Legacy of a Tainted Election


Now that we have all seen how the Russians meddled in the 2016 elections, you might think the courts would give Americans a mulligan. Voters were tricked into making the wrong choice, so can’t we void the election results and do it all again?

The short answer is no. There’s nothing in the Constitution to allow that.

We’re stuck with Trump unless Congress decides to impeach him, and you know that’s not going to happen as long as the Republicans are in control.

The consequences of that tainted election continue to haunt us. One of the first things this Congress and this president did, for example, was revoke an Obama regulation designed to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics.

So when an obviously mentally ill youth massacres students at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in South Florida, we have to wonder whether there’s a connection. And you have to ask if the insane bloodshed will ever end.

You know as well as I do that as long as the Republican Party controls Congress and the White House, the plague of gun violence will remain unchecked. The NRA has these craven politicians in its bloodstained pocket.

Meanwhile, Trump and his minions are running amok in Washington, looting the Treasury, trashing the environment, oppressing the poor and minorities – and doing their best to provoke a Third World War.

We the people may seem powerless to stop the mayhem, but there is one thing we can do. Vote the perpetrators out!

We might not have to wait for 2020 to give Trump the boot. If we give the Democrats control of Congress in November, they could impeach him. And even if they don’t impeach him, they could at least end the legislative assault his congressional minions are waging.

And they would send a message to the rest of the world that American democracy isn’t dead yet.

More on the latest massacre

Letting mentally ill buy guns

Meddling and the Constitution

Russia’s election meddling

Trump administration’s rampage

9 thoughts on “Legacy of a Tainted Election

  1. On the other hand, this could be a Communist terror campaign being waged to take over the United States.

    The United States has always had the right to bear arms, so what is really different now ?

  2. Obviously, LogicFish, the right to bear arms is limited. You can’t legally buy an atom bomb, for example. And, yes, by supporting the NRA, the Russians are waging a “terror” campaign against America. Just as, I am sure, America is waging a covert campaign to disrupt their country’s government..

  3. But we’re not talking about atomic bombs. Indeed, compared to actual military weapons, an AR-15 is a mere pop-gun. Compared to the M-16, it’s not even fully automatic. Then there are the range of actual machine guns, RPGs, etc.

  4. P.S., it’s likely other contributors are bored by quotes of Bolshevik attrocities, so here’s another example:


    I remember from various interviews that the Cambodian victims were at first happy at the Communist conquest because they felt that at least the conflict was over and their country might be whole again.

    Such is the reward of the weak.

    With a relative wealth of such examples to choose from, they’re not just examples. They’re a routine. Every time, the Communists demonstrate merciless ruthlessness in bringing the population into abject subjugation.

    “It can’t happen here” should sound hollow to any Jamaican expatriot .

  5. This concept that the election can be tainted because the electorate was “tricked” seems necessarily anti-democratic to me. It presumes that there is a superior viewpoint to that of the people. Moreover, the idea that such should be actionable seems authoritarian — that those with better minds should override the vote of the “inferior” masses.

    If the people can’t be trusted to competently analyze information put before them, so that there must be some recourse by “better minds”, then what meaning does democracy have, really ?

    And this idea that the election can tainted because of some propaganda operations seems dangerously destabilizing. It would mean that America’s enemies need invest only a pittance on interference operations so that the election is second-guessed with significant risks of civil war.

    It could be imagined this way: an enemy country could have run both pro-Hillary and pro-Trump operations. Then, whichever side lost would conveniently discover the opposing op. and try to invalidate the election, and so flirt with civil war and blood in the streets.

    This does not seem reasonable to me.

  6. I think that the right to bear arms is limited to a musket. It is the accessibility of assault rifles that makes it so much worse. Just look at other countries.
    we are number 1 in atrocities. it happens all the time. Ordinary people do not need assault rifles and multi bullet clips to protect themselves. They are just for amusement and mass assault.

  7. P.S.,

    As I think about this more, it seems bizarre that some people react to terror by surrending their arms. Moreover, there seems to be a common political persuasion that controlling the American border is racist. And so,

    + Disarm the people
    + Remove the border so that terrorist criminals can operate borderless.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *