You can say what you want about Richard Nixon, but
when many at the time were encouraging him to contest the election of 1960, he
chose to put the country above his own political ambition and ignored those
calls choosing instead to simply move on.
Fast forward 56 years and we now have the Democrat candidate in our most
recent presidential contest being urged by a group of computer scientists and
election lawyers to challenge the election results in three key swing states
won by President-elect Donald Trump.
Because, they say, how is it that a candidate as qualified as Hitlery
could have lost without there being electoral trickery being involved?
Apparently members of this group, which includes
voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, director of the
University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, has already
had a conversation with Hitlery’s campaign chairman John Podesta and campaign
general counsel Marc Elias as recently as recently as Thursday of last week. And what was supposedly discussed is the fact
that they believe they have evidence that would indicate some results in
Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania ‘might’ have been manipulated or even
hacked. So there’s no proof that they
were hacked, only speculation that they might have been.
According to the findings of these supposed
‘experts’, Hitlery received 7 percent fewer votes in Wisconsin counties that
used electronic voting machines as she did in counties that used optical
scanners to read paper ballots. Now as
their theory goes, if, by chance, those votes were changed to match the
percentages in the rest of the state Hitlery ‘could’ have received an extra
30,000 votes – and she lost Wisconsin by only 27,000. Now seriously, does anyone seem to recall
hearing about any instances of voting machines changing Hitlery votes to Trump
votes? I know I don’t! All I heard about were machines changing Trump
votes to Hitlery votes.
And while this same group noted it has found no
actual evidence of votes being manipulated in such a way, it said their
analysis should be considered as cause enough for an independent review, noting
that many in Barry’s administration, including Barry himself, have blamed the
Russian government for the hacking of Democrat National Committee emails. So based on some vague accusation against the
Russians this group bases its nutting conclusion that there is now sufficient
cause for Hitlery’s team to start demanding recounts in those states where she
was narrowly defeated? Sounds like more
than a little straw grasping of you ask me.
Look, as things stand right now Mr. Trump currently
has 290 Electoral College votes and Hitlery has 232. And as we all know a total of 270 is needed to
win, so an overturning of Wisconsin with 10 electoral votes and Pennsylvania
with 20 would get her to 262. Michigan's
16 electoral votes would put her over the top. That state still has not awarded
its votes as the vote counting is still too close to call. However, if Hitlery is going to choose to challenge
the election results in these states, she is rapidly running out of time as the
deadline is approaching. Wisconsin
requires a recount request by Friday, Pennsylvania on Monday, and Michigan by
November 30.
And no one should be surprised to hear she is
contemplating such a move, an act of pure desperation. It has been after any number of elections that
we have witnessed the Democrats using all manner of con artistry and election
trickery in an effort to get their way.
They are liars, thieves, and they are cheats. They are simply not worthy of the trust placed
in them by so many Americans. After all,
once again we see them doing nothing more than trying to overthrow an election
using cleverly devised false accusations. They need to be recognized for what
they are, anti-America zealots and as such should never again be elected in
numbers large enough to allow them to!
Why is it that the Democrats so stubbornly resist
the enactment of voter ID laws? Do
anyone actually believe it’s because these laws are designed to disenfranchise
people from voting? No, it’s because it would
it harder for them to cheat! Let’s face
it, it’s been determined, though I’m not quite sure how, that three million
illegal immigrants voted in this election.
And I think it safe to say, if that is in fact the case, that the vast
majority of those votes went to Hitlery.
So if we were to remove those three million illegally cast votes, plus
any other votes determined to be fraudulent, Trump would then, and very easily
so, be the winner in the popular vote as well.
Getting back to the “win the popular vote/lose the
Electoral College” scenario: Thank God
we have that, otherwise our president would consistently be elected by the same
handful of states. It would be California,
New York, Florida and Texas who determine the outcome of every presidential
election. But the Electoral College
brilliantly smooths out the variances in the voting proclivities among states
and regions. Farmers in the middle of
the country and importers and exporters on the shore get roughly equal say, as
do Madison Avenue bigwigs and factory workers in Tennessee. It makes the playing field much more level
than it would otherwise be.
Are there shortcomings? Sure, I suppose you can make
that point. The Electoral College can make an Republican vote essentially
meaningless in a very few heavily Democrat states or vice versa. But without the Electoral College, the
country’s entire population is subject to the disproportionate voting
preferences of the few most populous states!
A "disproportionate voting preference by and of the few most
populous states" is called (and was correctly and most appropriately
considered by our founders as) a "tyranny by the majority"... (See de
Tocqueville). You have to admit, if you’re
being honest, that it makes for a much fairer election outcome.
That's what happens in "pure"
democratically-based, "rule by the majority" countries. And that's
why our Founding Fathers determined that an "Electoral College" was needed.
I’m glad that I live in a
"Constitutional Republic" and not in a pure democracy. If it hadn't been so we wouldn't have seen a
Republican President since the days of Ronald Reagan. And while I’m quite sure my Democrat friends
who nothing wrong with that should maybe think back to, or do research on, the
Carter presidency, or take an honest look at what has taken place over the last
eight years and imagine what America would look like if every president were as
incompetent as these two.
No comments:
Post a Comment