Trumpists Just Don't Get It On Electoral College Faithless Movement

Trumpies don't get it that we inveigh against Trump not out of "sour grapes" but because we have the sense to recognize he'd destroy the basis of constitutional rule


Sadly, dedicated Trumpists and Trump groupies - who've probably never read an issue of The Federalist in their lives- have still not grasped the basis of the Hamilton electors movement - dismissing it as more "crying", "whining" or "sour grapes".  In fact, as independent columnist Kathleen Parker has noted (Denver Post, 'The Electoral College Should Be Unfaithful and Not Elect Donald Trump') this is a misplaced, dismissive take in the wake of Trump's palpable unfitness to govern. She wrote :
.
"those on both sides who remain opposed to Trump are dismissed as either sorry losers or as dining on crow and sour grapes. But the stakes are too high — and the evidence of Trump’s presidential aptitude deficit too severe — for such trivializing designations. His demonstrated lack of judgment and impulse control should send shivers down the spines of all Americans in consideration of the nuclear arsenal he is poised to have at his fingertips."

In other words, the blinded blogging Trumpists mistake our willingness to oppose Trump's disdain for constitutional law - as William Rivers Pitt so eloquently put it:

"out of a clear blue sky, Trump became the defender of the American flag, tweeting that, perhaps, anyone who burns that flag should either be thrown in prison or stripped of their citizenship. The First Amendment, augmented by the Supreme Court's 1989 Texas v. Johnson decision, defends the burning of the flag as an act of free speech. The Fourteenth Amendment specifically prohibits the government from stripping a citizen of their citizenship. This is all black-letter law, making Trump's flag tweet just another burp in the void … but for this: His casual recommendation for addressing something so picayune as a burned flag is imprisonment or exile."

And our willingness to defend the Constitution by citing Hamilton's remedy for preventing a demagogue from getting in as President - as "crying".  But they have it all wrong. Wrong, wrong and wrong. It isn't "crying" to want to preserve the nation and its fundamental principles from an irresponsible madman and autocrat who clearly is only out for himself.  If that is "crying" then their lexicons are in need of drastic revision and they themselves in need of constitutional  education.

Being aware of this lunatic's lack of judgment and poor impulse control (such that he can't even refrain from twitter tirades) and wanting to prevent his ascension to nuclear access power isn't crying by a longshot but sober realism.  As blogger William Rivers Pitt alerts us too:

"A man with the temperament of an earthquake, utterly devoid of self-control, with no one around him apparently capable of reining him in, a man who admittedly lives for revenge and retribution, who is completely incapable of absorbing criticism without having a very public meltdown, who knows little of the world, and who thinks nothing of throwing people who commit minor acts of dissent in prison … this man is about to be invested with astonishing legal powers."

Alexander Hamilton himself-  in Federalist #68 -  saw the need to stop such an autocratic demagogue from becoming President,  so why not an ordinary citizen elector? Especially when, as Kathleen Parker notes (ibid.):

"Without consulting advisers or “sleeping on it,” for which he is not known, Trump can authorize a nuke upon the slightest provocation — or none. All previous presidents have had the same authority, of course, but all have also been experienced statesmen, nary a reality-show celebrity (nor snake-oil salesman) among them."

If I were any of these pro-Trump bloggers I'd damned well be crying at what could easily happen if this unhinged, loose cannon gets into power and lacks sufficient impulse control in a nuclear confrontation. If they aren't worried they need their heads examined.

Ms. Parker goes on to note expecting the usual idiotic rejoinder:

"Trump’s friends have told me they’re confident he’ll solemnly respect the burden of such power, but nothing thus far justifies their faith. After his election win, Trump hasn’t much bothered himself with intelligence briefings. He ignored 37 years of diplomatic precedent by chatting with the president of Taiwan, upsetting China. He spoke like an inarticulate ninth-grader with Pakistan’s prime minister, according to that country’s readout. Trump apparently told the prime minister that he’s a “terrific guy” doing “amazing work” and that Trump is “ready and willing to play any role that you want me to play to address and find solutions to the outstanding problems.” Oh, really? Which ones?"

The sad fact is to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear -  as well as a mind to process -  Trump has not demonstrated one scintilla of sobriety, accountability or leadership at all in the past few weeks since Nov.  8th.

Oh yes, we hear from the Trumpist bloggers all the yap about the odds being negligible, how no one will really  change at this point, citing historical frequency (or infrequency) but forgetting that this election cycle itself was unusual, a Poisson type event if ever there was one. Hence, it would be most unwise to judge the probability of Trump prevailing via the Electoral college based on past history.

The real issue is whether -  as Parker notes - there are 37 Republicans among the electors "with the courage to perform their moral duty and protect the nation from a talented but dangerous president".

I am betting the Republican electors, given what has transpired with the Trump transition up to now, will have the courage to act on behalf of their country. If I am wrong about that, then God help us all.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/70197/trump-s-creeping-tyranny