US 2016 elections. Behind the scenes

George1 wrote:

So much class in that speech, you would think this can't be the same person...well that's what a real human being is like (at least in my neck of the woods) "both the devil and the godly are within the living".

That's a dude who has been negotiating for hard cash all his lifetime.

JohninMK wrote:Geographically speaking, except for big cities and a few isolated areas, the country cannot stand Hillary.[/i]

The problem is if we consider the number of popular voters, Trump had less popular vote. Less people voted for Trump. But more electors voted for him and that made him win.

I do not say that I prefer who over who. For me both are in the same boat, representatives of US "big government of oligarchs". But I consider the US's electoral college system as a cancer of US politics.

If you like a bit of Schadenfreude this is for you...butthurt is flowing stromg there:





I'm such a meanie...no. Karma is a bitch and Bernie would have won.

Dude trolls sore liberal losers:

Just one of the problems the Clintons now face

I hope Donald will knock some sense in US politics. Better relationship with Russia is a must. Would love to see no agenda driven politics towards Russia.
Haha US msm are saying so much shit about Trump even after elections, but I guess average Americans are not so stupid to believe media. Freedom of speech my ass.

At the White House today. Only one happy face, the rest have unexpectedly (to them) lost their jobs. What a shame!

I hope Trump will be USA's Gorbatschow and Algore, their Yeltzin and dismantle this rathole once and for all.

JohninMK wrote:At the White House today. Only one happy face, the rest have unexpectedly (to them) lost their jobs. What a shame!

..............



.................

Wait, this is photo from actual White House meeting? And they are weeping and crying during the meeting?

Oh man, this is too awesome, God Emperor is probably having multiple orgasms due to all the sweet delicious salt !!!

And they are all wearing black, like who died?

higurashihougi wrote:The problem is if we consider the number of popular voters, Trump had less popular vote. Less people voted for Trump. But more electors voted for him and that made him win.

I do not say that I prefer who over who. For me both are in the same boat, representatives of US "big government of oligarchs". But I consider the US's electoral college system as a cancer of US politics.

And here is why you are wrong...



It is well known that concentrations of population, which usually equals to concentrations of wealth, equals to potential and exercise of political power.

The American founding fathers long ago recognized that truth. They knew that as the country and its people expands, limits unknown, there will inevitable disparity of concentrations of population and wealth. If any state and/or territory feels that it is being ignored in the political process, the odds of dissension increases and unity proportionately threatened. What the electoral college does is to make each state equally relevant, forcing Presidential contenders, or at least their proxies, to face the voters in each state.

Look at the map above.

What do city dwellers know of farming or mining ? On the other hand, what do farmers know of semiconductor manufacturing ? And what do farmers and city slickers know of open water fishing ?

If the electoral college does not exist and the President is chosen via direct democracy, instead of the current representative method, have no doubt that the contenders will focus their energies on a few populous states, giving them disproportionate political sway in the Congress and in the Executive branches.

kvs wrote:If Trump does try to move the US away from the neocon trajectory then expect all the stops to be pulled.   Aside
from any direct assassination attempt, there will be major false flags to try to poison the political climate against
Russia and foist Killary's agenda onto the menu.    MH17 will look like a joke.   The neocons will need real blood and
for Americans to get mad with rage.    Perhaps a dirty nuke on US soil linked to Russia.

This is why having scum like Litvinenko smuggle radioactive material out of the former USSR is dangerous.   One of these
5th column maggots could be used to stage a false flag against Russia.   I would swat these vermin like flies and give
them no quarter.   Obviously the Polonium "Putin did it" offing of Litvinenko was a false flag itself.   But now is a very
critical time and Russia's security depends on control of its assets and liabilities.  

This is a good read about Ron Paul's views on if Trump will cave into the Shadow government:

https://www.rt.com/usa/366404-trump-ron-paul-crosstalk/#.WCVIfA0v5lw.facebook

Hey Garry B, what do you think about Trump's election as President? Do you think his talk about good relations with foreign countries like Russia is just hot air? Will he continue to pursue an imperialistic foreign policy? I have my reservations.

havok wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:The problem is if we consider the number of popular voters, Trump had less popular vote. Less people voted for Trump. But more electors voted for him and that made him win.

