A Philosopher's Blog

Accepting Victory/Accepting Defeat

Posted in Uncategorized by Michael LaBossiere on November 8, 2016

I am writing this on November 7, 2016. This is the day before the United States’ presidential election. While other matters are on the ballot, the main contest is between Hillary and Trump. While the evidence seems to show that Hillary will win, Trump has a chance that vastly exceeds his competence for the position. As such, the contest could go either way.

While I do regard Trump as morally and intellectually unfit for the office, I do not have a strong emotional commitment to Hillary. As such, a “victory” for me this election would be that Trump does not win. A defeat would be that Trump becomes president. While some might suspect that my negative view of Trump would cause me to spew “Trump is not my president”, this is not the case. If Trump is elected, he will be as much my president as Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and so on were. That is how democracy works. Since I am a philosopher, I do have a philosophical justification for my approach and certainly urge others to accept a similar view.

While democracy is ancient, more recent thinkers such as John Locke have worked out many of the key details in theory and practice. As Locke saw it, government is based on a social contract resulting from the consent of the governed. Since the political body must move in one direction, Locke argued for majority rule—the numerical minority is obligated to go along with the numerical majority. Or, in terms of the usual low voter turnout in the United States, the numerical minority of the voters must go along with the numerical majority of voters, even though the voters might be a numerical minority of the eligible voters.

His justification for this was fairly practical: if the numerical minority refused to go along, the society would be torn apart. Locke did recognize that there could be matters so serious that they would warrant a split, but he believed that these would be rather unusual. While I do believe that Trump would be the worst president in history, I do not regard this as a matter so serious that it would require sundering the nation. The possibility of disaster does, however, provide a potential justification for a sundering.

John Stuart Mill developed the notion of the tyranny of the majority—that the majority (or those passing as the majority) might wish to use their numerical advantage to oppress the numerical minority. In such cases, Mill rejected the idea of majority rule and argued that the restriction of liberty can only be justified on the grounds of preventing harm to others. Since Mill was a utilitarian, all this would be worked out morally on that basis. As such, if it were true that the presidency of Trump or Clinton would be worse than the sundering caused by the rejection of the election, then it could be justified. That said, while I do expect there to be many angry people on November 8, I do not anticipate large scale social disorder. In terms of the consequences, I believe that no matter how bad Hillary or Trump would be as president, their badness would not exceed the harm of rejecting the election. As president, Trump can only do so much damage—far less than a sundering would cause. Those who think that Hillary would be a disaster as a president should also take this same view: no matter how bad she is, she cannot be as bad as the consequences of a sundering. This all assumes, of course, that the election was a proper one.

In discussing obedience in the Crito, Socrates presents the argument that he is obligated to follow the laws of the state because he agreed to do so. He does allow for two exceptions: force or fraud. If the forced him into the agreement or if the agreement were a deceit, then he would not be obligated to stick to his agreement. This seems reasonable: agreements made under duress and agreements based on deception have no merit.

Despite having no evidence, Trump has been asserting that if he loses, then the election must have been rigged. If he wins, he has graciously promised to accept that result. While Trump’s approach is morally irresponsible, there is a philosophical foundation under his spew. Going back to Socrates, if the election is such that fraud or force is used to change the outcome, then this negates the obligation of citizens to accept the results. The question then is whether or not the election is being “rigged.”

While there are clear concerns about efforts at voter suppression, such suppression targets minorities who are far more likely to vote for Hillary than Trump—as such, this “rigging” is in Trump’s favor. If voter suppression impacts the outcome, then this would provide legitimate grounds for questioning the results.

Trump has embraced the Republican myth of voter fraud, but myths provide no foundation for claims of significant fraud. While Trump has made vague claims about rigging in general, informed and rational people have pointed out the obvious: elections are run by the states and direct operations are handled locally, so rigging the election would require a conspiracy across the states, counties and localities. While this is not impossible, it would be absurd to give this any credence—especially since Trump has provided no evidence at all. However, if it could be shown that fraud impacted the election, then there would be legitimate grounds for questioning the results.

