Governing Irrationally
Donald Trump's impending presidency is cause for a lot of concern among many, including both his political opponents and members of his own party. This can all be boiled down to the basic question of what, exactly, Trump is going to do as president. At this point, it's almost impossible to know whether he'll try to follow through on even the strongest of his campaign promises, or whether he'll decide to chart a completely different course once in office. That's what is worrying so many -- people both against Trump and for Trump alike.
Trump has been and continues to be incredibly malleable on his core politics. It's an open question if he even has any core politics, in fact. Was everything he said on the campaign trail just crowd-pleasing hype designed to get him elected? Does he really believe any of it? How much, and which parts? Again, all open questions.
Republicans worry he'll flip-flop on his strong stances, perhaps (just to cite one very recent example) becoming open to not actually deporting millions of people as he repeatedly promised to do. Democrats worry he won't flip-flop and will do exactly what he promised his followers. But neither one really knows what Trump will actually do in office.
Trump is obviously influenced by external factors -- ones that others in public life don't usually even pay attention to. His own advisors, during his own presidential campaign, admitted that sometimes the easiest way to get Trump to pay attention to their ideas was to get interviewed on cable news shows, because Trump loved watching them so much. That is truly extraordinary -- people who actually had access to the candidate admitting that sitting him down in person and trying to convince him of some viewpoint was less effective than conducting such a conversation in public, over the airwaves.
Trump is also acutely aware of public opinion of him, to a degree far beyond most politicians. He has shifted his positions when it becomes obvious that most people strongly disagree. Trump is loath to admit he's ever wrong, preferring to rewrite his own version of history in his head rather than admit he's taking a new stance on an issue, in fact. How this is going to play out when his positions have real-world consequences is also an open question. If he tries something and it quite obviously either doesn't work or makes things noticeably worse, what is he going to do? Double down on the original stance? Take a new stance and pretend (all the evidence to the contrary) that he's always held the new position? Fire a bunch of people and blame it all on them? Nobody knows which will happen, at this point.
One thing that should give his political opponents some degree of hope is that Donald Trump is perhaps the least ideological Republican who could have won. He may have an ideology, but it is rather flexible and not rooted in decades of pure conservative thinking. He strays from conservative orthodoxy on rather large issues (swearing he won't cut entitlements, being against free trade, etc.), so he obviously isn't beholden to what some think tank deems the correct conservative position on any one issue. Consider the difference between picturing what Trump will do when sworn in to what a President Ted Cruz or a President Rick Santorum would do, in other words. With Cruz or Santorum (or even Mike Pence), we'd all know precisely what their administration would do -- and it'd probably be worse than what Trump might be planning.
Donald Trump is a wild card, and he may govern as a complete maverick. He could pick and choose which issues he'll support and which he won't, irrespective of what he's said previously and completely separate from what the left-right divide thinks about such things. Could such perceived irrationality actually serve Trump well? That's a question few have yet asked, but the answer may surprise us all.
There's a theory of government that hasn't been talked about for a while that might be worth re-examining. Richard Nixon called it the "Madman Theory." If your opponents (Nixon was talking militarily, about Vietnam) had no idea what crazy thing you might do next -- even to the extent of dropping a few nuclear bombs -- then they'd treat you with kid gloves, in an effort not to provoke you too severely. According to Nixon's chief of staff, here's how he explained it:
I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, "for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry -- and he has his hand on the nuclear button" and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.
When Ronald Reagan took office, many Democrats had similar worries about whether Reagan would lead us all into World War III. In today's geopolitical world, the best example is probably Vladimir Putin, because he successfully projects the aura of being so crazy that nobody knows what he'll do next.
Donald Trump may take the Madman Theory beyond the arena of war and the military and actually base his entire administration on it. I say this for two big reasons. The first is that it's already served him very well indeed, on his show The Apprentice. Nobody knew who would be fired. Indeed, that was the whole point -- to set up as much dramatic tension as possible -- which was also why viewers tuned in. Trump seems to be running his transition team in a similar fashion already -- just ask Mitt Romney.
