四年前，因为痛恨奥巴马治下的民主党大搞族裔政治撕裂美国，大搞祸国殃民的奥八医保坑害中产阶级，以及在AA，大麻合法，非法移民，男女同厕等方面的一系列的极左政策，在大选时我坚决支持政治素人川普。为老川在摇摆州宾州扫街拜票，出钱出力出文宣，飞机助选，bill board 助选，电话短信助选，帮助10万挺川的阿米族出来投票，you name it。。。最后老川拿下宾州，大批来自宾州纽约州与新州的华人挺川义工们功不可没。
他在这次疫情中的极端反智，一意孤行，不负责任又不愿意承担责任，到处甩锅的行为，是他这次输掉大选的直接原因。疫情前的民调，老川领先民主党所有候选人by double digit，大选前，老川落后拜登by double digit，that tells all !
疫情早期，老川把covid-19称为China virus，做为对250大傻叉政府发炎人赵立坚的回应，还有情可原。但大选临近，他一而再再而三地充满恶意地在公开场合称呼China virus，Chinese plaque，试图把他在疫情中的渎职转嫁到中国身上。他的这种甩锅行为，把广大美国华裔置于非常危险的处境。因为成千上万把老川的话当圣旨的川粉们，是分不清China，Chinese，大陆华人，美籍华人的区别的，在他们眼里，都是Chinese，都是让美国死亡20万的罪魁祸首。
break camel 的最后一根稻草，让我无法再支持老川的原因，是他公然诋毁污蔑美国立国之本：让美国成为全世界民主自由之灯塔的宪政制度。
A president is trying to undo an election result: How would you describe that situation in another country?
Erin Schaff/The New York Times
A thought experiment
The political scientist Brendan Nyhan has often responded to events during the Trump presidency by asking a question: What would you say if you saw it in another country?
Let’s try that exercise now. Imagine that a president of another country lost an election and refused to concede defeat. Instead, he lied about the vote count. He then filed lawsuits to have ballots thrown out, put pressure on other officials to back him up and used the power of government to prevent a transition of power from starting.
How would you describe this behavior? It’s certainly anti-democratic. It is an attempt to overrule the will of the people, ignore a country’s laws and illegitimately grab political power.
President Trump’s efforts will probably fail, but they are unlike anything that living Americans have experienced. “What we have seen in the last week from the president more closely resembles the tactics of the kind of authoritarian leaders we follow,” Michael Abramowitz, the president of Freedom House, which tracks democracy, told The Times. “I never would have imagined seeing something like this in America.”
It is “one of the gravest threats to democracy” the country has faced, Ryan Enos, a Harvard social scientist, wrote yesterday. He added in an email, “The result is crystal clear and, yet, the incumbent is creating ambiguity by baseless claims.”
I asked political scientists and historians for analogies, and they offered a few. The ruling party in Mexico probably reversed the true election result in 1988, as did ruling parties in Zimbabwe in 2002, Iran in 2009 and maybe Russia in 1996, Steven Levitsky, a co-author of “How Democracies Die,” told me. The details were different — the fraud sometimes occurred before the results were announced — but all were cases of politicians stealing an election mostly without military force.
The closest U.S. comparisons are more than a century old. The Federalist Party considered depriving Thomas Jefferson of the presidency in 1800 and used the courts to weaken him. During Reconstruction, parts of the South overturned election results, sometimes through violence. And of course multiple states responded to Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 victory by seceding from the union. (Thomas Edsall’s latest Times column has more details on each of these.)
What happens next? Republican officials seem to be trying to finesse the situation. They want to avoid angering Trump, who remains popular with Republican voters, as Liam Donovan, a party strategist, notes. That helps explain why most Republican officials have refused to recognize Joe Biden as the president-elect and have made vaguely supportive comments about Trump’s false claims.
But this support seems halfhearted. Few Republicans are taking their own steps to reverse the election result.
The two crucial next steps are the certification of state election results and the appointment of Electoral College voters, as Andrew Prokop of Vox explains. Both must happen by mid-December. If Republican officials in some states interfere — say, by trying to appoint electors who ignore the election results and vote for Trump in states he lost — it will be a sign that his attempt to undo the election has reached a more serious stage.
Eventually, Republican officials will be forced to make a choice, The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent writes — between breaking with Trump and breaking with democracy. Democracy seems much more likely to prevail, but in a damaged state. “Millions of his supporters,” my colleague Maggie Haberman writes, “will believe what he says.”