While Trump has not (as of this writing) explicitly told his supporters to engage in voter intimidation, his critics have claimed that he is suggesting this. Given the attention being paid to the election, it is unlikely that voter intimidation will occur on a significant scale, but if it did, then there would be grounds for rejecting the results of the election.

Trump’s supporters have pointed to Al Gore’s legal challenge of the 2000 election to justify Trump’s claim he won’t accept the results (unless he wins). Gore, however, did not claim the election was rigged—his concern was with the accuracy of the count and similar procedural matters. There was also the fact that my adopted state of Florida created an electoral nightmare of hanging chads and similar disasters. As such, there was a real problem to sort out. If an analogous procedural disaster occurs, it would be reasonable to contest the disaster. But this would not be a rejection of the electoral process or the legitimacy of the election—it would be a matter of sorting out a mess. Such a situation could, of course, escalate—but I do hope that the election goes smoothly. Or, failing that, that I hope neither my home state of Maine nor my adopted state of Florida play a role in any electoral disasters.

Assuming the election is not rendered invalid by fraud or force, then the results will properly determine the next legitimate president of the United States, whether this be Hillary or Trump. As citizens, we are obligated to accept the results of a properly conducted election—that is what we have agreed to by being citizens. Trump, in his dangerous, self-serving buffoonery, has assaulted this foundation of our democracy. My hope is that if he is defeated and refuses to accept the results, his supporters will take their duty as citizens seriously. If he wins, I intend to do just that and accept him as the legitimate president. Again, this is how democracy works and I have agreed, by being a citizen, to accept the results of the election. Whether I am on the winning or losing side.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Advertisements

43 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. ajmacdonaldjr said, on November 8, 2016 at 11:05 am

    This election won’t change much, if anything. Trump (like Romney, and Bush) will be more pro-Israel. Clinton (like Obama, and her husband Bill) will be slightly less pro-Israel. I’ve never seen a photo of Trump at the so-called wailing wall, so I doubt he will be elected. Everyone who wants to be president has to have his or her photo taken at the wall. Hillary has had her photo taken. Obama had his photo taken at the wall, Romney had his, McCain had his, Bush had his, etc… Why Trump hasn’t had his photo taken at the wall is a mystery. Just the other day I saw where Trump had sent his written prayer to be stuck in the wall by a proxy, but that’s not the same thing as having your photo taken at the wall. I think Trump knows such photos are proof you’re Israel’s bitch and he doesn’t want to be seen (or talked about) as Israel’s bitch. No doubt he has heard these sorts of remarks from his many Jewish friends concerning past presidents and his ego won’t permit him to become the butt of such demeaning conversations. Should Trump become president, it will be interesting to see the cascade of broken campaign promises (=virtually all). We’ll probably be invading Syria by March if he is elected. (He’ll be Israel’s bitch whether or not there’s a photo of him at the wall). Thankfully Obama has kept regular US infantry troops out of Syria, and Hillary will do the same. Like Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, Hillary and Obama prefer to use US Special Forces to train US armed and funded radical Islamic jihadis for use as proxies in the Middle East, as opposed to sending regular US infantry troops to invade Middle Eastern nations, like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld did.
    Trump Writes Prayer for Western Wall http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/30376/Default.aspx
    U.S. Politicians at The Wailing Wall in Israel https://youtu.be/hZWDOqJqOgA
    Hillary Clinton at the (Women’s Section of the) Wailing Wall http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/senator-hillary-rodham-clinton-lays-her-hands-in-prayer-on-the-of-picture-id56154726

  2. TJB said, on November 8, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    95% of the violence and bullying we have seen in this election has been against Trump supporters.

    Trump has been in our living rooms for thirty years and suddenly he is Hitler. Mike, you have well and truly drunk the Kool Aid.

