Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Tweet For Today

Posted by at
Labels:

5 comments:

B.Poster said...

So the unprecedented effort to get the electors to change their votes thereby disenfranchising the voters seems to have had the opposite effect of what was intended. This is hardly surprising.

When people are attacked personally and threatened, they tend to harden whatever position they held as opposed to alter their positions in ways the people doing the attacking would like them to. Additionally, when these types of tactics are engaged in, people who may support them can often find such actions repulsive and will be driven away. This may explain HRC had more faithless electors than DJT did.

December 20, 2016 at 12:48 PM
fred said...

What you say makes sense. However, since Hillary won by some 2-3 million votes, who or what or how were the voters disenfranchised?

December 20, 2016 at 2:34 PM
B.Poster said...

Fred,

We decide on who the POTUS is going to be based upon the electoral college and not the popular vote. I'm sure you knew this.

HRC wins the popular vote by essentially "running the table" in a few dense counties and metropolitan areas in NY, CA, and Chicago. If we had a pure popular vote for POTUS a candidate could focus entirely on the most populous areas ignoring the others. By deciding this based upon the Electoral College candidates have to focus more energy and time in other areas meaning they have a voice that they would not have in a pure popular vote.

I would also add that the Electoral College makes it harder to steal an election. In order to steal an election, one would have to know which votes to steal in which "swing state" and when. Today's "safe" state can be tomorrow's "swing state." As you can probably imagine this could be extremely difficult to do.

In a pure popular vote, it would be much easier to steal an election as stolen votes in the "reddest" of "red" areas or the "bluest" of "blue" areas have much more potential to make a difference as they could be used to pad the totals of a candidate helping in the popular vote.

As to how certain voters were disenfranchised, when we vote for POTUS, we vote for a slate of electors who are expected in today's customs to vote for the candidate that their state voted for. When they fail to do this, they fail to properly represent the voters thus disenfranchising them.

HRC either sought to disenfranchise voters by trying to get the electors to change their votes or, at the very least, she failed to speak out against such practices. Furthermore such practices seem to have moved beyond to simple attempts to persuade but to out and out threats. If she did speak out against this practice, perhaps I missed it.

Essentially the one who sought to disenfranchise the voters of the other side ends up disenfranchising more of their own voters than what were disenfranchised on the other side.

The Electoral College allows smaller states a voice that they would not have in a pure popular vote. To go with the a pure popular vote would likely mean the end of the union as pure democracies tent to implode.

I had observed a number of years ago that the Electoral College system is sheer genius on the part of the founders of the Republic. Recent events appear to have affirmed this.

Arguably this is the only part of our constitution that still works as intended. Today's large states and safe states can be tomorrow's swing states and smaller states. As such, both parties have had a vested interest in keeping things as they are, Had DJT won the popular vote but not the electoral college the media would probably not be having this conversation instead they would all be extoling the sheer genius of the electoral college!!

December 20, 2016 at 3:37 PM
Unknown said...

Hillary did not win by 2 or 3 million votes.

1) Her vote totals were vastly inflated by fraud.

2) Frank Lapides is obviously unaware of the baseball analogy. I wonder if he is American.

The baseball team with the most hits does not automatically win the game. the one with the most runs does.

The baseball team with the most runs in a season does not necessarily win the championship. You have to win enough games to get in the playoffs and then have to win the critical playoff games.

Lapides is just crying, ... crying, ... crying

If in order to win the presidency you only had to win the popular vote, Trump and anyone else would have spent their advertising $$$ differently, had different campaign stops, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz0pfgZI0Bg

December 20, 2016 at 6:59 PM
Unknown said...

Trump won the popular vote by 1.7 million if you do not count California.

How many of the California votes were legal?

How many legal votes were their in Detroit?

If Detroit was bad, what about Philadelphia. The Demoncats did not want the Republicans to have poll watchers there. Were they stuffing ballot boxes?

Would Demoncats cheat?

How Johnson Won Election He'd Lost
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html

This is the NYT Fred Lapides. That means it is gospel to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe0rSdczbhU


Box #13
https://jfkunloaded.wordpress.com/tag/box-13/

December 20, 2016 at 7:09 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)