Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Modus Ponens, Nov 21, 2020.
But see, it doesn't matter how huge(or how little) a candidate won election, that candidate won election. Should they betray their premise, their very reasoning for political leadership, just because the vote was close? Why then, at that point should either of us vote for a candidate? Their word on their governance then means nothing unless one or the other wins decidedly, in your view of legitimacy.
To me, a legitimate President is very simple: He's met all of the legal and lawful qualifications, and he won the Presidency. Be that a little or a lot, it doesn't matter. A non-official song is "Hail to the Chief", not "Hail to the chief if he wins enough votes."
All of this, is really an exercise in mental gymnastics because Trump is "not your President"(and now, he's really not so I don't know why these mental gymnastics still exist on the side of the Democratic Party.). Biden won, Trump's been defeated. Celebrate and move on. `
I disagree that the government isn't accountable to the voters? Why should the rural States have the election decided by the industrial states?(and yes, vice versa.). The flaw with the electoral college is not that it exists, it has to deal with the weighted score. Right now, if you get CA/NY(as the Democrats major strong hold), that's 88 of 270 points right there.
Where's the accountability in that? And before my Pennsylvania became a purple State, that was another guaranteed 16 points. So we're talking 104 points, automatically gifted to one of the "two" major parties. Until Trump won in 2016, it was conservatives who rightly complained because this system screws them over, big time.
The only way is to steal one(or two) of those States, as well as a complete sweep of the South/Mid-west to be competitive. The moment Trump lost Arizona, he was screwed.
The easy answer is to weight all of the scores evenly, so that one state is not "more important" than the other, or becomes a swing state. I've always said each State should be allotted 1 point. That way, you have to campaign to every State and you're going to need every State to win.
If we really want to stop demagogues like Trump, traditional conservatives actually have the solution(and I don't entirely disagree with them), as Alexis De Tocqueville had said: The moment you can elect people with the treasury, that's when you get the Trump's of the world. But also, it is a misnomer that Populism is bad(especially if an argument is in FAVOR of a popular vote) that just because some populists might be bad.
The issue, is whether a country's best interests are being served. And sure, that differs from person to person but there are some generic things that I'd like to think apply:
-Low crime rates
-High education production/graduation
-As free from war as possible.
If we agree on all four of those things, or even half of them we can see our country falling and has fallen pre-Trump. And any future populist will aim to campaign on those four things, should we reject the Populist because he's doing things we want?
What do we even want from the Chief Magistrate? People complain about an "imperial Presidency", but this court nerfed that idea when certain EO's could be protected from other EO's(what a joke. I still hate that ruling.). So obviously we don't want a Presidency that rules from decree, but we also don't want the President to achieve anything(as seen with the Obama and then Trump presidencies.)
What has become super obvious, is that far from an "imperial Presidency", we have a token Presidency. And the only ones who benefit from this token Presidency(and token Congresspersons) are lobbyists, and special interests in this Plutocratic state of affairs. Compared to that, there's so many benefits to a true Head of State, a true political hierarchy and leadership. One of the main ones, is that they can focus solely and wholly on the State, without ass kissing anybody else!
There I said it, lobbyists, etc, plutocracy is basically a bunch of ass kissing.
You think the Nationalist movement started and ended with Trump? I grew disaffected by the Democratic Party in 2012! SJW and Cancel Culture led to the circumstances we find ourselves in today, you can argue if not for that stupidity your party(what used to be my party) would still have a stronghold.
And maybe the kiddies won the day, for now but the moment they grow dissatisfied, the riot squad will be back in full force and this party will have to step up and be a leader, since orange man bad isn't here anymore and be like "no, that's not okay". Time will tell, if Liberals got that in them.
There's a difference between Bush-to-Obama and Trump-to-Biden. The whole 'racist' excuse, as disgusting as it was had some credibility(at least plausible credibility) due to the obvious skin overtones(but even then, the lack of accountability was disturbing.). Biden is not so fortunate.
That's because you spent 4 years(and even this transition period) reminding us what a demon Trump is. That means that any "but Trump", or "but racism" is on tone deaf ears. The Democrats have used every external factor to excuse the failure in their social policies.
That well has dried up, the people are angsty for results. Biden has some tough decisions to make, and the outcome of those decisions will be based solely on him and his decision making process.
By every legal standard - that is, the standard by which power is transferred and held - Trump is the legitimate President.
