• 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?

Whether or not he lied is irrelevant to whether or not he is a 'legitimate' president. He was elected fairly and legally. After all, it's not like he's the only president to lie about something to get elected now is he. By my estimate there have been 43 of those.
 
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.

"Lauded" is extreme, but the response would be quite different.

Back when there was a push for universal healthcare in the 90s, the Republicans proposed a plan that was broadly similar to the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, which makes sense, given the disproportionate influence the center-right Blue Dogs at the time. In the 90s, adherents of America's right-wing political culture considered this a reasonable, mostly private sector solution to looming economic problems. Nonetheless, looking at broadly the same policy ten years later and invited to participate in the formative process, the Republican Party asserted Obama and the left-wing forces that supported it were dangerous radicals with whom it was impossible to even begin negotiation, while conservative grassroots empathetically argued that what Obama was trying to accomplish amounted to communism. Odd how a reasoned, mostly private sector alternative to socialized medicine transforms into dangerous radicialism in a ten-year period.

Later on, when the political climate changed and new forms of Obama criticism developed, the conservative response started incorporating less "socialism" and more "incompetence" and "crony capitalism."

Looking at the forces that shape political responses in this country, and looking particularly at the conservative responses to Republican forms of statism, I can fairly state they are largely comfortable with statism that has its origin in the machinations of the Republican Party.
 
"Lauded" is extreme, but the response would be quite different.

Back when there was a push for universal healthcare in the 90s, the Republicans proposed a plan that was broadly similar to the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, which makes sense, given the disproportionate influence the center-right Blue Dogs at the time. In the 90s, adherents of America's right-wing political culture considered this a reasonable, mostly private sector solution to looming economic problems. Nonetheless, looking at broadly the same policy ten years later and invited to participate in the formative process, the Republican Party asserted Obama and the left-wing forces that supported it were dangerous radicals with whom it was impossible to even begin negotiation, while conservative grassroots empathetically argued that what Obama was trying to accomplish amounted to communism. Odd how a reasoned, mostly private sector alternative to socialized medicine transforms into dangerous radicialism in a ten-year period.

Later on, when the political climate changed and new forms of Obama criticism developed, the conservative response started incorporating less "socialism" and more "incompetence" and "crony capitalism."

Looking at the forces that shape political responses in this country, and looking particularly at the conservative responses to Republican forms of statism, I can fairly state they are largely comfortable with statism that has its origin in the machinations of the Republican Party.

What was attempted 20 years ago was not quite the same as PPACA because it didn't remove choice. Also, Republicans were flying high over the extraordinary success and goodwill of Contract With America. Obama came in here with some wack-a-doo ideas that would do nothing but turn a bad situation worse.
 
Yes all politicians lie to get elected but this was more than a lie it was a cover up and as the facts come out it is far worse than Watergate which forced Nixon to resigns so in my honest opinion the election is invalid. I realize I am in the minority here but what else is new.:lol:
 
What was attempted 20 years ago was not quite the same as PPACA because it didn't remove choice. Also, Republicans were flying high over the extraordinary success and goodwill of Contract With America. Obama came in here with some wack-a-doo ideas that would do nothing but turn a bad situation worse.

The different parts of those assertions don't follow through taken together. To start with, except for legwork, Obama wasn't even that involved with drafting the legislation. Like other liberals, his contributions were sidelined by senior and better connected Congressmen in favor of a blander, centrist approach that included heavy pandering the insurance companies. To speak of him coming in with "wack-a-doo" ideas doesn't follow through when his opinions didn't have much influence even in his own party.

More importantly, it still doesn't rationalize the fierceness of the right-wing opposition or the nature of their objections. A stronger version of the 90s right-wing proposal that gives the government a bit more teeth is neither communism or a transformative moment in American history that changes the dynamics of how the government interacts with the private sector forever, which was how both the establishment and conservative grassroots politicized the issue.
 
