Elections Are Also About Issues

Hard to keep in mind with the scandal- and personality-obsessed media, but Trump has the issues on his side.

By Robert Gore at Straight Line Logic

There would be a certain justice if Hillary Clinton won the election. In its unprincipled arrogance and lust for domination, the kleptocratic class to which she has ascended, and which so fulsomely supports her candidacy, has erected an unsustainable, teetering edifice. Built as it is on an inherently flawed foundation—belief in US government omnipotence—the structure must fall. Nothing would be more fitting than its collapse during her prospective tenure as president, which would expose not just her felonious personality and policies, but the criminality of her class.

That possibility has led some commentators, notably Brandon Smith at alt-market.com, to conclude that the fix is in and Trump will win the election. Trump and his supporters, who have virtually no responsibility for the parlous state of the world and who have in many cases resisted, to the best of their abilities, those who are responsible, will be the scapegoats for the impending collapse. Opposition to kleptocracy discredited and the masses crying out for someone to do something (always interpreted as a clarion call for more government), the malevolent cabal and its supranational organizations will attempt to assume control of the planet.

PRIME DECEIT

prime-deceit-final-cover

COMING SOON

Trump may well win, but the risks are enormous. Teetering edifices eventually fall. It would be more surprising than not if this one stood for the next four years. Effecting collapse is probably well within the power of the cabal. If central banks take their thumbs off the interest rate scales and allow their balance sheets to shrink, pop goes history’s greatest financial bubble. Nominal heads of the world’s governments will be blamed unfairly for that bubble—blown over decades—and for failures stemming from centuries of philosophical muddle. Fairness will be the last thing on the minds of those blaming Trump.

Enormous as the risks of scapegoating are for Trump, they are outweighed by the risks of a Clinton victory. The dangers of Clinton’s hawkish record and views have been extensively reviewed (see “The Most Dangerous Candidate,” SLL), but several considerations bear repeating.

She has been a full-throated supporter of US interventionism and cannot escape blame for the Libya, Syria, and Ukraine fiascos. More importantly, the US-Russian relationship deteriorated dangerously during her tenure. Fomenting rebellion and making an issue of Russian doorstep Ukraine, labelling Vladimir Putin a “Hitler,” proposing a no-fly zone in Syria, which would put the US in direct combat with Russia, and blaming Russia for email disclosures without a shred of proof are rank idiocies. Trump’s willingness to engage and negotiate with the leader of the second most militarily powerful nation is rational; Clinton’s adversarial posture is not. Nuclear war being the ultimate downside of that posture, the difference is sufficient reason to vote for Trump.

Not to be overlooked, however, are the other substantial reasons. The Clintons have defenestrated impartial justice and the rule of law. FBI Director Comey’s decision to recommend against prosecuting Hillary for her emails was the latest in a long line of scandals whereby Clintons are granted a more lenient legal standard than everyone else. Reopening the investigation had to have been in part motivated by recognition that his concession to Hillary was indefensible. It had subjected him and the FBI to an unprecedented barrage of justified criticism, and the newly discovered emails give him a do-over.

In a Trump presidency, that might serve as the first step back to impartial justice and the rule of law. During the second debate, he vowed to appoint a special prosecutor. Who knows where a vigorous investigation of Hillary Clinton might lead? There is never just one cockroach, and nobody can predict which cockroaches skedaddle upon exposure or give up their fellow vermin to avoid prosecution and jail. The powers that be can accommodate themselves to a superficial squirt of pesticide, but if Trump attacks the infestation no holds barred, it could upend a very comfortable status quo. Nothing would be better for America and its government. Beneficiaries of the present corruption will fight Trump with everything they’ve got.

Trump appears to be less beholden to the existing power structure than any major party presidential candidate in the last fifty years. He has his own money and has been refreshingly fearless in his public utterances. One can make fun of some of those utterances, but even without the threat of investigations, a man who can’t be bought and says what he thinks may be a man capable of resisting Washington’s army of interest groups, lobbyists, contractors, and captive media. No surprise that he’s received almost no support from them.

Filling the open Supreme Court vacancy is more momentous than usual because of the current ideological cleft in the court. There may be more than one vacancy. The next appointees will hold the deciding votes on a variety of key issues, including the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Justin Antonin Scalia’s caustic dissent in the King v. Burwell Obamacare case ensures his place in the pantheon of great justices. Trump admires Scalia and has promised to pick jurists in that mold.

