Leave a comment

STFU: Setting Fire to the Latest Strawman Controversy

fire

Just a reminder regarding the 2000 election recount(s) in Florida when Gore and his army refused to accept Bush had won the state … There were several media and independent recounts of the votes, some restricted just to democrat stronghold counties, all included even the most microscopic hint of an ovulating “chad”, and some included even the military ballots that Gore and the lawyers did not wanted counted, and Bush still won the state … But not one of these entities came out to acknowledge their final findings. This bullshit has been left dangling for 16 years as some sort of fact that Bush and the SCOTUS “stole” the election from Al Gore.

Andrew McCarthy @ NRO is my go-to source for logic, reason and sanity…

… Trump is likely to lose by a wide enough margin that it won’t make a difference. Still, I find to be ridiculous the “sky is falling” reaction to his refusal to say he’ll accept the outcome of the election.

First of all, this is yet another of these pointless public discussions in which we are sure to get nowhere because people use the same words to mean different things. What does it mean to “not accept the result” of the election? On one extreme, it could mean calling for violence and insurrection; on the other end of the spectrum, it could mean pronouncing the result illegitimate while not really trying to undo it; in the middle, it could mean not accepting defeat and attempting to reverse the outcome by peaceful means. If, when I say I won’t prejudge the election as legit, I mean I reserve the right to challenge it in court, but you act as if I’m hinting at a wave of domestic terrorism, who is the one who is being unreasonable?

The Democrats never accepted the result of the 2000 election; even after Bush was reelected, the left regarded him as illegitimate. And while there wasn’t fighting in the streets, there were serious consequences – when the going got tough in Iraq, the illegitimate presidency was inflated into the illegitimate war. The contested 2000 election wasn’t the whole explanation, but it was a premise of the toxic opposition to Bush that even included a movie fantasizing his assassination.

Meanwhile, Democrats fight tooth and nail against every commonsense measure to protect election integrity – paring the state voter rolls of those who have died or moved away, proof of identification, proof of citizenship, etc. And heading into last night’s debate, the day’s big story was the exposure of two top Democratic operatives who specialize in voter fraud and sabotaging campaign events.

Why on earth would anyone, least of all Trump, presume the legitimacy of an election that hasn’t happened yet when it is open and notorious that the other side is cheating and insists on maintaining the systemic vulnerabilities that allow it to cheat? Particularly when Democrats from Al Gore and Bill Clinton on down did not accept the result of Bush’s election, and Democrats framed him as illegitimate even after their legal challenges were exhausted (and then frame the Supreme Court as illegitimate for upholding the election result).

Overall, I thought Chris Wallace was stellar in moderating the debate. But I could not understand why, when Trump wouldn’t pre-pronounce the election as legit, he interjected with an admonition about the American tradition of “peaceful transition of power.” I didn’t take anything Trump had said to be a call for civil war if Mrs. Clinton wins. I took him to be saying nothing more than: They cheat, everyone knows they cheat, and I am not going to say the cheating doesn’t matter until we see how the election turns out.

To analogize, I believe deeply in the fairness of the U.S. court system having practiced in it for many years. If I were representing a defendant in a case to be tried against an honorable prosecutor and before a pillar-of-rectitude in a robe, I still would never, in advance of the trial, waive my client’s right to claim unfairness. That would be malpractice on my part and a violation of my client’s constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. You always wait to see how the trial goes.

Importantly, if, as in every trial, there are errors here and there, that does not mean the trial was “rigged.” A competent lawyer reserves his right to challenge the result, but the result is not going to be overturned unless there was fundamental unfairness.

[…]

Like the peaceful transition of power, it is also a tradition in this country that, no matter how bitterly the candidates battle each other for a major party’s nomination, they get behind the eventual nominee. Yet, one of the most boneheaded moves made in the GOP campaign was the early pledge, pried out of each of the candidates in the name of tradition, to endorse the nominee – with the result that candidates who had railed about Trump’s flaws were put in the impossible position of either endorsing someone they had said was unqualified or breaking a solemn pledge. Why not just wait to see what happens and then do the sensible, honorable thing once the facts are known?