-Your- opinion on the matter doesn't matter.
Mueller disagreed, and said he reached no such conclusion.. So much for that.
"Winning" the majority of the "popular vote" has never, ever, been a standard for the legitimacy of a President.
Only when you use your... novel... definition of "fascist".
You keep talking about this - almost as if you choose to ignore the Mueller report.
Legally challenging election results is a violation of the oath office?
It should be illegal?
1: The seat did not belong to Obama
2: As such, McConnell could not steal said seat from Obama
3: Nothing in the constitution requires the senate to do anything with a nomination put forward by the President
4: Refusing to hold a vote is a refusal to consider - and thus, constitutes "advice" from the senate.
You are quite good at regurgitating MSDNC talking pointss --too bad you don't understand them, and the issues around them, well enough to hold a meaningful discussion of same.
Not my fault that you can't seem to grasp how our system works. As a result of that I have to keep repeating the same facts. Facts are worth far more than your opinion.
Fact: Trump was legally elected to be President.
Fact: Since Trump was legally elected to be President then he IS the legitimate President.
No matter what you say you cannot dispute facts. You may certainly have the wrong opinion that he was never a legitimate United States President. But that does not change the facts that he is and was Elected President of the United States of America through the same exact process in which all 46 of our Presidents have been elected.
Continue to ignore reality and hold your wrong opinion. It won't change reality and it won't change the facts. President Trump IS EVERY American's President. Fact. End of discussion.
I am putting forth what is a genuine, legitimate countermajoritarian principle: not one which awards power to the ballot-losers, but one where the majority recognizes that a narrow win is a not a political mandate for sweeping change.
It so happens that in recent years, as political polarization has intensified, what counts as a "manifest" vs. a "narrow" win has had to be re-interpreted; as intensely divided as the electorate is now, you can only begin talking about a "mandate" if the candidate hits the 50% threshold in the popular vote.
The winning party is entitled to enact something like the agenda that they campaigned on (if they can get Congressional support for it), but when the margin of victory is very narrow, they are coming into office with a lower level of political capital (or, a lower level of legitimacy) than they otherwise would be. In fact this is common sense - the whole concept of the filibuster is based on a similar principle.
It's when you discount entirely the views of those that are the losers in a close election, that in a democracy you are very likely to overreach. <COMMENTS EDITED>I know you don't care about the attitudes of the ruled, for what matters only is that you have the power to implement your agenda; but the problem in that case, the problem for any ruling party, is that it is a force multiplier for political instability. As an Authoritarian you should be very concerned about political instability.
And if the will of the actual numerical majority of voters is being overruled? Watch out. Compromise with the losers is much more sensible, and much more likely to produce a government which is legitimate.
Obviously not. Again, the whole concept of the "mandate" is explicitly predicated on legitimacy. A government that is elected by a bare majority remains legitimate; however it will not be seen to be legitimate if it pretends to have a mandate for radical change that it does not have. Contrast this with a government that was elected with a true mandate for that kind of change.
Hah, I think you would have a different point of view, if your preferred candidate for President ever won the ballots but still lost the election. Instead, perversely, because you have successfully enjoyed the privileges of minority-rule, you (and your Conservative ilk) go so far as to discount democracy in favor of styling our system as "Republic," which is nothing actually but rank sophistry. Indeed, it's worked so well for you that you've doubled-down on it.
Again, it's just not the case - neither as a matter of human psychology nor as a fact of recorded history - that legitimacy is reducible to adherence to legal considerations.
I am making a crucial political distinction, one made obvious to regular observers - not just historians or political scientists - by the popular reception of the two most recent presidents. Obama's legitimacy was seriously questioned, so much so that it was interfering with his ability to govern. Trump's legitimacy was under siege from the beginning, because 1) of his suspected (later confirmed) cooperation with the Russians to aid his campaign 2) his attempt in 2016 to poison the well of our most sacred institution, by asserting that the election would be "rigged" 3) his threats, both before and after he was elected,* to use the police-power apparatus of the state to prosecute his political rivals (something that autocrats routinely do, not Americans) 4) his near-avowal that he conducted his role as president* not as a proper head of state (of all Americans) but as the Tribune and partisan only of those who politically supported him 5) also the Ukraine scandal has to be mentioned in this connection, because he deserved to be removed from power for that alone, and actual removal from power is naturally the stamp of illegitimacy. These were all outrages to our system and our values; they remain outrages, even though he will soon be out of power. They signal the power of American Fascism - that he could do all these things and still attain to the highest echelon of power in the state. So they must never be forgotten (sorry, not "moving on"), as that would give an opening for the next Demagogue.
