HITLERY CLINTON AND THE GRASPING AT STRAWS???

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.