52% of Republicans Believe ACORN Stole the Election

[grumbler]

The argument that all governments that are elected according to their laws are "legitimate" is technically correct, but I think you will find that you are in a minority when you claim that that is the only possible meaning of the term, even with regard to governments.

Okay.  But give me an example of a time when illegitimate has been used for any allegation other than the legal formation of a government?

Justice Antonine Scalia: "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires."  Clearly, counting first and ruling afterward would be legal, but still, as Scalia notes, not without danger to "legitimacy."

[garbon]

"I think Obama is a charlatan. I don't think such a person can be a legitimate president without profound character changes."

[Sheilbh]

Okay (and I agree with his point) but wouldn't you say that's the most technical understanding of the word 'illegitimate' and not how it is commonly used?

[Sheilbh]

"I think Obama is a charlatan. I don't think such a person can be a legitimate president without profound character changes."

Who's that?

[garbon]

Hypothetically me.

[Sheilbh]

Hypothetically me.

Okay.  The word that would jar with me and I'd quibble with would be 'illegitimate' - I think that's the case for most people.

[grumbler]

Okay (and I agree with his point) but wouldn't you say that's the most technical understanding of the word 'illegitimate' and not how it is commonly used?

No, I think he was using it as he said;  having the "public acceptance democratic stability requires."  That means something more along the lines of the usual and expected than the legal, IMO.

Whether he is correct that recounts like those the USSC siopped in Florida undermine democracy isn't really an issue here.

[grumbler]

Okay.  The word that would jar with me and I'd quibble with would be 'illegitimate' - I think that's the case for most people.

I'ma gonna agree with you on this.  If the statement were "I think Gore is a charlatan. I don't think such a person can be a legitimate presidential candidate without profound character changes" I think garbo's point would be made in the sense that he uses the word.

[Josquius]

In 2000 it was forgivable, the victory margin was very small and very contrversial.
Obama though won quite overwhelmingly. Its just dumb to call fraud this time,

[grumbler]

In 2000 it was forgivable, the victory margin was very small and very contrversial.
Obama though won quite overwhelmingly. Its just dumb to call fraud this time,

Agree, but don't know the extent to which people are actually calling fraud this time.

[garbon]

I'ma gonna agree with you on this.  If the statement were "I think Gore is a charlatan. I don't think such a person can be a legitimate presidential candidate without profound character changes" I think garbo's point would be made in the sense that he uses the word.

Fair, although if that candidate was to win, I wouldn't hypothetically start viewing him as legitimate. I wouldn't be prepared to accept him as the rightful president because even though he managed to get elected it was through deception.

Which, of course, could stem from my misuse of the word.

[grumbler]

Fair, although if that candidate was to win, I wouldn't hypothetically start viewing him as legitimate. I wouldn't be prepared to accept him as the rightful president because even though he managed to get elected it was through deception.

Which, of course, could stem from my misuse of the word.

I guess I should have seen this implication of your statement, and now that you have pointed it out I withdraw my objection.

[Jaron]

Could Obama lose in 2012? Maybe to Palin-Beck?

[garbon]

I guess I should have seen this implication of your statement, and now that you have pointed it out I withdraw my objection.

Yeah and while that is somewhat loony as it is closely related to the statement that "All the people who voted for that candidate must have been deluded", it is a far cry from believing that ACORN stole the election.

[The Minsky Moment]

The count in the 2000 was totally legit--Bush won 5-4.

Actually, he won 7-2.

But didn't 2 of those 7 want to send it back to the Florida courts? With the Florida Supreme Court in Gore's corner, they were voting to hand it to Gore.

The Fla Supreme Court didn't have the ability to "hand it to Gore" - the best they could do would be to keep counts going and run out the clock.  The end game would then be either the Florida legislature selecting an electoral slate or the whole election being decided in the House.  Either way, Bush would still win.

Nonetheless, the USSC decision still probably is in lead for worst Supreme Court opinion of this century IMHO.