Last edited:
Yes all politicians lie to get elected but this was more than a lie it was a cover up and as the facts come out it is far worse than Watergate which forced Nixon to resigns so in my honest opinion the election is invalid. I realize I am in the minority here but what else is new.:lol:

.... So... administration officials "lying" about the reasons behind Benghazi are worse than a US president committing a crime? Are you even trying to be partisan anymore?
 
Last edited:
.... So... administration officials "lyin"g about the reasons behind Benghazi are worse than a US president committing a crime? Are you even trying to be partisan anymore?

Since we don't know all the information behind the Benghazi situation, we do not yet know whether or not Obama and/or Clinton were indeed negligent in failing to perform their constitutional duties. If they did not perform their duties in accordance with their oaths of office then they were criminally negligent as it lead to the death of American Citizens, thus making if far worse than Watergate, which did not lead to the death of anyone, at least not that I am aware of.
 
.... So... administration officials "lyin"g about the reasons behind Benghazi are worse than a US president committing a crime? Are you even trying to be partisan anymore?

Nixon tried to cover up a botched burglary, obama tried to cover up a botched reaction to a terrorist attack where 4 people died. You tell me which is worse.
 
Are we still trying to find ways to weasel our way out of Obama. I will be the first to say I did not vote for Obama, but seeing as he is my President, I support him. Maybe if others would do the same then we would actually get something done once and a while. If you don't like the President, the people need to make a change in the next election. If he was so bad then he wouldn't have been voted in, get behind him because you had your chance to elect a different candidate and the majority of America didn't approve.
 
Yes all politicians lie to get elected but this was more than a lie it was a cover up and as the facts come out it is far worse than Watergate which forced Nixon to resigns so in my honest opinion the election is invalid. I realize I am in the minority here but what else is new.:lol:

The answer to the riddle of Wategate resides in your own instictive need to compare every political scandal to it, an instict shared by many Americans -- Watergate was an example of corruption, a direct attack on the power of the ordinary man's vote, at a time when American's mainsteam culture was unfamiliar with corruption and hadn't yet developed either coping mechanisms or a clear idea of how to respond to it. And while it is taken for granted that Nixon would have been impeached, it isn't necessarily obvious impeachment would have succeeded if it had come to a vote -- but he was concerned enough with his legacy that he preferred walking out rather than taking a chance on it or even having his presidency tarnished by the process of impeachment, whether or not it succeeded irrevelant after that point.

Watergate has thus become an archetype that holds sway over the nation's political consciousness and shapes our every emotional and mental response to perceived corruption. However, there is very little in comparison between Bengzhai and Watergate.

Even assuming Obama committed some sort of misconduct comparable to Nixon (and he didn't), the real question is less whether he would be impeached but rather whether he would prefer to walk out rather than face the process of impeachment.

In answer to that question: almost no sitting president after Nixon would prefer to walk out rather than face the process of impeachment head on.
 
Last edited:
Nixon tried to cover up a botched burglary,

Yes, this is true. He also was involved in obstruction of justice, bribing, attempting to blackmail political opponents... yeah... "just a botched robbery".

obama tried to cover up a botched reaction to a terrorist attack where 4 people died. You tell me which is worse.

Obama tried to cover it up? Proof? You're not trying.
 
Last edited:
The answer to the riddle of Wategate resides in your own instictive need to compare every political scandal to it, an instict shared by many Americans -- Watergate was an example of corruption, a direct attack on the power of the ordinary man's vote, at a time when American's mainsteam culture was unfamiliar with corruption and hadn't yet developed either coping mechanisms or a clear idea of how to respond to it. And while it is taken for granted that Nixon would have been impeached, it isn't necessarily obvious that would have really happened if it had come to a vote -- but he was concerned enough with his legacy that he preferred walking out rather than taking a chance on it or even having his presidency tarnished by the process of impeachment, whether or not it succeeded irrevelant after that point.

