A straightforward question: Why do some of you think Trump is not "legitimate"?

Sorry, Trump won legitimately, fair and square. Time for a reality check.

 

Nice try but what about the Electoral College? It is in the Constitution too.

 

Only definition 1 matters; the remainder are matters of opinion.
Since you said "facts only", matters of opinion are excluded.

See: Definition 1

See: Definition 1

Your conclusion is unsupportable -- see above.

 

The question was whether calling trump's presidency "illegitimate" was honest and valid. I showed there are ways of calling it "illegitimate" that are completely valid.

 

That is merely your opinion. And who ever said John Lewis' comment was not his opinion?

The definitions I posted are, in fact, real definitions. The are taken as definitions and that is a fact. You're playing stupid games with me again.

 

Because what else can they say.

 

The word illegitimate can in some contexts be used as a synonym to words illogical, fake (not genuine) and unjustified, according to the definitions that you posted.

Guess what, none of these contexts is even remotely applicable to election results. The only applicable definitions are #1 and #2 in your list according to which Trump's presidency is absolutely and undeniably legit... If you thought you were clever, think again.

 

YOU said "facts only". matters of opinion, per your rules, do not apply.
Thus, only definition 1 matters as the remainder are matters of opinion.

Of the issues you presented not revolving around pure opinion, definition 1 negates them.

To wit:
He is not logically legitimate because he lost the popular vote by over 2.6 million.
Definition 1 renders this moot. The popular vote does not and never has determined the winner of the election.

His presidency is not justified by the popular vote so there is a legitimate complaint (6).
Definition 1 renders this moot. The popular vote does not and never has determined the winner of the election.

So, according to the facts, your argument is unsupportable.

 

That is merely your opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

That is a very incomplete "refutation" of what I posted. You lose again.

 

Hillary was winning up until the night of the election, according to the "experts". Some were predicting a landslide and were worried how Trump would handle defeat and whether he would accept her election. She was never behind in the last month leading to the election, even after the Comey announcement.

Soooo, when Comey decided not to indict her back in July a couple of days after his boss, Loretta Lynch, met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac, did you see anything smarmy or illegal about that? Comey announced he would not prosecute her even though he laid out a bill of particulars of her crimes that many experts said would have resulted in the prosecution and jail time for anyone not named Hillary Clinton. There was an example of a sailor who got jail time for having photos of classified equipment on his cell phone. Hillary was not prosecuted even though she had classified info on her bathroom server.

At the time of the announcement by Comey that he would not recommend prosecution he said he would report to Congress if any new information came to light that required re-opening of the investigation. Then, when Anthony showed his Weiner to a teen age girl again and Huma's laptop was shown to have thousands of e-mails that needed to be investigated, Comey did what he promised and announced he was re-opening the investigation. Oddly, they were able to go through tens of thousands of e-mails in a few days despite dragging out the investigation for a year or so into thousands of others that Hillary delivered through the State Department.

Comey was blasted for not doing his job in July by Republicans. Then he was blasted again in October for actually doing his job by Democrats.

Trump was under investigation over his ties to Russia? Says who? I haven't heard anything about it.

IF the Russians hacked the Clinton campaign and revealed the sleazy back door effort to defeat Bernie, the collusion between the press and the campaign, all they did was marginally counter balance the effect of the Press collusion and conspiracy to go all out to defeat Trump (92% of the articles in the MSM in the last month of the election were negative towards Trump). Given that our own media, who are supposed to be neutral watchdogs, were totally in the tank for Clinton, I find it difficult to be upset that the Wikileaks people did the media's job for them in finding out the depth of the Clinton/Democrat corruption.

"Badly handled e-mails". Yeah...that's it. Reduction of a criminal activity and conspiracy to cover it up to "badly handled e-mails"

 

The remainder of your points were opinion; according to your "facts only" statement, opinions do not matter.
As such, I need not address the opinions you presented, which leaves you with...

He is not logically legitimate because he lost the popular vote by over 2.6 million.
Definition 1 renders this moot. The popular vote does not and never has determined the winner of the election.

His presidency is not justified by the popular vote so there is a legitimate complaint (6).
Definition 1 renders this moot. The popular vote does not and never has determined the winner of the election.