    We also know that the person behind the violence at some Trump rallies has visited president Obama at the White House dozens of times.

    Hillary has run a totally negative campaign with the aim of demonizing Trump and making people afraid of him. Trump probably won’t make a good president but there is no reason to fear him.

    • wtp said, on November 8, 2016 at 3:12 pm

      Mike, you have well and truly drunk the Kool Aid.

      Hell, Mike works in the Kool-Aid factory. He aspires to be a foreman.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 8, 2016 at 7:11 pm

      Trump is not Hitler; I never make that claim. Trump is a demagogue, he has been endorsed by at least one branch of the KKK, he seems to flirt with antisemitism, he lies relentlessly, he makes assertions that are racist and sexist, and so on. But he is not Hitler. If he wins, he might try to keep his promises to deport all illegals, keep out all Muslims and so on. But I do not think he will set up concentration camps and engage in mass murder.

      Trump and Hillary have been running hard negative campaigns against each other, so it would be unfair to single out Hillary here.

      • wtp said, on November 9, 2016 at 3:15 pm

        Trump is not Hitler;

        Very good, Running Man. Would you care to address the Zimmerman topic we were discussing? You asked me a question, I took time to answer it refuting your assertion that “(The media) got it right that Zimmerman ignored the police and engaged and killed an unarmed person.”

        Trump is not Hitler. Good. Zimmerman is not a murderer, correct? The media lied/intentionally misled in their attempts to portray him as one. Correct?

      • wtp said, on November 9, 2016 at 3:20 pm

        Oh, and BTW…If he wins, he might try to keep his promises to deport all illegals, keep out all Muslims and so on.

        So…he’s not like Hitler, just more like FDR in that regard?

  3. DH said, on November 8, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    I think that in a “normal” election, one in which there are two opposing ideologies that share a common goal for America, your sentiment is right-on. I am curious to know at what point you would draw the line and object to an election on the basis of a tyrannical and unconstitutional grab of power. This is how many (including myself) view Hillary Clinton.

    To me, there is no question that this election has been rigged in her favor; it is surprising to me that she is not leading by a greater margin. I’m not talking about voter suppression or intimidation, nor am I talking about anything that happens in the polling places or with voting machines – but that her very candidacy is an example of how the system has favored her. There is no question that she was the “heir apparent” to the throne who was derailed by Barack Obama; it was commonly known that the party owed her this one, and the fact that there were only two real candidates for the Democrat nomination is a testament to the kind of power and influence she and her husband hold over the Washington elites. Her nomination is closer, in my view, to the fact that Saddam Hussein’s popularity in Iraq was so great that he was re-elected with a 100% victory and no opposition, rather than the expression of the will of the people.

    In looking at the electoral map, we see that this election hinges on a few states – Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania. These states have been “Red States” for a very long time – and one might question why all of a sudden these states are “in play”. The answer lies in the flood of immigration and changing demographics to those states over the last eight years; it is not too much of a stretch to consider that this flood of largely Democrat voters has been purposely allowed NOT due to some compassionate ideology, but rather to purposely change the electorate to ensure left-wing victories in those states for generations to come. California, whence came Ronald Reagan for example, is not even contested by Republicans anymore; the blue hue of that state is a foregone conclusion. This is not due to changing ideology over the last 30 years, but changing demographics within, which, in retrospect and within the context of the left’s desire to win at all cost – seems like the ultimate legal gerrymandering.

    The crimes that Hillary has been able to get away with is another example of the power and influence she wields. She was clearly in violation of the espionage act and other federal laws – and despite the belief of so many of her supporters she was NOT exonerated, she was NOT found “innocent” – rather, they just declined to prosecute.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-c-rutledge/fbi-clinton-was-extremely_b_10818458.html.

    The list is too long to enumerate – but we are all familiar with her selling of US Uranium reserves in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation – her abuse of Juanita Broadderick and the long list of scandals that have followed her wherever she goes. You can choose to believe that this is some vast “Right Wing Conspiracy” as she is wont to say, but I say that she has much dirt under her fingernails and has gotten away with plenty. Johnny Cochran could have learned a lot from her.

