Leave a comment

“Dangerous Talk”? … No, Trump’s Right

A couple of really great responses to the left/dem/RINO/MSM fake outrage over Donald Trump’s claims of a “rigged” election system, and his refusal to accept a questionable outcome.

Kurt Schlichter @ Townhall scoffs at this gasping and ‘pearl-clasping’ by the usual suspects who do not want their rotten apple cart tipped over. He states the obvious history of candidates questioning and not accepting presidential election results, and for good reason. Over these last centuries since our founding that has not changed…

The system is manifestly rigged – even Heap Big Chief Warren used to say so until a memo informed her that this meme is now inconvenient – so spare me your sanctimonious crap about our sacred system. Our loyalty is properly only to the Constitution, not a perversion of it. Just because you hold office under Article I, II, or III doesn’t mean we still owe you respect or deference when you treat your obligations to the People like a teenage Thai boy at one of Raymond Burr’s Halloween parties.

We owe the system nothing. Nada. Zip. Instead, the system owes us fairness and honesty, and without them it has no right to our default acceptance of its results. That acceptance must be earned. This means that the system must aggressively police its own integrity, and this year it has utterly failed to do so.

The most important thing in a democratic republic, the keystone that holds it together and ensures the peaceful transition of power, is the ability for a loser to accept a loss. We used to be able to fight out our political differences and, if we came up short, shrug and say, “Well, next time we’ll convince a majority.” We could move on, confident that the playing field had been level, that we had been heard, and that we had lost fair and square.

Not anymore. Trump’s wrong about a lot, but he’s not wrong about this. He may very well lose, but it won’t be fair and square. And Trump is not the problem for saying so.

In a sudden and shocking burst of coherence during the third debate, in which Trump put a cherry on top of his brutal trouncing of his Westworld-escapee opponent by refusing to agree to be scammed, The Donald articulated a three-point critique of the system that its defenders have not even tried to answer. Instead, all we got was fake outrage over Trump’s perfectly legitimate rejection of the default legitimacy of our illegitimate system.

His first point was that the media is not merely biased but an active partisan player for the Democrats. The media ignores what hurts the left (remember the 24/7 coverage of Project Veritas? Good times) and plays up nonsense that helps it (remember the 24/7 coverage of Chubby de la Cartel Chica? Bueno times). The media, as it loves to crow, is a vital component of the system, but only when it at least pretends to be objective. By going full Goebbels – never go full Goebbels – it undercut and wrecked the foundational ability of all citizens to be heard and respected and to believe that they are competing on a level playing field. If you aren’t one of the mouth-breathing drool donors in love with Hillary, do you feel you’ve been heard or respected? Do you believe Trump has been able to compete on a level playing field?

Then there is electoral integrity. We’ve seen numerous investigations of voter fraud and no one cares. We have one party refusing to clear voter rolls of ineligible voters, while also on a quest to ensure that no one need prove his identity to vote. Sure, Democrats have good reason to believe their voters are too lazy and/or stupid to obtain ID cards, but we all know why they really oppose voter ID: it makes it harder to cheat. And then there’s Project Veritas. We have a Democrat party operative and the husband of a sitting Democrat congress being caught on tape proving Democrat catspaws paid to cause violence at a Trump rally, violence which the media covered and blamed on Trump to damaging effect. And this guy went to the White House hundreds of times and frequently met with President Faily McWorsethancarter.

Hey Pearl Clutchers, read that again and tell me how this isn’t a thousand times worse than Watergate. Then tell me how this is getting only a millionth of the outrage and coverage if the system isn’t rigged.

So we’re supposed to take it on faith that the votes are going to be counted fairly? Uh huh, sure. If you think Trump is somehow morally obligated to preemptively give up his right to challenge the result after that, you can kiss his hanging chad.

And then there’s the corruption of the rule of law. Trump was right – Hillary should not even be running because if we had a single justice system – instead of one for the powerful and connected and another for everyone else – her unhealthy carcass would be in federal prison. That’s not hyperbole – that’s literal truth understood by anyone who worked with classified materials and/or actually passed a bar exam. Then there is the IRS persecution of conservative organizations that has gone totally unpunished. And, of course, the Wikileaks treasure trove has shown that the Democrats simply ignore the law in their campaigns, secure in the knowledge that they will never be held accountable while their opponents will see a weaponized FBI and DOJ turned upon them.

The system is rigged.

[…]

Sorry (not sorry), but like Trump, I refuse to be a good little boy and politely agree in advance to accept whatever the ruling class chooses to do without protest or complaint. You want us to respect and honor what you say are the results of the election? Start by respecting and honoring us.

Is this dangerous talk? Hell yes – but the danger doesn’t come from us pointing out the corruption. The danger is the corruption…

Then there is Victor Davis Hanson @ NRO who calls out the hypocritical sanctimony of those “pearl-clutchers”…

Time was, leftists complained of rigged elections, the media paid attention to dirty tricks, and conservatives cared more about results than rhetoric.

[…]

Questioning the integrity of election votes was a national pastime in 1824 (“corrupt bargain”), 1876 (“compromise of 1877”), and again in 1960. Bitching over losing, of course, is not the same thing as armed insurrection in the fashion of 1860, when furor erupted over Lincoln’s election.

Any candidate, whether feeding conspiracies or out of genuine concern for electoral misconduct, can say whatever he or she wishes, without the deleterious national consequences that pundits decry. Bad sportsmanship and manners are not synonymous with constitutional subversion. “Selected, not elected” was a Democratic talking point after the 2000 Bush victory. In a speech two years after that election, a now sanctimonious Hillary Clinton echoed those “selected” charges against the Bush presidency. But so what?

[…]

It would, of course, have been wiser for Trump to worry out loud about localized corruption, rather than to suggest in conspiratorial fashion that a nationwide cabal was devoted to rigging the election. But then again, we have rarely seen anything like the recent disclosures of pathetic efforts at massaging the vote. Trump’s sin was one of magnitude, not of mischaracterizing the intent or culpability of his opponents: He is right that many wish to corrupt the voting, but hardly certain that in the key battlegrounds they are powerful enough to sway an entire state’s vote count.

Recently disgraced and resigned Democratic operatives, who were in the pay of the Democratic National Committee (and one of whom was a very frequent visitor to the Obama White House), boast on tape not only of disrupting Trump rallies by bought and staged violence but also of busing non-resident voters into Ohio to affect the vote count; they further brag that their dirty tricks are longstanding practice. When voting fraud is an act of pride rather than criminality, something has gone terribly wrong.

[…]

It also remains a curious artifact of this election that many conservatives are outraged far more by Trump’s obnoxiousness, crudity, and rhetorical excesses than they are by Hillary’s concrete record of premeditated criminality and habitual prevarication — especially given the likelihood that on illegal immigration, defense spending, Obamacare, abortion, the debt, taxes, and regulation, Trump’s published agenda is the far more conservative…

Read both columns in full, please.

Between the compiling evidence from the Wikileaks emails, the Project Veritas videos, and the developing and alarming troubles with votes disappearing/switching on electronic voting machines I would say there’s a lot of “there” there.

Oh, and I nearly forgot this: DOJ Warns Efforts to Stop 2016 Voter Fraud Could ‘Violate’ Federal Law

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: