Hillary Clinton: “Right-Wing Extremists Already Have A Plan To Literally Steal The Next Presidential Election”
If she were serious, and constrained by logic, she would be supporting some voting process which would:
- 1) Ensure every voter is a) a citizen, b) who they say they are, c) not deceased, d) registered in a single state (yes, c and d are redundant with b, but Jocelyn Benson isn’t the only Dem SecState who had to be sued to purge voter rolls of dead people);
2) Ensure ballot integrity. Meaning a) no illegitimate vote (see 1) is counted, b) polling places are closely monitored by both major parties without interference, c) voting machine software is open source, d) no unsolicited mail in ballots are sent (for example, to the P.O Boxes of vacant lots), e) ballot harvesting is outlawed, f) military ballots are counted, if properly postmarked, in any state where the number of military personnel could potentially change the outcome, even when delivered a month after election day.
That would be, literally, a good start on stopping ‘election theft.’ The only thing on that list about which reasonable might disagree is voter ID.
Therein lies a problem. Some of the people putatively portrayed as reasonable by the legacy media (Stacy Abrams, Joe Biden), still invoke Jim Crow laws as a reason to suppress the votes of living citizens by insisting deceased and/or non-citizens have a right to dilute legitimate voter rolls.
We are substantially past the Jim Crow era.
On the other hand, we are not past ballot fraud. Technology and the relaxing of ballot verification have made it easier than ever. No one worried about ‘election theft’ would countenance it. Much less promote it.
I won’t go into the simple utilitarian argument that voter ID is a much smaller threat to the Republic (it is not a Democracy) than violating the other restraints I have mentioned. You could look this up and form your own opinion.
Given Hillary’s history, do you think her advice is credible? Or is it partisan political maneuvering and personal spite?
Let’s hear your proposal, Ms. Rodham. Does it involve Sid “Vicious” Blumnenthal as Federal Election Czar?
The pre-theft of election plots, like suppression of the Hillary email story, and the Hunter Biden laptop story, is left to another post.
2 thoughts on “Hillary. Projecting.”
Apparently at Yale, knowing the definition of literally is required neither for admission nor graduation.
Yale is just one cesspit of postmodernism where an degree in English can be granted to an English major who has never studied Chaucer or Shakespeare.
Yalies attention to meaning is modeled on the hookah-smoking caterpillar in _Alice in Wonderland_: What do I need this word to mean?
Yalies have their own malleable definition. Which comports with the frontal attack on free speech (literally violence), and with denial of biological science (a male can literally be a female) where the shock troopers are the groomers formerly known as drag queens hired by your local school librarian for story hour.
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
– George Orwell, 1984