    So if Clinton is “qualified” based on her experience with the political system, the power and influence she wields within, and her ease with manipulating people, I would argue that this is a giant step toward tyrannical rule and something that we, as Americans, should NOT accept. It is not “Majority Rule”, it is a power play by elitists and extremely dangerous.

    So what if I am wrong? What other qualifications does Hillary have?

    I do not understand why my fellow New Yorkers support her. When running for Senate, she promised something like 200,000 new jobs to upstate New York. Twelve years later we are still waiting – job growth here has stagnated or declined. Was that a lie? A failure? Either way, I think the promise took a back seat to Clinton’s other priorities – whether political advancement or personal enrichment or both – her constituents were little more than a PIA.

    When Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State, she directed the American side of a major technology transfer to Skolkovo, the Russian equivalent of our Silicon Valley as part of Obama’s U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Money from major US technology companies like Google, Intel, Cisco and others into Skolkovo, with concomitant donations being made to the Clinton Foundation. Andrey Vavilov and Viktor Vekselberg were two Putin friends and confidants who donated thousands to the foundation. Hillary ignored many warnings from US military experts and other federal law enforcement agencies who raised alarms regarding the kind of technology that was coming from Skolkovo was not civilian in nature – research conducted in 2012 on Skolkovo by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth showed that the Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project—the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-foundation-state-and-kremlin-connections-1469997195

    This technology transfer was a lynchpin of Hillary’s efforts in furthering the “Reset” button with Russia – ushering in a new era of goodwill with that country and with Putin. Today, that reset button stands as a dismal failure – this morning it was announced that the UN has put 300,000 troops on “High Alert” in readiness for a confrontation with Russia.

    Think back for a moment to the campaign of 2012 – when Mitt Romney said that Russia was perhaps our biggest geopolitical foe – and Hillary and Obama sat back and laughed at him – saying. “Hey, Mitt – the 1980’s called – they want their foreign policy back”.

    Perhaps she is politically skilled, but she is a failed leader at best with a proven track record for compromising American values and interests – either through incompetence or purposeful self-interest.

    I have some friends in Virginia who are very concerned about this election – these people happen to be lifelong liberal Democrats. One put it very well – “With Hillary, we know exactly what we are going to get. With Trump, although we can guess, there is at least a glimmer of hope”.

    Perhaps the right thing to do is as you say – to recognize that we are indeed a Democracy and that our President may have been constitutionally elected and should be respected by all of us – but as a member of the “basket of deplorables”, I am more than a little wary.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 8, 2016 at 7:05 pm

      You do raise an excellent point about party politics. While the election process is not rigged against Trump, the two party system is rigged against any candidate outside of those parties. It is also rigged against the non-anointed within the parties. I do have to give Trump credit for beating his party’s own establishment; a feat Bernie could not pull off.

      I certainly see merit in the claim that Hillary’s ambition will prove disastrous for America.

  4. ronster12012 said, on November 8, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    Michael

    Trump has already won, whether he wins the presidency or not. If Hillary wins the election, Trump sets up the proposed Trump TV and spends the next four years sticking it to her on a daily basis to an ever growing basket of deplorables. If Trump wins the election he gets to investigate her(or rather permit existing investigations to continue) for the next four years. Hillary is screwed either way,

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 8, 2016 at 7:02 pm

      True, if Trump is not elected, he can milk the fame until he dies. If he gets elected and the Republicans keep the house, Hillary might spend the rest of her days being dragged before congress. Trump does not seem to be a man who can let even the slightest perceived wrong go; which is hardly what one wants in a leader.

      • ronster12012 said, on November 9, 2016 at 12:08 am

        Michael

        My only concern(apart from a general liking for the american people themselves though not the govcorp)as a non american and therefore non voter(though I do note that being an illegal is no real impediment to voting in this election), is who is more likely to start WW3? The man who says that the US and Russia should work to defeat ISIS, or the women who wants to impose a no fly zone to help ISIS which may precipitate a hot war with Russia(and China).

