Legitimacy

[Fledermaus]

The law gives standing to any candidate who was on the ballot for that office.

And if we all can get back on the issue of the thread topic - LEGITIMACY - today Congressman John Lewis of Georgia - one of the most highly respected and beloved members of Congress and a civil rights icon and hero - publicly announced to the nation that he now believes Trump is not legitimate as president of the USA.

This is a great voice added to the issue and this claim will only increase in volume over the weeks and months ahead.

Your OPINION is noted.

Unfortunately for you, your OPINION is trumped by the decision of judges who obviously are better versed in the matter.

 

[Fledermaus]

The law gives standing to any candidate who was on the ballot for that office.

And if we all can get back on the issue of the thread topic - LEGITIMACY - today Congressman John Lewis of Georgia - one of the most highly respected and beloved members of Congress and a civil rights icon and hero - publicly announced to the nation that he now believes Trump is not legitimate as president of the USA.

This is a great voice added to the issue and this claim will only increase in volume over the weeks and months ahead.

The election is done.

One legitimate winner.

Deal with it.

 

[haymarket]

Your OPINION is noted.

Unfortunately for you, your OPINION is trumped by the decision of judges who obviously are better versed in the matter.

Except my opinion is based on the actual recount law. We have yet to find out what the judges in the case based theres on but it was NOT the language in the recount law.

 

[haymarket]

The election is done.

One legitimate winner.

Deal with it.

Oh there was a winner - but he is far from legitimate. Trump is the most illegitimate person to take over the office of president since Andrew Johnson in 1865.

 

[code1211]

How is changing the Constitution a move away from the Constitution since the Founders themselves gave us that very methodology?

Your stance seems to have changed since the post in which yuou wrote this:

"Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post

So what. It was at one time for a very long time. And legality is not any justification for the merit of anything.

 

[haymarket]

Your stance seems to have changed since the post in which yuou wrote this:

"Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post

So what. It was at one time for a very long time. And legality is not any justification for the merit of anything.

First, I do not see what that has to do with amending the Constitution.

Second.... Slavery was legal. That does not justify it.

Treating women as little better than pets was legal. That does not justify it.

The list could go on and on and on. Something that is legal simply means the law allows it. In and of itself that does not justify it as any sort of a good.

 

[CriticalThought]

First, you have to prove it.

Hillary was a terrible candidate with more baggage than Jet Blue.

Trump truly is a sad man if his supporters HAVE to literally bring up Hillary in every thread he is criticized.

 

[chuckiechan]

Trump truly is a sad man if his supporters HAVE to literally bring up Hillary in every thread he is criticized.

Well, it's hard to deny that one candidates success is not related to the performance of the other.

 

[eohrnberger]

Also, the meddling would have tobe much more severe than publishing information that was true albeit stolen.

From everything that I've heard, the voters had pretty much already made up their minds by the time the WikiLeaks revelations had started to come out. So the question is what damage did it cause the Hillary campaign? From my view, not any more damage than she already had caused herself. Still, how would you be able to prove that the WikiLeaks did any damage in any accurate way?

 

[Fledermaus]

Oh there was a winner - but he is far from legitimate. Trump is the most illegitimate person to take over the office of president since Andrew Johnson in 1865.

Based on what?

The election?

He won.

A legitimate win.

No amount of post-election crying changes that.

 

[Fledermaus]

Except my opinion is based on the actual recount law.

According to actual judges in the cases... No it isn't.

We have yet to find out what the judges in the case based theres on but it was NOT the language in the recount law.

Simple and intentional ignorance as to the statements made concerning the inability of the Plaintiffs to present any evidence of tampering or mistake.

I would think the words "Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury" would be clear enough. Obviously not.

 

[code1211]

First, I do not see what that has to do with amending the Constitution.

Second.... Slavery was legal. That does not justify it.

Treating women as little better than pets was legal. That does not justify it.

The list could go on and on and on. Something that is legal simply means the law allows it. In and of itself that does not justify it as any sort of a good.

Out society and all others are based on a set of rules, whether secular or religious, that are agreed to and accepted by the members of the particular society.

In THE REAL WORLD, legality is the only measure of legality. Morality and justice may be the better yard sticks, but they are only an idea or a concept; not an operating system.

The "good" produced by legality in the best case is fairness, not moral justice. All in all, that's about the best we can hope for.

