Time was, leftists complained of rigged elections, the media paid attention to dirty tricks, and conservatives cared more about results than rhetoric.
Donald Trump, in characteristically haphazard fashion, said he thought the election might end up “rigged” (if he lost). Therefore, he would not endorse the November 8 result if he found that fear confirmed — unless, of course, in Jacksonian fashion, he managed to win.
All hell broke loose, from both the Left and “principled” conservatives, that Trump’s allegations had somehow undermined the American electoral process itself.
“Selected, not elected” was a Democrat talking point after the 2000 Bush victory. In a speech two years after that election, a now sanctimonious Hillary Clinton echoed those “selected” charges against the Bush presidency.
Al Gore became unhinged. For years, the former vice president could not speak publicly without screaming in vein-bulging style, and seemed to be obsessed by George W. Bush in Carthago delenda est fashion. The Crazed Sex Poodle is angrily campaigning with Hillary now.
Capital outflows from China are accelerating. The hemorrhage has reached the fastest pace since the currency panic at the start of the year.
The latest cycle of credit-driven expansion has already peaked after 18 months. Beijing has had to slam on the brakes, scrambling to control property speculation that the Communist authorities themselves deliberately fomented.
The central bank (PBOC) spent roughly $50bn defending the yuan last month, but this has not stopped the exchange rate sliding to 6.77 against the dollar - the weakest in six years.
"Our view is that the RMB (yuan) will depreciate 20% against the US dollar to 8.1 by the end of 2018 as deflation of the property bubble leads to more capital outflows," says Zhiwei Zhang from Deutsche Bank. "This is deflationary for global trade."
That is an understatement. A Chinese devaluation on this scale would be an earthquake for the world's economic and financial system, unleashing a tsunami of cheap manufacturing exports into Europe and the US. The world cannot absorb the consequences of so much excess.
President George Bush denounced what he called an “Axis of Evil” in his famed 2002 State of the Union Address little over 4 months after 9/11: Iraq, Iran, North Korea. That it was – but another Axis of Evil had risen in America itself.
The Marxist Left in the Democrat Party had morphed into being unvarnished Fascist – seeking power not for any ideological purpose or rationale, but simply for power itself. What they retained of Marxism was its morality – that the end justifies the means.
Since their end was power for the sake of power, then any means to get it and keep it, any lie, any dirty trick, any hypocrisy, any threat, any violence, any corruption they could get away with, is the moral thing to do. The only thing wrong in their eyes is getting caught – which their Enemedia allies were dedicated to preventing.
Under Barack Obama – a treasonous hate-filled racist president dedicated to weakening America and strengthening her enemies in every way possible – the Democrat-Fascist/Enemedia Axis of Evil has reached an epitome of power.
And just like a dictator in a banana republic or African hellhole – like Maduro in Venezuela, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or the Castros in Cuba – they will do anything, perpetrate any depravity or dishonesty, to keep it.
[Note by Jack Wheeler: My perspective is different from my dear friend Jack Kelly. It is that Trump has already performed a public service worthy of a Congressional Medal of Freedom: he has shined a glaring spotlight on Dem Voter Fraud. It is Democrat Voter Fraud that is the threat to free and fair electoral democracy, not the exposure of it. Trump should be praised, not condemned, for wanting an honest election – which Hillary doesn’t.]
Not for the first time, a self-serving overstatement by The Donald has tainted an important issue.
Mr. Trump should accept the results of the election, said 68 percent of respondents to a Morning Consult poll Oct. 21. But 46 percent said it is at least “somewhat likely” vote fraud will be widespread.
The viability of democracy depends on the confidence people have in the integrity of the electoral process. If nearly half the electorate fears fraud will determine the outcome of this election, we totter on the brink of chaos.
The headlines are in. Trump is the “anti-democratic” candidate because he refuses to rule out challenging the results of an election that has yet to take place. Such a course of action is “beyond the pale.” It’s a threat to democracy. And it is utterly and thoroughly unacceptable.
Except when Democrats do it.
When Hillary dragged Gore away from playing with his Earth globe to campaign for her last month, the crowd booed at his mention of the election and then chanted, “You won, you won.” Hillary grinned and nodded.
Hillary Clinton has always believed that President Bush illegitimately took office. She has told Democrats that Bush was “selected” rather than “elected.”
The media’s focus has been on whether Trump would accept the results if he loses. Yet a better question might be whether Hillary Clinton would accept her defeat.
Four years from now, will you regret having voted for the person you chose this year for president? In decision theory, there is a concept called “regret,” which is the emotion experienced when realizing that an alternative course of action would have likely resulted in a more favorable outcome.
