Trump's Non-Committal to Election Results
Put my opinion on Trump's position on my blog at www.NuggetsfortheNoggin.com. It may surprise folks.
SOURCE URL: https://www.NuggetsForTheNoggin.com
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
In the narrower sense, how is anyone supposed to say in advance whether he will legally challenge vote fraud or miscounts until he sees what happens? And what else could Trump do about it?
But they have deliberately misrepresented his answer, insinuating that Trump opposes peaceful transition, as if he threatens to stage a coup -- or refuse to leave the White House? What exactly are we supposed to think he will do? The smear doesn't say what they accuse him of plotting.
It has an ideologically manipulative purpose directed at all of us. They are demanding a moral acceptance and sanction of a process filled, not just with vote fraud, but filled with financial, political and intellectual corruption, including by the media itself. Most of all they are demanding acceptance of the notion that our system of limited government and protection of the sanctity of the rights of the individual is up for grabs by collectivism-statism in the name of 'voting'. Elections are not supposed to be referendums on the Constitution, manipulated by the intellectuals and politicians to impose statism. Of course we don't "accept" it. It is imposed on us and we can't do anything about it, but we do not respect or sanction what they are doing in any way. That is what they are so frantic to suppress.
Trump seems to sense this, though he doesn't know enough to articulate it, mixing a narrow idea of vote fraud and corruption with the more general principles that all of it is about. He never threatened a coup. He knows that he can't prevent the unsavory politics (unless there is proven vote fraud in a close election), but he isn't about to jump on their bandwagon announcing in advance a call for "unity" and for everyone to gather around to help Hillary "succeed", sanctioning the whole corrupt process and the results. (Whether he caves later is another matter.)
This is exactly what the intellectuals oppressively demanded from us on behalf of Obama (remember Rush Limbaugh as a lone public voice insisting that he hoped Obama did not succeed and the way he was attacked for it?). The trend isn't new. Reread Ayn Rand's "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus" and "The Wreckage of the Consensus" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. The principles explained there are just as important today.
Yes. There's no way to refute it. There's no specific claim.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-gain...
The difference has been that we have yet to have disagreements about the peaceful transfer of power result in violence. Our record has a good history of non-violent political change (except for that messy Civil war thing). Questionable deals have resulted in some downright unworthy Presidents holding office, and there's a possibility that one President may have actually been Canadian (President Ambrose Bierce).
Trump's statement should be viewed as logical, given some recent outcomes (2000 and 2004, as well as some statistically impossible results in 2012).
Tactically, the fear of investigation into the election results might suppress some voting by resident aliens (many who have fake ID's and have a stake in voting against him), and serve to keep the opposition a little more subdued for fear of scandal in their get out the vote operations.
I don't think this hurt Trump that much. Probably helps him a little around the edges, but not by a lot.
It amuses me to watch the liberal media explaining that "accepting" a Supreme Court decision ending your multiple lawsuit attempt to steal the election is an act of grace.
Gore not only failed to accept the result, he attempted to steal it by use of recounts specifically in areas where he had a statistical advantage.
I wont accept Hillary as MY president, and would fight against anything she wanted. Even though she may be rammed down my throat.
vacationer as my president,not
for a second. Counting the days,
term2, counting the days...
Anyone who wants to run can already do it if he goes through the work of qualifying on the state ballots by showing he has enough support to be considered in the election. The system already allows for fringe candidates.
Web page voting, let alone call in voting by telephone, is frighteningly insecure. The internet in general is notoriously insecure. The government is more active in breaking security and exploiting it than protecting citizens' privacy and property. Add to that the deliberate blocking of all attempts to prevent vote fraud even under the current system because a certain dominant party and its ideology counts on ignorance and corruption to win elections. You don't want the integrity of your vote to rely on the Obamacare website and NSA.
In addition if we remove the cronyism where the president can take from one and give to another, the job reverts to chief administrator who runs things according to the constitution. How far we have come from that- when Hillary gets 500 million to help her get elected to a 400k job !!
The electoral college seems to me an anachronism designed to limit competition and make it impossible for third parties to win
The electoral college isn't an anachronism. It prevents concentrations of populations in small areas from dominating the election. It's bad enough now with NYC and urban CA concentrating power in every national election. Eliminate the electoral college system and people in most areas of the country might as well not vote at all. It's not about third parties.
People will vote for a better kind of candidate and change the direction of the country from the current straight down when the dominant ideas support it. The increasing acceptance of collectivism, altruism and statism breeds financial and political corruption along with the philosophic corruption. Rational individuals with the acknowledged moral right to their own lives and the requirement to think rationally and independently in order to live don't behave like this.
Isn't the idea of a popular election that each person gets one vote? What difference should it make where they live- city or country?
It would have been better for Trump to have stated what conditions or independent certification of the election he will accept. Journalists writing stories about him not accepting the results have an obligation to ask him probing questions.
I do not agree that because the future is unknowable we can make no commitments. People do make promises, like getting married or promising to finish a project. If something weird happens not covered in the contract, the parties deal with as best they can. So suppose Trump said he would accept the results if the election official and the editorial board of the NY Post certified them. Suppose the NY Post had issues with the election, but an org tied to Clinton somehow bought out the NY Post and changed the editorial board. Trump would have to break the letter of his promise to keep its spirit. That would be fine. It's not a reason not to make the promise now.
There is a NYT article titled Trump Says He Will Accept Election Outcome ('if I Win). When you actually read the article, Trump actually said he would accept a clear defeat and would follow the rules and traditions of presidential elections. I have great respect for the NYT, but I do not like how they're handling this issue.
The thing about not making any commitments b/c the future is unknowable was from the OP linked article, not from Trump.
"What I saw was that after that implied that we would have to see."
Right. He even says he'll follow the laws and customs of presidential elections. The article title implies something completely different. Here is the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/...