Why Trump was Never the Legitimate President

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Modus Ponens, Nov 21, 2020.

  1. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,792
    Likes Received:
    1,401
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump will retain political legitimacy after he is removed from office. He will likely have a 'shadow cabinet' and will retain political sway over republicans and media discussions.

    It is likely that the media will not be able to stop talking about him as it is their obsession. This coupled with the fact that he can run in 2024 ensures that he doesnt just get lost in the background like past presidents have when they leave office. He will retain amazing support from his base and will have much influence.

    So even though he will lack legal legitimacy, he will retain his political legitimacy and it will shine through. The only way he lacked legimacy, is personally in your own heart and mind. But please don't let me stop you from trying to remind him every day that you feel he lacks legitimacy. As I said before, this obsession will be, in part what gives him the power he needs to invade discussion and remain relevant and unforgotten.
     
  2. Modus Ponens

    Modus Ponens Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are confusing Trump's legal status, with his legitimacy. The problem of legitimacy in this case extends to the Constitution, itself. The EC exists because 1) it was a compromise made with slaveholding states, as a hedge against them being outvoted by free states 2) it was otherwise intended as a stopgap against the rise of a demagogue to the Chief Magistracy of the state. The first consideration makes the EC illegitimate in its origin - and now, utterly obsolete. By the second consideration, the EC is a dead letter, since in 2016 it failed to perform the function of blocking a demagogue (Trump) access to the presidency. In a 21st century United States without slavery and with universal suffrage, the countermajoritarian principle of the EC has no legitimate function. What other Republic (besides North Korea) awards political power to those who get the minority of the votes??

    Yes, it would be a legitimate attack on Obama, if there was any truth in it. But there is not. Much like the empty claims of fraud in this election. It is an attack on the legitimacy of the duly elected President, not least because it is founded in nothing other than The Big Lie (which is a conservative specialty.)

    There you go again, more of The Lie. You don't have the law on your side on this, so you resort to the Lie of illegitimacy. It worked its effect, for at time (which is why accusations of illegitimacy are politically significant). But Birthers will be remembered in American history only as disgraced racists.
     
    ChiCowboy likes this.
  3. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    42,002
    Likes Received:
    9,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure us a lot if words to say what my daddy said in far fewer words, "because I said so."
     
  4. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,935
    Likes Received:
    2,622
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Entitlement of worthiness of office is not defined by popularity it is defined by the constitution.

    Trump was the legal AND legitimate president because he met all constitutional requirements
     
  5. Modus Ponens

    Modus Ponens Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    "Meeting all Constitutional requirements" is necessary but not sufficient for legitimacy. Legitimacy is a moral, extra-legal concept. The law originates in pre-legal intuitions of legitimacy. The "Constitutional requirements" themselves become problematic when the Constitution's provisions pertinent to this matter - the Electoral College - are themselves of dubious legitimacy.
     
  6. Modus Ponens

    Modus Ponens Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I do say so. That was enough for the Birthers, and like it or not they successfully questioned Obama's legitimacy - they successfully placed Obama's citizenship in doubt (it was a lie, but for a time it was a successful lie). Likewise the same people are now spreading lies about the election, to question the legitimacy of Biden's win. It doesn't matter if there is no truth in it - what matters is that people believe it. But you can also make truthful assertions about legitimacy (or lack thereof) - in the current case, Trump is the Demagogue the Founders always feared would rise, they would be shocked that the EC did not bar him from office, and Trump's multiple violations of his Oath of office demonstrate that he has no right to the power that he legally wields.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2020
    ChiCowboy likes this.
  7. freedom8

    freedom8 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    227
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I also consider the EC has dubious legitimacy TODAY. I understand why the system was built that way, but in 2020, it is completely outdated, imho.
    Already in the 2015 primaries campaign it was obvious that Trump was unfit, intellectually and morally, for the job. He was however legally elected in 2016, although he lost the popular vote by a large margin and this made him a morally illegitimate President at the start.
    However, he could have earned his legitimacy if he had proven us wrong and risen to the occasion by, at least trying, to be the President of all Americans, like Bush Jr for example.
    That didn't happen. On the contrary, his attitudes and decisions proved to be every day more thoughtless, more disruptive and more divisive and he never became presidential.
     
