What Makes Trump an "Illegitimate" President: This is a serious issue, promoted by so many Americans, so let's take a look at the best case for Trump's illegitimacy, shall we? It was hard to find a serious article that Trump's election was illegitimate (most were just expressing extreme anger at his election), and thus, that impeachment proceedings should begin immediately. I settled on this article by leftist Michael Moore: 6 Reasons Trump is an illegitimate president.
Here are Moore's 6 reasons. We'll take a look at all of them - maybe Michael can change my mind?
1. Hillary had won the popular vote.
2. Trump is mentally unstable.
3. The Russian government interfered in the election.
4. The FBI interfered in the election.
5. Trump’s Secretary of State nominee, Rex Tillerson, would enrich himself.
6. Trump is a criminal.
1. Hillary had won the popular vote. Ummm. This one is easy - ever heard of the Electoral College (EC), as enshrined in the constitution? I'm a big believer in the EC for too many reasons to list - regardless of which party it happens to benefit. However, the biggest reason is that during the constitutional convention (a subject of many books that I have read), the smaller states were afraid of being steam-rolled by the bigger states - a legitimate concern. To this day, states have different interests - we're not one big blob, despite some who argue otherwise. The EC gives more weight to smaller states (just like in the Senate, and to a lesser degree, in the House), which seems reasonable to me. Without this granting of rights to smaller states, we may not have formed this "perfect union" and would not have a country at all. http://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-actual-electoral-map Even if you believe the EC is unfair, it is the law of the land until it is overturned, which will probably never happen.
Interesting Electoral College Comparison: the EC is kind of like how you keep score in the game of Basketball (stay with me here). Each time the basketball goes through the hoop, you get either 3, 2, or 1 point. Outside the 3 point line, you get 3 points; 2 points when it goes through while inside the 3 point line; 1 point for a free throw - those are the rules of the game. Replace "going through the hoop" with "one vote". Just like making a hoop depends on where you are on the court, the value of casting your vote depends on which state you are in. Basketball coaches use the variable point rules to plan their game strategies (think Golden State Warriors), same as presidential candidates when it comes to the Electoral College.
Precedent: Trump is the 5th incident of a candidate winning the EC but not the popular vote. Each time, the opposition claims "illegitimate". The claim holds no water, and never will, as long as we have fair judicial oversight of the election process.
Precedent: Trump is the 5th incident of a candidate winning the EC but not the popular vote. Each time, the opposition claims "illegitimate". The claim holds no water, and never will, as long as we have fair judicial oversight of the election process.
2. Trump is mentally unstable.
I spend a lot of time with mentally ill people - Trump is not one of them. I doubt there is a mental health professional that would find Trump mentally unstable and thus unfit for office. This one has no merit whatsoever.
I spend a lot of time with mentally ill people - Trump is not one of them. I doubt there is a mental health professional that would find Trump mentally unstable and thus unfit for office. This one has no merit whatsoever.
3. The Russian government interfered in the election.
This is perhaps my favorite reason - to rebut. First off, the so-called "Russian Interference" happened under Obama's watch, so wouldn't that be a reason to impeach President Obama (and not Trump) for failing to stop Russian Interference?
Secondly, the U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – we've done so at least 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. Apparently, we think its okay to do so - so when others do it to us, how loudly should we complain? Read more here.
Is this a reason to overturn the election? Recently, Obama famously tried to alter the democratic election of our ally in the middle east, Israel. Yes, Obama dislikes Netanyahu, and did much to make sure Benjamin Netanyahu did not prevail (yet he still did). Countries try to influence the outcome of the elections of other countries all the time. IMHO, that is grounds for overturning an election ONLY IF the candidate aided the foreign countries efforts to do so. No evidence, so far, that Trump aided Putin in publicizing the emails of the DNC on Wikileaks (saying kind things about Putin doesn't count). Interesting to note, however, that there is plenty of evidence that the DNC tried its best to trash the candidacy of Bernie Sanders; if Bernie was my candidate, I would be particularly angry about this one. The democrats don't seem upset about that - not even Bernie!This is perhaps my favorite reason - to rebut. First off, the so-called "Russian Interference" happened under Obama's watch, so wouldn't that be a reason to impeach President Obama (and not Trump) for failing to stop Russian Interference?
Secondly, the U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – we've done so at least 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. Apparently, we think its okay to do so - so when others do it to us, how loudly should we complain? Read more here.
4. The FBI interfered in the election.
You mean, the FBI headed by a person appointed by President Obama? Maybe Obama should have chosen more wisely? Does Obama dislike Hillary that much? I'll let you answer that one. First, Comey was a hero (Hillary is not a criminal), then he was a zero (we're still looking into it).