  5. nailheadtom said, on November 8, 2016 at 9:42 pm

    “As Locke saw it, government is based on a social contract resulting from the consent of the governed.”
    I don’t recall signing any contract.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 9, 2016 at 3:17 pm

      Implicit contract. If you live in America, you thus agree to follow the rules. Or goes Locke’s argument.

    • wtp said, on November 9, 2016 at 3:40 pm

      I don’t recall signing any contract.

      Because you’re standing on it. Right there under your feet. You can move them to any other place on the planet that you choose. It’s not like you live in Cuba or North Korea. But you can if you want to.

      • nailheadtom said, on November 12, 2016 at 2:22 pm

        Was that the argument used for moving the Cherokees to Oklahoma and the Winnebagoes to Nebraska? So what it boils down to is do it our way or we’ll kill you. Same social contract as ever.

  6. TJB said, on November 9, 2016 at 9:52 am

    That was fast.

    A top progressive group vowed early Wednesday to “obstruct, delay and halt” Donald Trump’s presidency, drawing the line in the sand for liberals for the upcoming administration.

    Democracy for America executive director Charles Chamberlain went after the Republican’s “bigoted” agenda in a statement shortly after Trump was declared the president-elect.

    “After the most divisive presidential election in the nation’s history, the divide in this country will be between those who attempt to accommodate Donald Trump’s fringe-right, bigoted agenda and those who will fight him every step of the way,” Chamberlain said.
    “So, let’s be absolutely clear: Democracy for America will do everything in our power to obstruct, delay, and halt the attacks on people of color, women, and working families that will emerge from a Trump administration,” he added.

    The statement went on to place part of the blame for Trump’s victory at the feet of the “political establishment.”

    “We are more convinced than ever that our country needs a massive, multi-racial, multi-generational progressive political revolution led by women and people of color that is not beholden to the broken political establishment that brought us to this moment,” he added.

    “And that’s precisely what we’ll work with our members and our allies to build in the days, weeks, and months ahead.”

    DFA supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Democratic primary but shifted gears to promote Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in the general election race against Trump.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/305139-progressive-group-vows-to-obstruct-trump-presidency

    • wtp said, on November 9, 2016 at 3:10 pm

      On whatever side there will always be the extreme a-holes who refuse to accept defeat and conversely those who will take joy in rubbing the loser’s face in the dirt. I was rather pleasantly surprised at HRC’s rather gracious acceptance of defeat. Took her a while to get around to it, publicly anyway, but when she did she was quite good. Perhaps my expectations were exceedingly low. Oh to be a fly on a wall however…

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 9, 2016 at 3:21 pm

      The Democrats can just dust off the Republican rhetoric regarding obstructing Obama.

      While I have no confidence in Trump, I have had enough experience with people faced with challenges to know that sometimes they exceed expectations. So, I am willing to see what Trump actually does before condemning his presidency. If he does good things for America, like his proposal to rebuild our decaying infrastructure, I’ll support him. If he proposes things like loosening up the libel laws to allow more lawsuits, then I will oppose this attack on the first amendment.

      I’m not going to wail and predict the end of all things; I count on politicians to not keep most of their promises and congress will probably persist in doing little.

      • DH said, on November 10, 2016 at 10:15 am

        Actually, I think that loosening up the libel laws (which, by the way, I think was just campaign rhetoric decrying false negative press) would be more in keeping with the spirit of the first amendment than not – but I don’t think you have much to worry about there. Nor do I think he’s going to go after Hillary Clinton.

        Regarding your open mind, kudos to you for that. On first glance it would appear that you are in the minority. Protests have arisen in cities across the country – there was a pall all across my campus yesterday with students and faculty alike in deep depressions, dressed in black, not paying attention in class.

