AV - - - I said in the beginning I would make
this blog fair on both sides to the best of my ability. To this point I
have hit the left pretty hard so it's time to reverse the script. 1.
It is somewhat ironic now that Trump won the election after calling it
rigged the whole time. So was it rigged President-Elect Trump? 2.
I didn't understand the uproar during the campaign about Trump saying he
would evaluate the election results when they came. From a pragmatic
stance that is the only response that makes sense. In this crazy world
why would anyone prematurely accept the results to an election before they had
to? Unfortunately, now we have many on the left calling for the Electoral
College to vote HRC instead of Trump. Who isn't accepting the results
now?
Speaking of requesting the EC to vote Clinton
instead of following protocol, I find this dialogue deeply disturbing.
The left should be realizing now that they are in a much worse place
because they let Obama get away with too much executive power when in office
and now they will be subjected to the someone with the opposite views but the
same authoritative power. I am continually reminded of some of the best
advice I read in re: to politics and government by Trevor Burrus at Fee.org:
"Don't endorse a government power that you wouldn't want wielded by your
worst political enemy." If we disobey the ways of the EC now what
happens on future elections. This is a shortsighted and dangerous view.
(AV) - - - Another point about rigged elections.
I think you would be a fool not to think the election was rigged in some
way shape or form. Perhaps once per week we hear of another company
getting hacked and having its customers’ data stolen. If the for profit
companies with an incentive for protection can't stop people from hacking, the
government, with no incentive to keep its citizens data safe, really can't.
It's entirely too easy for people not to pay off one election official
somewhere and change the sim card or something else in the voting machine.
I have to doubt they altered the course of the election but I think you
would be a fool to deny that this could possibly happen. It is definitely
a possibility and more likely a probability.
For example, in a city as corrupt and liberal as
Chicago, there is at least some positive chance that someone that had access to
voting machines could have been slipped $1000 bucks to ‘leave a door unlocked’
and give access to someone with bad motives.
Now, this would likely not effect an election because its much more
probable statistically speaking that a democrat has access (both because there
are more democrats than republicans in Chicago and the mayor and other officials,
elected and appointed, are disproportionally democrats) but this access only
got Chicago to vote more democrat than it already did. It may have altered the popular vote but this
would have no effect on the Electoral College.
This is, of course, a hypothetical and I don’t claim to say it did
happen in Chicago or that any one person had knowledge, but there is a larger
than 0% statistical chance that this happened.
It can and likely did happen on both sides IMO.
I like the direction these secession ploys are
going. Secession should not be synonymous with the racist part of the
south and the civil war. If a group of people doesn’t feel like they
should be governed (read ruled) the way they would like to be they should have
every right to leave and govern (rule) themselves as they see fit.
California can leave and create a socialist utopia. Texas
can secede and create a true free market. Both groups are then
better off than they are being ruled by something in middle, which is the
current state of the US.
“A third of all House
Democrats now hail from three states (CA, NY, MA). California alone accounts
for 20% of the House Democratic caucus.”
So, maybe California really should secede.
Seems like they would really like that and the rest of us who believe in
markets would be better off as well. This is not at all a hateful
suggestion it comes from my heart when I say that truly both sides would be
better off. A pareto improvement!
Provides an interesting
analysis of the value of your vote. Since HRC won the popular vote, the
left is calling for changes to the Electoral College, claiming it is a flawed
system. Makes a mathematical case that
a vote in Wyoming has ~4 times the EC value as a vote in Texas. I am
unsure quite what to make of this but an interesting short blurb.
No comments:
Post a Comment