Watergate has thus become an archetype that holds sway over the nation's political consciousness and shapes our every emotional and mental response to perceived corruption. However, there is very little in comparison between Bengzhai and Watergate.
Even assuming Obama committed some sort of misconduct comparable to Nixon (and he didn't), the real question is less whether he would be impeached but rather whether he would prefer to walk out rather than face the process.

Almost no politician after Nixon would prefer to walk out rather than face the process head on.

I disagree, both are about covering up something potentially embarrassing except as I said people died in the event obama attempted to cover up and is still attempting to cover up. It seems obama just like Nixon and Clinton for that matter told people to lie on his behalf.
 
You must not be watching much news lately.:roll:

So you have no evidence that Obama himself was involved in this? If you do, bring on the impeachment. :)
 
I disagree, both are about covering up something potentially embarrassing except as I said people died in the event obama attempted to cover up and is still attempting to cover up. It seems obama just like Nixon and Clinton for that matter told people to lie on his behalf.

As far as 'embarrasing' goes, nobody investigated or questioned the embassy attacks during the Bush (or for that matter Clinton) years because nobody felt any compulsion to go farming for incriminating evidence against their political rivals in those specific situations, even though the potential for incompetence as a factor was equal to Bengzhai since all three administrations used broadly the same security protocols. The only reason why Bengzhai was even questioned at all was because Obama's opposition was desperate for anything that might influence the outcome of the Obama/Romney election, which seemed like a foregone conclusion at the time. The only reason it is being now is because the opposition is desperately trying to put Obama off balance at the start of his second term.

Given that context, I suppose it is possible that some persons in the Obama Administration may have made some sort of effort to pervert the way information was presented in an effort to save face and so start the second term with better footing. But that doesn't make any difference to me since perverting informaiton is the only thing the right-wing machine is capable of doing. There is no reason to get worked up about two sides that are morally equal.
 
Last edited:
To Legit to quit, unlike someone we know....

.......If obama wins though I will go sign up for disability, food stamps and whatever the hell other programs I can qualify for. Why should I work when so many others are going to get a free ride. Why should I stubbornly cling to my values and work ethic if America decides it wants socialism. You guys wants socialism I will give it to you with both barrels and smile as I watch your country go down the tubes. I am curious what other people will do if he wins and I mean real people not socialist scum who will throw a party.....

How is that wrecking America working out for ya ?

You a legitimate welfare queen now ?

:lamo
 
Is Obama an illegitimate president?

No.

He sucks as POTUS (as GWB did before him).

But he is legitimate in my opinion, definitely.
 
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?

No, it wouldn’t have made a difference. The day Romney was nominated was the day Obama won his second term. Romney just wasn’t trusted by the majority of voters, you know as well as I do that even a lot of Republicans didn’t trust him and only voted for him because he wasn’t Obama. If it weren’t for the president messing up the first debate, Romney would have lost bigger than McCain did back in 2008.
 
As far as 'embarrasing' goes, nobody investigated or questioned the embassy attacks during the Bush (or for that matter Clinton) years because nobody felt any compulsion to go farming for incriminating evidence against their political rivals in those specific situations, even though the potential for incompetence as a factor was equal to Bengzhai since all three administrations used broadly the same security protocols. The only reason why Bengzhai was even questioned at all was because Obama's opposition was desperate for anything that might influence the outcome of the Obama/Romney election, which seemed like a foregone conclusion at the time. The only reason it is being now is because the opposition is desperately trying to put Obama off balance at the start of his second term.

Given that context, I suppose it is possible that some persons in the Obama Administration may have made some sort of effort to pervert the way information was presented in an effort to save face and so start the second term with better footing. But that doesn't make any difference to me since perverting informaiton is the only thing the right-wing machine is capable of doing. There is no reason to get worked up about two sides that are morally equal.

