The Reverend


Very good piece in Politico....read it all, it's quite a targeted history lesson on challenges to U.S. elections. Here's the meat of it's relevancy to the presidential contest in 2016....



Even if Trump said in Monday’s debate that he would support Hillary Clinton “if she wins,” he and his supporters could very well be convinced in their own minds that she did not. Then what happens? Consider Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state and the one I worry most about this year, since it uses electronic voting machines without paper backup. Suppose that on Election Night, Pennsylvania’s secretary of state announces that Clinton has won the state, and with it the presidency, but Trump says, “Prove it.” The secretary of state responds, “That’s what the machines tell us.” Trump responds, “Well, how do I know that the machines weren’t hacked?” What is the secretary of state supposed to say then?



......



So who will resolve the conflict if Trump loses Pennsylvania and insists on seeing proof, and the state can’t provide it? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, despite being dominated by Democrats? The U.S. Supreme Court, despite being hamstrung by a vacancy and thus at risk of a 4-4 split? Congress, paralyzed by partisan gridlock? Can we count on Donald Trump to take the advice, coming across the centuries from Alexander Hamilton, that Trump (like John Jay) should concede defeat rather than risk violence in the streets, even if he firmly believes he was robbed? Jay managed to be magnanimous, despite his own experience with taking up arms against tyranny. Nixon conceded and, after losing in court, Gore did, too.



The answer to this question...."Can we count on Donald Trump to take the advice,..." is: no. No, we can't "count on Donald". Full stop. Any sentient human who "counted" on Donald for anything, anything at all, is a fool. Never take my Reverendy word for it. Ask this guy. Or this one. Or these hundreds of guys.



No, Trump can't be trusted to do the right and proper thing,.....so, the example of Trump challenging the vote count in Pennsylvania is exactly the scenario where we cannot trust Trump at all. Why? Because the spectacle of riveting the entire population of the globe to yet another episode of Reality Trump Teevee...where the stakes in the plot line could not be any higher....will seem like such low hanging, yugely profitable, masturbatory ego fruit for Trump...I don't see how he could resist picking it.



Furthermore, if you think about this too long, such a challenge could be the impetus for Trump and his Gangsters of Greed & Mayhem,....Giuliani, Gingrich, Hannity, Ailes, Bannon, Lewandowski, etc....to launch his new media channel. Trump and his minions could pontificate from some new media perch as the Trump challenge to the presidential election moves forward, day after day......you remember, hanging phucking chads, astro-turf Brooks Brothers riots, stop the recount, the Supreme Court Five...good times, only this time it would be even better.



Think of the ad revenue just from a launch window of November 9, 2016 through January 19, 2017 alone. Trump would have until Inauguration Day to cash in bigly. No matter what happened after that....Reality Trump Teevee would already have sprung out of the ground like Jack and his Beanstalk....and well on it's way to becoming the leaner and meaner, sexier, Mayhem Machine that Murdoch always dreamed of when he was a Boy Monster imagining Fox News.



Someone will have to calm me down. The more I type, the more i think this is a no-brainer for Trump. Donald has access to much better looking, model-quality women than the obese and obscene Roger Ailes could ever hope to prey upon. Hell, Trump owned a modeling agency...of sorts. Yeah, they were white, underage, unpaid, immigrant models...but who's gonna quibble about such politically correct snivelings, right?



Hannity is ready to be Trump Teevee's Arch Villain. Gingrich and Christie have been smelling the money. Both will say or do anything to get a taste of Trump Teevee profits. Just point....they're like trained dogs. Giuliani can be the Gang's consigliere.  Donald has those, you know, telegenic, demon-seed, sons of his. They're Real Phucking Smart...and they can talk shite really fast in front of a camera. Box of rocks...yeah, but man they can talk fast. Then Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, already owns the New York Observer...so..instant echo chamber. Ivanka would be in charge of costuming, of course....and Roger Ailes can be in charge of Trump Teevee programming like he did at Fox. But you know why Roger Ailes is hanging around Trump, don't you? He can't get those visions of vulnerable, teenage models out of his diseased head. Trust me...it ain't the money.



Great team of experienced monster-leaders already prepped and ready to go. Highly-motivated audience of tens of millions of angry white haters looking for a sexier and more violent version of Fox. A self-created national/world crisis story challenging the first woman ever elected to the U.S. presidency.... with the potential to exploit it, yes, tremendously, for 8 or 9 weeks. All the pieces, tragically broken as they all are, will virtually fall into place by themselves, forming a perfect media Frankenstein monster.Think of it as Fox in a Box...new and improved without the pretense, but with better looking babes and more guns.



What better way to start a militant protest movement of angry white males against the elitist, politically correct, rigged, U.S. election system and the federal government that rigged it all....than to challenge, needlessly of course, the presidential election win of Hillary Clinton?



Two questions to finish up.



Would you bet against Trump doing such a thing?



Has Donald already taken over the country...or....does it just seem like it?