Lies or Irrationality? Dems’ Excuses Debunked

Jack Kerwick
|
Posted: Dec 14, 2016 8:28 AM
Lies or Irrationality? Dems’ Excuses Debunked

The Democrats have perhaps never been as desperate as they are at this moment. The election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America has pushed their party even further to the fringes of the far, militant left. The extremism has recently manifested with rapid intensity in multiple ways, with the Dems making one outrageous excuse after the other as to why they suffered the crushing defeat that Trump handed them on November 8. Let us count the ways:

Because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, the Democrats tell us, it is high time that we reconsider—i.e. abolish—the Electoral College.

First of all, presidential campaigns in the United States are crafted to win the Electoral College. If the popular vote was the end game, every presidential candidate would run an entirely different sort of campaign from what they actually run.

Trump won the election fairly and squarely, and he won it in a landslide. In fact, as even left-leaning publications have recently, belatedly, admitted, Trump won more counties than any Republican president since Ronald Reagan’s 49-state victory over Walter Mondale 32 years ago.

Clinton picked up a mere 17 counties that Republican Mitt Romney won four years ago, versus the 212 counties that Trump recovered from Barack Obama.

Clinton outperformed Obama in 383 counties. Trump outperformed Romney in 2,728 counties.

Trump won 2600 counties compared to Clinton’s 500. Geographically speaking, he won 83% of America (some reports had it that Clinton lost all but 57 of America’s 3100 counties, but this appears unlikely).

Obama and Clinton received all-time low percentages of county votes. Trump, in stark contrast, is among three presidential victors in all of history to have won more than 25 percent of the vote at the level of counties.

Trump won the country. Clinton won some select, Democrat strongholds.

Secondly, the Framers of the American Constitution, recognizing the evils of democracy for what they are, opted instead to make America into a republic. Thus, the creation of the Electoral College, an ingenuous device meant to guarantee that all of the states—and not just some coastal regions with large urban centers—would have a voice in the country’s affairs.

In advocating for the abolition of the Electoral College, Democrats are, in effect, advocating on behalf of the abolition of the Constitution. We can say that they are Constitution-deniers.

And since the Constitution is the written expression of America’s identity, that which distinguishes it as the unique country that it is, a move to essentially destroy the Constitution is a move to essentially destroy America as the Framers and their posterity have known it.

And this is, quite literally, anti-American.

“Fake news” got Trump elected.

It’s especially rich to see those who have been peddling fake news for decades cast stones at anyone else.

The opponents of so-called fake news are the same sources, mind you, that told us that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction.” They assured us that the NSA did not surveil American citizens. In fact, these enemies of fake news insisted that Trump didn’t have the proverbial snowball’s chance in Hell of winning the election, that he and his supporters instigated violence and ejected babies from Trump’s rallies.

Notice the dishonesty of leftist Democrats, for the only “fake news” with which they are concerned consist of outlets that reject their partisan prejudices.

Even if we concede, as I do, that there is such a thing as pro-Trump fake news, the idea that there is enough of it to make the difference between victory and loss is preposterous—particularly considering the army of fake news outlets, i.e. the “mainstream” press, that were in the tank for Clinton.

We need a recount in crucial battleground states in which there could have been voter fraud that tipped the election to Trump.

Trump initially responded to this call by referring to it as a “scam” cooked up by the pathetic Jill Stein. He has been proven right and Stein now appears as an even bigger loser than she already was:

The recount has come to an end and, as will come as no surprise to anyone who isn’t either a militant leftist ideologue or a partisan hack, Trump won the states that the Democrats were pretending to contest.

Millions of precious dollars and opportunities to promote national unity were wasted in a transparent attempt to stoke the flames of discord and delegitimize Trump.

The Russians, courtesy of Vladimir Putin, hacked the election.

In a previous article, I noted that, if true, this would reflect horribly on the Democrats. Rather than rehash the logical implications of this position, I’ll merely remind readers that, as of now, zero evidence has been submitted to substantiate it. Moreover, there is minus-zero evidence to show that if Putin arranged for interference in our election it was either sufficiently significant to influence the outcome or that he was motivated by a desire to secure Trump’s victory.

While I do not doubt that foreign powers intervene in the elections of both their friends and enemies (the United States is as guilty of this as any party), the point is that the left, which has long been enamored with Russian dictators when they were international communists, is hardly driven by an interest in truth, the integrity of the vote, or anything of the sort.

Had they not had their lunch handed to them on November 8, can anyone with a straight face honestly say that the Democrats would be whining about Russia? In fact, had the shoe been on the other foot and it was Republicans who leveled this charge following a loss, those engaging in Russophobic theatrics now would dismiss their opponents as tin hat-wearing conspiracy theorists.

That the Democrats don’t give a damn about whether Russia intervened in the election, that they may not even believe their own allegations, is borne out by the fact that, as several retired US intelligence agents have observed, they prefer to settle for “circumstantial evidence” when they could have “hard evidence.”

According to a memo issued by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, not only is the charge that Russia hacked our election “evidence-free,” so too is the charge that there was hacking on the part of anyone. Rather, all of the available evidence points toward a leak, not a hack.

The intelligence vets declare: “All signs point to leaking, not hacking.” They add: “If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it—and know both sender and recipient.”

The “Russians Made Us Lose” narrative, like every other effort that the Democrats have made to delegitimize Trump’s historic win, is “uninformed, largely partisan fog.”

Indeed.