During both Clinton and Bush it was admitted right up front they were terror attacks. This one wasn't. This one was known by one and all that it was a terrorist attack, yet an attempt was made to kept that from the American people. In something like this, honesty is always the best policy. If the present administration had came right out and said Benghazi was a terrorist attack, none of what is happening now would be happening, even in today's highly partisan atmosphere.
 
During both Clinton and Bush it was admitted right up front they were terror attacks. This one wasn't. This one was known by one and all that it was a terrorist attack, yet an attempt was made to kept that from the American people. In something like this, honesty is always the best policy. If the present administration had came right out and said Benghazi was a terrorist attack, none of what is happening now would be happening, even in today's highly partisan atmosphere.

Good evening, Pero. :2wave:

:agree: Many mistakes were made that day.

That, however, still does not answer the question of why our people did not receive the assistance they pleaded for... that never came. That's the question that most people want the answer to! :waiting:
 
Good evening, Pero. :2wave:

:agree: Many mistakes were made that day.

That, however, still does not answer the question of why our people did not receive the assistance they pleaded for... that never came. That's the question that most people want the answer to! :waiting:

Strange as it may seem, that question doesn’t bother me as much as why the administration tried to make the American people believe the well planned attacked by terrorist was the work of a video.

I can understand not sending in the 4 SF troopers armed with only .45’s or perhaps 9 mm’s against an attack force of what, 100? More? Less? I don’t know, I haven’t heard of a number assigned to the attackers. But we do know the attackers were armed with mortars and Ak-47’s. I can understand not sending them in, especially outgunned as they were. As for the aircraft based in Italy, could they have made it or not, it seems they might have before the second attack. But was it assumed that once the first attack was over, the engagement was finished? That is usually the pattern in attacks like these. I don’t know, but these things are judgment calls.

I have stated in the past about State being notorious for lax security, nothing new there. But this time it cost the Ambassador and others their lives. PBBauer in one of his posts defending the president said the reason the administration or the State Department okayed or wanted to blame everything on the video was State was afraid Congress would criticize State for lax security. Now that actually makes sense to me as I have personally seen the lax security State practices in the past.
 
Yes all politicians lie to get elected but this was more than a lie it was a cover up and as the facts come out it is far worse than Watergate which forced Nixon to resigns so in my honest opinion the election is invalid. I realize I am in the minority here but what else is new.:lol:
Baloney. The facts came out before the election and instead of impeachment, Obama was re-elected.

When the likes of Darrell Issa rebuffs McCain's call for more investigations, it's a good sign the "cover up" conspiracy theory is starting to unravel from lack of evidence.

But McCain's call was brushed off by fellow Republican Representative Darrell Issa, who chairs the House of Representatives Oversight and Government committee that heard from Hicks last week.

"You know, let's not blow things out of proportion. This is a failure, it needs to be investigated. Our committee can investigate," Issa said....read

Republican expects more Benghazi whistle blowers | Reuters

The article goes on to say that Issa's committee want to interview Mullen and Pickering "in private" and from what Pickering has been vociferously saying in public, I seriously doubt there will be many more witnesses or investigations on Benghazi after that interview. Which means the witch hunt may be finally coming to an end.
 
During both Clinton and Bush it was admitted right up front they were terror attacks. This one wasn't. This one was known by one and all that it was a terrorist attack, yet an attempt was made to kept that from the American people. In something like this, honesty is always the best policy. If the present administration had came right out and said Benghazi was a terrorist attack, none of what is happening now would be happening, even in today's highly partisan atmosphere.

I'm not sure anyone admitted anything the way you described because I don't think anyone noticed or cared about those embassy attacks. They got written off as diploamtic/strategic setbacks and were consigned to become footnotes of history.

If the Obama Administration stumbled when the whole point of the witch hunt was to make them stumble so Romney could be president, I still don't see why it is a reason to care about a fight between two sides that have proven equally unwilling to respect the dead in light of political opportunities/setbacks.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom