I'm Baa-aack!

   Donald Trump has made it official. He is is a candidate for the presidential election come November of next year.
   He picked a Saturday afternoon to make the announcement. But none of the major TV networks -- including Fox, his favorite -- carried the event live. They ran the report on their late afternoon and evening news broadcasts, since it was by any measure a major news event. But carrying it live? Didn't happen.

   Nor did any of the nation's major newspapers devote major space to the announcement. A three-paragraph item was printed on the lower half of an inside page.

   So much for making a big splash.
   The networks were more concerned with carrying reports on the arrest of five police officers who were charged with the beating death of Kyre Nichols after he ran away from a traffic stop in Memphis, Tenn.
  The five officers were suspended from the force and face murder charges. It's also worth noting that all five officers are Black, as was their victim. The police chief is also Black.
   These are noteworthy facts, indicating that America is changing.

Forecast and Reality

 

 

In October 2016, this column considered possible future events if the candidate loses. He ignored the possibility. Nevertheless, as the title said:

 

The Question Stands

 

Will you accept defeat?

   If dominating the news cycle is the measure of success in this year's presidential campaign, Donald Trump is the undisputed winner.

   During Wednesday evening's debate, moderator Chris Wallace asked if the candidate would accept the election results. His response evaded the question: "I'll let you know when the time comes."

   A second attempt by Wallace failed to get a definitive answer, defying a long tradition of presidential candidates conceding when vote results made clear the victory.

   But Trump would have none of that, insisting that he's not thinking about that now, that he wants to "keep you in suspense."

   Considering the many times the candidate has claimed that "the system is rigged" against him, such a refusal to accept even the idea of a possible defeat only encourages mob action and violence in November. This follows his more direct encouragement of violence at campaign events, going back many months.

   So by giving evasive answers, the candidate implies that he will not accept defeat. That, of course, would make him a loser. And in his lexicon, that is the worst thing that be said about anyone.

   More dangerous, however, is the implicit threat of a violent overthrow of the system that he calls "rigged," by his followers who hear his hints and suggestions as instructions.

   By phrasing his comments as he does, he can claim that he has never encouraged, and does not now, encourage violence. That, however, is disproven by the many times he has said such things, as recorded on video at his campaign rallies. And claims that he is not responsible for things that supporters do simply don't work. Even when his comments and insults are slightly vague, his more rabid followers typically take them a small step further, and resort to violence to "get him out of here," and to "punch him in the face."

   In short, these unsaid threats quickly become open violence.

   But this time, the future of the American system of government is at stake.

   After the blowback from comments made during the debate, he tried to soften the problem by assuring supporters at a rally that he would "absolutely support the election results ... if I win."

      So after all the rhetoric and self-serving defensiveness, the question stands: Will you accept defeat?

   Judging from past behavior over many decades as well as recent comments, the answer is likely to be No. Instead, as with so many other events in his life, his defeat will be labeled someone else's fault.

   We are seeing what may well be the most dangerous threat ever made to the American system, suggesting mob violence to overturn a duly elected President and install a dictator.