Of course it’s not normal. Nothing has been normal since Trump won the 2016 election – because, you see, he wasn’t supposed to win. So the faction that lost has been working non-stop ever since to effectively abort the election, as that is what they do.
Or does that just apply to babies?
Instead of attributing the loss to their own epic failure to persuade at least half the country to embrace their left-of-Marxist plans for America and adjusting accordingly they not only doubled down on the socialist rhetoric, they also formed a South American junta to overthrow the rightful President. The coup has been in play ever since the election results announced Trump the winner – it was ‘the insurance policy.’ Deep State ‘officials’ were deployed to sabotage Trump’s administration. The intelligence community along with military brass worked to sabotage his foreign policy, they all worked in concert with the elected Ruling Class to impeach the President despite knowing they had no grounds – aside from lies – to do so. It was intended to weaken and effectively ‘cancel’ the rightful President. Because they didn’t like him, or us, and we won.
A fraudulently won election was simply the logical next step in this sinister cabal’s toolkit to ensure they would regain and maintain power. The Elite Ruling Class, you see, has deemed us unfit to rule ourselves, as specified in the Constitution. I suggest that Exhibit 1 in The People’s Case of Seditious Behavior Against Deep State and its Collaborators should be documented evidence of their disdain for us.
But as the article points out, the question before us today is to probe a most likely fraudulent election before or after the installation of a President:
That question is the one that lurks over the proceedings as various factions duke it out over the proper way to move on this: not merely to investigate (or not), but to talk about what happened, what may have happened, and how to phrase what we want out of the action checklist.
The first approach – let a new president be inaugurated – sees any investigation as being of collateral procedural interest. It wouldn’t be unimportant, per se. But it shouldn’t interrupt an outcome that is being framed as the conventional outcome: the one like all other outcomes, in which there may be some moaning and groaning from the loser, but the collegial assumption rules, that we have a unified national purpose keeping a lid on the consequences of getting it wrong.
The second approach has a different premise. That approach – don’t accept the electoral outcome as controlling until it has been fully authenticated – amounts to waging a fight. It’s not a fight against the electoral outcome. It’s a fight for the electoral outcome. It’s a fight to make sure it’s valid and fair, before agreeing to be governed by it.
The second approach says the stakes are too high to simply blow off the possibility of being wrong.
The author explores the implications of either route.
There is a profound, unbridgeable disagreement between two factions here. One faction is not willing to prioritize authenticating the vote above all else. That faction is more willing to accept perceived social alignment and convention – not dispositive situational proof – as the basis for agreeing to the most important decisions about governance, such as who shall take office.
That set of motivations tacitly assumes that there is little meaningful consequence for accepting voting outcomes that may well have been shaped by fraud.
The other faction cannot agree to be governed by a voting outcome produced by fraud. This faction is motivated by the certainty that to accept such a thing is to be governed by lies and corruption, and cannot turn out well by any calculation. It’s worth fighting against a potentially fraudulent outcome, and not merely taking notes on it and hoping to do something about it later.
And he concludes, not surprisingly, that we have arrived at critical point in history.
This is a profound crisis for America. In my view, it has reached the level of the question of slavery, which was too big an issue to be settled by conventional expectations for courts of law and social and political transactions.
In 1861, there were many Americans, as there are many today, who didn’t see the question as being that much beyond the scope of ordinary remedy. But it was…
…the spiritual divide between Americans who don’t perceive a crisis (or whose intention is to provoke one and benefit from it), and Americans who do perceive one, could not be deeper. Either there must be a fight, to authenticate the 2020 vote and ensure that it produces a new president only if it was really honest and fraud-free, or there need not be a fight, but only a formulaic consultation which cannot possibly establish the meaningful absence of fraud.
If the choice is supposed to be the latter, voting is meaningless anyway, and no one is under moral compulsion to agree to be governed by its “outcomes.
Remember: it’s not normal to be cancelled for wrong-think in a free society.
It’s not normal to be ostracized by relatives and former friends because you hold different political views.
It’s not normal to be accused of being a conspiracy nut, a liar and/or a fantasist when you see evidence that points to systemic voter fraud.
It’s not normal to be gaslighted by every mainstream media outlet.
None of this is normal. We’ve entered the post-normal political world. Welcome to unexplored territory.
Grab a compass and pack a lunch.
Posts
