• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is obama an illegitimate president?

Is obama an illegitimate president

  • yes he was elected based on a lie

    Votes: 9 14.3%
  • no he was fairly elected

    Votes: 54 85.7%

  • Total voters
    63
Obama ran for a second term largely on the story that Alquiada had been decimated on his watch. Then when terrorist linked to Alquiada attacked a US embassy and killed the Ambassador along with several other Americans Obama lied to the voters and said it was a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand and was caused by a you tube video. Now that it has come out that he flat out lied and was told by the CIA it was indeed terrorism and now that it has come out that he told the CIA to delete all references to terrorism it seems he was elected for a second term largely based on a lie. It could be argued that if the voters knew from the beginning that terrorist did this it very well could have swung the election. Does this make him a president elected under false pretenses and therefor illegitimate? They took away Lance Armstrong's medals for breaking the rules and lying about it and erased all his records calling them illegitimate so what's the difference here?

As much as his opposition wanted him to lose, nearly all of the Benghazi confusion took place in the first days after the tragic event. By the time Election Day rolled around nearly a full month had past and by then it was clarified that the initial false assumption that the attack was motivated by an Egyptian produced you tube video critical of Islam was debunked. By November the administration and the American people were fully aware al Qaeda carried out the terrorist act at Benghazi yet voted to reelect Obama anyway. If it was thought that an Egyptian making YouTube videos inspired the killing of Americans in Libya; the White House, the CIA and the state department all knew it was untrue but conspired with each other to deceive the American public until after Election Day, you might have a point but the truth came out way before Election Day.

Do I think the Obama administration feels America needs to walk on eggshells not to offend Muslims? Yes. Do I think the president will lie through his teeth in order to make it seem like an Egyptian thought to be an American offending Muslims motivated an attack that killed Americans when he knew it was untrue just to win an election? No.

My honest opinion: an America dividing partisan witch hunt that I, a Republican will be forced to consider when voting in 2014 and 2016. I always thought tragedies such as these is what made republicans shine as we put aside our political team divisions and came together as a united American people. Oh well.
 
If lying during candidacy made someone illegitimate, we haven't had a legit president yet.
 
Obama ran for a second term largely on the story that Alquiada had been decimated on his watch. Then when terrorist linked to Alquiada attacked a US embassy and killed the Ambassador along with several other Americans Obama lied to the voters and said it was a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand and was caused by a you tube video. Now that it has come out that he flat out lied and was told by the CIA it was indeed terrorism and now that it has come out that he told the CIA to delete all references to terrorism it seems he was elected for a second term largely based on a lie. It could be argued that if the voters knew from the beginning that terrorist did this it very well could have swung the election. Does this make him a president elected under false pretenses and therefor illegitimate? They took away Lance Armstrong's medals for breaking the rules and lying about it and erased all his records calling them illegitimate so what's the difference here?

Yes he was fairly elected.Romney was such a horrible candidate that if it wasn't for die hard republican party-tards Romney would have lost by a much larger number.Republicans accused John Kerry of being flip flopper but Mitt Romney is the king of flip floppers.
 
You have made an accusation.

Now you need to either provide us with some proof or retract your egregious lie.




"No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." ~ Abraham Lincoln

BTW, could you possible explain how a suggestion of a supposition somehow became an accusation to you?
 
Obama won
get over it

this election was the GOP's for the taking. and the republicans snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by running a milk toast ticket

and this is just the start
in 2016 a woman will win the presidential election
and Elizabeth Warren will kick some substantial republican ass over two terms

you may want to emigrate somewhere whiter and avoid having to endure such diversity

Thank you, that is the point I was trying to make here. All I heard after Bush 43 beat algore was "selected not elected" and "illigitimate president". Just wanted to see what you guys would say when the shoe was on the other foot, wanted to watch you flip like a pancake and display your hypocrisy that is what I got in this thread. Another Sawyer theory goes into the fact column.:)

EDIT: One other thing is my compliments to ALL the cons that said obama was legitimately elected, instead of tit for tat you took the high road.
 
Anyone who calls Bush "dumb" needs to have copies and pictures of at least two Ivy League degrees with his or her name on them.

After all, he has them. No other POTUS does. Not Carter (lol), not Slick Willie, not any of them. None.

This is a perfect example of what is not a good argument to make in favor of ivy leagues.
 
Anyone who calls Bush "dumb" needs to have copies and pictures of at least two Ivy League degrees with his or her name on them.

After all, he has them. No other POTUS does. Not Carter (lol), not Slick Willie, not any of them. None.

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and went to Oxford and Yale. I'll take that over 2 Ivy League degrees any day.
 
This is a perfect example of what is not a good argument to make in favor of ivy leagues.

Well I wouldn't trade my U of M business degree for any Ivy League biz degree (except Wharton at UPenn), but they're not scrubs schools by any stretch.
 
Well I wouldn't trade my U of M business degree for any Ivy League biz degree (except Wharton at UPenn), but they're not scrubs schools by any stretch.

That's fine. I'm just saying that if I have an unimpressive intellect, I'm not doing my alma mater any favors by putting them on my cv.
 
That's fine. I'm just saying that if I have an unimpressive intellect, I'm not doing my alma mater any favors by putting them on my cv.