Importantly, Trump appears to believe, with Scalia, that words, especially the words found in the Constitution, mean what they say. The Constitution is not a perfect document, but it specifies its own amendment process. That process does not involve judges inventing new rights. Nor does it involve judicially disregarding the clearly specified rights of the people and the constraints put on government. (The only good thing that can be said about the idiocy known as the income tax is that the people inflicted it on themselves via the amendment process.)

The latest round of Obamacare premium increases are upon us. Fulfilling a campaign pledge and repealing that odious legislation will have a place on Trump’s to do list. So too will immigration reform, and not the “reform” that is Washington-speak for virtually open borders, amnesty, non-assimilation, and a Democratic registration drive. Trump has mortified the elite, insisting that the US has a right to control its own borders, who gains admittance to it, and on what terms. They were dismissive until Trump defeated their Washington-speak candidates. Supporters grasped easy truths that the elite had sought to make politically unmentionable: the welfare state and open borders are incompatible; hand-out and criminal immigrants adversely affect America’s quality of life. Throw in the Muslim tide washing over Europe and many Americans are quite receptive to either rolling up the Welcome mat or putting it out much more selectively.

Trump can be an offensive, loudmouth blowhard, but he is not stupid. Much of the wailing about the candidates’ deficiencies and the “circus” election casts offensive, loudmouth, and blowhard as equivalent to incompetent and criminal. Whom does such equivalence benefit? Trump’s policies and personality offer Americans an opportunity to challenge the status quo. Many Trump supporters are animated by the middle-finger desire, but Trump would have been long forgotten political roadkill if he didn’t offer a clear-cut departure from the “way things are” and the powers that be.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
19 Comments
Iska Waran
Iska Waran
November 4, 2016 1:48 pm

Half of the country’s going to be in shock Wednesday. Hope it’s the half that deserves it.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Iska Waran
November 4, 2016 2:07 pm

remember… Be better than them…let they be who casts the first public stone..

FLEEVY
FLEEVY
  Anonymous
November 4, 2016 7:14 pm

Remember…total war…scorched earth…win at any cost…the fate of our civilization hangs in the balance

starfcker the deplorable
starfcker the deplorable
November 4, 2016 2:10 pm

Good summary, Robert. Most here miss the point that at heart I am a small government conservative. I get accused of being a statist on these pages all the time. But I’m a process guy. I know what utopia looks like. Question for me is, how to we get there. In our current captured government situation, it’s going to take a strong man (two words). Trump has totally set himself up to be the guy. He’s been plotting this for years. And now he has the country on his side. Tuesday is going to be brutal, if you are a leftist. Tuesday is going to be brutal if you are a statist. Tuesday is going to be brutal if you are a neocon. Lots of things are about to change. I’ll give you a for instance. The public pension crisis. How do you fix it. Easy. You don’t. It’s not a federal problem. Let the entities who made the promises craft the solutions. We all know what they will be. Get out of the way, and let it happen. Imagine, a world where budgets matter. The era of counterfeit fed money is just about over. Get ready to work.

Hagar the Horrible
Hagar the Horrible
November 4, 2016 2:12 pm

I can and will survive a economic meltdown. I can and will survive an EMP attack. I can and will defend me, my family, and my community against the ‘wild in the streets’ idiots sure to come. However, I doubt surviving a nuclear and/or biological attack for very long. “Live free, or Die!”

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Hagar the Horrible
November 4, 2016 2:42 pm

Not that big of a problem if you know what to do:

Anonymous
Anonymous
November 4, 2016 2:39 pm

I’m leaning toward Trump actually winning the real vote but being denied the victory through election fraud, legal manipulations, Electoral College defections, or other nefarious means.

The ruling world elite just has too much to lose at this stage in their game to allow Trump to as much as slow it down, much less stop it.

Would be interesting if this election ended up in the Supreme Court for a final decision (as if something like that could actually happen) and they ended up tied, wouldn’t it?

No matter what, next week will be an interesting week in American history.

Hagar the Horrible
Hagar the Horrible
  Anonymous
November 4, 2016 4:44 pm

Yes, interesting. No, a tie would end up in the House of Representatives.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Hagar the Horrible
November 4, 2016 6:18 pm

I’m thinking this would not happen in a tied Supreme Court appealed contested election case, that it would be sent back to the lower court to reconsider or the lower court decision left to stand.

There’s no real precedent I’m aware of so it would be interesting to see how it would play out, and how the people would react to it as it does.

Who knows, we may actually find out in a few weeks.

Hagar the Horrible
Hagar the Horrible
  Anonymous
November 4, 2016 7:38 pm

A tie in the electoral vote puts the decision into the House with the three top candidates in play. The Supremes get involved in contested elections after State and Federal courts rule and are appealed. If the Supreme Court does not have a majority decision it falls back to the lower court ruling which in effect affirms the lower court ruling.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Hagar the Horrible
November 4, 2016 8:30 pm

So you’re saying the House of Representatives is charged with deciding Supreme Court decisions when they are divided 4-4 and there is no decision made?

What part of the Constitution allows that?

And then why is the current 8 person makeup of the Supreme Court of any consequence? Why not just leave it that way and put the responsibility for tied Court rulings on Congress?

But, of course, no State election results would ever be contested in Federal court, demands for recounts or fraud investigations and such in extremely close elections where the result of the national election is at stake over the results, so the Question is purely hypothetical.

Hagar the Horrible
Hagar the Horrible
  Anonymous
November 4, 2016 9:00 pm

Do you not understand the written language? I repeat…”A tie in the electoral vote puts the decision into the House with the three top candidates in play. The Supremes get involved in contested elections after State and Federal courts rule and are appealed.” Two different and separate events, a contested election and a tie in the electoral vote. PAY ATTENTION to what is written. Have to wonder which Anonymous is posting this week?

[Article XII] (Amendment 12 – Election of President)

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.14 —The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. ratified #12 affects 8

Now, as to a contested election, the constitution has no mention of such an event. However, Federal Statues and I guess State statues address that issue…similar to 2000 Gore vs Bush. You can research to your hearts content on that one and you’ll find mass confusion, obscure arguments and massive WTFs.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Hagar the Horrible
November 4, 2016 10:50 pm

So explain to me why that wasn’t the case back in Florida in 2008. Why didn’t Congress vote to break the tie then?

The answer is, obviously, because there was no Electoral tie to break, there was the Supreme Court decision about the Contested vote count if Florida at play.

And there were 9 members of the Court then making a tie a moot point, something that is highly possible with the 8 members we have now. There is no precedent for this.

Congress has no more authority to make Supreme Court decisions than Supreme Court has to pass legislation.

Congress passes legislation, the Court makes Judicial rulings.

Do you understand that?

When there has been no Electoral vote yet, as was the case in 2008 and would be the case today, how can Congress break the tie?

Think a bit, man!

We’re talking a Supreme Court decision about the outcome of a State election that has been contested, nothing to do with the Electoral College vote that hasn’t taken place yet!

Hagar the Horrible
Hagar the Horrible
  Anonymous
November 5, 2016 12:43 am

It was the 2000 election not 2008. However, I must admit that I reread you initial comment and realize I misconstrued your original statement. I focused on the Electoral College vote rather that the contested results of the election. Please accept my apology as indeed a tie in the Supreme Court would validate the lower court decision and Congress would have nothing it could do. Thanks for being patient and responding to me civilly. I gave you a thumbs up on your last comment.

Deplorable Paul
Deplorable Paul
November 4, 2016 3:24 pm

The house of cards that is our current economic situation may very well collapse. Sooner if Hitlery wins, perhaps delayed a while if Trump wins, but collapse it will. Whomever is in office will get the (mostly undeserved) blame.
When the inevitable happens, only Trump has the ability and hopefully the will to COMMUNICATE the true causes and cures to the people. Hitlery would only obfuscate and screech on about the vast right wing conspiracy while her owners would continue to consolidate their power over all of us.
It will take a straight talker to make the people understand who is responsible for bending them over.
Trump will never compare to Reagan as “the great communicator” but he’s the only one in sight to do what must be done.

BB
BB
November 4, 2016 3:55 pm

At least with Trump we will have more time to prepare for the coming collapse or collapses. Clinton will invite millions of third world bottom feeders into this country forever changing the country into a leftist hell hole.She will pack the supreme Court with leftist who will go after our 2nd amendment.She will start war’s that no body but the elites want.She will be the end of our republic. It’s Trump or destruction.Maybe even a civil war.

Suzanna
Suzanna
November 4, 2016 8:58 pm

Thanks Mr. Gore,
I am emotionally exhausted by this pending election, true,
but more by the endless looting/embezzlement (admin’s word),
and the 8 yr. zero interest policy that will ruin so many lives.
Regardless the bankruptcy the USA corp will experience, and
all that involves, I do not want to see war or violence. Trump is the
better choice. That said, there are some particularly vile individuals
in the mix, and I would not regret their early demise.

Yancey Ward
Yancey Ward
November 5, 2016 12:20 pm

Smith’s theory is worthy of consideration, but I think it is ultimately cowardly to let it go down under Clinton’s watch. Trump as the last chance to change things is still my operating principle.