    Modus Ponens likes this.
  8. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    33,556
    Likes Received:
    14,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    By that measure, I guess Bush wasn't a "legitimate" President also. Now look who's undermining democracy. Why not call a turd a turd, and acknowledge. A: We were never meant to be a Democratic State and that B: All such democracies, everywhere collapse under its own weight of corruption, bribes, lobbyists, payoffs.

    You can't bribe a king, but you can bribe a political official looking to win reelection next year.
     
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,935
    Likes Received:
    2,622
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes it is legally necessary and it is the only thing needed for legitimacy.

    Legitimacy is established strictly and exclusively by meeting the legal requirements.

    You other claims are partisan and subjective and ignorant bullshit.

    He was ( and briefly remains ) your legitimate president now deal with it
     
  10. mitchscove

    mitchscove Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    3,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obama was not a natural born citizen in the meaning known to the framers of the Constitution when they defined requirements for the Presidency. Unless his father was a citizen at the time of his birth, Obama was not qualified to be President. If you present evidence that Obama's father was an American citizen at the time Barack was born, we should all accept his legitimacy.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2020
  11. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,935
    Likes Received:
    2,622
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes he was a natural born citizen.

    The framers never defined natural born as dependent on whether one's father was a citizen.
     
  12. Modus Ponens

    Modus Ponens Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Exactly. I would only add the point that the Trump campaign's collusion with the Russians, if it amounted to a criminal conspiracy (we won't have a verdict on that unless and until there is a trial based upon the evidence for conspiracy turned up by the Mueller report, and beyond that the evidence turned up by the coming trial of Julian Assange), would call into question the legal entitlement to the office. The very fact that this remains an outstanding concern is Exhibit A of Trump's illegitimacy.
     
  13. Modus Ponens

    Modus Ponens Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes - given that Bush was elected with a minority of the ballots cast, AND that he subsequently governed in a hard-line manner, as if he had won a decisive mandate - that does place in question (not very serious question, but still some question) his legitimacy as president.


    Look, you simply can't evade the rank hypocrisy involved in Trump's accession to power. Either you toss out the majoritarian principle essential to democracy, and you end up with a republic sure, just not one where the government is accountable to the voters; OR you discard the essential, original purpose of the Electoral College - which was intended to STOP the rise of a Demagogue like Trump.

    The issue of whether the democracy (Ahem) has succumbed to Oligarchy is a serious one, but here it is a red herring.


    If you think kings can't be bought, selling out their subjects to enhance their own material interest, you haven't studied any history. It's funny, your otherwise discerning mind would be able to see immediately the liability of having a wealthy businessman with foreign concerns and substantial debts, as the Chief Magistrate - if that person was from the opposing political party! But since he's your guy, you studiously look the other way. Hypocrisy, much?
     
  14. Modus Ponens

    Modus Ponens Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    LOL.
     
  15. mitchscove

    mitchscove Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    3,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ,,, and why wouldn't they define a term that was so important to the understanding of a key requirement for the highest office in the land ,,, an office for which an outside allegiance would be disastrous. Because ,,, the definition of Natural-Born Citizen was well known in their time. Specifically, it was defined in Law of Nations. There is ample evidence that Law of Nations was the dominant source of the Founders' thinking as they build a nation.
     
  16. mitchscove

    mitchscove Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    3,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Noting that the Founders were very suspicious of the states they created that allowed for tyranny of the majority, you might credit them with foresight just considering a few recent events:
    Smelling the possibility of winning the Senate, House and White House, a rare opportunity in this Republic, Schumer thought out loud about ensuring that they would never have to worry about winning another election when they add 2 states with their 4 Senators and 4 seats to the Supreme Court

    Being a student of history, you should be familiar with ,,,
    The Nazis encouraging children especially, to report anything "suspicious"
    that they might hear their teachers or parents say and report it to their Nazi youth leader or directly to the Gestapo.