"Unimpressive intellect" is a stretch though. You better have some serious credentials before you go calling Bush dumb. Otherwise, it comes off as petty jealousy.
 
"Unimpressive intellect" is a stretch though. You better have some serious credentials before you go calling Bush dumb. Otherwise, it comes off as petty jealousy.

Bush was an arrogant, unimaginative and remarkably uncurious man. But he wasn't dumb, and did in fact have an extremely high social intelligence. Happy?
 
Bush was an arrogant, unimaginative and remarkably uncurious man. But he wasn't dumb, and did in fact have an extremely high social intelligence. Happy?


arrogant-BS
unimaginative-again BS
Remarkably uncurious-compared to whom

complete crap
 
Bush was an arrogant, unimaginative and remarkably uncurious man. But he wasn't dumb, and did in fact have an extremely high social intelligence. Happy?

High "social intelligence"?

Progressives...
 
Obama ran for a second term largely on the story that Alquiada had been decimated on his watch. Then when terrorist linked to Alquiada attacked a US embassy and killed the Ambassador along with several other Americans Obama lied to the voters and said it was a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand and was caused by a you tube video. Now that it has come out that he flat out lied and was told by the CIA it was indeed terrorism and now that it has come out that he told the CIA to delete all references to terrorism it seems he was elected for a second term largely based on a lie. It could be argued that if the voters knew from the beginning that terrorist did this it very well could have swung the election. Does this make him a president elected under false pretenses and therefor illegitimate? They took away Lance Armstrong's medals for breaking the rules and lying about it and erased all his records calling them illegitimate so what's the difference here?
Yes, based on this premise. Personally, I am waiting for impeachment proceedings.
 
Obama ran for a second term largely on the story that Alquiada had been decimated on his watch. Then when terrorist linked to Alquiada attacked a US embassy and killed the Ambassador along with several other Americans Obama lied to the voters and said it was a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand and was caused by a you tube video. Now that it has come out that he flat out lied and was told by the CIA it was indeed terrorism and now that it has come out that he told the CIA to delete all references to terrorism it seems he was elected for a second term largely based on a lie. It could be argued that if the voters knew from the beginning that terrorist did this it very well could have swung the election. Does this make him a president elected under false pretenses and therefor illegitimate? They took away Lance Armstrong's medals for breaking the rules and lying about it and erased all his records calling them illegitimate so what's the difference here?

... you really should try to think about how political processes work a little more philosophically than you do now. Applying this sort of logic consistently and fairly results in every single person who ever had an ounce of power immediately being ejected from their position of authority. Also, there is no way to implement a legal process to sort out this kind of dispute without devolving into a kangaroo court.

Anyway, part of belonging to a society that empowers the people to choose their own leaders is that you have to accept the consequences of your choices. If you are only capable of electing someone who lies, then that is who you deserve to govern you.

Not that I accept that Obama lied or that he even ran a platform of having defeated Al-Queda.
 
Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and went to Oxford and Yale. I'll take that over 2 Ivy League degrees any day.
Clinton had to abandon Communism to get a second term. Thank God for Gingrich and Dole.
 
Clinton had to abandon Communism to get a second term. Thank God for Gingrich and Dole.

Yeah, Clinton was an avowed communist alright. Thank goodness Gingrich and Dole thwarted the Revolution.
 
Anyone who calls Bush "dumb" needs to have copies and pictures of at least two Ivy League degrees with his or her name on them.

After all, he has them. No other POTUS does. Not Carter (lol), not Slick Willie, not any of them. None.
Except for Obama of course.
 
Yeah, Clinton was an avowed communist alright. Thank goodness Gingrich and Dole thwarted the Revolution.
Another convert to true enlightenment. Welcome home, brother! ;)
 
Another convert to true enlightenment. Welcome home, brother! ;)

I'm not sure casually making stuff up about a person's political positions passes for enlightenment.
 
Except for Obama of course.

I didn't adjust that claim to represent the current POTUS. After 43 presidents, it was true.

I also wouldn't call Obama dumb in the slightest. Malicious? Sure. Incompetent? Absolutely. However, it's a brave man to actually stoop to the description of "dumb". Same goes with Bush.
 
I didn't adjust that claim to represent the current POTUS. After 43 presidents, it was true.

I also wouldn't call Obama dumb in the slightest. Malicious? Sure. Incompetent? Absolutely. However, it's a brave man to actually stoop to the description of "dumb". Same goes with Bush.

It's more or less impossible not to be considered incompetent or malicious when half the country is committed to perceiving every single word that proceeds from your mouth as both foolish and an attack on them personally based on party affiliation alone.
 
We should go back and invalidate every election of every poltitican who ever lie. Clearly, that is the only anwswer.

Sawyer, you've topped yourself yet again. I can hardly wait until next week to see if you can do it again. I suggest something about the anti-christ.
 
It's more or less impossible not to be considered incompetent or malicious when half the country is committed to perceiving every single word that proceeds from your mouth as both foolish and an attack on them personally based on party affiliation alone.

I 100% expect that if Obama had an (R) after his name and tried to pull the policy stuff he does today, he'd be lauded.

Do you believe that? I don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom