- LeStryge wrote:
Is she delusional and still thinks she's living in the White House?
Does she honestly believe she won? So why isn't she President now?
She bases her claim on the "popular vote." Technically, she received more votes than Trump nationwide. Remove California from the mix and it wasn't even close. Remove California and New York from the mix and it was a popular vote mega-landslide for Trump.
I believe it is no coincidence that the move to impeach (remove from office) President Trump is being led by lawmakers from California and New York.
In Presidential elections, the US uses a system called the Electoral College. Each individual state of the 50 states, plus a couple of territories, is allotted "votes" based on population. Most states award their state electoral votes on a "winner take all" basis, so whether a candidate wins the state by 51% or 99%, they get all the electoral votes from that state. (A few states award their votes proportionally, which is what I think they all should do, but most are winner takes all.) The system was set up 250 years ago so that one or two states with large populations would not dominate every national presidential election.
Prior to the last election, every "expert" claimed that there was "no possible way" for Trump to win the majority of the Electoral College delegates. They all... ALL... said it would be a landslide for Clinton. Most states are predictable, tending to vote the same way every cycle. There are a few states called "swing states" which are less predictable and which tend to be the deciding states in presidential elections. Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio seem to be the states that make the biggest difference.
I was discouraged on election night, watching the coverage and listening to the "experts" explain why Trump didn't have a chance. As the early state results rolled in, it was Clinton Clinton Clinton.
But then... Trump took Ohio. Everybody was, "wait... what? How could that be?" All of a sudden the race was closer. But of course, statistically it was still an "almost impossible long shot" according to the TV commentators. More states rolled in, predictable results, nothing changed. Then... Florida. Florida went for Trump. I actually stood up and cheered. I knew he had it then. It seems like nobody wins if they don't win Florida. Usually the Florida vote is so close it results in recounts and court battles. But Trump took Florida by a margin sufficient that recounts were not required.
Still, the commentators said it was "unlikely" that he would prevail. And even though the numbers on the screen told the story, every network refused to "call" Pennsylvania. Because Clinton was supposed to dominate Pennsylvania. There was no way Trump could win Pennsylvania. By that point Trump was leading in the Electoral votes, but they just didn't want to admit it.
One of the best moments in television in my lifetime was when the CNN voting analyst looked in to the camera and said, "at this point, there is no possible mathematical path... for Hillary Clinton to win the White House." Oh, how they stretched it out. They were down to predicting individual counties and even areas of cities, trying to show how Clinton was going to win.
ALL the analysts said that Clinton would EASILY take the electoral votes.
All the analysts were wrong.
Trump has said that if the election were based on the popular vote, he would have campaigned totally differently, focusing on only five or six states. Instead, he campaigned based on the electoral votes, putting less time in to high population states that were solidly for Clinton, like California.
After the election, millions
of voters were removed from the California register. Illegal voters. People who had moved. People who were dead. Something like two million.
In some areas of California, Clinton received more votes than there were registered voters. Happened in parts of Illinois, too, a state with arguably the most corrupt election system in the country.
Clinton claims she won because she won the "popular vote." All those votes were from California. And one state should not, and currently does not, control the nation... although they are trying.
I'm hoping the UK results are mirrored here in the States next year. But people are stupid beyond measure, so I don't know.
As for overseas wars, the public does NOT want us involved in wars. The public is fine with the President negotiating with foreign leaders, even North Korea. It is the politicians, who get big contributions from tech and hardware companies involved in military contracts, and the broadcast and print media, who love war because it drives ratings and therefor generates money, who want war. I find it frightening.
The other Democrat candidates attacked the one anti-war Democrat presidential candidate and called her a "Russian asset" because she is against sending soldiers in to needless foreign conflicts. It was one of the lowest things I've seen a candidate do, and nobody came to her defense.
If I think about it too much, I conclude that our country is doomed.
Oh, hey, one of the states just passed strict anti-firearms laws. There is now unrest among the population, and the state is considering calling in the military to quell the unrest. This is the EXACT thing the founders of the nation warned against 250 years ago. The right to keep and bear arms is a protected right... supposedly... and was specifically included in the nation's constitution to allow citizens some measure of protection against overbearing government. But one state basically eliminated that right, and they're poised to use military force to enforce that authority.
Yeah, the great experiment in "democracy" that was the United States of America will become a shadow of its former self within my lifetime, of that I have little doubt. Take away the guns and boot out a President who doesn't play by their corrupt rules.
Of course, you guys let 'em take your guns away a long time ago, and my understanding is that they've taken away your beer, too, by taxing it to the point where nobody can afford it anymore. What happened to the "rugged individualism" that once characterized Australia?
I'm pleased to see the people of the UK finally at least trying to shake off the yoke of the European Union. I hope they can do it. There is a lot of money and a lot of backroom deal-making trying to ensure that it does not happen.