Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Trump is Already Saying the Election Will be Rigged

We knew this was coming. What's surprising is that he's started so soon.

"We'll have more soon. Trump making a big play to lay groundwork to dispute/resist election result with claims of voter fraud."

As Jonathan Shainin says, this is what the apocalypse looks like.

“I think your audience knows, I think we all know, that in this day and age, a computer can do anything. These voter machines are essentially a computer. Who is to say they could not be rigged?” asked Stone on the topic of voter fraud.

“Of course they can. Now, you ask me why the Republicans don’t do it, but sadly I think they do,” Stone said. “That’s why I briefly had to leave the Republican Party and become a Libertarian.”

“I have no doubt that after the last election, when Karl Rove, who was George Bush’s campaign manager and a Romney partisan, insisted that ‘no no, your numbers have to be wrong,’ he said on Fox, ‘Romney definitely carried Ohio,’ and the reason he was so certain is because it was bought and paid for,” he claimed. “He knew the fix was supposed to be in. Therefore I can only conclude that sometimes things don’t stay bought, and perhaps Obama came in with a better offer.”

“This stuff is going to horrify most voters, I mean this is amazing,” added Yiannopoulos.

It's horrifying all right:

“Yeah, the elections are rigged for one entity or another. So, who are the perpetrators? The perpetrators are the people who manufacture and sell these machines. The most common electronic voting machine, which is really just a computer, is a company called Diebold,” Stone replied.

“Diebold’s top executives and owners of the company are major donors to the Bush’s. Is this a major factor on how George W. Bush quite improbably beat John Kerry? An election that all truths on paper, Kerry should’ve won, and Bush should have lost,” questioned Stone.

“I think we have widespread voter fraud, but the first thing that Trump needs to do is begin talking about it constantly,” Stone said. “He needs to say for example, today would be a perfect example: ‘I am leading in Florida. The polls all show it. If I lose Florida, we will know that there’s voter fraud. If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.’”

“If you can’t have an honest election, nothing else counts,” he continued. “I think he’s gotta put them on notice that their inauguration will be a rhetorical, and when I mean civil disobedience, not violence, but it will be a bloodbath. The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear Hillary in. No, we will not stand for it. We will not stand for it.”

Typical Trumpian euphemism: Not violence, but it will be a blood bath.

“So, I mean the dream here, the ultimate ideal is that he wins by such a significant margin nationally that this is unnecessary,” Yiannopoulos concluded. “But it’s interesting to hear you say this, and it’s funny also, because Trump will go there. He will go to the places other politicians wont, and he’s probably the only person to run for president within the last fifty years who would dare to do this, and might even get away with it. It’s remarkable isn’t it how he’s just sort of re-injected reality into politics”.

No, it's the opposite. He's taking reality out of politics. He clearly plans to attempt to deligtimize the results beforehand.

He's injecting an ugly thing, the sort of thing we normally have only in Banana Republics. And this is if he loses. If he wins, there may well not be another election.

And we have seen some of this on the Bernie or Buster Left.

#HillaryForPrison …

No attempt is made to explain where such crazy math comes from.

They've constructed their own counterreality. But the new thing in 2016 is simply to call any results you don't like 'rigged.'

Isn't it interesting that the alleged beneficiary of the 'rigged' system is always the first female Presidential nominee?

No accident there.

While most Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary there is a small subset who has the same illiberal energy as the Trumpkins.

They too talk about 'Lock her up' just as the Trumpkins do. What they share is illiberalism. We don't lock people up in republics just because we disagree with them or deligitimize  elections.

Stone mentions Bush-Gore. That's the case where the result very arguably was rigged.

But I say this based on some kind of empirical proof. For starters Mac Stipanovich more or less admits it.

Basically, the GOP knew they would lose a recount so did everything they could to deligtimize the recount: it was just Al Gore being a sore loser.

The Berners and now Trumpkins just say this when they don't like the result.

Rigged just means you don't like the result and it's the only explanation you're willing to accept.

In her historic acceptance speech Hillary talked about what Benjamin Franklin said: 'A Republic, if you can keep it.'

What we have seen in this election is a few on the Left and a lot on the Right reject the very idea of a Republic.

Al Gore arguably was robbed. Yet he still conceded because of his respect for our norms. Can you imagine Donald Trump conceding?


  1. Sumner covers this one as well and he covers one of Trump's supporters in his comments section (Steve F) who chose to become a pod person:

    And he does another post on Trump:

    Right now Trump polls extremely well among the old. Perhaps they know that Trump plans to shovel lots of money their way, and leave a poorer country for their children and grandchildren.

    Selfish b******s.

  2. Assuming Trump loses, the GOP (and the Dems for that matter) would be smart to change their party rules to force disclosure of the last five years of tax returns (at least) as a requirement to be a candidate. It would be like strengthening the immune response of the parties to outside invaders.

    Personally I think they should go even further, and with a little help from the Federal government they could. I think the government should allow people who don't have a "need to know" to apply for and be investigated for a Top Secret security clearance. A clearance wouldn't be granted, but if they should pass a clearance for one it could be fast tracked in the immediate future (should they go on to win).

    This would allow political parties to REQUIRE that any candidate running for their party pre-qualify for a Top Secret clearance. This would further strengthen the parties immune responses from hostile takeover.

    If Trump was dead set against disclosing his tax returns, he could run for the "Traditional Workers" party or some other party that didn't have those requirements.

    It's plausible that a security clearance requirement would also have excluded Trump given his ties to Putin and Russia, not to mention his sketchy business dealings and perhaps even his debt situation.

    If cooperation from the government doesn't work out, the parties could perhaps take it upon themselves to do their own security clearance pre-screening of any potential candidates.