October 18, 2016

Hillary's campaign of voter intimidation means Trump should get those E.C. votes

Expanding on the theme of the previous post, that the media's merging with the Clinton campaign nullifies any claim that this is a fair election and that Trump ought not to concede if there is an apparent win for Clinton, what about other forms of electoral manipulation? The kinds of things we expect from backward thug regimes in third-world banana republics -- like violence and intimidation.

Here is an in-depth expose by James O'Keefe showing how various arms of the Clinton campaign recruit agitators to stir up violence at Trump events, straight from the (gay sociopathic) horse's mouth:

They are responsible for the violent mob that shut down the Trump rally in Chicago, both the agitators inside the venue as well as the thousands mobbing the streets surrounding it. That could not have been a more flagrant suppression of free speech and free assembly, to create a climate of fear that (they hoped) would ultimately suppress turnout on Election Day -- not just in Illinois, but across the country, among anyone who saw the widely broadcast images and stories.

They were responsible for shutting down the only highway leading into a Trump rally in Arizona, also another suppression of free speech and free assembly, directed only at Trump voters.

You can bet they were behind the blocking of the entrance to a business luncheon in San Francisco, where Trump's motorcade had to wind around the back, and Trump had to walk a good 20 minutes along a highway and across a dirt field. A mob also assaulted a Trump supporter on his way in.

They were also likely behind the prolonged and roving mob violence at Trump's rally in San Jose, where the police clearly had a stand-down order from the Mayor, as lines of them watched mob violence unfolding for hours and did absolutely nothing to intervene or prevent crimes a few feet away from them.

They must have been behind that guy who rushed Trump's stage at a rally in Dayton.

And more disturbingly, they were probably behind the attempted assassin who made his way into the arena at a Las Vegas rally and tried to steal a cop's gun.

It would not be surprising if they were also behind the recent firebombing of the GOP office in North Carolina, along with the graffiti warning "Nazi Republicans" to "leave town or else".

If any one of these acts of violence and intimidation had targeted Clinton rather than Trump voters, let alone if they turned out to be orchestrated by the Trump campaign, the RNC, affiliated PACs, etc., you can bet your ass that the elites would be howling about how a Trump victory in November was ill-gotten and only the result of a sustained campaign of violence and intimidation. There would be calls to nullify the outcome and hand it to Clinton.

Back on planet Earth, it has been the Clintons who have targeted Trump voters. If there is an apparent win for Crooked Hillary, that outcome ought to be nullified, so that the beneficiary and orchestrator of the crimes does not get rewarded electorally.

In fact, to punish her campaign for their wide-ranging and ongoing voter intimidation, I say she should pay with the Electoral College votes of the states in which the victims of these crimes live. The Clintons want to suppress Trump support in California -- then Trump gets California. They want to shut down a political gathering in Chicago -- then Trump gets Illinois.

The spergs are thinking up a more fine-tuned quantitative rather than black-or-white approach to fitting the punishment to the crime (a la how many yards penalized for what kind of foul in football). But that gets too bogged down in subjective perceptions of how serious a crime deserves how many forfeited E.C. votes. It's simpler and more objective to rule that a flagrant electoral crime forfeits the state whose voters were victimized.

That ought to provide a political campaign with a strong enough incentive not to organize such severe crimes against the voters.

Floating a bogus rumor, burning an effigy, hyperbole in stump speeches -- BFD. We're talking about a mob of hundreds or thousands swarming around isolated voters from the other side, stealing their political insignia, walloping them upside the head with a bag full of rocks, sucker-punching them unconscious, shutting down their gatherings, and so on and so forth. Any idiot can tell the difference with how far of a quantum leap the Clintons have made in 2016, unlike what we've seen in earlier elections.

(Although as for the mechanics of casting votes, the Republicans doctored the data for Ohio in 2004, which cost Kerry the election. Not to mention the shady shut-down of the recount in Florida in 2000. We would've done just fine if Gore/Kerry had won rather than Bush.)

The only hitch is what happens to electoral crimes committed in a safe state for the other side -- if the Clinton campaign had sent a violent mob to shut down a Trump rally in Houston instead of San Jose. We can't take away their E.C. votes from Texas, since we were already going to win that one. Maybe we just take away that number from Hillary's total and add it to our own.

Then the thug arms of the campaign would only feel like targeting states with small E.C. vote prizes, but what's the point of screwing around with rural voters in North Dakota, or blowing their reaction to a Trump rally in New Hampshire out of proportion? They would be hoping to sacrifice those tiny vote prizes for a larger nationwide vote suppression if news of the chaos were spread far and wide.

At that point, though, when they're sending in armies of outsiders to assault small-town citizens, we'll just give those citizens the right to execute the violent invaders on the spot. Let that message be spread far and wide.

Some kinds of assault have more severe societal ramifications (akin to the Left's theory of "hate crimes"), and ought to be punished more severely and publicly.

1 comment:

  1. True enough, if the challenger's campaign was doing this the Establishment would be calling for sanctions or even expulsion from the election.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."