5. Trump’s Secretary of State nominee, Rex Tillerson, would enrich himself.
You mean, the nominee for Secretary of State who has yet to be confirmed by the senate? This might not even happen, as Tillerson is the most likely of Trump's cabinet selections to NOT get appointed to Trump's cabinet. Maybe we can wait to see if Tillerson is confirmed? Even if he is, NBC reports that Tillerson is already worth $150 million - how much more enriching would he need?
Plus, consider this: on a salary of $400k as President, the Obamas together (Barrack and Michelle) are exiting the White House worth an estimated $24 million - how could this be on a salary of $400k over 8 years - I'll do the math - 8 x $400,000 = $3.2 million (even if they didn't spend a penny). Maybe someone else more important than a cabinet member is enriching themselves excessively? Small wonder that Trump gained a lot of traction by claiming that he would "drain the swamp".
6. Trump is a criminal.
The easiest left for last. This is a legal distinction. I think we would know it if Trump was a convicted criminal - being an "alleged" criminal doesn't count. Just like Hillary, Trump was not charged and convicted of a crime - the thing that would make him a criminal.
Conclusion: Done. That was too easy. I didn't find anything that would lead me to believe that Trump's presidency was illegitimate, and that he should be impeached. Your reasoning might differ.
Fascinating fact: Previously, the oldest elected president was Ronald Reagan, who took the oath of office at the age of 69 in 1981. Donald Trump is 70 years old. Interestingly, had Hillary Clinton won election, she'd have been our second-oldest president-elect at the age of 69. Of course, unlike countries like Japan and Korea, the US just does not respect the wisdom of our elders - we find respect in Silicon Valley-style youth, but not in the ancient amongst us.
Above: Valley of Fire petroglyph, Nevada. Bighorn Sheep.
However, in the United States, age is a protected class, like being a minority, yet the oldest person to take the oath of office in US history is not honored for such an achievement, despite his high level of energy on the campaign trail. Trump's situation is much like how Clarence Thomas is seen as an "Uncle Tom" by the far left, and a tool of the right, and rarely receives accolades for his being the second African American on the Supreme Court.
If our first African American president was a Republican, the person would be receiving none of the respect afforded Obama. I always tell my kids: "life isn't fair - get used to it". Amazing for his age, Trump was a dynamo on the campaign trail, often doing 2 or 3 times as many stops each day as his democrat opponent. Fascinating. See chart below. He badly out hustled Hillary, allowing her to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Let's face it, the election was hers to lose.
Also fascinating is the fact that Trump adopted a tool primarily used by our youth - TWITTER - a fact that young people probably found offensive - perhaps because someone so old was gaining fame using a tool of the their generation? Trump could easily be many millennial members grandfather.
Boycotting the inauguration: George Washington (yes, our first President, whom many wanted to be treated as a "King") took great pride in being the first major country to have a peaceful transition of power. That tradition has continued unabated until now.
Congressman John Lewis' decision to boycott the inauguration lead to an onslaught of legislators to follow his lead. In fact, toomany democrats to count, almost all in well-secured seats in the House of Representatives (but no senators), have decided to boycott our inauguration, lead by one of their own who called Trump an "illegitimate President" due to Russian hacking. Will this lead to a new trend - to protest the peaceful transition of power when you don't like something about the new president? Time will tell.
Much like when Senate Leader Harry Reid exploded the nuclear option to allow positions to be filled by bare majorities in the senate (51 votes) rather than filibuster-proof votes (60 votes), the democrats may come to rue the day when they lead a massive protest against the peaceful transition of power. Though they claim otherwise, tradition has held that inauguration day is apolitical (like me) and is not to celebrate the new president, but to respect the passing of the baton from the old to the new, without violence, but with support from all. To their credit, President Obama and Secretary Clinton get it - they will be their, with stoic looks on their faces.
It remains to be seen whether violent protest, as promised by various renegade groups, will break out at this inauguration. Though we've seen much violent protest during the Obama era, the security for the inauguration is likely to be much tighter than the security provided by the keystone cops in places like Ferguson and Los Angeles. I hope there will be no violence, but we shall see.
As I have stated ad-nauseum, I am neither a Trump nor a Hillary fan, though I do have opinions on their individual strengths and (many) weaknesses. To most, the election meant picking between the "lesser of 2 evils". Once elected, I will always give an elected candidate a chance to do their jobs: it's not what a politician says, it what they do. Let's see what Trump does once he gets in office, shall we? Most of us gave President Obama that chance, as witnessed by his high approval ratings during his 2009 inauguration. Peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment