Rigged, by Robert Gore
The founders knew that human nature never changes, that those in control of a government would inevitably be corrupted by their power and employ it to their own design and advantage. Their solution was enumerated powers, an overlapping separation of those powers, a myriad of procedural encumbrances, the Bill of Rights, federalism, and limits on the government’s abilities to tax, raise armies, and wage war. The idea was to make it harder for this new government to do what governments had done throughout history. They had to have realized that any effort to constrain a government ultimately depended on the wisdom and virtue of those in power. Wisdom and virtue in perpetually short supply, they also had to have realized that their effort would eventually fail.
And fail it has. Donald Trump is making more waves by charging that the electoral system is “rigged,” and for refusing to pledge that he will not challenge the official results of the election. Our entire government is massively rigged, an agglomeration of scams, testament to terminal philosophical deterioration and default. Its partners in crime have reacted vehemently against even the suggestion that the election could be rigged. Their fear: once discussion is allowed about rigged elections, people may take umbrage at all the other scams and actually do something about them.
This is an excerpt. For the complete article please click the above link. While you're on Straight Line Logic, take advantage of the special offer and get your pre-publication PDF of Robert Gore's scathing political satire, Prime Deceit.
And fail it has. Donald Trump is making more waves by charging that the electoral system is “rigged,” and for refusing to pledge that he will not challenge the official results of the election. Our entire government is massively rigged, an agglomeration of scams, testament to terminal philosophical deterioration and default. Its partners in crime have reacted vehemently against even the suggestion that the election could be rigged. Their fear: once discussion is allowed about rigged elections, people may take umbrage at all the other scams and actually do something about them.
This is an excerpt. For the complete article please click the above link. While you're on Straight Line Logic, take advantage of the special offer and get your pre-publication PDF of Robert Gore's scathing political satire, Prime Deceit.
While most of us are familiar with questions about President Obama's birthplace, he wasn't the first President with suspicion about his American roots. President Chester A. Arthur may have been born in Canada, but there have never been sufficient data to determine if his birthplace claim of Vermont or the Canadian origin claimed by his detractors is correct.
President Benjamin Harrison (often referred to as "His Fraudulency" by skeptics) was unquestionably granted an electoral victory over the incumbent President Cleveland as the result of a crooked deal to end reconstruction.
The fact is that while our electoral process isn't without its flaws, the threat of violence over elections has been successfully repressed, which is more than many other nations can claim. Trump has a reasonable right to withhold acceptance of the election outcome, given a very real possibility of underhanded efforts to illegally influence the outcome.
But I have reconsidered. I don't believe half of what Trump says, and believe not at all that he will be able to change or restore what we have lost (or more correctly, thrown away). But I will vote for Trump anyway, more as a vote against Clinton. "We" are not doing anything to resist the tyranny. "We" talk and talk, whine and whine, but take no action of the type that is necessary. Eventually some of us will be forced to take action or die. I was going to say "or kneel and accept our chains", but we're already kneeling, already chained. We just refuse to admit it. Action, not words. Our lack of action and endless words defines us as the slaves we have become. Serfs in Medieval Europe had no more rights than we do now, and paid less in taxes. The Revolutionary War was fought over way, way less oppression that what the productive people in this country now endure. We are vastly outnumbered by the parasites. Drastic action is required, not words and whining. A vote for Trump is a very, very small action. But it is something. Might delay the unpleasantness, or might not.
Now I'm looking for that place to resettle. I guess now I have to live my truth.
Reminds me of Nathaniel Hawthorne's words: "Ah, Bartleby, ah, humanity." (You could look it up.) : - )
Before this election, statists could hide easier. Now, all I need to know is that they support Hillary, and it all falls into place.
And no one can call me RACIST either !!! I can quietly just make my determination and find other friends.
Time to reset your life, in my opinion. Who wants to live in an area that is wildly supportive of Hillary....
Bartleby came to be defined by his simple statement: "I prefer not to." I read that in high school and it has stayed with me to this day, although not in the same way.
Can't believe I confused Melville and Hawthorne, but then they are dead old white men, so who cares? : - )
When Trump was asked in the debate about whether or not he would accept the outcome, what he should have said was "it all depends on how many dead people and illegals vote Democrat."
Of course they did. That's why Benjamin Franklin offered these poignant words: "A Republic. If you can keep it."
