2000 all over again. The more things change the more they stay the same http://ijr.com/2017/01/777677-john-lewis-donald-trump-is-not-a-legitimate-president/
Which was, of course, the last time that one party lost the White House to another and the other played sore losers. Right?
"Sore losers" is a taunt by the right meant to shut up the left whenever the former steals an election. Myself, I have no idea at this point whether Donald was legitimately elected or not. We simply lack the information because the US electoral system is such a fucking, eminently stealable mess. And impervious to inspection after the fact. I certainly think it wholly possible that Donald was legitimately elected according to the rules in place. Possible. God help us. But the 2000 and 2004 elections were clearly stolen by the Republicans, whether the Dems saw fit to get into a snit in 2004 or not. And the Democrats (i.e. that old mafioso Joe Kennedy) most certainly stole the 1960 election from Richard Nixon. If he hadn't, we probably wouldn't be sitting here chatting about it.
Yeah, the first guy listed is John Lewis (Dumocrat) from right here in Georgia (represent!!!) Color me surprised. I will give him credit though for acting in the interests of though who put him in office - that's what he's supposed to do.
Okay... listen up, you stupid Trump-supporting halfwits. This isn't a left- or right-wing issue. Trump is entirely unqualified to hold the highest elected office in your country. He's a fucking has-been reality star with the mentality and temperment of a spoiled 10-year-old. He has no experience leading people or government. (And no, his string of failed businesses do not qualify as "experience".) His election victory is likely due, in some part, to meddling from foreign intelligence agencies. If you are a true conservative or libertarian, you should be doing everything in your power to stymie this retard of a president-elect. There is absolutely no comparison to the Gore-Bush election of 2000, no matter what the left-wing loonies cry about. Regardless of your opinion of George W. Bush, he at least had political experience. Trump is an unmitigated disaster and your country has gone down a path that makes the entire world a worse place. Thanks, America!
All very true but beside the point. This thread is about Donald's electoral legitimacy (or lack thereof), not whether he's a dangerously unstable fuckhead. Yeah, of signing one death warrant after the other in Texas. And besides, neither of his "elections" was kosher. At all. Whereas Donald's ...... well, there's scope for doubt, he may have been duly elected.
You're not helping the conversation. For the last time: do not compare Trump with Bush. Did the heads of national security agencies state in 2000 or 2004 that the outcome of those elections was likely influenced by foreign interference? No? Then go play in the sandbox with the other little kids. K thanks.
In fairness, there are also a lot of smart and decent people. It's just that the stupid folks are out-breeding them. But the U.S. is not unique in that regard.
You're not helping the conversation. You're talking about something other than the subject as stated in the OP. Quote from link: "Rep. John Lewis said he does not believe that Donald Trump is a legitimately elected president." Yes SIR!!! Of course not. The interference was internal. No. Sorry, buddy, ahm a-stayin rawt heah.
yes, the stupid folks (democrats many who won't graduate high school) are out-breeding the conservatives. Granted many will be felons but not allowed to vote anyway, so it's not that big a factor.
Lewis is full of shit at this point because Russian hacking or misinformation which may have caused voters to choose Trump at the last minute does not equate to direct Russian involvement. I can't expect Lewis' supporters to understand this concept, nor Lewis himself.
Lewis is full of shit. Trump was legitimately elected. The only question is how much the electorate was swayed by propaganda and confusion generated by the Russians. The answer in no way invalidates his election any more than the plethora of PAC funded negative ads. oldfella, you're only half full: the Russian effort was over many months, not at the "last minute." This does equate to direct Russian involvement. According to US intelligence, Putin ordered the hacks by teams of Russian hackers. That derogatory information was not released about Trump would indicate he favored Trump. Unless you actually believe Trump and Putin, then you'd be full of shit.
No, we don't lack the information. The voting process was not tampered with. The donald was legitimately elected.
No shit. According to the constitution he is qualified. All true. I stated his failures as a businessman many times during election. His election was due to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania flipping red due to him being the only of the two candidates who was talking about their issues I did my part by not voting for him. Pitching a fit after an election because the results didn't go your way is the very definition of being a sore loser and the left demonstrated that consistently for the past few months. I don't want any association with that thank you very much. Dems were questioning Ws legitmacy so yes it's completely comparable. You're welcome.
I'm not saying he wasn't (which is sort of the horrifying thing ...). But how can you be certain? First, he won by razor-thin margins in the Rustbucket States that gave him the key EC votes. It would not have taken much to flip those states. Second, there have been so many shenanigans (practically ignored by the media) in quite recent elections that those, potentially, could be the deciding votes right there. Let's forget the Russians for a sec. What on earth guarantees the legitimacy of an election in which local state politics can play such a decisive role (see Florida 2000, for example)?
All intelligence is negative that any polling was tampered with. I'm not disputing shenanigans during the campaign but that's kinda SOP for the US. Sucks liberals aren't better at it as we have such a rep for being frauds.
What does the right want to hear? "Ohhh it's gooood that they're destroying the ACA without a replacement plan! ". "Ohhh it's goooood that Trump is hostile to the free press! ". "Ohhhh it's gooood that science deniers and theocrats are in charge of the environment, and women's health. ". If that's what you want, you're not going to get it.
What they want is to gloat. Meantime, you can meet all comers with the information that Hillary got almost three million (count 'em!) more votes than Donald did. Not your fault that the US has an ass-backwards 18th-century constitution.
Hillary ran in an election that required her to win the electoral college and not the popular vote. She knew that going in and that's why she conceded when she lost the electoral college by a clear margin. You should be far more concerned that Trump got anywhere near enough votes to even get close to the office, let alone win it. That is the most damning aspect of all, and none of that is about Trump himself or a bad system, it's about the people who looked at his atrocious behaviour and still thought he was fit for office. That's where the real shame lies.
You're not helping going down this tangent. We know how fucked up the EC system is. Until and unless the GOP gets screwed out of an election under this system, it won't ever change. Period. It's a non starter to bang on this drum. Move on.
Anyone ever heard how are Hillary Clinton and the New York Giants similar? Neither one showed up in Wisconsin.
How can you be sure the toothbrush was invented in Arkansas? If it had been invented anywhere else, it would have been named a teethbrush.
