[ad_1]
English Epoch Times Columnist James Bowman / Compiled by Qiusheng
On November 5, Tom Harris wrote an article in the London Daily Telegraph, expressing deep regret that President Trump has promised to fight in one or more states where his election was declared defeated.
He stated: “Even the most divisive politician, Chad Nixon, decided to admit to the unpredictable results of the 1960 elections, instead of dividing the country by fighting some suspicious results … If only Donald Trump could be as honest and principled as he is. sneaky Dicky. ” Editor’s Note: Nixon was known for his powers and was labeled “Trick Dick.”
Please give me a moment, I want to point out some of the errors in this sentence.
In 1968, Nixon was no more likely to cause division than any politician who was elected president by a small margin, and he was obviously less likely to cause division than most people, because he won with an overwhelming advantage in the re-election race. four years later. Victory.
“Causing division” is part of the media-fabricated criminal record against Donald Trump and the entire Republican Party, but in my opinion, the strong media hatred of Trump and Trump supporters seems to be more than anything he’s ever done. Trump. They are more likely to cause division.
The next step is the so-called “unpredictable choice” and its “suspect result”. Even at that time, the Chicago Democratic Party’s printing policy trend was well known – that is, no matter how many votes it takes, it can bring its candidates to the top. Since then, he has become more famous. History tells us that if the Kennedy-Johnson combination won the vote in Illinois and thus won the election, it may not only be “suspicious” but also very “suspicious.”
Finally, let me talk about “honesty” and the “principle” of crafty Dickie (nicknamed Nixon). I believe that Nixon’s honesty and principles are much higher than people’s praise for him now (or then), but he chose not to fight the election results. This has nothing to do with honesty or principle, but with a civic spirit. Not willing to allow the country to experience a severe test of uncertainty, of course, unwilling to split the extensive investigation into electoral irregularities.
If you consider it first, be it honesty or principle, you will question the outcome.
I don’t want to be too harsh on Mr. Harris, he’s a writer and I appreciate his work the most. He was too young to remember what the political world was like in 1960, or the rules of moderation and debate that prevailed at the time. You should listen to the debate between Nixon and Kennedy again and compare it to the recent showdown between the candidates this year, which is largely limited to mutual insults and does not deserve the word “debate.”
The media see themselves
Well this is the way we do things now. Ever since the media discovered that political sentiment and moral outrage are more profitable than rationality and temperance, we have done so because politics and entertainment have become indistinguishable from each other.
Of course, the media likes to blame Trump for this, they like to blame him for everything. But before it appeared on the political stage, the enormous popularity of the media had begun to rise. If it weren’t for the means to create a protracted melodrama out of our political culture, then Trump’s political career is unimaginable and his strategy is simply to use force.
In fact, I think this is a huge part of why the media hates it so much. They looked at it, they looked at themselves, but they didn’t like what they saw.
We must heed the statement by the “Washington Post” to the remaining readers the morning after the election: “With the final outcome uncertain, Trump launched an attack on the fairness of the American electoral system.”
Who the hell is attacking the fairness of the electoral system? For months, the “Post” and other outlets have been promoting Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden’s claims that Trump can only win through fraud. They can fully anticipate this fraud. His party The body of lawyers hired for the post-election litigation is proof enough.
Of course, the media is totally unanimous on this point, because like Mrs. Clinton and many other Democrats, they never recognized that the 2016 election was legal. As always, they used the weight of editorials and reports to back all the efforts of the Democrats, which made the electoral system lose legitimacy, but claimed that the system was destroyed by “Russian intervention” and Trump’s victory.
Then, in the second round of attacks, the “Washington Post” published a bulletin on November 4: “Presidential elections are pending. Trump lied about fraud and declared victory.”
The moment the president claims fraud, how can they know that the president’s claim is false? Earlier, Trump had also charged that his campaign team was under surveillance by the Obama administration and accused Joe Biden of corruption for personal gain as vice president. They also said in the same way they said without foundation: Trump’s accusations are false. .
In other words, in the absence of a careful examination of the evidence, these people rely solely on their own so-called “fact-checkers” to make false accusations and work as “Stakhanov” (the job competition started by the former Stakhanovite Soviet Union) . The method of the contest invented the so-called “false and misleading statements” of Mr. Trump, and Joe Biden ridiculed Trump in the first presidential debate, saying “Everyone knows you are a liar.” To control public perception to a great extent.
Reckless prosecution
Generally speaking, if you think that what the media is accusing President Trump of doing is exactly what they have done or are doing, you can’t be too wrong. I found that, from this perspective, my natural skepticism towards Trump’s fraud allegations was also limited to some extent.
Looking back over the past four years, I cannot recall any examples on this matter. I have never seen any laws, conscience or civic conscience, honesty or principles that have blocked the media or the Democrats. In the absence of evidence, the president was charged with reckless and inflammatory misconduct. From lying to betrayal, from tax evasion to white supremacy, until now, they will not waver on all the accusations they believe will help wrest the president’s throne from their hands.
So can we automatically assume, or will the “Post” assume that they will have any doubts regarding voter fraud?
They encourage illegal immigrants to commit crimes, or they encourage protesters from “Antifa” and “The Fate of Blacks” to commit crimes. Then they will also encourage election officials to commit crimes. Isn’t that impossible?
I do not think so. However, I believe that the president’s fraud allegations may have some basis, not because he made them, but because the media and the Democratic Party made them first.
The original text Who could believe that the elections were contaminated by fraud? The media was published in the “Epoch Times” in English.
About the Author:
James Bowman is a Resident Scholar at the Center for Ethics and Public Policy, author of “Honor: History,” film critic of “American Audience,” and media critic of “The New Standard.”
The opinions expressed in this article represent the views of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
(Published from The Epoch Times / Responsible Editor: Hao Yu)
The URL of this article: https://www.ntdtv.com/gb/2020/11/08/a102981874.html
