Post mortem on the third debate

The issue of issues in the third debate is Trump’s refusal to pre-commit himself to accepting the results of the election as tallied on the day. He has, in effect, stated that an election result would not be acceptable if there is serious evidence of voter and electoral fraud. I wish he hadn’t said it since it will diminish his outstanding performance on the rest. But what do I know about politics at that level, since what it will do is put the spotlight on the way in which the deceased vote early and often, how voting machines are hacked and the multiple voting that is rife across the American system. And for all my misgivings, he is the one that has taken the Trump train to the edge of the White House, so we shall see what happens now.

I have often thought about this issue, in particular in relation to the 2012 election: In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes. Not one person voted for Romney, not even by accident, not even by pulling the wrong lever, not even my mis-reading the ballot paper! Not one? To quote:

The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods – clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia – fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence.

Upon hearing the numbers, Steve Miskin, a spokesman for Republicans in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, brought up his party’s voter-identification initiative – which was held off for this election – and said, “We believe we need to continue ensuring the integrity of the ballot.”

The absence of a voter-ID law, however, would not stop anyone from voting for a Republican candidate.

Which is exactly the point. The polls showed a super-majority voting for Obama, but the polls also showed the score at 94-6. Six percent is not zero percent. And then there’s this:

The video was put up just the other day, on October 18, and comes with this caption:

In the second video of James O’Keefe’s new explosive series on the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign, Democratic party operatives tell us how to successfully commit voter fraud on a massive scale. Scott Foval, who has since been fired, admits that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years.

This is an issue of immense importance in a democracy. Legitimacy is bestowed only if the system is fair and perceived to be fair. Trump is in the middle of a battle he thinks, and I think, is for the future of America and the West. What he said is that he is not going to give the outcome his prior approval before he has actually seen what has happened on the day.

And I do have to say that I was surprised that he didn’t bring up Al Gore and the disputed election in 2012. It would no doubt have crossed his mind, so you have to think Trump had sifted this through on the spot and didn’t wish to change the focus to sixteen years ago. He wants this election, this year, run clean. And since this is his greatest vulnerability – an election stolen by those with a proven track record of electoral theft – he wants to keep the pressure on as best he can.

Politics is ultimately what works. Does it cost him votes to focus on voter fraud in this way? No doubt. But will it also gain him votes if he can contain the fraud? Yes again. The question really comes down to how it will play out.

Given the rest of the debate was overwhelmingly in his favour, a clear winner on each of the issues for someone like me who is seeking a stronger US both internationally and at home, he is the only candidate worth considering. Hillary, if elected, will trash America, leaving the 2020 election of no genuine interest since, by then, the US will be even farther on its way towards becoming a third world economy. Hillary’s idiotic, but thoroughly focus-tested statement, that “we are going to go where the money is”, that is, she is going to raid corporations and the wealthy for as much as she can shake them down for, is to guarantee a continuation of, if not an actual deterioration from the descending living standards that are now entrenched and becoming worse. The wealthier will get wealthier and the bottom 60-70% will find things getting worse by the year.

As for foreign policy, the election as president of the architect of what we see in Libya, Syria, Iran and Iraq ought to terrify anyone who thinks about the future. She has never shown good judgement, so why should she start now. Trump described American policy as “stupid”. It must have resonated with many across his constituency when he said it during the second debate. And stupid is really only the mildest term he might have chosen.

Not to mention open borders. Hillary’s patent lie that when she was talking about open borders in her secret speech in Brazil she meant electricity is also such irritating stupidity that it is a wonder anyone can even pretend to believe a word. But what is more of a wonder is that those who support her are not personally terrified about open borders and what it will do to their country and their own individual way of life. Nothing stands still, but the changes that her presidency would bring will have the equivalent effect on just about everything that Obamacare has had on the health system. With Hillary it is all down hill from here. At least with Trump there remains hope. Not necessarily a lot, but at least some.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.