Adams similarly remarked that the Constitution was good only for a moral (and religious) people - that if that changed so would the Constitution.
I think that our people - "my fellow Americans" - have fundamentally changed. They have become less civil. Less respectful. Less tolerant. Less moral. And so they advocate for the same to be reflected in their laws. The problem is that moral laws don't change - people do. With the breakdown in adherence to moral law comes the inevitable repercussions of those choices - such as economic collapse due to too much borrowing, inflation, and currency manipulation. Eventually, those laws will come back to bite us because as much as people want to believe that they can create "law", they are gravely mistaken.
Jefferson commented that he'd be surprised if it lasted more than 25 years. Very strictly speaking he was probably right. While I am aware of what you say in your post, nevertheless seeing it in print depresses me. My BW has become a Trump fan (somewhat) because Hillary makes her so angry she almost throws stuff at the TV.I have never seen her so mad at a politician and we've known each other longer than most people in the Gulch have been alive.
Me dino feels like I coulda coauthored that article at least to the point of our conversation being with Mr. Gore asking~
Agree with that?
Yep.
Agree with that?
Yep.
And yep, yep, yep so on.
The rigged coronation of such a so obviously crooked Shillary by those who have purloined power from We The People by slowly unraveling our Constitutional republic will be like frosting on a totally corrupt cake.
Dino Brain Flash! "Can't" has just been removed form "have your cake and eat it too" if you are at one with the in-crowd of the more than equal Washington elite betters.
That would include weaselly RINOs like you, Paul Ryan.
Another great article. Thank's
"The government is a racket, pure and simple, and many Americans, and all the sentient ones, know it." Time to purge the gene pool of the non-sentient... :)
Robert, please inform me/us when your new book is available in paperback. I don't enjoy e-books as much as paper and ink and I am reserving a place on my shelf right next to The Golden Pinnacle...
Best wishes,
O.A.
Trump uses very imprecise language geared to appeal to the base of society and despite the attacks from the media who provide their own interpretation to his words, he does not clarify them. I have no idea what he actually believes. His private sector record is of a crony capitalist but his smirk tells me he was using the corrupt system and he has disdain for those that instituted it. He can't be as simple as he sounds but I have no guess as to his real plan. I understand the concern that he could refute losing results and indirectly cause considerable unrest. In fact, I expect to see increasing incidences of violence which can grow to become a serious problem and I am not sure that the military would be willing to participate in the slaughter of a proportional amount of the 600,000 killed in the last secession.
Seeing this message in Trump's comments sounds like seeing it in a Rorschach blot. Trump's comments about the election being "rigged" at a time when he's losing in the polls come off like sore losing. He later clarified he would follow the laws and customs, making me think it was an impolitic but not a serious threat to reject the outcome.
I wish your claim were true that there is cause to think if people start to question the integrity of elections, maybe they'll next question gov't spending being a third of GDP. They're not related though. It's motivated reasoning trying to turn Trump's impolitic comments into something more.
The media's unfair treatment of Trump lately makes me more sympathetic toward him. I still think he's awful. It's funny when late-night comedians make fun of him. It's not funny when I read news articles barely contain the writers' personal opinion that Trump is a clown.
I agree there could be cheating. In 2002 when I lived in St. Petersburg, FL I voted on a touch screen running proprietary software with no paper trail. I had no faith in that system.
I am not an expert on the mechanics of making elections fair, but it's obviously important. I would be for some federal initiative to set standards for voting in elections for national office.
Calling the election "rigged" and saying the mainstream pollsters have it in for a candidate sounds like sore-loser conspiracy-theory thinking. Calling for actual reforms to make the election system more robust against fraud is a good thing, as you say, regardless of the motives.
Also, the electoral college is a really strange thing. It just appears to me, without admittedly being totally up to date on its origins, that its in there to allow crookedness to creep into the system.
However, the Electoral College is no longer necessary because everyone knows that California and New York have the wisdom to make the best decisions for the rest of the country. :-)
Likewise, in a 3-way race Candidate A could win the electoral vote by winning only 33.4% of the vote in each of those states, regardless of what the other states do.
Farfetched yes, mathematically impossible no.
This is appeal to consequences. You're saying I should deny facts because people use them to justify bad decisions.