Posted on 12/17/2016 11:49:05 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In a rather amazing editorial, an opinion piece in the New York Times has called on the Democratic party to not cooperate in the appointment of Donald Trump as President.
"Where is the Democratic party?" ask writers Dahlia Lithwick and David S. Cohen, as Trump appoints Cabinet members who want to dismantle the departments they will head. Why aren't Democratic leaders making more of Trump's refusal to attend daily Intelligence briefings, of Russian interference in the elections? Why not challenge Mr. Trump in the Electoral college?
At this late date, the editorial is amazing in a way. The nation's most prestigious newspaper, Trump's hometown newspaper whom he has actually visited since the election, is declaring war on his presidency, when they must know it is inevitable.
The rules of a US presidential election are not complicated. The candidate with the most electoral votes wins. The one with the most votes nationally often gets second place.
Fast forward to 2016, and the Democrats are doing nothing of the sort. Instead, they are leaving the fight to academics and local organizers who seem more horrified by a Trump presidency than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. The Republicans in 2000 threw everything they could muster against the wall to see if it stuck, with no concern about potential blowback; the Democrats in 2016 are apparently too worried about being called sore losers. Instead of weathering the criticism that comes with fighting an uphill, yet historically important battle, the party is still trying to magic up a plan.
More from the Times:
"There's no shortage of legal theories that could challenge Mr. Trump's anointment, but they come from outsiders rather than the Democratic Party. Impassioned citizens have been pleading with electors to vote against Mr. Trump; law professors have argued that winner-take-all laws for electoral votes are unconstitutional; a small group, the Hamilton Electors, is attempting to free electors to vote their consciences; and a new theory has arisen that there is legal precedent for courts to give the election to Mrs. Clinton based on Russian interference. All of these efforts, along with the grass-roots protests, boycotts and petitions, have been happening without the Democratic Party. The most we've seen is a response to the C.I.A. revelations, but only with Republicans onboard to give Democrats bipartisan cover.
Take the recount efforts in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. While the Democratic Party relitigates grudges in the press, Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who received about 64 million fewer votes than Mrs. Clinton, has led the effort. The Democrats have grudgingly participated from the sidelines, but only because public perception forced them to. This effort has proved feeble, with a Pennsylvania judge denying the request because it was "later than last minute."
"Contrast the Democrats' do-nothingness to what we know the Republicans would have done. If Mr. Trump had lost the Electoral College while winning the popular vote, an army of Republican lawyers would have descended on the courts and local election officials. The best of the Republican establishment would have been filing lawsuits and infusing every public statement with a clear pronouncement that Donald Trump was the real winner. And they would have started on the morning of Nov. 9, using the rhetoric of patriotism and courage."
Dahlia Lithwick (@Dahlialithwick) is a senior editor at Slate. David S. Cohen (@dsc250) is a law professor at Drexel University's Thomas R. Kline School of Law. So in fairness, the writers of this opinion piece don't actually work for the New York Times.
The NY Times' argument that the Republicans wouldn't stand for this fails historically. The Republicans allowed the inauguration of a guy with one term in the US Senate and an incredibly Islamic name, just 7 years after 9/11. This despite his previous association with professors who had called for armed conflict against the US government. There was much nervousness about Barack Hussein Obama, but no one blocked his inauguration, because it was the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box.
Calling for resistance in the face of a lawful election almost qualifies as treason and sedition. Trump didn't cheat. Sorry, it's true. He won fair and square. Recounts have been held, CNNs Martha Raddatz has dried her tears. It's all over but the shouting. Elections have results. Recounts have failed to alter the fact that on January 21, 2017, Donald Trump will be our 45th President.
They’re deranged. It’s hilarious to witness! Hahahahaha!
People should resist the new yor slimes.
Tough s*** NYT.
Trump’s president now.
Don’t like it? Pound sand.
This is professional journalism?
This whole article is a bunch of lies. RATS are firmly behind all these efforts to make Trump’s victory illegitimate . Then this article tries to project onto Republicans the same behavior. HA! If Republicans fought as hard for the good as RATS fight for evil a genuine fighter like Trump would not have got elected in the first place.
Frankly, their level of derangement is no longer funny. It is scary when supposedly intelligent people talk like this. If even a small fraction of the folks bloviating about “resisting” President-elect Trump’s Inauguration were to *act* on their expressed opposition to the results of the election, it could get ugly real fast.
Dahlia Lithwick and David S. Cohen
Never heard of them and probably never will again.
They have lost the grip on the country and are going INSANE!!
In the darkest days 10 years ago after traumatic injury, and 2 years later, obama winning, I NEVER Though I would see a happy day again.
I was wrong!!! :) Life is good!!
God is GREAT!
That whole article is incoherent drivel.
This whole article is actually quite fair and rational. The Santa Monica Observer is criticizing a different article from The New York Times.
I highly suggest you read Michelle Malkin's book from eleven years ago, Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. Even what THAT book described couldn't envision the psychosis that I describe as Recent Election Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder.
I read the whole thing. When you get to the end...you get the opinion that some 9th-grade kid wrote the piece and some marginalized high-school instructor peer-reviewed it. It’s not really giving anything with weight....just passing around dirt as actual news.
The real God, not the Islamic Allah of course (they like to call him Akhbar, but that is deserved by the real God, not that flattery-driven demon of theirs).
You know, when I typed that, I thought “I’m using it to describe a Loving God but muslims use it to describe a vengeful monster.
It almost ruins saying it now for me.
IMTA (Inspired minds think alike)
These idiots won’t stop until their entire world is ash.
It may be telling that Democrats are coming closer and closer to embracing that wicked demonic deity anyhow.
Islamic Arabs drove the chattel slave trade, which was a wicked sin. Those who were willing parties to it (hello, incipient Democrat party) became liable to infestation by that wicked deity. That deity does not WANT black people to be free. Jehovah, by contrast, very much does. We are going to have one heckuva grudge match between the two deities on our shore, I greatly suspect. And Jehovah will pound Allah into the ground when they do.
I believe you are right across the board!
Did you read the ‘whole article’? I think not, because if you read the last paragraph you realize the author of this is squarely on our side here.
Jehovah’s forces are already beefing up as we speak. God has amazing ways of arranging victories. Part of it is simply scheduling in the elect, who will glorify Him and give Him a mighty foothold. However we should be profoundly grateful for those elect, because they cost Calvary. Allah does not have the Calvary card to play. In any direct fight, he is going to lose and bigly. Christians may have been afraid to pull out the spiritual swords, using more the literal ones. I anticipate that this is going to change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.