Fairness does not mean right or good. It only means that given the prevailing circumstances, all people will be treated as well and as equally as possible. Even in our system, which seems to be a pretty good one viewed historically, there are and have been injustices that are legal.

As a result, a young man will get pulled over by a cop for "Driving While Black" and a former Secretary of State will flaunt laws that have put others in jail. That is how our system works. It is provided to impose order, not justice.

I am always amused by those who lament the plight of the victims of DWB's and also deny that there is favoritism afforded to Hillary based on nothing more or less than her status. Both are perversions of the philosophical notion of "right" and products of the same philosophy of institutionally supported of injustice.

It is impossible to find a single intellectual support for one of these injustices and not for the other.

 

[haymarket]

Based on what?

The election?

He won.

A legitimate win.

No amount of post-election crying changes that.

A legal win.

Learn the difference between that and legitimacy.

 

[haymarket]

According to actual judges in the cases... No it isn't.

The judges in the case DO NOT write the recount law. I provided it for you.

I would think the words "Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury" would be clear enough. Obviously not.

Which is why we have recounts in the fist place to find evidence of error or mistake. To pretend that one first must have the evidence that the recount would discover is totally and completely inane and a reversal of reality.

 

[Fledermaus]

The judges in the case DO NOT write the recount law. I provided it for you.



Which is why we have recounts in the fist place to find evidence of error or mistake. To pretend that one first must have the evidence that the recount would discover is totally and completely inane and a reversal of reality.

They didn't have to write the law.

Plaintiff neither provided evidence nor did they have standing.

A double fail.

The recount began, and there apparently was no evidence of inaccuracy that warranted durther recount.

Live with reality.

 

[haymarket]

They didn't have to write the law.

Then why did they not apply the law that I gave you and mentions no such things as the stuff you have been talking about?

The law gives any candidate for the office standing to file for a recount.

 

[Fledermaus]

Then why did they not apply the law that I gave you and mentions no such things as the stuff you have been talking about?

The law gives any candidate for the office standing to file for a recount.

Face it.

People who understand the law concept more than you have determined both that Stein had not provided evidence of anomalies nor did she have standing.

A double fail.

 

[haymarket]

Face it.

People who understand the law concept more than you have determined both that Stein had not provided evidence of anomalies nor did she have standing.

A double fail.

People who can read the law I provided for you can see any candidate who ran for the office has standing and could pay for a recount.

Oh wait... sorry ---- I almost forgot ...... you FAIL!!!!!

 

[Fledermaus]

People who can read the law I provided for you can see any candidate who ran for the office has standing and could pay for a recount.

Oh wait... sorry ---- I almost forgot ...... you FAIL!!!!!

No standing is no standing.

The judges certainly know the law.

And add to that the fact.she failed to provide EVIDENCE of problems.

A loser twofer.

 

[haymarket]

No standing is no standing.

The judges certainly know the law.

And add to that the fact.she failed to provide EVIDENCE of problems.

A loser twofer.

Except the law I gave you provides any candidate for that office with standing.

 

[Fledermaus]

Except the law I gave you provides any candidate for that office with standing.

Obviously irrelevant to the people who matter.

Add to that no evidence of anomalies that would warrant continuance of the Michigan recount.

Your illegitimate attempts to delegitimize the legitimate Electoral College victory by way of illegitimate recounts legitimately rejected are noted and mocked.

 

[haymarket]

Obviously irrelevant to the people who matter.

The law of the land is irrelevant? God save us from ourselves if that is actually true.

 

[Fledermaus]

The law of the land is irrelevant? God save us from ourselves if that is actually true.

Irrelevant according to the pertinent laws.

 

[haymarket]

Irrelevant according to the pertinent laws.

You have not quoted any law. I quoted the state law on recounts giving any candidate who ran for the office standing to file for a recount.

You have invoked individuals opinions.

 

[Fledermaus]

You have not quoted any law. I quoted the state law on recounts giving any candidate who ran for the office standing to file for a recount.

You have invoked individuals opinions.

The is no need to quote jack **** and you know it.

Stein did not have standing. So sayeth the courts.

In addition she did not provide EVIDENCE of anomalies that would warrant further recounting.

Either would be enough to end the recount.

Your intentional ignorance as to the findings of the courts is getting tiresome.