The current voter regret matrix assumes that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will win, and that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will not. It also assumes that neither Hillary nor Donald will receive 50 percent of the vote, and a majority of Americans will have voted for other candidates.
This implies that those who vote for either Mr. Johnson or Dr. Stein will realize that if most of the votes that had gone to the minority candidates had been cast for the loser between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, the other candidate would have won.
Those who vote for Mrs. Clinton are probably doing so because she is a woman, or they like her bigger government policies with promises of free stuff, or because they fear Mr. Trump more.
Hillary’s supporters are probably going to be disappointed when they eventually realize that she is deeply flawed ethically, and her bad behavior and judgment are not going to improve once she becomes president.
“Either we are going to win this election or we are going to lose this country.”
That sums it up, doesn’t it? Either/Or. It’s a binary choice. Trump made this clear in an extraordinary speech yesterday (10/20) in Delaware, Ohio. I strongly encourage you watch it entire.
When the Pub candidate race began some 18 months ago, I was repulsed by Trump. I still was when he gained the nomination, and very grudgingly supported it only because the alternative of Hillary was a nightmare from which we might never wake up.
Now he’s causing me to think of Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975). For many years, the 12 volumes of his monumental A Study of History has occupied a pride of place in my library. (The link is to Wikipedia not Amazon, as the latter only offers abridged versions, not the entire set which sells for over $1,000 on Ebay.)
Toynbee’s thesis on the rise and fall of civilizations is one of “challenge and response.” Civilizational success is determined by the extent of using challenges as opportunities to grow; failure comes when that ceases.
Yet Toynbee’s thesis applies to the lives of individuals as well. They can grow and succeed as moral human beings in response to personal challenges. As I watched the third debate Wednesday night and his Ohio speech yesterday, it dawned on me that this has happened to Donald Trump. This is not the same man of yesteryear.
Truer words have never been spoken about Hillary Clinton. Yet they may cost Donald Trump the presidency.
Trump’s offhand observation came near the end of the third debate last night (10/19). His potentially fatal error was using the word “woman” instead of “person.” Because of it, millions more women may now vote for the nastiest and most vile candidate for president since Lyndon Johnson for no other reason than – she’s a woman.
If that isn’t sexist, what is?
On Monday (10/17), the non-partisan psephologists at FiveThirtyEight analyzed the “gender gap” between men and women voting Democrat since 1952, concluding that, “Men Are Treating 2016 as a ‘Normal’ Election; Women Aren’t” –
“Men are favoring the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, in typical numbers, but a historically overwhelming share of women say they will vote for the Democrat, Hillary Clinton… women are winning this election for Clinton.”
Eight years ago, American voters engaged in the most racist election in their country’s history. Are we about to engage in the most sexist?
The gender gap is now larger than we’ve ever seen. Here’s what it looks like as 538 mapped it out by electoral votes:
[Note: Please see Skye’s calculations below on how Putin’s investment in Hillary will make him $200 billion a year—JW]
Does Vladimir Putin want Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to win the presidency?
Those supporting Hillary claim that Mr. Putin wants Mr. Trump to win, claiming that is why WikiLeaks is putting out the Hillary emails and speeches. Specifically, John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign chairman, has been very explicit in charging that Mr. Putin wants Mr. Trump to win.
The charge seems to be a bit odd, given that both the Clintons’ and the Podestas’ (John and his brother Tony’s) organizations have been recipients of large sums of money coming from Russian interests, apparently with the blessing of the Kremlin.
What is the problem? Did the Clintons and their people not stay bought, or is it all a deception? If the American people were to believe Russians are for Mr. Trump, it would hurt him.
Having been an economic adviser to senior Russian government officials during the 1992 transition from communism and subsequently involved in business with Russians, I quickly learned that the conventional wisdom was correct in that things are often not what they seem.
Off the coast of Yemen and at the UN Security Council we are seeing the strategic endgame of Barack Obama’s administration. And it isn’t pretty.
In the last ten days, Iran’s Houthi proxies in Yemen have attacked US naval craft three times in the Bab al Mandab, the narrow straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. The Bab al Mandab controls maritime traffic in the Red Sea, and ultimately control the Suez Canal.
Whether the Iranians directed these assaults or simply greenlighted them is really beside the point. The point is that these are Iranian strikes on the US. The Houthis would never have exposed themselves to US military retaliation if they hadn’t been ordered to do so by their Iranian overlords.
The question is why has Iran chosen to open up an assault on the US? Iran’s game is clear enough. It wishes to replace the US as the regional hegemon, at the US’s expense.
Since Obama entered office nearly eight years ago, Iran’s record in advancing its aims has been of uninterrupted success. Is this an accident on Mr. Obama’s part, sheer incompetence, or is it something far far worse?