        Liberal activist groups have vowed to “obstruct, delay, and halt” Trump’s agenda.

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/9/liberal-pac-vows-to-obstruct-delay-and-halt-donald/

        In the spirit of unity and a continuation of their work for racial harmony, leaders of the BLM movement are inciting riots in white communities, chanting “They Did This To Us”.

        http://bluelivesmatter.blue/riots-in-white-communities/

        When you read the above link, take note of the twitter comments below the article to get a real view of the open mindedness of the people of this country.

        I saw facebook feeds from people I know and like, posting such gems as “If you voted for that dickhead, go ahead and unfriend me, because I’m not talking to you anyway”.

        The Canadian immigration information website crashed on election day.

        In the end, I believe very strongly that the Trump victory was a Hail Mary pass on the part of the American people – a strong repudiation of politics as usual, corruption and “insider trading” at the highest levels of leadership, and the (very accurate, IMO) perception that Hillary Clinton was the star representative of that kind of corruption, abuse of power, enrichment at the cost of the taxpayer and national security.

        My biggest hope for the Trump administration is that he will NOT follow in the steps of Barack Obama and GW Bush, exceeding his authority as president and “working around a Congress that will not act”. There is a definite line between “obstructionism” for the sake of trying to make a president fail, and acting on a true objection to policy, holding firm to opposing philosophy. If the Constitution is followed even a little more closely than it has been in the last 16 years, Trump’s extreme campaign rhetoric will be softened substantially by due process, which is how it is supposed to be.

        When Bill Clinton took office in 1992, he was a left-wing ideologue. He had a lot of difficulty because of what was called an “obstructionist” Congress – but after his re-election he had a renewed sense of compromise (his hand was, of course, forced by a number of government shutdowns). It was his willingness to work with Newt Gingrich and the Republican House that forged some legislation that had a profound effect on American jobs and the American economy, and led to what is now considered to be a very successful presidency.

        Despite a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, Trump is far from having a legislative rubber stamp. He, like most Presidents before him, will learn that the process is not as easy as he thinks.

        Those who wail and predict the end of all things should do a little more reading – they should learn that the Obama style of leadership by executive order is not the norm, that opposition by Congress is not obstructionism, and that the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution, although it often leads to deadlock, is in place to prevent the tyrannical rule of a single government entity.

        One encouraging thing that I have heard is that across the board, on conservative talk radio shows, there is no hero-worship, no chants of “Trump! Trump! Trump!”, none of the Hopeful Gazing Off In the Distance that we saw on the election of Obama – but rather, a serious, concerted concern that we, the people, have to hold our president and our leaders to a return to Constitutional process, and be very watchful that this president does not do what his predecessors did (and what so many believe Hillary Clinton would have continued).

        In that regard, I think we dodged a bullet by rejecting Hillary Clinton, because that’s where we were headed. Perhaps it will prove to be unfortunate that the Hail Mary pass was caught by Donald Trump – perhaps it will be exactly what this country needs.

        • TJB said, on November 10, 2016 at 10:58 am

          It was his willingness to work with Newt Gingrich and the Republican House that forged some legislation that had a profound effect on American jobs and the American economy, and led to what is now considered to be a very successful presidency.

          Exactly. Obama’s “my way or the highway” approach was designed by the Framers to be DOA.

          • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 11, 2016 at 12:26 pm

            I seem to recall the Republican leadership making it clear that they would thwart Obama; so they seemed to want him on the highway from day zero.

            But, that was then and this is now. As I said about Obama, I’ll say about Trump: Democrats congress should not obstruct him just because he is a Republican; they should oppose when doing so is justified by grounds other than mere party affiliation. For example, they should not just block his supreme court nominee out of partisan politics. As I said about Obama’s nominee, congress needs to do its job.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 10, 2016 at 7:25 pm

          Interesting points. As you note, this might have the beneficial impact of rolling back some of the imperial presidency. Congress, I think, has ceded too much to the executive. They need to step up and take that back. Maybe Trump will push them into that and he will not be adept enough to resist.