The high likelihood is that Trump is going to lose decisively – I’m betting by more than Romney but – because Hillary is so awful – less than McCain. When that happens, it will be readily apparent that there was cheating, but that the real explanation for Trump’s loss is Trump. I could be wrong: the election could be surprisingly tight, and it could make a difference were cheating in a few strategically chosen districts to taint the result in an electorally significant state. In those circumstances, it would make perfect sense to challenge the result – just as the Democrats most assuredly would.

Why does recognizing this very real and hardly unprecedented possibility have to be seen as threatening “the peaceful transition of power”?

MORE:

Instapundit:

PODESTA WIKILEAKS HORROR: Voter ID Doesn’t Stop Alien Voting.

J. Christian Adams:

Podesta’s right. Alien registration and voting is the next big battle for election integrity, because federal mandates created vulnerabilities in our election process.

Here’s how it works.

Under Motor Voter, registrants can get registered to vote while they get their driver’s license or “photo ID.” How? Well, getting registered to vote is as easy as marking “YES” to the question: “Are you a citizen of the United States?”

As Podesta notes, when you attest you are a citizen, you get registered. It’s automatic. It’s mandated under federal law.

The registrant then signs the form, stating under “penalty of perjury” that the answers are correct. It’s an honor system — but only four states engage in citizenship verification.

And three of those four states are currently entangled in litigation with leftist groups trying to end that verification: Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia.

These leftist groups have allies in the Justice Department, which has also fought citizenship verification measures ferociously.

They’re playing for keeps.

Read the whole thing.

Althouse: On not accepting the results of the election: Let’s hear from Russ Feingold: “This game’s not over until we win.” … Read her outline on the issue.

Pew Center: 1.8 Million Dead People on Voter Rolls, 2.75 Million Registered in Two States

Roger L. Simon: Outrage or Genius? Trump Refuses to Accept Results of Election in Third Debate

Donald Trump is more similar to the Founders of our country than anyone who has run for the presidency in my lifetime.

What?! What?! Didn’t Trump just jump an entire school of sharks in the third debate, saying he didn’t know if he would accept the outcome of the election. Isn’t he finished? Are you out of your bloody mind, Simon?

Okay, maybe, it wouldn’t be the first time… but hear me out.

Put briefly: If Donald Trump believes—as many of us do—that the FBI is corrupt, the Justice Department is corrupt, the other party is hiring violent paid thugs to disrupt his campaign rallies,  that no one knows who is really registered to vote, that the press is stratospherically biased, and that his opponent, backed up by all those corrupt entities, should have been indicted, why would a patriot, or for that matter someone who is even routinely honest, necessarily accept the results of the election of that opponent?

Ben Franklin wouldn’t. Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t. James Madison wouldn’t. Sam Adams wouldn’t. Of course, those guys were revolutionaries. These days we’re just, you know, “good citizens” who obey the rules and move on. With that kind of behavior in the past, our country wouldn’t even be here. But never mind.

Not convinced? Think of the reverse. Suppose Trump had meekly said he would accept the outcome with the smirking Hillary—the woman he has called a crook and who, for all intents and purposes, is one—standing only a few feet away? Wouldn’t that, in the true sense, have invalidated everything he has been saying? …

Shut The Front Door: 8 Times Liberals Claimed An Election Was Stolen Or Rigged: Everyone has taken to dismissing Donald Trump’s claims that the election is rigged. Here are eight times liberals claimed an election had been or would be stolen.

Speaking of Fraud, Andrea Mitchell Admits 1960 Election ‘Obviously’ ‘Stolen’ From Nixon

Last week Hillary agreed that Gore ‘won’ 2000 election

Powerline: ON “ACCEPTING ELECTION RESULTS”

John Kerry Thinks Bush Rigged The 2004 Election

Trump vs. Gore: The question nobody asked the 2000 loser.

Channeling Russ Feingold…

PITIFUL: Trump makes joke, media goes nuts and clutches pearls; Judge for yourself

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: