Clinton and the popular vote

There's been a noticible amount of complaining from people lately about the election results.  In particular, people are pointing out how Clinton won the popular vote, however, due to the electoral college, Trump won the presidency.  Many of these are subtle (and some, not so subtle) attempts to say that Clinton should be president instead of Trump because she won the popular vote.

But that's not how it works; Trump got the most electoral college votes and that's why he won.

To understand this, we need to ask the question: why is there an electoral college in the first place?

The problem with choosing a leader of a country that is composed of so many different states is that each state has different needs and challenges.  The water quality in the oceans is much more important to someone living in Seattle than someone in Wyoming, but at the same time, the cattle grazing rules are much more important to that same person in Wyoming than someone in Detroit.

So naturally, in a country as large as the USA, there are going to be differences of opinion, no matter who is running for president.  We need a system which tries to make things fair.

And this is what the electoral college was designed for; it prevents the situation where the majority of the states say "we do not want this person as president", only to have a couple of the most populated states effectively say "well, too bad for you" and then having their way because they have biggest population.

Why is this important?  Look at the biggest states by population: California (12.5%), Texas (8.6%), Florida (6.3%), and New York (6.1%).  In other words, 1/3rd of the US population lives in those 4 states. 

Imagine the scenario where you were living in a state like Ohio, but every time you voted for anything, you lost because the few large states always voted against you.  At some point, you'd have to ask the question: what is the point of being in the Union?  You aren't being represented or heard in government. The Union itself would begin to break down, because many states would simply not be represented.  A group of UNITED states needs to have a common ground and way of governing that is fair to all states involved or it simply won't work.

Otherwise, why wouldn't the smaller states just leave, or form their own government that has their interests in mind?  It would be a very difficult sell to the medium and smaller size states to remain in the Union if they never had a chance of getting anything they wanted from it.  And it would be ridiculous for the largest states to pretend this wasn't a problem.

The electoral college is set up to prevent the scenario where a couple of the most populated states want one person as president and can dictate to the remainder of the states who gets to be in Washington, because they have the most votes.

Now, looking at the election specifically: when Clinton announced her candidacy, her approval rating was just 15%. 

After a year and a half of the media portraying her in the most positive light they could, while showing her opponents as negatively as possible...

AND after the DNC actually rigged the primary in her favor...

AND after spending millions of dollars try to sell her...

Clinton's popularity rating was the same.  No one bought it.

Clinton was a corrupt career politican who would have lost to Joseph Goebbles, she was THAT hated by the majority of Americans.   There was literally no worse person that could have been pushed by Wall Street and the politican insiders.  The "It's my turn" attitude of her campaign just showed how arrogant she was, and she went so far as to show the American people how she had complete and total contempt for them by calling them a "basket of irredeemables".

And because she was so arrogant, she thought she could easily win by dividing the nation into neat little groups.  All of the division of the country that we see today: the riots, the anger, the political violence, the social media arguments, and the fighting?  Hillary WANTED it, because that's how she could win.  Why do you think she has been so quiet about the civil unrest since the election?  She created and unleashed this violent beast of division, but now she couldn't care less becuase it doesn't serve her political interest to stop it.  Quite frankly, she's also probably pretty terrified of it, and of what she has done.

On that note, if you don't like President Trump, you have Hillary to thank for it.  She is the one who told the media to push Trump in the Republican primaries, because she regarded Trump as the "pied piper candidate" who she could beat easily in the election.

Think about that for a moment: Hillary Clinton is the main reason that we have Trump as president today.  

And Hillary Clinton is the primary cause of the division that is rampant in our nation today.

So...  where are your complaints about HER?

If you look at the number of people angry at Trump in comparison to number of people angry at Clinton, it's at least 100:1, if not more.  And it begs the question:

Why does Clinton get a free pass after what she did?  Why shouldn't she be held accountable for it?

This is why most people aren't listening when you complain about Trump, but refuse to acknowledge the direct role that Hillary played in helping Trump become President.

And the original point is still this: the electoral college works.  New York and California are the reason that Clinton won the popular vote, but they would vote for ANYONE for president, as long as they have a "D" beside their name.  This just once again shows exactly why we CANNOT go by popular vote - because it would allow two states to dictate to the other 48 states who gets to be President, no matter what those other 48 states thought.

And that is EXACTLY the situation the electoral college prevents.

LKvi

Democrats and Negativity

The conspiracy theories continue to go mainstream these days - just watch CNN, MSNBC, etc and you'll see all kinds of negative rumors; things like theories that Russia hacked the election, that the world is going to end due to Trump, that Trump hates everyone, etc.

One has to step back though, and ask: what is the point of all this negativity? 

Do people really think that Trump is going to resign or that, months after the election, that somehow somebody will find a reason to legitimately overturn the results and hold a new election?

The fact of the matter is that regardless who won the election, for most people, it was business-as-usual the day after.  On November 9th, people woke up, took care of their families, dropped their kids off at school, went to work, and had a normal work day.  There wasn't a huge shift in average, everyday living.  There was no world-changing catastropy that ended modern civilization as we know it.

Yes, Trump alienated a lot of people during his campaign and there were a lot of people upset that he won the election.  However, it's completely unfair to think that there wouldn't also be just as many people upset if the Democrats would have won.  It's was a no-win situation; the country was very divided and neither candidate had a clear majority of support.