  7. TJB said, on November 9, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    Mike, how do you explain why the GOP went from mild mannered Romney to a brawler like Trump in four short years?

    My hypothesis is that the voters chose Trump because they knew he would fight back when the progressives viciously attacked him. Romney was too decent of a person to fight back.

    Even you, as I remember, had some over-the-top attacks on Romney.

    So I blame progressives for the rise of Trump.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 10, 2016 at 7:23 pm

      I’ve heard some arguments blaming progressives for Trump. While this does seem to imply that Trump is a bad thing (one is not blamed for bringing about something good), the explanation for Trump is not just one single thing.

      I was critical of Romney, but I don’t think I was over-the-top. But, I was probably unfair to him at times. I blame the feckless ways of youth.

      • TJB said, on November 12, 2016 at 11:41 am

        I was critical of Romney, but I don’t think I was over-the-top.

        Au contraire. It bothered you more that Romney was involved in some high school bullying than that Hillary evaded government transparency laws and probably obstructed justice.

        If that isn’t a loss of perspective, then what is?

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 13, 2016 at 5:24 pm

          I did write about Romney’s bully episode, but my discussion included my own youthful misdeeds (such as walloping a friend in the back of the head with a homemade flail) and my view was that if Romney had outgrown this, then this was not something to worry about.

          As the FBI points out, Hillary did not break the law. You’ll note that I have not been a Hillary fan either. Romney, I think, could have beaten Trump if Trump had stayed a Democrat. I certainly would vote Romney over Trump.

          • TJB said, on November 13, 2016 at 8:33 pm

            Mike, please. The FBI decided not to prosecute. There was no question she broke the law.

        • WTP said, on November 13, 2016 at 9:25 pm

          A loss of perspective is what Mike says it is. Nothing more, nothing less…Alice.

  8. ronster12012 said, on November 10, 2016 at 9:24 am

    And now for something infinitely more important….which celebs will renege on their promises?

    So far:

    Jon Stewart (TV Personality)
    Chelsea Handler (TV Personality)
    Neve Campbell (TV Personality)
    Barry Diller
    Lena Dunham
    Keegan-Michael Key
    Chloë Sevigny
    Al Sharpton (TV Personality)
    Natasha Lyonne
    Eddie Griffin (TV Personality)
    Spike Lee (TV Personality)
    Amber Rose
    Samuel L. Jackson (TV Personality)
    Cher (TV Personality)
    George Lopez (TV Personality)
    Barbra Streisand (Actress)
    Raven-Symoné (Actress)
    Whoopi Goldberg (Actress)
    Omari Hardwick (TV Personality)
    Miley Cyrus (Actress)
    Amy Schumer (Actress)
    Rosie O’Donnell (TV Personality)
    Barry Diller (Businessman)
    Katie Hopkins (TV Personality)
    Jennifer Lawrence (Actress)
    Bill Clinton
    Stephen King (Writer)
    Ne-Yo (Rap Singer)
    Larry Flynt (Publisher)
    Ian Somerhalder (TV Personality)
    Chelsea Handler (Don’t Know???)
    Ruth Bader Ginsberg (Justice)
    Amber Rose (Rap Singer???)
    Bryan Cranston (TV Personality???)

    have said that they would leave if Trump won. How many , if any will make good on their promise? It would be nice if people could remind them to GTFO if they have a memory lapse and forget to leave.

    Oh, and Madonna offered free blowjobs for Hillary votes but has apparently reneged on someone(obviously with no taste and too lazy to masturbate) who tried to collect on her offer…

    • wtp said, on November 10, 2016 at 6:19 pm

      They said they were going to leave the US if Trump won. I see three reasons for them to have said that:

      1) Continuing to live in a country run by such a horrible person would be unbearable
      2) Similar to #1 only more so, such that they fear for their lives and/or property should they stay here
      3) They were threatening to remove their wonderfulness from us, taking themselves hostage so to speak, to get people to vote for HRC. They really had no such intention of actually following through, partly because they know #1 and #2 are hysteria.