What are you even talking about? Why do you think that in a popularly-elected government (a democracy), the majority should answer to the minority? The whole point of elections is to settle disputes by reference to the opinion of most of the voters. When minorities start to dictate, that's almost by definition political violence (or, it quickly leads to political violence)
Really, this is more of The Big Lie that Authoritarians are so fond of. The EC as it exists is already counter-majoritarian, and you're complaining about it because it's not counter-majoritarian enough! What you want is the very opposite of the idea of accountability, yet you are complaining about the franchise in the name of accountability! Just Orwellian Newspeak. But that's how Authoritarians roll.
For one thing: history and even biological anthropology shows that human communities become politically unstable when inequality rises past a certain threshold. Human cooperative action can create spectacular levels of aggregate wealth - this was the case even in pre-Modern times. If this wealth is concentrated too much in the propertied and privileged classes, that leads sooner or later to uprisings and revolts. The Ancient Romans understood this on an instinctive level, and it was a powerful obligation of wealthy Romans to periodically spend vast sums on public entertainments for the proletariat, to keep any revolutionary sentiment from building up. Redistribution of wealth is a feature, not a bug, of politically intact societies. It was Aristotle, actually, not Tocqueville, who made the comment about "the public voting themselves the surplus," but Aristotle was after all an aristocrat and this is what tends to happen when the aristocracy hoards to their own benefit the wealth that the society in aggregate has produced.
The majoritarian principle is important, because it is vital that all those who are affected by a policy, should have a say - and an equal say! - in enacting it. Pure majoritarianism however is not good, as that can lead to the tyranny of the majority - and by that I mean real tyranny, where the very civic equality of the minority is threatened - not the "tyranny" of having the ordinary policy of the majority being "imposed" on you...
Those are all laudable goals; I am constrained to point out however that the Democrats make at least three of them a priority, while Republicans prioritize only one. And that goes back to the sad, sad irony of American populists. They are culturally conservative, but they would greatly benefit from policies that Democrats have consistently put forward; and just because the Democrats are viewed as culturally alien to them, the populists will vote against their interests and for the Oligarchs who stoke their cultural grievances.
The problem is that American populism, conservative populism, is based on grievance, the very opposite of Solidarity. To get those things you say you value, you need Solidarity - solidarity with a multicultural society, full of people not like you - but just like the poor whites of the Antebellum South, you'd rather continue your immiseration at the hands of the Oligarchs, than see "those people" get what they "don't deserve."
You're not wrong. In retrospect it would have been much wiser for the Founders to set up a Parliamentary democracy. That way you'd never have to worry about the direct election of the Executive.
I would say that there is a civic role for lobbyists. The national government is a very complicated thing, the representatives cannot possess all the information needed to make good decisions, and lobbyists can serve as a supplement there. The problem of course is when money gets involved - and not least, when Congress and the Lobbyist class becomes a revolving-door. We can reform this situation, but as the Republicans are the worse offenders, they are always blocking any chance of legitimate reform. That's what made Obama's health care law so difficult (and inadequate). The Democrats had to do it all by themselves - which forced them to cut in Big Pharma, Big Insurance, etc.
No, no matter what the Democrats did, they would always be ushering in Communism/Socialism. Since at least Gingrich the Republicans have acted with ZERO good-faith towards Democrats. Their only object is keeping Dems out of power so they can avoid spending (except on the military), and giving themselves juicy tax cuts. But you're fine with all that, just as long as a bigoted wedding-cake vendor doesn't have to bake a cake, or a bigoted state employee can refuse to do her job!
Just what is the "Nationalist" movement, but a Nativist movement predicated on racial animus and a betrayal of our ideal as a nation of immigrants? We used to be the nation of the Statue of Liberty, now the whole world knows us as the nation of xenophobic walls (evoking the Great Wall of China, a nation that is essentially xenophobic). Your "Nationalist" movement has done exactly ZERO to protect the country and promote the interests of regular people. Obama and the Democrats did the best they could, but after 2010 they were stopped by McConnell's blockade.