    Gov. Jay Inslee asks Washington residents to report those violating stay-at-home order
    Mar 30, 2020 · In his Monday afternoon media availability to discuss the coronavirus pandemic, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee revealed a three-tier process for reporting violators of the stay-at-home order. Non-essential businesses, such as the Kiggins Theatre in downtown Vancouver, are temporarily closed by Gov. Jay Inslee’s stay-at-order order.

    More recently,
    Report a Safe Start Violation | Washington State Coronavirus Response (COVID-19)
    If you want to report an individual or private group that is not following the proclamation, contact your local law enforcement agency. DO NOT call 911. Please refer to the law enforcement agency website for directions on how to file a complaint or use the agency’s non-emergency number.

    Then yesterday, this from another Democrat fascist
    Gov. Brown encourages Oregonians to call police on neighbors who violate COVID-19 freeze
     
  17. Modus Ponens

    Modus Ponens Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What is the relevance of any of this? "Quick, Look over there!" is not a substantive response to the fact of Trump's eviscerated legitimacy. A legacy which he is searing into historical memory right now, with his attempted coup against Joe Biden!
     
  18. mitchscove

    mitchscove Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    3,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You of the party of fascists and power hungry demagogues as evidenced in my post have the nerve to call out Trump for being power hungry.
    The only coup attempt in recent history was that run by Obama and his lackeys of the FBI and CIA and, of course, his VP ,,, and prosecutors incensed that their invitations to the Hillary Victory Party will not be a big sellers as they season.
     
  19. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,935
    Likes Received:
    2,622
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The law in their time and ours was strictly someone born here.

    That is why it needed no definition they did not understand it as anything else
     
  20. mitchscove

    mitchscove Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    3,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. They gave themselves a carve out since, while they were all born here and were citizens, their parents were not citizens, so they couldn't be natural-born citizens:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Notice the carve out. They gave themselves the ability to satisfy the clause.
     
  21. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,935
    Likes Received:
    2,622
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They had no understanding as you claim they knew natural born to mean born here regaqrdless of where the paqrents were born.

    Nothing in the constitution implies any thing else
     
  22. mitchscove

    mitchscove Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    3,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They knew the difference or they wouldn't have known they needed a carve out. Law of Nations by Vattel put it as follows:

    § 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens - it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    This was known to the framers of the Constitution and was the basis for demanding there be no question of allegiance by our President. It means both parents are citizens at the time of birth of the Child.
     
  23. mitchscove

    mitchscove Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    3,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obama didn't own the SC seat. Reid and Obama nuked the Senate so Obama could pack the lower courts with radicals. No reasonable person would expect McConnell to give Democrats a rubber stamp on the Supreme Court after their crimes against the American people. Ignore the facts as you usually do, but Democrats own McConnell's defense of the US. They also own the lack of bipartisanship. It they now pull a Schumer, the US won't be a place any American would want to live. Thank goodness Antifa Democrats usually burn down their own neighborhoods.
     
  24. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,668
    Likes Received:
    1,948
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In most states you have to campaign for the popular vote, because the laws in those states require very lectures to vote for whoever won the popular vote in their state.
    Faceless selectors in those States can have their votes on the electoral college voided.
     
  25. Modus Ponens

    Modus Ponens Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The Big Lie - straight down the line. You are of the party of fascists and smash-and-grab power-plays. Your Dear Leader is the Demagogue. There was never any "coup" against Trump, that is only your cult-world, evidence-free conviction - and even Bob Barr could not make that dog hunt. And right now you along with all the other cultists are classing yourselves in the American historical imagination with Richard Nixon's dead-enders. Just sad.
     

Share This Page