Will You Accept the Results of the Election?

This question was posed to both candidates and Mr. Trump said he’d have to wait and see. Immediately the media surrogates of HRC jumped all over Trump for implying that he’d be other than the loyal opposition if he lost. I think Trump meant he’d be loyal to the Constitution and not subservient to the Obama-clones running the Clinton campaign and, presumably, the members of her administration if she’s elected, God forbid. If this campaign raised up a number of principles which cannot be overridden by the results of the election, such as the Right to Life, strict interpretation of the Constitution, Supreme Court appointments, security of citizens at home and abroad, etc then it would seem that loyalty to the Constitution should take precedence. What do you think?

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2016/10/20/will-you-accept-the-results-of-the-election/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

6 comments on “Will You Accept the Results of the Election?

  1. Speaking of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, how about a strict interpretation of the Laws of God embodied in the Ten Commandments?

  2. St. Thomas, IIa, IIae, Q104, a6, ad3

    “It must be said that a man is held to obey secular princes insofar as the order of justice requires. And therefore, if they do not have a just principate, but a usurped one, or if they prescribe injustices, those subject to them are not held to obey them, unless perhaps per accidens; on account of avoiding scandal or danger.”

    If anyone objects to this, by quoting St. Peter: “Be subject to every human creature on account of God; whether to the king, as if more excellent, or leaders, as sent by him.”…
    or St. Paul: “Admonish them to be subject to [their] princes, [and to] powers.”

    It should be noted that St. Thomas himself adduces these very quotes in the sed contra of the very same article, so he has already taken them into account, and obviously did not buy into any notion that they negate his assertion in ad3. And for good reason, because…

    1 Ptr. 2:13f clearly says we are to be subject to secular princes “on account of God”. God is a higher authority. Obviously, if men command us to defy God, we owe them disobedience rather than obedience. Further, the quote continues “king…or leaders, as sent by him…” with “…for the vengeance of evildoers, but the praise of the good.” Thus St. Peter clearly assumes obedience to secular leaders only when they execute true justice.
    Similarly, Tit. 3:1 in continuation: “…be subject to princes, [and to] powers, to obey [their] dictate, being ready for every good work.” Clearly, one can’t be considered “ready for every good work” if one is willing to obey an unjust or otherwise evil command.

  3. Bombshell at Third Debate: Trump Refuses to Concede Election in Advance

    Written by Christopher A. Ferrara
    Thursday, October 20, 2016

    null
    “Trump’s refusal to concede in advance shakes our holy democracy to its very core.” – Ron Burgundy, A-CNN

    National security analyst sees potential for
    breakdown of “peaceful transition of power” and “civil unrest”

    Washington (A-CNN) – Toward the end of the third presidential debate, Donald Trump dropped a bomb that has rocked the Republican Party to its foundations and signaled deep trouble for his already failing campaign, as Hillary Clinton races ahead to victory on November 8. When asked if he would accept the results of the election no matter who won, Trump replied: “I’ll look at it at that time,” adding “I’ll keep you in suspense.”

    “This is simply unprecedented in American history,” said DNC strategist Dave Cunning. “There is a sacred tradition in America of conceding elections before they take place. The very idea that a candidate might challenge the outcome of an election strikes at the foundation of our 240-year-old democracy. No wonder Putin the dictator is trying to get Trump elected by hacking the DNC’s email system and changing all the wording of our emails to make us look bad—for which we have massive evidence, believe me. Trump’s refusal to pre-certify the results of this election is a disaster not only for the Republican Party, but for the American people.”

    In the aftermath of the debate, Trump defenders angrily pointed to Al Gore’s challenge to the pivotal Florida election results in the Presidential election of 2000, his demand for a recount, his appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, which ordered a recount, and the ultimate resolution of the recount issue against Gore by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore before Gore conceded the election on December 13.

    “Oh come on!” said Cunning in response to the argument. “That election was rigged against Gore, whereas this election will be totally fair and above board in every state, believe me.”

    Cunning rejected the allegation that, according to Wikileaks, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta noted in an email that millions of illegal aliens with driver’s licenses are able to vote by simply presenting their licenses and claiming to be citizens. “If you are Vladimir Putin, working closely with Donald Trump to subvert our democracy, you can make emails say anything you want,” said Cunning.

    Trump defenders also pointed to the Veritas Project’s video of alleged admissions by Democratic Party operative Robert Creamer about how the party’s operatives have been “rigging elections for fifty years” by means of mass fraudulent registrations of illegal aliens in swing states, who are then transported to vote in cars rather than buses to make detection of the election fraud more difficult.

    “Pure fantasy,” said Cunning. “Any video can be faked. This is just another of Trump’s crazy conspiracy theories.” While Creamer has resigned from his position with Democracy Partners following publication of the video, and has not denied its authenticity, the video’s credibility remains questionable because of its potentially harmful impact on the Clinton campaign.

    Commenting on the Trump gaffe, which is certain to damage his already vanishingly small prospects on November 8, national security analyst Bailey Bogus noted: “This goes way beyond Trump being a sore loser and a conspiracy nut, who actually thinks elections in America can be rigged. We are talking here about the potential for civil unrest and the first interruption of the peaceful transfer of power in our nation’s history. Trump is a dangerous hothead capable of anything, including an armed coup attempt, aided by his friend Putin, with Russia’s nuclear capability as blackmail.”

