Rep john lewis says trump is not legitimate potus

Trump is the legitimate POTUS, although there are those who may attempt to delegitimate him by fantasizing that he is foreign-born, madrassa-indoctrinated, or some such nonsense.

Hyper-partisans in Congress may be even be hellbent on denying him a second term, and defer the interests of the nation to accomplish that petty objective.

Yes, millions more Americans chose his opponent to lead the nation; yes, America's enemy conspired to get the political ingénue elected; yes, the FBI contrived a baseless crisis proximate to the election to his benefit.

When will he keep his word and release his tax returns? When will he erect his "big beautiful wall" of concrete and rebar and force Mexico to pay for it? When will he provide Americans with his "beautiful" health care scheme that covers "everybody"? When will he resurrect the high-paying blue-collar jobs of decades ago in coal mining, steel production, and manufacturing?

Even the most fanatical of Trump true-believers should have no cause to fear those questions being asked.

They should expect to delight in seeing his 282 vows fulfilled.

​

Americans will exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, and the press will exercise it's freedom and responsibility to inform them, but as distressing as it may be to so many patriots, the tweet-happy reality tv performer is now the president.

Speaking truth to power and opposing the Washington elite (however callow) is a democratic virtue. Denunciation of such admirable conduct is high praise, indeed.

 

Is this what you wanted by means of thoughtful liberal comment (link)? My views are more like those of a left-wing extremist, whose political heroes are Katherine Boudine, Bill Ayers, Charles Manson and Bernadette Dohm, but tell me what you think.

 

After Obama's victories have the Trumpian minions gone around smashing windows?

 

Hillary was a bad candidate period, and it really had nothing to do with race. She received less votes among blacks, hispanics, Asians, and whites compared to Obama.

BTW, if Trump ends up being a terrible president, it may not matter who the Dems run in the future. But even if the Dems only run minority candidates, so what? Your party has and will continue to run white male candidates to appease their base. There's no difference on this particular issue, so for you to be pointing the finger is down right hilarious.

Apparently you missed the point.

You're making all kinds of excuses for the fact that self proclaimed "conservative" voters...elected a big government liberal as president.

 

You actually helped me make my point; because Democrats have relied so extensively on identity and tribal politics, minorities will not go to the polls to vote for a white candidate. You're seeing this play out now as the DNC picks a new chairman. This white candidate has realized the only way she'll be voted into the slot is to pander to black members of the party:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...l_white_people_when_to_shut_their_mouths.html

Not excuses, facts. Trump was elected mostly because he was able to draw away many traditional labor Democrats who felt alienated and left behind by their party. He did this in the open primaries and in the general election.

Many labor Democrats indeed were electing a big government liberal. I actually didn't vote for Trump, and I'm not a Republican. I lean Libertarian, so someone like Trump does indeed worry me.

But not nearly as much as Hillary and the left did...

 

The majority of minorities did go out and vote for a white candidate...The ones who didn't support her likely did so because she was a bad candidate...

Are you really trying to argue that Asians would rather vote for a black candidate compared to a white one? lol

I doubt many Democrats voted for Trump. I know plenty of white Democrats, and they either voted Hillary, third party, or didn't vote at all. Trump won because GOP voters backed their candidate in superior numbers compared to Democrats backing their candidate. A decent portion of voters abandoned Hillary, hence why she received less votes than Obama despite more people voting. Trump, on the other hand, received roughly the same support Romney did in 2012.

 

I am.

In California, which is a great laboratory for what the left wants to inflict on the rest of the country, it is very common for Democrats to vote along racial and ethnic lines. From San Francisco to San Jose to Los Angeles, the Asian community supports an Asian candidate, Hispanics support the Hispanic candidate, etc.

In fact, we saw this at the state level when CA Attorney General Kamala Harris, who is black, was on the ballot for Senator (replacing the white leftist Barbara Boxer) against former congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. (CA, in all its liberal/progressive/socialist glory, reworked the primary rules a couple years ago where the top two candidates in a primary meet in the general election.)

And guess what? The Hispanics voted for Sanchez, the blacks voted for Harris. But the white and Asian leftists also liked Harris, so she won. (Both Asians and blacks are worried about the demographics that are turning CA into a Hispanic-majority state.

So yes, with the Democratic Party, it is all about identity politics.

Anecdotal observations are not conclusion, they're simply a reflection of the echo chamber you live in. No offense, but "I know plenty of white Democrats" means absolutely nothing.

Fact: if blacks would have turned out for Hillary, as they did for Obama, she would be president. But they didn't. In fact, they have never turned out for any presidential candidate like they did for Obama both times.

This is simply the result of the identity politics liberals/progressives/socialists have strived for. Which is why they have turned into a regional party who will never again run a white candidate for president.

 

Thus, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Those made a difference in what is normally a very narrow path for the GOP to win.

 

In 1996, the Clintons were guilty of funding Bubba's 1996 campaign by selling influence to China, Korea and Canada, clearly influencing the election. Lewis went to the 1997 inauguration and never complained. Hillary was confirmed as Secretary of State on January 21, 2009, despite her criminality in 1996 and the involvement of 3 foreign countries funding the 1996 Billary election.

The Supreme Court gave Mexico and Central America electoral college votes by having the states include all residents in determining the number of Representatives and, therefore, the number of electors.

There is no proof that Russia manufactured anything that exposed Hillary for the crook she is and, unlike the 1996 case, no absolute proof Russia was involved at all.