News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: The Hijacking of a Presidential Election - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The Hijacking of a Presidential Election Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   pepperonikkid 

  • Trucker
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 12,893
  • Joined: 03-September 03

  Posted 09 February 2019 - 08:13 AM

The Hijacking of a Presidential Election

By Jon N. Hall
February 9, 2019


In January of 2017, the Federal Election Commission reported that in the 2016 general election Mrs. Clinton received 65,853,516 votes and Mr. Trump received 62,984,825 votes. Clinton therefore beat Trump by 2,868,691 popular votes.

President Trump has said that if the illegal votes were deducted that he would have won the popular vote. If one looks at that FEC report, one sees that in California, the state with the most illegal aliens, Clinton got 8,753,788 votes, while Trump got 4,483,810 votes. So Clinton beat Trump in California by 4,269,978 votes.

What's interesting is that Clinton beat Trump by more votes in California than she did nationwide, precisely 1,401,287 more votes. Though Trump's claim that illegal voting threw the popular vote to Clinton is sheer speculation, we can say that if we exclude California that Trump did in fact win the popular vote in the rest of the nation, and by exactly 1,401,287 votes.

Because Trump didn't get any electoral votes in California and New York, when we subtract the electoral votes of those two states, Clinton won just 143 electoral votes in the rest of the nation while Trump's electoral total remains unchanged at 304. In the Electoral College, which is what we use to elect our presidents, Trump beats Clinton by more than 2-to-1 when California and New York are excluded. Even if the votes of the seven faithless electors were given to Clinton, Trump would still have trounced Clinton by more than 2-1 in the 48 states of "real America."

It takes a bare minimum of 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. Had Clinton received all 46 electoral votes in the blue wall states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, she would have gotten 273 electoral votes. She then could afford to lose only the least populous of those three states, Wisconsin, and still prevail, but only if she were also awarded all seven votes of the faithless electors. In which case, Clinton would have won with a grand total of 270 electoral votes.

Government officials have assured us that Russians did not change the vote counts in 2016. Elections are conducted by the states, and each state has its own separate election system, so changing the votes would be enormously difficult. And besides, "there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America's elections, in part because they're so decentralized." We were told this by no less than Obama Himself, (so it must be true).

Obama fails to see the obvious. If the Russians wanted to throw the popular vote to Trump in 2016, all they would have needed to change is the popular vote in just one state, California with its 55 electoral votes… not the entire country. Trump could have even lost his three "blue wall" states and still have won had he gotten California, and he'd have had an even greater total at 313 electoral votes.

Some progressives think we should junk the Electoral College and elect presidents with the popular vote. Other progressives think we should rejigger the College and allocate its votes in a way that is closer to the popular vote. But if one believes in federalism, the above data argues just the opposite. We can't have the preferences of two populous coastal states being imposed on the other 48 states merely because they have some tiny majority. That's especially so when those two states are so very different from the rest of the country. Let California have its tent cities, its free healthcare for illegal aliens, and its San Francisco values, but leave us "hicks" in the heartland alone.

Given the above, I think we can say that in 2016 the Electoral College worked as intended, and that America got the correct president, the one she needed. Even so, the electoral vote is derived from the popular vote, so there's still the nagging little question of what the legitimate popular vote count really was.

Full Story

#2 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,167
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 09 February 2019 - 09:46 AM

One side strives to give people freedom.

The other side strives to imprison them.

Voters are split 50-50 between them.

What does that all say about people?

#3 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 56,183
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 09 February 2019 - 12:48 PM

View Postzurg, on 09 February 2019 - 09:46 AM, said:

One side strives to give people freedom.

The other side strives to imprison them.

Voters are split 50-50 between them.

What does that all say about people?

It says the leftist half are not only morons. They're also dangerous. Anybody who votes for Democrats is a dangerous moron.


Share this topic:

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users