The second reason I think Trump is going to use the Madman Theory of governance is his own love of "the art of the deal." He even helpfully explained this a few times on the campaign trail. If the guys sitting across the table from you have no clue what you really want or how much you'll compromise to get it, then you will wind up with a much better deal than you would have gotten if all the cards were on the table. If -- and it's a pretty big "if" -- Trump's team really did plan on causing uncertainty in the Chinese-American relationship by accepting a call from the president of Taiwan, then China will likely think Trump is capable of changing American foreign policy at the drop of a hat, and will thus treat him a lot more carefully in negotiations. That's the theory, anyway -- and it assumes Trump knew what he was doing (instead of just making a blunder through ignorance of America's foreign policy history, which is an alternative explanation).
The most interesting thing to watch, if irrationality does become a cornerstone of Trump's governing style, is how he deals with the Republicans in Congress. Right now, Paul Ryan has convinced himself that he's going to be able to get Trump to sign just about anything the GOP Congress passes. This may not actually be the case, though. After all, if Trump were to act as a mere rubber stamp for the Republican Congress, that would be predictable -- and would thus defeat the whole point of the Madman Theory.
Right now, many of the inside-the-Beltway crowd -- from the right and the left -- are convincing themselves that Trump will "settle down" into the presidency. He'll leave behind all the instability he showed on the campaign trail and suddenly become a known quantity in the White House. I personally have my doubts. I think the one thing Donald Trump loves more than anything else is not being predictable by anyone. Because if nobody knows what he'll do next, then they'll spend all their time second-guessing him, thus making the surprising nature of his decisions all the more newsworthy when they are announced. Irrationality and instability could become the new normal under President Trump. Whether that turns out to be a good thing or a bad thing is completely unknowable at this point. Which, really, is the whole point of keeping people in suspense and constantly guessing.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
rump has been and continues to be incredibly malleable on his core politics. It's an open question if he even has any core politics, in fact. Was everything he said on the campaign trail just crowd-pleasing hype designed to get him elected? Does he really believe any of it? How much, and which parts? Again, all open questions.
As opposed to Hillary where there is NO QUESTION that Hillary was just spewing crowd-pleasing hype..
Funny how the majority of the Left didn't object to that..
Present company excepted, of course... :D
One thing that should give his political opponents some degree of hope is that Donald Trump is perhaps the least ideological Republican who could have won.
Yup, yup, yup..
Trump truly is simply a Republican in name only. He has many ideas that the Left has claimed to love..
That's why I am so surprised at the opposition to Trump around here.. If one was purely objective, they would have come to the conclusion that Trump is their dream candidate. Doesn't have to accept lobbyist or special interest money.. Is not bought and paid for by Wall Street...
I guess that '-R' after Trump's name has more power over people then even I believed...
Donald Trump is a wild card, and he may govern as a complete maverick. He could pick and choose which issues he'll support and which he won't, irrespective of what he's said previously and completely separate from what the left-right divide thinks about such things. Could such perceived irrationality actually serve Trump well? That's a question few have yet asked, but the answer may surprise us all.
Asked and answered... :D
That's the theory, anyway -- and it assumes Trump knew what he was doing (instead of just making a blunder through ignorance of America's foreign policy history, which is an alternative explanation).
That theory has been rendered moot. It's clear from reports that the Taiwan gambit was planned for several weeks prior to the actual call...
Trump is truly playing 3D Chess here.. And is winning! :D
Irrationality and instability could become the new normal under President Trump. Whether that turns out to be a good thing or a bad thing is completely unknowable at this point. Which, really, is the whole point of keeping people in suspense and constantly guessing.
Yep.. It's going to be an exciting 8 years...
I am not really worried though.. Many on the Left and Right had similar concerns about Reagan. And his administration was great for this country..
I expect even more so under President Trump...
269
Trump Is Blessed With Weak Opponents
Donald Trump isn't short of opposition, but much of it has been strikingly ineffective. Not only was impotent criticism a big part of what got him elected, but many of his opponents also appear to be slow learners. That seems likely to bolster Trump's support and sustain him in office.
The president-elect gives every impression of having already taken charge, a posture that his critics validate by treating every half-baked intervention (1,000 jobs "saved" at Carrier) and meaningless expostulation (flag-burners should have their citizenship revoked) as though it were an actual policy. At the hands of his critics, Trump's ridiculous running commentary becomes, "Trump is really shaking things up." In this way, by doing nothing, he's delivering before he's even sworn in.
Unfortunately for Democrats, whose job it is to oppose the Republican president-elect, Trump shares their disregard for limited government and market forces. This shuts down the strongest lines of criticism and introduces an awkward mismatch between the intensity of the Democrats' loathing of Trump and the substance of their complaints.
The president-elect puts pressure on a company to change its plan to outsource some jobs. How are Democrats to despise such a move? Not easy. Their view is that companies are only interested in profits, and profits have nothing to do with the public good; also, every job that isn't outsourced is a win. So it can hardly be wrong to apply pressure, and Trump has to be denounced in some other way. The center-left can call him a lawless autocrat high on the power of the office he doesn't yet have. The left denounces a too-timid critic of rapacious capitalism, settling for small wins of no consequence instead of applying his correct insights at scale.
The old joke about the grumbling diner comes irresistibly to mind: "The food is disgusting -- and such small portions."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-08/trump-is-blessed-with-weak-opponents
That explains the Left's problem perfectly...
The Left isn't afraid that Trump is going to be a crappy POTUS that stumbles this country into disaster..
The Left is TERRIFIED that Trump is going to be a greatly effective POTUS who leads this country into greater prosperity than it's seen in a century...
270
The Left isn't afraid that Trump is going to be a crappy POTUS that stumbles this country into disaster..
The Left is TERRIFIED that Trump is going to be a greatly effective POTUS who leads this country into greater prosperity than it's seen in a century...
"I am not worried about the general who wants a hundred nuclear weapons...
I'm terrified of the madman who just wants one..."
-Nicole Kidman, THE PEACEKEEPER
:D
The World Fears Trump’s America. That’s a Good Thing.
During the last eight years, President Obama showed what happens when the world’s greatest power tries strenuously to avoid giving fright. He began his presidency with lofty vows to conciliate adversaries, defer to the opinions of other countries and reduce America’s military commitments. Consequently, he received rapturous applause in European capitals and a Nobel Peace Prize. In the real world of geopolitics, however, the results have been catastrophic.
In 1980, as in 2016, Americans elected someone who made clear his intent to put fear back in the nation’s enemies. Nowadays, even liberal Democrats applaud Reagan for bringing the Soviet Union to its knees. Back in 1980, however, Reagan’s tough, nationalist stances on foreign policy aroused the same condemnation of “fearmongering” currently emanating from the world’s enlightened critics of Mr. Trump.
As the world’s most powerful country, and the only one whose leadership can safeguard the world order, the United States must care more about whether it commands international respect than whether it is loved by international elites. The incoming administration appears poised to return the United States to this precept after an eight-year drought. Americans and America’s allies should be relieved. America’s enemies are right to be afraid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/opinion/the-world-fears-trumps-america-thats-a-good-thing.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Yep....
278
Heh :D
But neither one really knows what Trump will actually do in office.
...
Indeed, that was the whole point -- to set up as much dramatic tension as possible -- which was also why viewers tuned in.
You are spot on. All we need to know about Trump was his answer to the question during one of the debates about whether he would accept the election results:
"I'll keep you in suspense"
and the drama around Sec State "finalists" and only Trump knows the "who the winner is".
Add to that his insistence on keeping his "Celebrity Apprentice" job and you can tell exactly what Trump is going to do.
He is going to make sure he is the center of attention. As we have seen from the election process he thinks there is no such thing as bad news - and after Pu$$7gate who can prove him wrong.
But what if there is another Sandy Hook (heaven forbid) and an outcry for gun control. Do you think he will act? I don't.
On the other hand, what if there is a terrorist attack (also heaven forbid), do you think he will act? I do.
Maybe he isn't as unpredictable as all that. He will roll "downhill" a lot more easily than "uphill".
What happens when everybody gets bored and starts talking about something else. I think that is when we'll see the "madman" come out as he tries to grab attention again. But he will have to continually escalate. At the moment there is speculation over Sec State, but not much about the other roles he has to fill, so when he announces his Sec State, the whole transition drama will deflate. What then for the "President Trump Show"?
And talking about the "madman" approach, how'd that Vietnam thing work out in the end? Humiliation by a foe who was more determined, could take more losses that we could, and didn't have public opinion stacked against them.