I do not say that I prefer who over who. For me both are in the same boat, representatives of US "big government of oligarchs". But I consider the US's electoral college system as a cancer of US politics.

And here is why you are wrong...



It is well known that concentrations of population, which usually equals to concentrations of wealth, equals to potential and exercise of political power.

The American founding fathers long ago recognized that truth. They knew that as the country and its people expands, limits unknown, there will inevitable disparity of concentrations of population and wealth. If any state and/or territory feels that it is being ignored in the political process, the odds of dissension increases and unity proportionately threatened. What the electoral college does is to make each state equally relevant, forcing Presidential contenders, or at least their proxies, to face the voters in each state.

Look at the map above.

What do city dwellers know of farming or mining ? On the other hand, what do farmers know of semiconductor manufacturing ? And what do farmers and city slickers know of open water fishing ?

If the electoral college does not exist and the President is chosen via direct democracy, instead of the current representative method, have no doubt that the contenders will focus their energies on a few populous states, giving them disproportionate political sway in the Congress and in the Executive branches.

Thank you, one of the best posts I have read, anywhere.

This is a picture of the Hillary on the 21st October showing her age.

havok wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:The problem is if we consider the number of popular voters, Trump had less popular vote. Less people voted for Trump. But more electors voted for him and that made him win.

I do not say that I prefer who over who. For me both are in the same boat, representatives of US "big government of oligarchs". But I consider the US's electoral college system as a cancer of US politics.

And here is why you are wrong...



It is well known that concentrations of population, which usually equals to concentrations of wealth, equals to potential and exercise of political power.

The American founding fathers long ago recognized that truth. They knew that as the country and its people expands, limits unknown, there will inevitable disparity of concentrations of population and wealth. If any state and/or territory feels that it is being ignored in the political process, the odds of dissension increases and unity proportionately threatened. What the electoral college does is to make each state equally relevant, forcing Presidential contenders, or at least their proxies, to face the voters in each state.

Look at the map above.

What do city dwellers know of farming or mining ? On the other hand, what do farmers know of semiconductor manufacturing ? And what do farmers and city slickers know of open water fishing ?

If the electoral college does not exist and the President is chosen via direct democracy, instead of the current representative method, have no doubt that the contenders will focus their energies on a few populous states, giving them disproportionate political sway in the Congress and in the Executive branches.

Whole thing finally makes sense.

This is without a doubt best explanation of electoral college I have ever seen. It should be on White House website.

Thanks for posting this, I will be keeping this post for future reference and explanation for people who I talk to.

havok wrote:It is well known that concentrations of population, which usually equals to concentrations of wealth, equals to potential and exercise of political power.

The American founding fathers long ago recognized that truth. They knew that as the country and its people expands, limits unknown, there will inevitable disparity of concentrations of population and wealth. If any state and/or territory feels that it is being ignored in the political process, the odds of dissension increases and unity proportionately threatened. What the electoral college does is to make each state equally relevant, forcing Presidential contenders, or at least their proxies, to face the voters in each state.

Look at the map above.

What do city dwellers know of farming or mining ? On the other hand, what do farmers know of semiconductor manufacturing ? And what do farmers and city slickers know of open water fishing ?

If the electoral college does not exist and the President is chosen via direct democracy, instead of the current representative method, have no doubt that the contenders will focus their energies on a few populous states, giving them disproportionate political sway in the Congress and in the Executive branches.

Sorry but no, the agrarian society where wealthy politicians lived required a system that guaranteed their power quotas against the growing masses from the cities and that's why the electoral collage was instituted not because some mythical envisions of social justice.

Problem is that electoral college, doesn't stop the candidates from going hard on populous states, to the contrary, it's just that those populous states aren't simply big enough or cohesive enough to provide the leverage needed to win it all. Fact is that without Cali, Hitler, would barely scratch 170 at the electoral college. And battleground states become important when the candidates are too close in that big state distribution, but get a candidate that wins big states and you'll be elected president by winning 11 states out of ...50.

The strategy of papa Donnie was to make sure there wouldn't be a a single state that wouldn't be fought over, outside respective bastions like Cali or Texas.

That's all there is to know.

kvs wrote:The US elites are willing to sell the American majority down the river through offshoring.   Offshoring is a way for the US to
win the loyalty of elites in developing countries (this includes China and India).   They are "spreading the wealth" and the
stimulus is much appreciated by these developing country elites.  

During the Cold War the US used the commie bogeyman to align various third world elites into its own camp and establish
a foothold.  As the old colonial order disappeared a new version was being created.  After the commie bogeyman disappeared,
they used globalism to maintain and develop these links.  One could say that the US has been actively pursuing a one-world-government
scheme full tilt for decades.   Government is not just about politicians and bureaucrats, it is about elites.   Having the global elites in
its pocket would give the US total control over the planet.  

Clearly, throwing the US workers under the bus is a small price to pay for such power.   The long term payoff in terms of wealth
is enormous.   Let the peasants die under bridges homeless and starving.   Or throw some welfare crumbs at them. They do not
matter.  The newly rising global consumers and their local elite shepherds is what it is all about now.

Trump is not going to stop this train since the US elite is not going to give up on their global utopia.   He is just one man and
likely not even truly interested in doing what he claims he wants to do.   Giving the American workers their jobs back simply
ain't gonna happen.   Renegotiating NAFTA and assorted other moves are just window dressing.   At least Trump bothered
to appeal to the US worker, Killary practically spat in their faces.  (So much for the Democratic Party being pro-labour, they
are just another sock puppet collection owned by the elites).  

Trump is part of the elite, and came out les than 2 weeks ago stating his plan for recovery is Michael Bloodbergs Public Private Partnership model - as you know, Bloomberg made his 50Billion investing in productive enterprises such as asset stripping and speculating on currency, so I'm sure him and his Billionaire cornies will come up with a good plan (for themselves). We do know, from a Trump hint he gave about a month ago, that he has plans (which the establishment media didn't press him on, naturally), to just default vs China (and the millions of US bond holders). Fun times ahead manl maybe we can go back to the feudal model with Billionaire feudal Lords and no country (as he is going to destroy Americas credit worthiness). Obviously, such an act of currency war, would mean war......and cohencidently enough, the troops love Trump. Have you seen the Dollar Vigilante video on Trump flip flopping on every issue. He has no principles or integrity, but he loves that you think he does.

havok wrote:
What do city dwellers know of farming or mining ? On the other hand, what do farmers know of semiconductor manufacturing ? And what do farmers and city slickers know of open water fishing ?

If the electoral college does not exist and the President is chosen via direct democracy, instead of the current representative method, have no doubt that the contenders will focus their energies on a few populous states, giving them disproportionate political sway in the Congress and in the Executive branches.

Ideally popular vote it is the way to go in most nations. But when you have a community
so diverse like USA, it will be unfair for other states ,that the elections could be decided by population alone.

If popular vote was implemented to elect the President , then you will have a situation ,that any state or any political party could CHEAT the elections by simply welcoming massive migration into their state and manipulate the results. This said.. if Americans adopted the popular vote system as the standard to elect presidents. They they face a major Risk .very HUGE ONE ,
that Foreigners could control the elections. For example Jews ,they all unite and could elect a jewish president always and always win. but the most problematic part will be Latinos who migrate illegally into US and later becomes legal ,that they could united and defeat natural born
anglo Americans. So effectively you could have minorities ruling in USA ,and if elect a latino President ,change the constitution and include their language. So Anglos for protection and control of their own country elections ,created the electoral system. Otherwise anglo Americans could face the dilema of becoming a minority in their own nation.  This is what happened in Hawaii. That anglos now are majority and natives a minority in their own land. This could happen with Muslins , that could join together and control any election. So the electoral system
come to the rescue to give every state a fair chance to compete in the elections.

Aside that is a lie that Hillary won the popular vote.. check Alex Jones report. They hired thousands of illegal migrants to vote for Clinton in California and other states and RT live broadcast ,catched the moment that after all results were final , Hillary was added 2 hour later more votes. So the neoliberal Mafia do rigged the elections.. they holded the results *for hours* in many states that Hillary was clearly leading to see how much advantage TRump had in popular votes ,to later know how many votes they need to defeat trump. Their problem however
to be fully successful ,is that Trump won in too many states and got the 270 electoral votes mark very fast. so not even Adding the population of United States several times into Hillary side ,will have allowed them to win ,this is because trump won is vast majority of states ,they painted in Red most of United States.

So this is perhaps the reason why CLinton and Obama do not fight the results , they are afraid that a recount and investigation , shows how many millions of votes where tampered in favor
of Hillary in some states they could. Obama and Clinton were victims of the same mainstream media propaganda Polls ,that put Clinton winning easily in Florida,Ohio ,Pa and many other states. and lowered their guard in states that Hillary was supposed to win ,because republicans never win..

Trump won by a land Slide.. in popular votes  AND by states support too. And any new investigation and verification of the elections results ,could expose the Fraud that Obama administration tried to do.. This is why (i think) they are very quick to not reject the results.
Because they know they screwed Big Time in rigging the elections , many reports of voting machines changing votes from trump to Clinton and they fear any major consequence and investigation into the elections. So the Globalist elite became victims of their own propaganda ,thats what it happened , they did not expected ttrump to get so overwhelming support so big ,that not even with their rigged votes could win.

In retrospective however.. i think Trump Biggest mistake he commited that could have painted in RED the entire map of United States if he dont do it and just keep shut his mouth about the stupid Wall in mexico and did not spoke bad about Latins ,that rape and steal.. etc. He could have implemented all those walls later after he is President. And he could have just focus
in telling Americans about the positive things he will make. and not go into a fight with Clinton.
Wikileaks was doing that part of destroying Hillary image. and trump will have done far better
if it doesn't show up like an egomaniac and hateful at times and just keep it cool and smile.

i have a new map of the landslide victory of trump..




When divided into small districts..

Hey Garry B, what do you think about Trump's election as President? Do you think his talk about good relations with foreign countries like Russia is just hot air? Will he continue to pursue an imperialistic foreign policy? I have my reservations.

Talk is cheap.

He did not run his election talking tough against Russia, but it still could be how he plays things from the White house.

I suspect he will be a wall building isolationist... I would love to see him dismantle NATO...

I think it is likely he won because of Bernie Sanders.

I think the vast majority of people who were supposed to vote for Clinton likely ended up protest voting for Trump in protest over Sanders capitulation and castration by Hilary.

I think many who voted for Trump were actually voting agaisnt Hilary rather than actually for Trump... not that it makes any difference.

The protests are amusing... hopefully they will turn into demands for electoral reform... there were actually four candidates in this race yet we only hear about two... how can the news media in the US show their faces in public when the public remains ignorant of the existence of the two other candidates...

Even India has their elections faster than the US does...

whir wrote:Sorry but no, the agrarian society where wealthy politicians lived required a system that guaranteed their power quotas against the growing masses from the cities and that's why the electoral collage was instituted not because some mythical envisions of social justice.

Sorry, but no.

The US was never an agrarian society. Agriculture maybe dominant in parts of the original colonies, but agriculture was never the defining feature of the original colonies, let alone modern US. Not only that, there are different types of farming. Back then, most farms were subsistence level, meaning they grew just enough food crop for a family to survive. You do not get wealthy by subsistence level farming. On the other hand, do you eat cotton ? No. If you have a cotton farm, you are supporting the textile industry and you buy your food from food crop farmers and ranchers. Textile means trade, locally and to foreign countries. This is a different subject anyway.

The electoral college was never meant for any form of social justice. Not sure where you got that idea from. In fact, the words 'electoral college' are not in the US Constitution. The 12th Amendment simply stated 'Electors'. The idea was to make all states, current (at that time) and future, have equal standing in times of Presidential elections. After all, the President is one man who make decisions that will affect millions. Therefore, it is important that the candidate be exposed to as much diversity of Americans as possible.

There is a difference between justice and fairness.

Justice is about what is deserving.

Fairness is about the absence of conditions that could produce biases.

High population in one state relative to the neighboring states is one condition that would bias a candidate towards the state with the higher population. This is about political fairness, not social justice.