Trump, the System and the Rubicon
The point formal that can measure to what point of confrontation it is located in the countryside in the USA-2016, it is the question of the acceptance theory, in principle, the result of the election by each candidate, asked again yesterday during the third and final debate, less than three weeks of voting. It has already been noted, it is a point of customary, informal, constitutes a kind of sanctification voluntary of the two main candidates of the system of americanism.On the evening of the election, and the result proclaimed, the two candidates reconciled greet each other, the winner acknowledging the victory of his opponent and the system of americanism, – the System itself – as well celebrated to its rightful place : above all and sanctifying all its virtues, his bribery, his frauds, his illegalities, his betrayal, systematic promises original, its narrative constants that are the reality in his state of spray. The moment is solemn and pompous in its false simplicity, and it means to the voters, rather politely : “Congratulations citizens, you voted, once again you have let’s say in the back…”
In a general way, in presidential elections common, we don’t ask the candidates if they will submit gracefully to this tradition of celebrating their unity-System. It goes without saying, and this will, of course, has no need for it, between gentlemen, or better between the traveling-System, to be entered and repeated in any way whatsoever ; the repetition and the confirmation of the obvious, it is already a place left to doubt… It is therefore not surprising if the question has already been asked very often to Trump, who it is known is not a gentleman-System, which does not cease to be each day more violently denounced by the System account of the powerful manifestations of his empire to be a horrible, deformed and even non-being because non-System otherwise antiSystème, – the question being “election night, if you’re beaten, will recognize you the victory of your rival ?”. During the second debate, question asked and answered in the affirmative without the enthusiasm of The-Donald. (Answer also in the affirmative around him these last few weeks, his co-candidate, campaign leader, his daughter.)
Yesterday evening, the third and last debate, and o (false-true) surprise, the answer in the form of non-response (“I see at this time… I leave you in uncertainty”) ; this led to the exclamation of Hillary, which is not only pandering to, and expresses, in part, truly, the feeling described is that of the System : “That’s horrifying ” (“it is horrifying” or “this is horrible” but better still “it’s terrifying”, “this is terrible”, “it is catastrophic“, etc).
Here is the example of the Washington Times concerning the time of the debate in the form of new-urgent (Breaking News), October 19, in the evening, under the title extremely tortured, of a negation followed by two trusts which are as well far apart, this reflecting at least symbolically, the emotion of the writer : “Trump refuse to agree to accept results of election ” (translate “refuse to accept”, this showing that there is a refusal to accept a custom fundamental, which is that to accept the result : therefore, a double negation, double sin, double horrifying , and so on)
“Donald Trump refused Wednesday to commit to accepting the results of the November election, saying there’s too much evidence of fraud for him to be blood. While his top campaign officials, his vice presidential nominee, and his own daughter have said they would accept the results, Mr. Trump declined to do so.
““I will look at it at the time,” he said at the third presidential debate.
““I will keep you in suspense,” he added.
““That’s horrifying,” Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton countered.
Therefore, we see that Trump has not denied outright, it has refused to “accept accept”, stating “we will judge on the basis of documents”, on the day and at the appointed time. But it is a symbolic moment, nothing less, and it is essential because it comes back to this, which must be considered precisely from a symbolic point of view : Trump says publicly and solemnly, before any circumstance that would require a deliberation in this regard, he submits that that is, in theory, a custom that is sacred and beyond the human judgment and the circumstances, precisely the fortune of the human judgment and circumstances. He submits the theory of the custom sacred to the facts coming and the breeze symbolically in a way that we cannot qualifier that of sacrilege.
Outside of the symbol that does the bulk of the response to Trump, in the field of current events, the fact of the dispute of the result are of course once the events precisely, permit and even permit. On the first Tuesday of November, 2000, election day, Al Gore, to which we had not submitted the question to Trump, had challenged the outcome of the election and had been the case in Florida before the justice who had immediately ordered a recount of the votes, leaving the decision to the election pending.In December 2000, a big month after the vote in the presidential election, Al Gore had accepted a decision in favour of GW Bush to the Supreme Court, a decision that is totally baroque to the strength of being a forger and corrupt and that the principle itself was questionable (the only democratic way would have been a new vote in Florida), after several weeks of epic pseudo-checks-drums, a realwestern Florida for the recount of the votes. Al Gore, who had won in number of votes in the general election, had accepted the decision of the Court because he did not want to jeopardize the system of americanism, and to challenge the System and its corruption brought to bare. It was shown, finally, the perfect candidate-System and we have celebrated its virtues as we congratulate the cuckold to be with so much grace. Trump does not, therefore, an act unthinkable by submitting his acceptance to the question of fraud, but because he speaks on the same principle, before the fact, and finally because it’s Trump, everything is a symbol and takes a considerable proportion, because the symbol is necessarily antiSystem. We may take as an example of appreciation soothing but ending all the same by the fact that it is the symbol of a state of war open, this commentary from Joseph Farah, the ultra-christian as very bad, eventually and the opportunity antiSystème, certainly pro-Trump, but nevertheless, good american citizen, who now recommends to pray by the 8 of November for the fate of America The Beautiful :
“About Trump’s statement that he would not necessarily accept without challenge the outcome of the election, that doesn’t bother me.
