Someone's got a lot to lose, and someone knows it. Not the little people, they're going to lose either way. Someone is a big fish, one of the biggest fish in the pond, for two and a half decades. Imprisonment may very well be on the line for said someone, maybe even a few of the guppies in someone's bigger school of fish. For this very special someone, victory is livelihood. Failure may completely undo this someone.
This isn't a review of last season's finale of House of Cards. Fantasy is much less interesting than reality.
During the third and final dog show, we heard it asked if Trump would accept the Election results. This is what we heard, but likely not what was asked. Was Trump asked to concede to a rigged game? This is how the wise guy asks the question, akin to "So Loretta, how are the grand-kids?"
The question isn't outrageous. It's been an insightful couple of weeks into the machinations of Democracy. Some terrible truths have been laid bare, and the Wizard of Oz gives gravity to the possibility, demanding that Dorothy pays no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Wikileaks and Project Veritas have shined a bright light on the Clinton Machine, including but not limited to :
- Sabotage and Fraud
- Blatant bias of the DNC, actively working against Bernie Sanders
- Voting Machines, allegedly pieced together by the Soros Network
Yet, it is asked of Trump, "So kid, you accept yet? You gonna roll over?" as Guido clutches his aluminum bat.
This isn't a question that would've been asked if they didn't feel vulnerable and exposed - The Elite have let worse accusations and revelations slide. Between the work of Wikileaks and Project Veritas, the Democracy Myth is threatened. Faced with this threat, and the cat being out of the bag already, there's little point in being clandestine anymore. In desperation, Hillary's guppies will be quick to paint Trump as a wicked tyrant opposed to the sacred right, that he's against the People's choice, and will be against the People if he wins. No less was expected from this set up.
In the face of this exposure, Trump was challenged to turn a blind eye to it, "like a good boy should". He made the move that would give them what they needed most: Defiance. Trump had plenty of ways to answer this challenge while keeping them in suspense. "Do you ask me to ignore historical evidence of fraud?" might be one, he might continue "Is it expected of the President to turn a blind eye to said fraud?" Another may be "Is it Presidential to accept an outcome before it happens?", he could even use this one to take a jab at Obama's ceasefire in Aleppo.
They certainly intended to trap Trump with a predictable answer, as post debate analysis seemed to focus exclusively on Trump's answer to the question we heard. One can only speculate what the response will be for the answer to the question asked.
You sound like me. How would you sound if you were into hoppe rothbard, mises, deist, rockwell, give it a kick!
ReplyDelete