Feel free to argue otherwise; be sure to include only facts.

 

Why cant you just admit Hillary sucks ? Comey should have prosecuted her he did her a favor.

Meanwhile over 50 dem congressmen are sitting out the inauguration

Maybe Hillary should go talk to them all

Trump is not the nominee he is the president elect for gods sake. Its the left trying to delegitimize his election that stinks

 

So your reason is you see Russia and a bunch of Communists and share Joseph McCarthy's view that anyone who has anything to do with or has any view other than hatred of Russia and Russians is a Communist traitor. It is curious how so many Democrats have become the most pro-war, red scare militarists since the 1950s because is the campaign Clinton ran.

 

When grown-ups discuss the [il]legitimacy of Trump's presidency, they're trying to establish whether #1 and #2 definitions are met. Not whether it's illogical.

 

Not at all. Those definitions factually exist and are valid. -FACT. And no one ever said Lewis' comment was one based on the Constitution and not his opinion based on the full definition of "illegitimate". You lose again.

 

Funny how its usually the left accusing the right of conspiracy theories .

 

Well as for myself, I am just defending Lewis' comment. I am not arguing legitimacy according to some narrow, legalistic, "constitutional" definition that the right insists on pushing as "the only definition".

- - - Updated - - -

LOL!! So you're losing the argument and have to fall back on an attempt to intimidate and ridicule. You lose again.

 

The application of those definitions are based on your OPINION. According to the rules you laid down, your opinion does not matter.

So, this leaves you two points which you have as yet not even tried to defend

He is not logically legitimate because he lost the popular vote by over 2.6 million.
Definition 1 renders this moot. The popular vote does not and never has determined the winner of the election.

His presidency is not justified by the popular vote so there is a legitimate complaint (6).
Definition 1 renders this moot. The popular vote does not and never has determined the winner of the election.

Feel free to argue otherwise; be sure to include only facts.

 

Be specific. I didn't lay down rules. I said I am defending Lewis' comment which was his opinion. But "opinion"? Definition 4 is not "opinion" for example. If it is a matter of opinion whether an argument is logical or not, then we may just as well scrap the word "logical" as it would be meaningless.

You lose again.

 

I dont think Lewis ever met a Rep either running for or who was elected president. He lied when he said Trump was the 1st inauguration he missed. In fact he did the the same to GWB

Then theres this

In the 2008 presidential election, Lewis suggested Republican John McCain also represented a throwback to George Wallace, who Lewis seems to forget was a member of his party: “What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history

 

The popular vote rarely diverges from the electoral outcome, and never by this much. But that aside, if we go with your statement here on definition 1 rendering it moot, then we have to say that what is "logical" and "legitimate" cannot diverge from, or conflict with, that which is legal. And that would make the formation of this country illegitimate, it would render civil rights illegitimate, and it would have rendered much of what makes the U.S. and capitalism what it is today "illegitimate".

You lose again.

 

Post 25:
Ok, FACTS ONLY...
Thus, you wish to discuss only facts.

Yes... and your argument with respect to #4:
He is not logically legitimate because he lost the popular vote by over 2.6 million.
Definition 1 renders this moot. The popular vote does not and never has determined the winner of the election.

Your argument with respect to definition #6
His presidency is not justified by the popular vote so there is a legitimate complaint (6).
Definition 1 renders this moot. The popular vote does not and never has determined the winner of the election.

Feel free to argue otherwise; be sure to include only facts.

 

Like i said, Lewis an idiot and a hack that he is, is attacking Trump claiming that definitions #1 and/or #2 weren't met, not because he thinks the election results were illogical. The "illogical" thing is just you, sweetheart.

 

Irrelevant.
The popular vote does not and never has determined the winner of the election.

As the law defines the method for determining the winner of the election, any argument against that method is irrelevant.

Thus, your points are proven moot.

 

I guess your saying Trumps parents werent married then


If anyone was illegitimate it was Obama who was not an NBC yet Reps didnt boycott his inauguration

Lewis even clarified why he called Trump illegitimate and it was all BS unlike Obama whos was questioned on a constitutional basis