Unfortunately, that was necessary. The American Fascists enthusiastically supported the Demagogue, and we were doing our damnedest to remind people that that's not what America is about. Given the fact that we've won the last two election cycles, our message has to be getting through - in spite of the whole Culture War. If the George Floyd atrocity had not happened, we would have won in a true landslide.
Again, we have not had the chance to enact those policies. In the rare case where we did - with Obamacare - we had to pass the bill in order to see what was in it - i.e., how the bill worked in the concrete. We knew we would afterwards have to go back and make fixes, to make it better. But the Republicans blocked every effort. Please, tell me that you are not so blind as to not know this. And then, when the Republicans had united gov't and could finally repeal their hated law, they couldn't even do it! Whether they are more evil or more incompetent is a serious question.
Go back and read again what I said about this. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Man, all you Cons have really swallowed the Bob Barr Kool-Aid on this one. Yes, Mueller did not charge Trump. And he said that anyone else who did what Trump as president did, would have been prosecuted. In the report he basically said that the report was the draft of impeachment articles for Congress. As it happens, Trump can still be impeached, on the basis of the findings of the report. It's a good idea too, to keep him out of presidential politics altogether
Sheesh - well, that's obviously wrong. You can't be a legitimate president without anyone voting for you. You really should grasp that. But that doesn't mean that people voting for you is a necessary & sufficient condition of legitimacy.
That Trump colluded with the Russians is common knowledge. The question is, whether that collusion rose to the (high) bar for criminal conspiracy. Mueller deliberately did not pursue that question with a laser-focus. He spun off the Roger Stone inquest, and he backed down from interviewing Trump under oath (contrast this with Republicans from the Clinton era, who forced Clinton to testify under oath, under threat of indictment). If Mueller had tackled either of these directly, he would have evidence for conspiracy and a predicate for impeachment. One reason why he probably felt it wasn't necessary, was that Trump attempted to obstruct justice so many times and in so many ways, that detailing this in the report should have given Congress all the rope they needed to hang Trump. Mueller however was a boy scout who failed to realize that the GOP had become a Faction and was already in the pocket of the Demagogue.
Making public claims about voter fraud, and refusing to make those claims in court - that is part of an autocratic attempt. So is summoning to the WH low-level functionaries who are contesting the certification of a duly-conducted election, on his behalf; if hypocrisy weren't one of your cardinal values, you would see the outrage of this in Trump's case same as if Clinton or Obama had tried to pull this.
The power to make the appointment is the President's, not the Senate's. The Senate, by issuing a blanket-refusal to give any and all candidates a hearing, was effectively nullifying Obama's Article II Sec. 2 powers. Unconstitutional.
By nullifying Obama's power to appoint, McConnell prevented Obama from making the appointment. When Trump was elected,* Trump was the direct beneficiary of this. It's an open-and-shut case of theft, in fact. Once again I think you could manage the grasp the notion, if the political roles were reversed. As hysterical as you people got about Bork, Bork anyway got a hearing and a vote - and his rejection was bi-partisan (as he was the hatchet-man of the Saturday Night Massacre, Bork should never have even gotten close to an SC nomination).
False. Article II Sec. 2 gives the President both the (exclusive) power to appoint, and the obligation to do so. The President cannot simply sit on a vacancy and wait for a politically convenient time for him to nominate someone. He has to act. The Senate's advise and consent role is pursuant to this obligation of the President to make appointments. Their positive response to a nomination (with either assent or rejection) is integral to the discharge of the President's prerogative obligation. The Senate must act; that means a hearing and a vote, on the President's nominee. "Consent" after all, is not a verb of omission; the text of the Constitution does not say, nor does it imply, that the Senate can "delay," "defer, "withhold," etc. their assent (or rejection) of a given nominee (let alone all nominees). What McConnell's Senate did instead, was to ignore, sight unseen, any and every nominee the President made (McConnell made his declaration only hours after Scalia died). This is the Senate acting as if the President hadn't nominated anyone - which, if it were the case, would be violation of the Constitution. Mutatis mutandis, in this case it was the Senate violating the Constitution. At all events it is ludicrous to suggest that the Constitution gives the Senate the prerogative to shut down the whole appointments-process, in the very Article of the Constitution detailing the appointments-process! What McConnell did was a cynical power-grab, an Unconstitutional power-grab, and one I would argue makes the Gorsuch appointment to be of extremely dubious legitimacy.
Oh, Geez - projection, much?
Are you an American?