      Now the circumstances of #1 and/or #2 are still as valid (or I would say as invalid) as they were before the election and thus if they really believed them they should probably be bugging out ASAP. Before Jan 20 at least. However, if it was simply a threat per #3…well imagine the magnitude/delusion of ego that entails.

      • ronster12012 said, on November 11, 2016 at 9:46 am

        WTP

        “They were threatening to remove their wonderfulness from us,” Beautifully put….sums up their delusions nicely.

    • wtp said, on November 10, 2016 at 6:24 pm

      Oh, and supposedly Notorious RBG (Ginsberg) never actually said that. BWRT: Madonna offered free blowjobs for Hillary votes but has apparently reneged…These people have no ethical standards.

      Oh, and pleeeaaaasssssse George Lopez. It would probably be the funniest thing he ever did.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 10, 2016 at 7:20 pm

      I suspect most will stay.

  9. ajmacdonaldjr said, on November 10, 2016 at 9:41 pm

  10. ajmacdonaldjr said, on November 11, 2016 at 8:44 am

    I think it’s time to for you to comment on all these people who are not accepting loss… Another night of nationwide protests against Donald Trump’s election came to a head in Portland, where thousands marched and some smashed car and store windows, lit firecrackers and started a dumpster fire in what police declared a riot… Oregon is epicenter as Trump protests surge across nation http://fw.to/g6V0GJV

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 11, 2016 at 12:43 pm

      Protests are a legitimate part of democracy. When folks walk around in open carry protests, I support their right to do so. When folks protest Trump, I also support their right to do so.

      As an American who looks back with some pride at the schoolbook narrative of the Boston Tea Party, I do have some respect for protests that involve destruction. But, the destruction needs to be directed at parties that are in the wrong. Even then, such destruction is still morally problematic. I do not support the destruction of the property of innocent bystanders; smashing car and business windows just hurts innocent people. If people need to smash stuff to get media attention, they should consider smashing their own property rather than that of other people.

      • ajmacdonaldjr said, on November 11, 2016 at 3:31 pm

        “I have agreed, by being a citizen, to accept the results of the election. Whether I am on the winning or losing side.” I guess these protesters would disagree with you. I think they’re more driven by their emotions than you are. I doubt most of them read or write very much.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on November 13, 2016 at 5:27 pm

          They are probably writing and reading a great deal on social media. They have every right to express their anger peacefully, but they are also obligated to accept the result of the election. Unless, of course, there is evidence of significant rigging.

          I’ve been critical of the electoral college approach; but rule changes must be made before the game is played, not because one does not like how it turned out this time.

      • nailheadtom said, on November 12, 2016 at 2:15 pm

        In a nation/state where “democracy” is a word with sacred connotations, indeed, the concept is the state religion, everyone should be overjoyed no matter what the result of the election might be, as long as it was decided by the democratic process. Those who voted for the loser should realize that their own preferences differed from those of a larger group of voters and that the outcome validates democratic theory. How could anyone object?

  11. ronster12012 said, on November 14, 2016 at 4:54 am

    According to wikileaks emails, the person to blame for Trump’s win is………..Hillary…..because her conniving embarked on a strategy for the DNC to push the republicans to the right using the media. Then the most extreme candidate could be destroyed in the general election, or so the theory went(pearshaped)

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-12/martin-armstrong-exposes-real-clinton-conspiracy-which-backfired-dramatically

    Interesting read above that also BTW confirms the existence of God, because only a supreme being would make sure that there was such a thing as schadenfreude on this scale.

    And while I am at it, another ZH article by Scott Adams on the cognitive dissonance currently engulfing Hillary supporters/media/commentariat etc. Enjoy……lol

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-12/election-unleashed-cognitive-dissonance-cluster-bomb


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: