NYT's Krugman Goes On The Warpath, Says Trump's Win Is 'Illegitimate'

Matt Vespa
|
Posted: Dec 14, 2016 3:00 PM
NYT's Krugman Goes On The Warpath, Says Trump's Win Is 'Illegitimate'

Nobel laureate and unabashed liberal Paul Krugman went on the warpath in an op-ed in The New York Times, where he declared that Donald Trump’s win was illegitimate, that hackers working for the Russians interfered on behalf of Trump, and that he’s pretty much a Russian plant (the Siberian candidate), who doesn’t deserve any deference because this election was tainted (via NYT):

So this was a tainted election. It was not, as far as we can tell, stolen in the sense that votes were counted wrong, and the result won’t be overturned. But the result was nonetheless illegitimate in important ways; the victor was rejected by the public, and won the Electoral College only thanks to foreign intervention and grotesquely inappropriate, partisan behavior on the part of domestic law enforcement.

[…]

Democratic norms have been and continue to be violated, and anyone who refuses to acknowledge this reality is, in effect, complicit in the degradation of our republic. This president will have a lot of legal authority, which must be respected. But beyond that, nothing: he doesn’t deserve deference, he doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.

And when, as you know will happen, the administration begins treating criticism as unpatriotic, the answer should be: You have to be kidding. Mr. Trump is, by all indications, the Siberian candidate, installed with the help of and remarkably deferential to a hostile foreign power. And his critics are the people who lack patriotism?

[…]

Personally, I’m still figuring out how to keep my anger simmering — letting it boil over won’t do any good, but it shouldn’t be allowed to cool. This election was an outrage, and we should never forget it.

It’s the screed of a frustrated, urban-based elitist who simply cannot believe that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. Seldom does Krugman blame Clinton for her own campaign missteps that cost her the election, namely ignoring tens of millions of working class voters. Oh, and I forgot the Comey mention, which informs that the FBI director wouldn’t even be a factor if Clinton hadn’t used an unsecure and unauthorized email server to conduct her official business as our top diplomat. There’s also zero evidence that points to Moscow ordering hacks to tilt the election in favor of Trump, just anonymous sources. Ironic, since the Times’ own public editor said that the publication was overly reliant on such government sources that have divulged false information, especially in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack. Also, we’re back to this crap argument that Trump lost the election. Folks, to deny Trump winning this election is akin to denying that the earth revolves around the sun, that water is a liquid, or that Christmas Day is on the 25th of December. She won more popular votes. Good for her, she didn’t win in the areas that mattered. She didn’t win the majority in 30 states that decided the election, Trump did. He won the majority of the states; any person familiar with winning presidential elections will tell you that’s how you win the White House. Period. Our Founders never intended our president to be elected solely based on the popular vote. They were students of classical educations and saw how pure democracies devolve into tyranny of the majority and mob rule. In this case, this nation would be lorded over by snobby, overeducated, and insufferable coastal elitists and urbanites. That’s not how you keep a country together. The Electoral College forces candidates to wage national campaigns, to work for votes across the country, and to make sure everyone from the New York investment banker to the peanut farmer in Georgia has a say. Moreover, it also allows those who don’t particularly like any major candidate the choice of voting third party in protest. That freedom would be stripped in a popular vote. Also, the chances for fraud would increase astronomically, along with possible trainwrecks concerning recounts and runoffs.

Krugman is angry. That’s fine. We were mad that Romney lost in 2012, but we hunkered down, retook Congress in 2014, and reclaimed the presidency this year. We maintained our grip in Washington, along with increasing our clout at the state and local level. The Democrats have been gutted. Krugman and his ilk would do well to do the same, but it seems that progressives are still throwing temper tantrums.

Recently, the Pepsi CEO said her co-workers cried, former CIA operative and CNN commentator said that there should be a do-over (or something), and the Left is frothing over unsubstantiated claims about Russia and fake news that may have impacted the election. Nope. Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate. Trump was also flawed, but she was viewed as worse for a multitude of reasons, putting our national security at risk being the least of them. Democrats are going to have to deal. That’s what adults do, but it doesn’t appear that they’ll learn anything. The party has become smaller and more left wing, who frankly doesn’t think that their progressive bubble, is what’s wrong with their party. In the meantime, the GOP is the dominant political force in the country from top to bottom.

Also, "the Siberian candidate"--let's simmer down a bit.