Trump Accidentally Right, Again
Wanted to write a quick post, re this article from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/donald-trump-rigged-election/
In it, they chronicle Trump's assertions that the election is rigged, presumably to disenfranchise the people in terms of selecting their government. They note that in addition to various politicians from both parties refuting the assertion, there is not evidence of wide-scale voter fraud or election rigging (they ignore, of course, the tangible evidence of smaller-scale electioneering on the part of the DNC, as documented by Project Veritas Action, but that's to be expected from a liberal media outlet).
The thing is, though: Trump is, once again, sorta accidentally and indirectly correct. While there's little evidence of the type of election rigging which would typically be associated with the term(s), there is reasonable evidence of media outlets attempting to influence the election. Moreover, though, and probably more importantly, there is good, tangible evidence that the American people are substantially disenfranchised by the election system on the whole, and that's probably a bigger deal than any small-scale electioneering.
Consider the current presidential election: roughly 78% of the people consider Clinton untrustworthy and unfit for office, while roughly 83% of the people consider the same of Trump. For either candidate, over three quarters of the population consider him/her to be a miserable representation of corruption and dishonestly, and yet those are the only two people who could possibly become President of the United States. That means our current system is producing, for the American voters, a no-win choice in which inevitably a corrupt scumbag is going to be running the country, in spite of the documented fact that an overwhelming majority of voters are aware that both candidates are corrupt scumbags who are both unfit to hold any office, much less the highest office in the land.
If that's not disenfranchising of the ability of the people to choose someone they would want to be in change of the country, it's hard to see what would be. It's basically as bad as people "voting" for Kim Jong-un, despite the fact that he's well-known to be a brutal dictator that most people secretly despise, but its irrelevant because he's the only person on the ballot, and the election is rigged anyway.
So, I guess the take-away if that Trump is more/less right on this point, irrespective of his influence on the process, and strong evidence that he's unaware of why he is right.
In it, they chronicle Trump's assertions that the election is rigged, presumably to disenfranchise the people in terms of selecting their government. They note that in addition to various politicians from both parties refuting the assertion, there is not evidence of wide-scale voter fraud or election rigging (they ignore, of course, the tangible evidence of smaller-scale electioneering on the part of the DNC, as documented by Project Veritas Action, but that's to be expected from a liberal media outlet).
The thing is, though: Trump is, once again, sorta accidentally and indirectly correct. While there's little evidence of the type of election rigging which would typically be associated with the term(s), there is reasonable evidence of media outlets attempting to influence the election. Moreover, though, and probably more importantly, there is good, tangible evidence that the American people are substantially disenfranchised by the election system on the whole, and that's probably a bigger deal than any small-scale electioneering.
Consider the current presidential election: roughly 78% of the people consider Clinton untrustworthy and unfit for office, while roughly 83% of the people consider the same of Trump. For either candidate, over three quarters of the population consider him/her to be a miserable representation of corruption and dishonestly, and yet those are the only two people who could possibly become President of the United States. That means our current system is producing, for the American voters, a no-win choice in which inevitably a corrupt scumbag is going to be running the country, in spite of the documented fact that an overwhelming majority of voters are aware that both candidates are corrupt scumbags who are both unfit to hold any office, much less the highest office in the land.
If that's not disenfranchising of the ability of the people to choose someone they would want to be in change of the country, it's hard to see what would be. It's basically as bad as people "voting" for Kim Jong-un, despite the fact that he's well-known to be a brutal dictator that most people secretly despise, but its irrelevant because he's the only person on the ballot, and the election is rigged anyway.
So, I guess the take-away if that Trump is more/less right on this point, irrespective of his influence on the process, and strong evidence that he's unaware of why he is right.
Comments
Post a Comment