Trump won the popular vote of the electoral college.
Your opinion on his legitimacy doesn't matter
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Moreover, Mueller did not reach the conclusion that Trump, et al, colluded/coordinated/conspired with the Russians
"...the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"
Your statement above, is false. Nowhere does he say this.
Disagree? Cite/copy/paste the text.
Your statement above, is false. Nowhere does he say this.
Disagree? Cite/copy/paste the text.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
"Winning" the majority of the "popular vote" has never, ever, been a standard for the legitimacy of a President.
If that's obviously wrong, then , just as obviously, Bill Clinton was not a legitimate President, and Hillary Clinton would not have been a legitimate President - in fact, a significant number of President were not legitimate.
Nowhere did I discuss the idea that you could be any kind of President w/o anyone voting for you.
"...the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
How can you be right?
More evidence that you have not read the report.
The Trump campaign can take whatever case it wants to court, for whatever reason they choose and it is perfectly legal - and constitutional - for them to do so,
You claim has zero merit.
I suggest you read the Constitution
The President has the power to nominate justices, et al; the power to appoint them is held -conditionally- with the senate, who must give its advice and consent.
In any case, the seat, in no way, belonged to him ans therefore could not be stolen.
Nothing in the constitution requires the senate to vote on anything - the senate, according to the rules it creates for itself, gets to do whatever it wants.
Disagree? Cite article and clause, and copy/paste the text.
Nominate, and with consent of the senate, appoint.
Two step process - the 'appoint' part comes after the senate gives its advise and consent.
Nothing requires the senate to do so, and the senate may act on this however it chooses.
McConnell, in accordance with senate rules, refused to grant consent to Obama's nomination.
All legal and constitutional.
The seat, in no way, belonged to him, and therefore could not be stolen.
And thus, your claim has zero merit.
Since you haven't read the constitution, it actually says:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,
Where does it say the senate shall consider, hold a hearing, have a debate, or hold a vote on an exercise of power under this article?
You fail to recognize that the senate is a co-equal branch of government and is not required by the constitution to act in any manner the executive branch may choose.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your exemplary ability to regurgitating MSDNC talking points --too bad you don't understand them, and the issues around them, well enough to hold a meaningful discussion of same.
Translation: Trump is not a swamp creature every democrat loves.
Like it or not, in the American political system there is no higher legitimacy than what is conferred by the U.S. Constitution and the last 230 years of our nations history.
I'm making an argument/ a case, not simply opining. Learn then difference. Once again, you are failing the Burden of Rejoinder. I'll take it you forfeit the point.
Mueller's office did not establish that there was a criminal conspiracy. That does not mean that there was not collusion in the ordinary sense of the term. There obviously was, it is a matter of public record. Mueller was not able to muster the evidence of criminal behavior, because of the unique ability of the target of his inquiry, to thwart the prosecutors (by refusing to testify under cross-examination - something only a President could get away with (without also pleading the 5th)). Also, Mueller's team did not run down the most live thread in that investigation, Roger Stone's possible Russian contacts. The Stone investigation turned up nothing incriminating on Trump, again because of the unique ability of the President to thwart the investigation, through the pardon-power. But more may come to light on this, in the Assange trial.
I stand corrected... Mueller did not say this explicitly, but it is clearly implied by what he did say. He refrains from indicting Trump, because he was in doubt that such an indictment was in the scope of the powers of his office, because (he believed) the sitting President could not be tried, and indicting him anyway, with a trial pending on his departure from office, would be an imposition on the regular functioning of the Executive branch. No other citizen, in government or no, would enjoy such a privilege.
Nonetheless, he explicitly does not exonerate Trump of charges of obstruction. And he says: “With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice” - Impeachment being clearly one of the remedies Congress could resort to.
Look, it's pretty simple: if you don't need to win the popular vote to be a legitimate President, then you can get any number of minority-votes, and still be (in your mind, anyway) a legitimate President - right down to 0. Obviously wrong, but who knows, the "We're not a democracy" crowd may go hard with it.
The Trump Tower meeting with the Russian envoy was collusion. Cooperating with a hostile foreign government for oppo on your political opponent is an act which is not only a betrayal of the country & its values, but also a) serves as a signal to the hostile government that you could be exploited for other quid pro quos that run in opposition to the national interest, and/or b) threatens to make you liable for blackmail. When the Democrats get control of Congress again, they will need to set about making such contacts illegal.