    With Trump’s poll numbers rapidly collapsing in every battleground state because he groped numerous women in various ways, with hundreds more to come forward over the next three weeks, Trump supporters are increasingly less likely to turn out at the polls. “The alternative of violent resistance to a free and fair election cannot be discounted with this crowd” said Bogus.

    “We have never seen such a threat to national security as the one posed by Trump’s refusal to concede this election now,” Bogus concluded. “He has no chance of winning and there will be no credible basis to contest the vote count in any state, county or precinct, because our system is free and fair in every case. To suggest otherwise is to compromise our nation’s security. But that, apparently, is exactly what Putin and Trump have in mind.”

    P.S. Even the liberals over at MSNBC know what’s really going on here:


    www.youtube.com/embed/8R-VVilbSWU

  4. Hillary as ladies’ fashion leader. Who knew?

    null

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton takes the stage for the third presidential debate at University of Nevada in Las Vegas, Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2016.

    [Hat-tip to Canon212: “Communist chic”]

    By Wesley Pruden – The Washington Times – Thursday, October 20, 2016

    Nobody has accused Hillary Clinton of setting an example of how to dress for success, and certainly not for fun. She’s clearly no Melania Trump. But she may be assisting the Chinese in bringing back “the Mao suit.” She probably shouldn’t expect a standing ovation from men.

    That should suit her, so to speak, just fine. She often echoes the feminist line that women shouldn’t have to bear men looking at them. Who can see a brilliant mind under a tunic buttoned to the chin, accompanied by baggy pants that might hide who knows what.
    The Mao suit, or what the Chinese call “the Zhongshan suit,” was originally meant to cover “the classless society,” and it makes a comeback from time to time in China. Hillary’s Mao suit, though modified, does not hide or disguise its origins. It looks like it was designed in New York or even Paris (meaning it probably costs a lot, despite the cut of its jib), but it’s still a Mao suit, so far without the winter quilt effect once fashionable in Tiananmen Square (without the tanks).

    When Chinese President Xi Jinping was guest of honor at a state dinner in the Netherlands he wore what the state-run China Daily called “an elegant dark-blue Mao suit,” and gushed that “Zhongshan suit makes a comeback.” One commentator said it was a sign of “national authority, national pride and national ritual.” That was a decade and more ago, but time moves slowly in the Ancient Kingdom. Hillary and her dressmaker couldn’t have imagined it better.

    The prosperous young in China don’t want to have anything to do with the campaign to bring back the Mao suit, though if Hillary is elected president of the United States they might change their minds. Aping American fads and fashions is a worldwide obsession. Mao suits are available on the internet for $149.95. Hillary’s probably cost more than that, though who could tell?

    The suit became sort of fashionable among the left-wing intellectuals in the ‘60s and ‘70s, when Marxism was in flower, and after the horrors of the Cultural Revolution came to light Hollywood made the Mao suit infamous in the James Bond movies, particularly with Ernst Stavro Blofield, a caricature of evil. He, too, craved to dominate everyone.

    When Mao took over China in 1949 he prescribed the Mao suit as an alternative to both the Western business suit and the Manchu robe, each with wasteful or feudalistic connotations. The Mao suit was utilitarian. Nearly everyone could afford one, and the cut disguised any hint of what lay beneath. No sex, please, not anymore. Hasn’t China had enough of that? The suit came in pale blue, green and gray. Chairman Mao’s usually had four pockets, representing the four cardinal principles of the Chinese Book of Changes: Propriety, justice, honesty and a sense of shame. Not exactly a suit for Hillary, one might say.

    Still, everyone had to wear one to avoid standing out in the crowd, and in China, a crowd was really a crowd. It became the uniform of the Red Guards, who set out to destroy ancient and classic Chinese culture, and made a lot of headway. If they knew what was good for them, men and women dressed to be serviceable and sexless, making the world safe for feminists. Perhaps this was the rough inspiration for the slob look that eventually became the norm in much of the West, as any frequent flier could tell you.

    Mao imagined that his prescribed dress would introduce the classless society, but even he couldn’t eliminate the notion that rank has its privileges. The peons got a Mao suit of rough and coarse cotton, which gave them the pleasure of scratching. Peons didn’t get much else. Middle managers got polyester, surely more punishment than reward, and the top of the line party executives got a luxurious wool.

    After Mao died in 1976 the appeal of the Mao suit began to fade, though not everywhere. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York mounted an exhibition of what it called “Western fantasies about China through fashion.” The Mao jacket, the curator told The Washington Post, was “the last sartorial symbol of China. Subsequently, no other item of clothing screams China.”

    Hillary’s pants suits sometimes scream, too, particularly when she marches stiffly into a room, or on to a debate stage. Nevertheless, she may rescue the Mao suit a second time, and give it legs — thick, sturdy legs to take it to unimagined heights of fashion. That’s only if she wins. If the Donald prevails — the post-debate polls suggest he’s not done yet — the Melania look is likely to prevail. She would look good even in a pantsuit.

Leave a Reply