Reagan’s tough, nationalist stances on foreign policy aroused the same condemnation of “fearmongering” currently emanating from the world’s enlightened critics of Mr. Trump.
Then we saw what happened when a suicide bomber attacked our Marines. Reagan turned tail and went home. And we were seen as a paper tiger that could invade Grenada, but would not stand by our strongest ally in 1983 when Margaret Thatcher asked for help. Thanks Ronny.
And we saw what happened when Gorbachev started liberalization within the USSR. Reagan (who by this time was mostly ga-ga) and the neoCons took credit for something they had little to do with? (All accounts from within the Soviet power structure in the late 1980's stated that the Russians weren't concerned about our growing our military because once you get to a certain point, the law of diminishing returns is basically flat lined. If anything they thought we were nuts running up huge deficits for no incremental return).
And what did the neoCons' overconfidence in themselves give us? Iraq. "Mission Accomplished". And exactly the morass the French told us time and again we would end up in. But we named our fries "Freedom Fries" because that showed them.
Nowadays, even liberal Democrats applaud Reagan for bringing the Soviet Union to its knees.
If they do they haven't read their history. That reality thing is a bummer for the feelies, so they just ignore it.
But what if there is another Sandy Hook (heaven forbid) and an outcry for gun control. Do you think he will act? I don't.
You mean, like Obama "acted"?? A lot of whining and mewling and then he did nothing..
And talking about the "madman" approach, how'd that Vietnam thing work out in the end? Humiliation by a foe who was more determined, could take more losses that we could, and didn't have public opinion stacked against them.
Exactly... The politicians got scared of political correctness...
Do you think that Trump is going to let PC sway him?? :D
Once again, the man you describe simply could NOT have accomplished the things that Trump has accomplished..
It's all nothing but sour grapes...
You just can't handle that you lost.. That you lost to someone like Trump.. :D
If you want to read a reality based account of Reagan's impact on the collapse of the USSR, one of the best books comes from Strobe Talbott:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/reagan-and-gorbachev-shutting-the-cold-war-down/
Reagan knew the score:
"Reagan himself went even farther. Asked at a press conference in Moscow in 1988, his last year in office, about the role he played in the great drama of the late 20th century, he described himself essentially as a supporting actor. “Mr. Gorbachev,” he said, “deserves most of the credit, as the leader of this country.”"
If they do they haven't read their history.
You mean, they haven't read YOUR history...
That reality thing is a bummer for the feelies, so they just ignore it.
Reality Is What You Make It
-Democratic Party motto
:D
It's all nothing but sour grapes...
All I'm doing in quoting Trump and stating his reported actions.
And pointing out reality, like how he claimed victory but in reality let about 2/3 of the carrier plant jobs go to Mexico and still paid $7M for the opportunity to grandstand.
And announced we could keep buying American made Air Conditioners ... from a furnace plant (yup, he even got that fact wrong).
Why do you have a problem with what he says and what he does?
Maybe you are Trumpregretting subconsciously already?
You keep telling us that it is sour grapes. I'll keep pointing out what he says and what he does. And the facts.
You mean, they haven't read YOUR history..
Or Reagan's. I mean, you'd think he would know. Unless you think he was to ga-ga to have a clue. Pick your poison.
All I'm doing in quoting Trump and stating his reported actions.
Nope.. All you are doing is spin..
If Hillary had actually won and did the exact same thing Trump did, you would be crowing how Hillary saved a thousand jobs at Carrier..
Nothing but spin...
And announced we could keep buying American made Air Conditioners ... from a furnace plant (yup, he even got that fact wrong).
Like I said. Nit picky spin...
Why do you have a problem with what he says and what he does?
I don't have a problem with what Trump says and does.. I don't even have a problem with your spin because I know it is simply born from frustration over having to dine on sour grapes and crow every day..
The only problem I have is your continued obsession in saying that your spin are the facts..
They are not.. They are simply spin..
"Reagan himself went even farther. Asked at a press conference in Moscow in 1988, his last year in office, about the role he played in the great drama of the late 20th century, he described himself essentially as a supporting actor. “Mr. Gorbachev,” he said, “deserves most of the credit, as the leader of this country.”"
That was one of the great things about Reagan.. His humbleness and modesty... :D
You would be wise to take a lesson from Liz, Neil..