But what's surprising is the reaction since then - the Democrats claimed that after the won the election, the Trump supporters would riot and create all kinds of problems and be totally negative.  The irony is that the Democrats are doing the very thing they said the Republicans would do.

And what is the point of all this negativity, complaining, and rioting?

Barack Obama was hated by the Republicans, yet we didn't see the same level of social angst.  George W. Bush was highly unpopular before that, but again, the level of social unrest was still not as bad, even during his illegal war on Iraq.  

So what is different this time?

Bush was a politican who followed party lines.  Obama was a politican who followed party lines.  Trump is neither.  He is an outsider; he wasn't a politician before and less than 2 years later, he's now the president.

The problem for all the politicians, rich, and elites, who are used to their system running smoothly is that Trump isn't a part of that same system.  Trump is a loose cannon to them and it scares them because it threatens their power.

Hence, we see politicans, both Democrats and Republicans, opposing Trump.  Rich corporations can't control Trump, but they can control the politicians they bribe, so they use that control to oppose Trump by having other politicians oppose him.  Democrats have been absolutely shameless in this regard, with some going so far as to directly say that Trump "is not the president" and that we can expect a new election "shortly". 

The rich elites are the ones who own the media companies.  Is it any co-incidence that this president has receieved the highest ratio of negative to positive stories in history?  Positive stories about Trump on CNN are extremely rare, if they are shown at all.  Is it possible that Trump is truly this bad, or is it possible that perhaps the media might be biased?

One surprising reaction has been how average people have dealt with celebrities.  A lot of very rich singers and actors have all made major statements in favor of Clinton and against Trump, in order words, in favor of the system that made them rich.  The same system that funnels most of the profits to the 1% while leaving the middle class in a state where their true purchasing power has not increased since 1972.  Yet, with so many celebrities saying that they are anti-Trump, the majority of middle class are buying the story and joining the anti-Trump side.  Really?  Your favorite singer is 1000x richer than you, and you think that the politics that (s)he supports because it's good for them, are necessarily good for YOU as well? 

Perhaps it would be a good idea to step back and ask yourself why these celebrities are so anti-Trump, and whether or not if it's in your best interest?

The real question we should be asking, though, is this: Is what Trump is doing good for the American people or not?

During his campaign, Trump said many demeaning things and insulted a lot of people.  Since becoming President, has that behavior continued?  Has Trump learned his lesson and stopped being insulting to people?  And what has been done since being in office?

Those are much more important questions.  Instead, what we see many of these protestors and Democrats doing is simply holding a grudge.  Yes, Trump was rude and boorish during the campaign, but one can't say that Clinton wasn't also disgusting (as a simple example, consider how she called regular citizens "deplorable and irrideemable" and how she also said "there's one set of rules for me and one set of rules for everyone else".)  The campaign was definitely nasty, and neither candidate acted kindly and politely.

However, what has happened since the election?  Has Trump continued these patterns of negative behaviors?

The answer to that question seems to be no.  We haven't seen stories of Trump insulting women, minorities, or his opponents.  The only story that came close was the one that claimed that Trump removed Martin Luther King's bust from the Oval Office, but that story turned out to be completely false (and CNN apologised for it.)

So here we are - a couple of months since the election, and the Democrats, rich elites, corporations, politicians who benefited from the systematic corruption, and celebrities who got rich from that system, are now howling and complaining.

Why are you buying it?

Take a moment at look for the truth.  Yes, Trump isn't the best choice for president.  But he's also not nearly as bad or evil as these people have made him out to be.

It's a question of balance.

So, you might ask, why is there so much negativity and bad press about Trump?

It's a very good thing to ponder.  Notice who it is that Trump is angering the most.  It's the super-rich; the 1%.  Trump represents a threat to their wealth and power.

Consider this: if the average American has a better job, has more wealth, and has more power - where does it comes from?  The top 1%.   It means that the 1% lose their grip on the wealth and power and it becomes distributed to ALL Americans (as it should be).  But the 1% do not want to lose: hence, they are making loud noise.

It's something you may want to consider: just what are you supporting?

If you protest against Trump, are you protesting against his effort to create more jobs for the middle class?  Is that a bad thing - to want more jobs for people?

Yes, it's difficult to know who's telling the truth these days.  But as a citizen, it's your duty to do your best to inform yourself and try to figure it out, rather than just reading or hearing news from a completely biased source like the Huffington Post, and then taking action based on what you've heard.

And I'm willing to bet that if more of us made an effort to seek the truth, rather than just react to a news item, the level of negativity would drop -- and the level of confusion would increase.  We, the people, have a right to demand honest and unbiased reporting that we can count on.  The way the media has shifted to reporting based on their own political agenda is unacceptable.  It's misleading, and creating tons of unnecessary negativity.

And it's that negativity and political violence that we are all getting tired of.

So if you're feeling angry or upset or confused - rather than getting out into the streets or on social media and taking action - first, make sure you do your best to determine what is the truth.

If you're like most of us and you are completely honest with yourself, you'll most likely end up saying this:

"I'm just not sure exactly what's happening.  The media, the elite 1%, and the rich are making it very difficult to know what's really going on."

And that is true.

And that is sad.

And THAT is what we really need to be protesting and taking action against.

LKvi