There are also still outstanding questions about the significance of the Manafort's liaison with Konstantin Kilimnik, for the Trump campaign. And then there are all the Russian citizens who met mysterious deaths immediately after Trump's election. The truth will out on all of it - I would not be in the least surprised to uncover eventual proof of a criminal conspiracy involving Trump and his campaign.
No. You stated your opinion.
The fact you doe not believe Trump to be a legitimate president in no way means he isn't.
By every legal standard - that is, every standard by which power is transferred and held - Trump is the legitimate President.
-Your- opinion on the matter doesn't matter.
You admit Trump didn't commit a crime, but still undertook the actions that would constitute a crime.
If Trump "obviously" committed the acts you believe he committed,m the Mueller would have been able to muster the evidence of criminal behavior.
Mueller was unable to to muster the evidence of criminal behavior
If not B then not A.
Your statement is false - nothing Mueller said implied any such thing
Disagree? Cite/copy/paste the text.
Mueller was charged to determine if Trump obstructed justice, not to exonerate him.
As was unable to make the factual determinations necessary for obstruction to exist means he did not find that Trump committed obstruction.
As we saw, Congress can impeach a President for anything it wants -- if Trump so obviously committed obstruction of justice, why didn't Congress impeach Trump for what was in the Mueller report?
Reading is fundamental
"Winning" the majority of the "popular vote" has never, ever, been a standard for the legitimacy of a President
Why do you disagree?
Why do you think getting more votes than anyone else makes you "legitimate"?
Mueller disagreed - and thus, your opinion to the contrary means nothing.
No, it's simply a matter of the evidentiary burden for demonstrating conspiracy (factoring things like: what constitutes being a thing "of value" in an exchange, and what were the intentions/state of mind of the alleged conspirators) is set very high; it is plain to everyone that the Trump campaign taking that meeting was outrageous, but the law needs to be changed, before that kind of event could be classed as criminal. That's the difference between 'collusion' (which it plainly was) and criminal conspiracy.
Your complaint would be with Mueller, not me. Mueller did not clear Trump. All the evidence suggests that Mueller didn't think it was in the scope of his office to issue an indictment against Trump, and that's why he didn't do it. Probably also explains why he didn't subpoena Trump.
They should have. But Impeachment is a deeply political act, and Pelosi did not want to undertake it, unless she was reasonably certain that she would have the votes. AG Barr's masterful obfuscation of the report's findings, drained off the political pressure for Impeachment. But that doesn't have any relevance for the case on the merits. On the merits, Trump should have been impeached, no matter how it would have gone in the Senate.
Uh... I'd say the reason for that is self-evident. If you want to claim that (in countries with popularly elected self-government) that getting the majority of the votes in elections is neither necessary nor sufficient for a candidate's political legitimacy, I'd say the burden of proof for that claim is on you. So, let's hear it (knowing you, I'm not holding my breath)
OP thinks HE Makes the rules of the country. Sorry @Modus Ponens but you are NOT the founding fathers. The system looks like its working to me. We had one party 4 years ago and now another party is in charge of the presidency. the system is working fine. He got elected so he's legitimate. Just like Biden is legitimate (despite all the mail in voter fraud). RULES ARE RULES and you lefties will learn this some day, and maybe even appreciate the genius that our founding fathers had in shaping this country.
Nothing here changes the fact that if Trump "obviously" committed the crimes you claim, Mueller would have said so.
You want to ignore Mueller's finding and substitute your own. You can do that, but there's no reason for any thinking person to take you seriously when you do.
Mueller did not determine that Trump committed obstruction of justice.
"Did he commit obstruction"
"Can't say he did".
"OK - we're done here".
Nowhere does Mueller say this, however, and so this is your unsupported assertion.
In FACT, Mueller did not make the factual determinations necessary for a charge of obstruction, absent these determinations, even if Trump were not the President, he could not conclude that his actions rose to the level of an obstruction charge.
Fast forward to December 2019. So much for that.
Impeached for what? Obstruction of justice? Based on what?
Mueller did not make the factual determinations necessary for such a charge.
You're confusing and possibly conflating "majority" and "move votes than anyone else". Pay better attention.
Tell us how, in a democracy, simply getting more votes than anyone makes a President "legitimate".
Never mind the fact the US, like every other western democracy, does not popularly elect its head of government
Separate names with a comma.