Hillary won-get over it

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Hillary won-get over it

On his Saturday morning talk show John McDonald stated that the majority of American voters did not want Hillary Clinton to be President. This is patently false because she received over 3 million more votes than Donald Trump. So why isn’t she the President?
The framers of the Constitution and the designers of the system to elect the President and Vice President (Electoral College) wanted to ensure that no one outside the circle of elected politicians could ever become President or Vice President. Even this was poorly designed when Thomas Jefferson, an anti-federalist, became Vice President under John Adams, a federalist. Since the Federalist had control of sufficient State Houses the Twelfth Amendment was passed in order to ensure such a thing would never again happen. Further legal changes at the state level have been contrived to ensure that anyone not a member of the two major parties stands a chance of election. The people get to vote for one or the other and not even a choice as to who those two are.
Donald Trump won the electoral college vote because he carried the States whose votes count for more than other States. This has happened because the House has been capped to 435 members and the more populous states have gotten uneven representation. Originally there was to be one representative for every 50,000 people and if this held there would now be over 6000 members in the House. Since the winner in most states gets all of the electoral college votes, it is highly likely that the electoral college winner gets fewer popular votes. It happened in the very first election where a universal ballot was taken in 1824 and has happened several times since. Like now, the popular vote is not determinate but people have always been led to believe the majority rules.
Since most people fail to realize that this is the system there has to be some other reason for Hillary’s loss. The Russians hacked the system. Nothing could be more ridiculous but we now have millions of frustrated Hillary voters who actually believe this could be the case.
When you vote, you fill out a ballot. These ballots are either counted by hand or by machine. The machines are not connected to the internet and are basically nothing but adding machines that are above tampering. That the count turned out as it did is no surprise given the system being employed, the overwhelming majority of registered Democrats and as to how the popular vote is manipulated by the electoral college system.
That the Democrats have a similar system is no surprise because it is designed to ensure that only a candidate favored by the parties’ elites will get the nomination. At the parties nominating convention, the elites, legislators, governors, etc. get two votes to the at large delegates one. The Democrat’s mistake was to believe they needed someone to contest Hillary’s forgone anointment as candidate to enliven their base to get out and vote. Since none of the other Democrat elites wanted to be part of this ruse they had to resort to Bernie Sanders, who is not even a Democrat. The next surprise was that Bernie almost made himself more popular among Democrats than Hillary and if it weren’t for some other shenanigans by the elites he might very well have won the nomination. The problem was that the Sander’s supporters were given no choice other than to vote for Hillary and it became obvious in the election that many of them did not vote for Hillary or did not vote at all. I truly believe that if the Democrats had selected Bernie Sanders he would have won in a landslide.
Crooked Hillary, as Trump liked to brand her, was exposed, not by the Russians but by Wikileaks revelation of emails between Hillary and her campaign people but more importantly the ones related to money for the Clinton Fund, which was shown to be nothing more than influence peddling. You donate money to my fund and I will provide you access to the decision makers that influence your bottom line. It has been going on since the first election but Hillary carried it to a higher level by getting foreigners involved as well as did Bill with the Chinese.
Influence peddling has become an art form. Instead of taking money directly under the table for which you may be caught or forced to explain why you did not commit a crime, it’s give first and pay later when you can no longer be charged because you are no longer in position to provide the service. Why do you think Bill Clinton and now Barak Obama get $100,000 speaking fees? It’s payback time.
It is actually fortunate that government is so engrossed and occupied in a fight in which there will only be losers. The good side, it keeps them from doing any other mischief.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 22 hours ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
"On his Saturday morning talk

"On his Saturday morning talk show John McDonald stated that the majority of American voters did not want Hillary Clinton to be President. This is patently false because . . "

If that's how he said it I'd say he is right. Trump + Bernie > Clinton. Whether or not the Sanders supporters actually cast a ballot, they voted.

Otherwise a valuable civics lesson.

xxx

Why did (still do, I suppose) the 'antifa' Bernie supporters lash out at Trump? It was the DNC who screwed Bernie, after all. No one in their right mind honestly believes the Russians had anything to do with rigging the levers to pull for Trump. It's all theater. Bernie was never anything more than another cast member to kill off and you're right, not even Bernie had a clue.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
McDonald was specifically

McDonald was specifically referring to the balloting between Trump and Clinton. Bernie Sanders was no longer in the picture. My point is this and I state in the last paragraph. Americans have been conditioned to believe the majority rules and when Clinton did not win they felt cheated.

In poker a straight flush 10 to Ace is as hard to get in any suit but if two people have a straight flush, if one is in spades and the other diamonds, the spade holder wins. Its the rules. If the politicians had not changed the rules by limiting the number of representatives, the one who won the popular vote would under most conditions automatically win but as it stands now it is not always the case and the one who can play the system best wins, regardless of the popular vote.

Besides, voting is meaningless because the politicians have already caused the damage that will ultimately result in the demise of the system.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 30 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
So we can assume you didn't

So we can assume you didn't vote, and haven't since it was revealed to you. And tell all you know, see, and communicate with not to do so either.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
You can assume no such thing.

You can assume no such thing. As a matter of fact I have voted in every election since I returned to the United States in 1986. In the beginning I voted Republican believing the choice to be better than Democrat because of the supposed platform of smaller government. When this proved not to be the case I have written in my own name as being my choice of someone to represent me and in the case of the Presidential election I have written in "none of the above" as I rejected either choice. Since they don't tally such votes one never knows whether "none of the above" garnered any more votes than mine.

It is like going to the ice cream store with the thought of getting strawberry only to find the choice is either vanilla or chocolate or neither. Since you wanted ice cream in the first place you settle for either vanilla or chocolate. Like voting, when you can't have your choice you stop craving ice cream and find a substitute or do without. Unfortunately, someone is going to win in our system. People who live under monarchy or dictatorship need not worry about choices and so long as they can maintain a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs and food in their stomachs it matters little where it comes from. You can earn it, you can share with those who have more than they need and are willing to part with some or you can steal it. The latter is against the law so the government either takes others surplus through taxes and gives it to you. The government can only take so much before those being taken throw them out of office so in self preservation the government borrows (prints) money to hand out. The problem is this process has a limit and we have already passed it. It is called bankruptcy.

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
Under the standing rules that

Under the standing rules that everyone agreed on, Trump won the election. He won the Electoral College decisively, without any ambiguity whatsoever.

Can you imagine what all the Clinton supporters would be saying if Trump had won the popular vote and Clinton the electoral College? For that matter, does everyone remember all the nattering of "what if Trump doesn't accept the results of the election"? So what do we have instead? The "Resistance", of course, comprised of the "good liberal" people who refuse to accept the results of the election.

Trump won.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Vikingstar: Everyone did not

Vikingstar: Everyone did not agree to the rules, only the founding fathers. If you ask the average American he could not explain how the Electoral College works because the process is no longer used. Did anyone in Maine get to vote for the electors, then who were they. They were not picked at the party conventions because you never heard it. Did the electors meet and were their ballots sent to the Senate to be read as provided for in the Constitution? No?

The lemmings that constitute the bulk of the American electorate have been conditioned to believe that the majority rules and when it doesn't happen they get upset.

The electoral college vote was 304 for Trump and 227 for Clinton. That is 4 votes short of the total of 535 so some one of the electors from a state that doesn't bind its electors to the official candidates who secured the most votes in their state, voted for someone else. At 304 out of 535 or 57% I would hardly call that decisive. It means that 43% of a population of 135 million voters or 58 million votes did not get their choice.

Bruce Libby
Online
Last seen: 1 min 16 sec ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
Good morning fellow Lemmings

Good morning fellow Lemmings !

Log in to post comments