’s lies to Valerie Plame and a N.Y. Times reporter, and shifting the blame for Bush’s malingering to Dan Rather were certainly despicable. Is this illegitimacy? Or American politics at its rough-and-tumble finest?
The 2016 elections in Rust Belt states were so close that GOP voter suppression efforts probably made the difference. But no GOP officials, nor the GOP lawyers who lied in front of federal judges, have gone to prison. So voter suppression is “legitimate”?
I didn’t click any poll option. I need the terms defined better.
I’m curious as to why you believe that that is what Lewis meant.
Because I both agree with Lewis (or at least I agree with what I understood Lewis to be saying), and I believe that Trump is legally the President of the United States.
AFAICT, the evidence of this is as thin as the ‘evidence’ (never been able to find more than handwaving here) that Bush won in 2004 by stealing Ohio from Kerry.
No, but the various GOP efforts to delay, obstruct, and prevent a legitimate recount - most notably the ‘Brooks Brothers Riot’ that interrupted the recount in Miami-Dade County, which was instigated by a bunch of GOP operatives (including Trump advisor Roger Stone) who were flown in from D.C. to disrupt the hand recount.
In the sense of throwing up legal and/or bureaucratic obstacles to make it more difficult for U.S. citizens to register and vote: no, absolutely not. It makes a travesty of democracy. The fact that America has accepted as legitimate the results of a number of elections now where such suppression was a factor doesn’t change that in the least, IMHO.
I’d agree that the scuttling of peace/hostage release talks by the GOP candidates in 1968 and 1980 were well beyond what can be considered part of the normal political rough-and-tumble. I’m not sure I’d call either of these moves treasonous, but for persons outside the Executive Branch to interfere with foreign policy to tip an election certainly calls into question the legitimacy of the outcome.
Excepting Bush 41 (a pretty marginal exception as he was really Reagan’s third term), the last Republican President who didn’t win their initial election in a questionable way was Eisenhower. Nixon, Reagan, Shrub, and now Trump have all won by dubious means.
Lies, OTOH, are part of the political rough-and-tumble. The Swift Boat stuff probably cost Kerry the 2004 election, but he was the one who let it linger for days with the notion that the best response was regarding it as beneath a response. Boy howdy, was he ever wrong about that - and he should have known it. That’s why Clinton had his ‘quick response team’ all the way back in 1992: once the lies go unrebutted for awhile, they’re nearly impossible to dislodge from the public mind.
And of course Nixon would have won easily in 1972, absent his dirty-tricks operation.
Who, pardon my French, gives a wet shit which definition you chose to use? It’s John Lewis who used the word, not you–unless you also think Trump is illegitimate.
Your “IE” pretty explicitly declared that you believed that was the definition Lewis was using. If you didn’t mean that, you shouldn’t have referenced him.
Russian spy.
Maybe.
See, I no longer even understand what the hell you mean by “legitimate.” Reagan won in landslides. There is absolutely no question whatsoever the American people preferred Reagan over his opponents. What was illegitimate about it?
I don’t know if he’s illegitimate, but he sure is a bastard.
That idiotic conspiracy theory you’re referring to was discredited decades ago by that right-wing pro-Reagan rag The Village Voice.
What’s next, are we going to hear about JFK getting assassinated by the CIA?
Maybe just inapt turn of phrase, but it absolutely matters whether or not the voting was on the up and up, no matter what you think of the candidate’s ability to do the job, different issue.
And ‘if’? There’s zero evidence the voting was anything other than ‘up and up’*. The question is about information available to the public. There’s always false information available, so that IMO can never be used to say an election outcome was illegitimate unless the government uses its monopoly on force to prevent the reporting of countervailing true information.
The question is whether the release of true information can be deemed to make the outcome illegitimate because selective leaking of it was so biased, or if one believes release by a foreign entity is so categorically different from a biased leak by a domestic entity. For that I’d say possibly, but the bar to deem the outcome illegitimate as a result would be way above what happened in this election.
*which doesn’t mean absolute 100% freedom from errors or fraud in favor of any candidate, but lack of evidence of any significant effect, no such evidence here.