She has the maturity to look past the loss and wait and see how Trump actually governs before she declares him a failure.. :D
They are not.. They are simply spin..
Uh-huh, but I post reliable sources for my facts, such as the furnace plant. You don't.
For example, the FT had a headline about the closure:
https://www.ft.com/content/5cb6c67c-ee15-11e5-aff5-19b4e253664a
Notice the word "furnace" in the headline?
This is a serious job. It deserves to be held up to scrutiny. You had no problem scrutinizing Obama for years, but you start blubbering when your idol is held to the same standard.
If you can't take it, don't give it out.
That was one of the great things about Reagan.. His humbleness and modesty... :D
And he could admit a mistake.
"My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan, admitting the Iran-Contra Affair, March 1987
When Trump says something like this, I'll be far more open to giving him a chance. If he keeps lying, like he is doing about the popular vote, and a myriad of other times, I'll use his own words and actions against him.
When Trump says something like this, I'll be far more open to giving him a chance. If he keeps lying, like he is doing about the popular vote, and a myriad of other times, I'll use his own words and actions against him.
Yet you give Hillary a pass for her lies and her actions..
That's exactly my point..
You don't care about lies and bonehead actions...
It's the '-D/-R' designation that determines whether or not you will call someone out on their lies and their actions..
That's why I can't take any of your Trump slams seriously...
Because it's well-documented that the attacks are solely and completely based on an ideological agenda.. Party loyalty...
This is a serious job. It deserves to be held up to scrutiny.
Yes it does.. But where was your scrutiny when Democrats were in power??
It was non-existent..
Ergo, the ONLY thing that matters to you is the Party agenda.....
Michale: check your yahoo email please. LEt me know if you got my message.
neilm
Yes it does.. But where was your scrutiny when Democrats were in power??
It was non-existent..
How can you scrutinize perfection? C'mon!
Yet you give Hillary a pass for her lies and her actions..
No, I didn't. I called her on the TPP rejection - I thought that was a complete lie.
I also praised Trump for Mattis.
You're making this out to be one dimensional.
I see a constant stream of lies from Trump. You let him off and tell us to give him a chance. That would be far more palatable if you'd admit that Trump's relationship with the truth is too frequently precarious.
When Trump says something like this, I'll be far more open to giving him a chance.
Let's get real, Neil.. There is absolutely NO WAY yer gonna give him a chance.. :D
I mean, if we're pushing honesty here.. right?? :D
I mean, if we're pushing honesty here.. right?? :D
I promise I will. Did my email get thru?
Nope... michale at emm eff see see eff ell DOT us???
OK, let me know when you've seen this and I'll take it down:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw5RlKBX2EcGNXVmdm9QWmJaTFE
Just sent an email to the address you posted.
neilm
OK, let me know when you've seen this and I'll take it down:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw5RlKBX2EcGNXVmdm9QWmJaTFE
Seen
I promise I will. Did my email get thru?
I'll accept that...
Like I mentioned previously, I would not be surprised if 60% of Weigantians turn into Trump voters by 2020....
Trump has a lot more in common with Democrats than he does with Republicans...
If Trump REALLY had some sense, he would change his PARTY status to INDEPENDENT.. :D
Removed.
Let me know if you got my card please Michale.
Will do... :D
Should be in your inbox within an hour
Holy crap, Neil!!!!
Thanks!!!!
You DO realize it's going to be IMPOSSIBLE for me to be an arrogant prick anymore!!!!
Sincerely, thanx... I am speechless..... Thank gods my fingers still work though... :D
:)
Interesting view on the reasons behind the election results - harks back to CW's post with his list:
http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/stop-saying-that-trumpism-is-about.html
A bit annoying reading a list of tweets, but another take on the election:
http://electionado.com/canvas/1479173071893
That Trump is unpredictable is pure myth. He's totally predictable and he's consistent. Anyone who thinks he isn't, never paid attention to the psychs who explained Trump's persona and accurately described what to expect from him. Then there are all the accounts from people who knew him well in one way or another. All their accounts are consistent as well.
Anyone who thinks Trump is unpredictable hasn't yet worked out who he is psychologically in which case you're going to be constantly wrong about what he does. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy really. But it sure does make Trump sound more interesting.
