General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSay it with me, Trump's presidency is illegitimate due to Russian intereference in our elections.
He is not the true President of the United States. His election was a fraud.
byronius
(7,369 posts)Exactly.
Kleveland
(1,257 posts)BootinUp
(46,924 posts)months ago.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I actually suspect more than trolling & secret mtgs. I suspect targeted hacking at a few district voting places. That's all it would take. It's possible, with a little help. With Republicans, there's no shortage of that kind of help.
lanlady
(7,133 posts)At times like these, one wishes there was a mechanism to invalidate election results.
DavidDvorkin
(19,404 posts)He was elected by the Electoral College. That makes him legitimate, no matter what led the EC to vote that way.
Yavin4
(35,355 posts)He is not the president of the United States. We have no president. We have someone squatting in the White House.
PJMcK
(21,916 posts)Your legal view is wrong.
As DavidDworkin wrote above, the Electoral College voted and elected Trump. Prior to that vote, each state and territory had their election results certified by the Secretaries of State or other official administrator, (I don't know who certifies in the territories or DC). Following the Electoral College vote, Congress certified that vote making Trump the president. That's it.
I share your dismay that this fraud is in the White House and embarrassing us as a nation before the world. Trump will be president until he resigns, is impeached and convicted, is removed by use of the 25th Amendment or in 2021 when we elected a Democratic president to succeed Trump.
moda253
(615 posts)I want more information on the possible vote tampering.
PJMcK
(21,916 posts)The legal point is that we don't have the legal standing to challenge the certifications. I know it's frustrating but there still exists a rule of law in our nation.
Yavin4
(35,355 posts)Meanwhile the Republicans break every rule, every law in the book and hold power. While we sit on the sidelines.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)The president is sleeping with Bill Clinton (I hope)
This is a joke about Bill's behavour, not hers.
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)because right now if it went to the Senate alone we would lose as we simply dont have enough seats so we need to focus on gaining back all we lost and later down the road once he is out of office we can launch an even deeper criminal probe into everything the Repugnants have done and expose them and pursue criminal charges where it is warranted with I would hope no plea deals being granted.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)sworn in at that point as Bush had not yet taken the oath and assumed office rather it was regarding an ongoing recount of the votes in florida.
Trump has been sworn in though so going to the courts to try and remove him from office is not an option at all in any way shape or form because the court has no power at all to remove a sitting president for any reason that power is only granted to Congress.
Lokilooney
(322 posts)I seem to also be in the minority in being skeptical about how much effect Russian meddling had. I've said this before as an example; WI was one of the big upsets during the night, Donald Trump visited the state 6 times and was one of the last states to visit just before the election. Hillary became the first major party candidate to skip campaigning in the general election in WI since 1972...Yeah, must have been the Russians...
I knew in September in my northeastern section of Ohio that Hillary was in trouble. While driving my kids all over four counties for school events I saw 20 Trump signs to every Hillary sign. I kept telling people that this is not in the bag for Hillary but nobody believed me.
As far as Russian meddling goes from all reputable sources I have read is that all we know for certain is that they hacked into the DNC computers and tried to hack the RNC. The DNC hack showed that the DNC and Hillary colluded to make sure she was the nominee.
Sad to say we are stuck with Trump until 2018.
spanone
(135,632 posts)Response to Yavin4 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Sneederbunk
(14,207 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)and people being duped by whatever they read online, or apparently by the order its presented in a search engine.
superpatriotman
(6,232 posts)Fraud
Fraud
Fraud
Fraud
It feels good.
Fraud
Fraud
Fraud
...
Quanta
(195 posts)Faker...Sad!
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)majority of their votes.
Yavin4
(35,355 posts)Therefore, the EC votes were also illegitimate.
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)So if a totally numb skull won the general election they could elect a good person for the job.
Now if a lot of states had not passed laws making the electors vote for the person they were elected for, then the results might have been different. We do not vote for anyone in the general just a bunch of electors,
.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)Even then you had to be male and own property to be able to vote.
keithbvadu2
(36,362 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(59,940 posts)stevepal
(109 posts)and the other voting machine companies that have stolen God knows how many elections already and will continue stealing the elections regardless of what the actual vote is.
Borchkins
(722 posts)Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)flibbitygiblets
(7,220 posts)meow2u3
(24,743 posts)At best, he benefited from an international conspiracy to commit espionage with the intent of sabotaging election integrity, and at worst, he is guilty of treason because he's doing the bidding of the Russian government, not the US government.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,786 posts)SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)redstatebluegirl
(12,264 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Will Democratic lawmakers put forth legislation to refuse to allow any further legislation or executive orders while the President is under criminal investigation? Will they be brave enough to ask that all signed EO's and legislation be considered null and void because of this sham of a Presidency?
Don't they all realize that the next POTUS will have to undo all this lunacy?
