A piece over at the Atlantic ) I know, I know) deftly navigates that special trait Liberals have that I like to call “having it both ways” in which they explained why Donald Trump should not be accepted by the Electoral College… and how they could pull it off… backing their assertions by leaning heavily on a Constitution for which they have very little respect:
The second reason to think that allowing a Trump presidency might be more dangerous than overturning it is the threat of nuclear war. At several points over the last 70 years, presidents have faced decisions that could have trigged nuclear catastrophe. Harry Truman considered dropping atomic bombs on North Korea in 1950. John F. Kennedy famously said during the Cuban missile crisis that the chances of war with the Soviet Union were “between 1 in 3 and even.” According to Israeli historian Dmitry Adamsky, the Reagan administration’s 1983 war game, Able Archer, which the Soviets misinterpreted as preparation for an American attack, “almost became a prelude to a preventative nuclear strike.” As Jeffrey Goldberg has noted, North Korea—the most bellicose and erratic regime on earth–may have nuclear missiles that can reach the US mainland by the end of Trump’s second term. Which increases the chances that he could face his own moment of nuclear reckoning. In August, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough reported that, during a private meeting with a “foreign policy expert,” Trump had asked the expert “three times, in an hour briefing, ‘Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?’” In March, Trump asked Chris Matthews, “Somebody hits us within ISIS — you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?” Trump has also repeatedly declared his desire to be “unpredictable” when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons.The president can launch nuclear weapons within minutes, on his own authority. In the words of former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, “The system is designed for speed and decisiveness. It’s not designed to debate the decision.” Trump is famous for his impulsivity (his self-destructive late night tweets almost cost him the presidential race), his policy ignorance (he twice during the campaign seemed unaware that the US has nuclear weapons on air, land and sea) and his dismissive attitude toward experts (in November he boasted that, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do.”) Which is why 50 former Republican national security officials warned in August that he “would be the most reckless president in American history.”Does all this mean that, under President Trump, nuclear war is likely? No. But it does mean that it’s significantly more likely than under Hillary Clinton or any other plausible alternative.The third reason it’s not crazy for electors to consider defying the popular will in their states is the prospect of what Trump might do in the event of a terrorist attack. Last November, Trump said he’d require Muslims to register in a government database. In December, after jihadist terrorists killed 14 people and seriously injured 22 in San Bernardino, California, he demanded a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”Trump has also barred numerous reporters from his rallies, vowed to make it easier to sue journalists for libel and called for investigating Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos’ tax returns in retaliation for his paper’s critical coverage of Trump’s campaign.What might a President Trump do if terrorists killed hundreds or even thousands on American soil? During times of war and cold war, even more sober presidents have massively violated individual freedom. During World War I, Woodrow Wilson signed the Sedition Act, which made “uttering, printing, writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government or military” a crime. FDR interned Japanese-Americans during World War II. John F. Kennedy allowed J. Edgar Hoover to bug Martin Luther King’s phone. We don’t know how Trump would respond in a moment of national hysteria, when restricting press freedom and persecuting unpopular minorities became seductively easy. We do know that, based on his past statements, he’d be less restrained by the Bill of Rights than any president in recent memory.
I love how they twist themselves all up in knots when elections don’t go their way.
The Electoral College is designed to make sure that each state – no matter how large or small – has an equal say on who runs the executive branch. It’s very uncomplicated. In elections, we’re the losers of the race garnered a higher number of popular votes, whichever side lost took it badly and called it supremely unfair. Having said that however, and sincerely meaning it when I say I understand how Democrats feel, my only response – in the modern vernacular – is “too bad, so sad… it sucks to be you”.
Whenever you have time to settle in and set your hair on fire, meander on over there and get a big heaping helping of what it looks like to see someone suggest we have a civil war without actually putting it in those words.
PS: Pay close attention to how this piece uses Liberal Presidents whom they deeply admired and or respected as the context for how dangerous they believe Donald Trump would be if he were allowed to be President.[Images courtesy of How Stuff Works & Parade]