Like I mentioned previously, I would not be surprised if 60% of Weigantians turn into Trump voters by 2020...
Lets see who he picks for SCOTUS. If he really wants to be a President for all Americans he'll pick Merrick Garland.
I'm with the Tweet-stormer, Neil. Democrats have to stop examining their navels and start studying up on the team that Trump's trying to field, and to know what questions to ask when the confirmation hearings are held.
I'm heartened to hear that Stein will get her recount in Wisconsin. Republicans are fighting this. Whattsa matter? Not confident of the results, I'm guessing.
And I'm heartened to see that Obama is opening an inquiry into the Russian meddling. That he wants it done before Trump's inauguration tells us everything we need to know.
There's a great big silver lining to all of this, you know. The nazis were shinin' up their guns for an anti-Hillary hoedown, when Trump's win took all of the air our of their plans. Next time we see them, they'll be drunk on the National Mall.
Obama is leaving office with a record that the next Democratic contender can run on. Remember Lincoln's admonition about who you can fool and for how long? Trump's force field should collapse about the time that he has to answer, finally, to all of the people all of the time.
[39] Anyone who thinks Trump is unpredictable hasn't yet worked out who he is psychologically in which case you're going to be constantly wrong about what he does. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy really. But it sure does make Trump sound more interesting.
"He doesn't do random." Nikki, in The Bourne Supremacy heh.
How can you tell the difference between 'random' and 'clueless'? Hard to say. David Fromm just keeps repeating: follow the money. Men don't change, only our perception of them.
I'm with the Tweet-stormer
The stats are very interesting.
This was a really telling data series:
https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/798357520335048704/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
White men who don't think white privilege exists and think women are out to get them voted heavily for Trump.
Also pretty damning of Sander's supporters and the belief that Sander's economic message would have swayed voters as much as a lot of people believe.
On the other hand, early on in the campaign, Trump brought up the Star-Trek-invented game of Fizzbin, which is all about dazzling your opponent with bullshit. He's spoken publicly about wanting to be seen as unpredictable.
Whether that's what he's trying to do or not, he will certainly stick to a game plan that he has every reason to believe is working. He's got people ready to spin like Dervishes if he crosses a line, so he feels like he's working with a net...
Also pretty damning of Sander's supporters and the belief that Sander's economic message would have swayed voters as much as a lot of people believe.
The whole world will land on my head for saying this, but, how much do you suppose Putin invested in the Bernie or Bust movement? I mean, I can't believe that he just left it alone and worked the Trump-Clinton angle exclusively. In the end, it only took a tiny push to get lots of those folks to abandon their party's nominee. Great return on investment?
Great return on investment?
This might be a very interesting investigation that Obama has triggered. It is difficult to avoid leaving financial fingerprints, and very often hackers are less anonymous than they think - I'd hazard a guess that the dark net community underestimate the forensic skills of the NSA.
Balthasar,
I'm heartened to hear that Stein will get her recount in Wisconsin. Republicans are fighting this. Whattsa matter? Not confident of the results, I'm guessing.
Just like Democrats have no confidence in the guv race in North Carolina, eh? :D
The recount is a waste of time and money.. The recount in Michigan net'ed MORE votes for Trump.. :D
Obama is leaving office with a record that the next Democratic contender can run on. Remember Lincoln's admonition about who you can fool and for how long? Trump's force field should collapse about the time that he has to answer, finally, to all of the people all of the time.
TRUMP IS TOAST-esque prediction #189 :D
The recount is a waste of time and money.. The recount in Michigan net'ed MORE votes for Trump.. :D
Really? That's not what they're saying in the press:
"David Cobb, another campaign spokesman, said that plenty of problems showed up in the recount, especially with all the unrecountable ballots.
“What we’re seeing is a national disgrace. We see that in Detroit, half of the votes were ineligible to recount because of antiquated state laws,” he said. “Just as we were gearing up to discover something wrong going on, the court stopped us.”"
"Ingham County is the only one of Michigan’s 83 counties that was done with its recount of 115 precincts and six that couldn’t be counted because ballot containers were improperly sealed."
Doesn't sound like anyone got 'extra' votes out of Michigan, but the idea that more than half of Detroit 'couldn't be counted' sounds more than a little bit suspicious, eh?