Moral Compass
(1,498 posts)No matter what happens from here on the Trump administration and this Congress cannot escape the simple fact that this election, due to their blatant collusion with a hostile foreign power to hack the election, is irrevocably illegitimate.
And they've all done everything in their power to make it worse once they assumed power.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)can never take office due to our screwed up system and Electoral College failing to work as it is allegedly supposed to do. Even if it did so, the years long, Republican nurtured Clinton hatred and deranged and stoked up Trump fanatics (he's seen to keeping the hatred up, rather than uniting the nation) would be up for bloodshed. I hope Hillary is content to have actually been elected the first woman president without having to exhaust herself in the actual job. She still has a lot to offer.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)The fruit of a poisoned tree is also poison?
dchill
(38,320 posts)in our elections.
So are a number of Senate seats.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)kimbutgar
(20,873 posts)We can talk until we are blue in the face but these cult members don't care that a foreign country installed their puppet in the White House. They rigged the election and who knows what else they did to put in the orange menace.
Pauldg47
(640 posts)standingtall
(2,785 posts)BlueJac
(7,838 posts)TrogL
(32,818 posts)It's poison fruit of the same campaign
neeksgeek
(1,214 posts)standingtall
(2,785 posts)neeksgeek
(1,214 posts)broadcaster90210
(333 posts)And we have an illigitmate SCOTUS. Any 5-4 decision in which Gorsuch is in the majority should be ignored.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I understand the concerns about the election. But not this: "Any 5-4 decision in which Gorsuch is in the majority should be ignored." No. You just can't do that.
Suppose a federal Circuit Court of Appeals, hearing a tax case, rules that a particular deduction is permissible. On appeal, the Supreme Court reverses by 5-4, with Gorsuch in the majority. A taxpayer, even one living in that circuit, had better not claim that deduction. If the taxpayer is prosecuted, do you plan to pay the fee for a top-notch defense lawyer to explain why the Supreme Court decision should be ignored? And when the taxpayer is convicted anyway, do you plan to visit the prison every Sunday with a batch of homemade cookies?
As others have said in this thread, we have a rule of law. It doesn't always produce correct results, but that's not a basis for anyone to pick and choose which laws they'll obey.
broadcaster90210
(333 posts)My endgame is the fundamental change of our governmental structure. Quite simply, what we have does not work. Not only does it not work it results in the suffering and death of our citizens all in the name of capitalism. The dollar is more important than life. Fantasy (religious beliefs) are more important than human life.
One of many examples that should not be permitted to enjoy the protection of precedent. Let us say that SCOTUS, in one of those 5-4 decisions I reference, decides that doctors are protected if they don't want to treat LGBTQ because of the doctor's religious beliefs. As a result, people WILL die. We are close to this already. We should simply wait until a later SCOTUS overrules it? Dred Scott lasted about 100 years. That is absolutely untenable.
The difference between you and I is that you want to protect the system (I get it). I do not It is time to end this. We can do better. It is tolerance of the system that has gotten us here.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Dred Scott did not last 100 years. It was an 1857 Supreme Court decision holding that slaves and their descendants were not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, abrogated that decision by establishing that birth in the United States was sufficient for citizenship.
Here's where the middle game comes in. It's a good thing that we didn't have to wait a century for the change to come, but it's a bad thing that 600,000 people were killed in the Civil War to make it happen. In that particular instance, it was probably unavoidable. I don't want anyone to think I'm endorsing Trump's view that the dispute over slavery could have been worked out. (As a side note, unrelated to your post, I think Trump's comments about the Civil War were outlandish even for him -- admittedly a very high standard to meet but I think he did it. He genuinely believes that he's a brilliant negotiator and that he could have succeeded where lesser minds like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and Stephen A. Douglas failed.)
The general point is that, even after you've picked your objective, you have to think about the different ways of getting there. I think there's a lot about our legal system and about society in general that ought to be changed, but I don't see an effective path to change through pretending that Neil Gorsuch isn't on the Supreme Court.
snort
(2,334 posts)onetexan
(12,994 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)What did the Russians do to cause Trump to win states that he would not have otherwise won? Did they hack election day vote totals?
standingtall
(2,785 posts)harbored enough resentment through propaganda to push liberals and progressives over the edge to vote 3rd party or write in candidates.
Impossible to measure how many people were effected,but given the whole electoral college came down to 80,000 votes in 3 states it is pretty save to assume that was enough to flip the election.
Russia also could've flipped votes. Maybe true that our intelligence agencies say there is no evidence of that,but it is also true that our intelligence agencies didn't do a single investigation to make sure voting machines weren't hacked post election.
We don't need both of those things to be true to prove the election was stolen. Either one of those things is enough. Time for Democrats to stop trying accept Trump as a legitimate President all together.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)a good bit of evidence to back it up. People seem really convinced that it happened, but when asked why, all I'm seeing is guesses as to what may have happened with little actual evidence to back it up.