“It’s not unprecedented.
“In 2000, then Vice President Al Gore challenged the outcome of the election. I don’t recall Hillary Clinton being horrified by that decision – even if the basis for that decision was largely based on the fact that Gore won more votes than George W. Bush. That was the law of the land.
“I didn’t hear Trump say he would put together year army of discontented supporters and occupy the White House. What I assumed he was saying was that he would consider his legal options, which is perfectly appropriate.
“I suspect, as I write this column, just minutes after the debate has ended, that much will be made of his how by what we euphemistically call “the mainstream media”. That’s what they do. That’s what they have done throughout this campaign. That’s what I suspect they will continue to do right through Election Day.
All of this being written, so nothing is written… The unleashing of anti-Trump of the System would multiply as Farah is considering it, against the man who is presented as wanting to attack what is most sacred in the institutions, the blind support of the System and all of its many virtues (see above). We will see the effects of this statement from Trump, including his supporters, his campaign team, his co-candidate ;but already, the reactions are favorable, particularly that of his co-candidate Mike Spence, one of the most uncertain times in its team, which supports without restriction on the response from Trump because of the conditions in shockingly anti-Trump campaign and indisputable opportunities of fraud ; and finally, Spence reassures everyone in the world, summing up his enthusiasm for this near-tautology : “No question he ll accept outcome he’ll win” (this is interpreted of course as this : “He [Trump] will accept without problem the decision because he will win”). It seems that Trump has not reacted instinctively to the question, without prior consultation with his team (this would be unlikely, all the world knowing that this question would be asked), nor that he finally gave an answer different from that which was scheduled.The assumption of the response of the instinct is weak, precisely because the answer is not a refusal net, given on the stroke and the pressure of instinct precisely, but an expectation conditional involving a degree of caution, meaning also “Not fraudez not and everything will be fine” or “Yes, if you do fraudez not” (that is to say, “ … I acknowledge the victory of my rival”, but more surely : “I would have nothing to recognize, moreover, since I expect to be paid if you do fraudez not”).
If the System will even more break out against Trump as we have noted, the war waged by him who became what he is and that he wants a antiSystème pure is going to be even more fierce than it has been up here. All linens and stinky is on the table, well in evidence, of corruption and fraud, the elections are obviously rigged (what else ?) we are waiting; we may not like it, and we have to plug the nose, but the logic of events compels us to get to the latrines, since it is the main theatre of operation of the System. Finally we would tend to be very little we dwell on the results of this debate last night (which is the best ? Who has won ?) otherwise to see that the moderator was the best of the three, showing himself to be more balanced and less anti-Trump as its two predecessors. This debate took place asan event of this campaign, which is made of a succession of events out of the ordinary, most of which are, in contrast to debates, outside of the control of the Systeme. so, it gives him less importance and less impact on voters ; it is not decisive in nothing, like the previous two, or it could say that it is not more decisive than all “the events out of the ordinary” that make up this extraordinary campaign.
It will therefore remain there, on these few words of Trump, actually and absolutely caught up in the symbolic meaning that is less concerned about facts than in hidden meaning and powerful that they must be given, which put in question the System, its ors in ocd and its corruptions in the mass ; these few words that are actually and absolutely a questioning of the symbolic System, that is to say, a challenge at the highest level that could be conceived. And no matter what you say on the constitutionality of a claim after the election if Trump is declared defeated, we doubt very strongly, very strongly, that the thing is happening in the secure framework of the single-constitutionality. Thus, whatever one may say and whatever he himself wants, Trump has, with this response, crossed the Rubicon last night in Los Angeles… But how can it be otherwise ? The Rubicon is there, it is necessary to take… After, you know, – Alea Jacta est.