News & Current Events
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-11-03T08:40:10-04:00 — #1
Those interested in "conspiracy theories" may give the following a read to find out some details about how to influence US presidential elections
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-03T10:56:08-04:00 — #2
This is old news. I mean granted, they now admit it. However, it was obvious with the way the whole Super Delagate thing was structured that the DNC was in coordination with Clinton.
gao_lu — 2017-11-03T17:58:04-04:00 — #3
I don't know what to believe. I don't live in America and miss a lot and suddenly feel naive. This is a level of corruption I had hoped didn't exist. Surely Bill can explain it all.
bill_coley — 2017-11-04T00:40:14-04:00 — #4
When I heard rumors and saw the initial headlines about this story, I feared there might be something genuinely crass and seemly about the arrangement about which Brazile writes. But now, having read her Politico piece AND the joint financing agreement (JFA) that is the only thing close to a "smoking gun" in that piece, I find it easy to say there's not much there.
First and foremost, HERE IS A LINK to the JFA, from which - as well as the Brazile piece - I make the following observations:
- In 2015, when the JFA was signed, the DNC was severely cash-strapped. The DNC would therefore have been open to such arrangements - candidate raises money, and in return has influence in personnel selection. In fact, the JFA made clear that other candidates could establish the same kind of arrangements with the DNC. In fact again, the Sanders campaign DID sign a JFA with the DNC, but then chose not to implement it.
- The JFA makes clear that it exists for the general election, not the primary campaign, until which the DNC would remain impartial....
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and
neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be
focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary.
Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.
The preceding observations put the lie to the suggestion, alive in political coffee clutch gab sessions after the release of the Politico article, that Brazile alleged, perhaps even proved, Clinton's "rigging" of the primary campaign. [Robbie Mook, Clinton campaign chair, on CNN Friday night astutely observed that Sanders won most of the primary season's contests administered by the Democratic Party, namely, the caucuses. Clinton racked up her victories in contests managed by secretaries of state, namely primaries. Some influence the Party had!] The JFA explicitly banned primary campaign DNC partisanship AND explicitly allowed other campaigns to enter into the same kind of arrangement - something the Sanders campaign did, but did not then use.
As the night's ends, Ms. Brazile, a prominent figure in 21st century Democratic Party politics, has some egg on her face due to the release of the JFA to which her article referred, but interestingly she chose not to provide. Given its details' damaging impact on the suggestions made in her piece, it's not hard to understand why she chose not to provide it.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-04T09:58:12-04:00 — #5
It indeed was rigged via Super Delagates.
bill_coley — 2017-11-04T12:47:01-04:00 — #6
As you probably know, David, the Democratic Party instituted its "super delegate" system in 1982, decades before Hillary Clinton ran for president. The system was reformed in July 2016 for future Democratic Party conventions, and a Unity Reform Commission comprised of Clinton and Sanders supporters is now functioning to consider additional reforms.
The argument at issue from the Brazile article in Politico is that Clinton's actions "rigged" the 2016 nomination process. In that regard, your reference to the super delegate system is not accurate because that system has been in place for decades, and she bears little if any responsibility for its creation.
gao_lu — 2017-11-04T16:52:30-04:00 — #7
Thanks for your keen insight, Bill. I was sure you had an angle by which in your mind you could honestly, with peace, get Hillary off the Hook. I am not quite there yet.
bill_coley — 2017-11-04T17:21:02-04:00 — #8
In my view, what I presented was a fact-based rationale for my conclusion that there isn't much "there" there in the suggestion that Donna Brazile proved Clinton's "rigging" of the 2016 Democratic Party nomination process through the aforequoted Politico article and Joint Financing Agreement. Perhaps you'll now present a fact-based rationale for your report that you are "not quite there yet"?
gao_lu — 2017-11-04T18:25:09-04:00 — #9
Don't worry too much Bill. You opened your heart. You told us how you feel, honestly, about what you believe to be relevant facts. From such a perspective, I can understand your feelings about Hillary.
I don't know any facts at all about Clinton rigging the election. All we have are the "proofs" provided by Donna Brazile. Like I said before, I don't know what to think, but it sure doesn't look good, and your "facts" from the JFA don't seem relevant to dispelling Clinton rigging the nomination process. But then I am not skilled in politics like you are.
Thanks for your angle for seeing Hillary as pure and free of guile in politics. If you have any more, let us know.
gao_lu — 2017-11-07T18:34:36-05:00 — #10
"Hillary and Bill take millions from Russia and then buy the DNC. So was the DNC financed by Russia?" --Mark Simone
gao_lu — 2017-11-10T18:34:43-05:00 — #11
alex_vaughn — 2017-11-11T02:02:20-05:00 — #12
The DNC doesn’t control who gets funding during the primary and Clinton won by 4 million votes. I liked Bernie, but he lost the primary. It seems that Pres. Trump is hyping up the story, so people forget about how he is hurting most Americans, and has failed to pass any major piece of legislation or a budget. Yet he and his party control all three branches of federal government.
gao_lu — 2017-11-11T03:36:34-05:00 — #13
I don't think anyone especially likes Trump, he was just the best thing available at the time.
In fact, Trump won 2,626 counties and Hillary won a mere 487 (I am being generous with her--figures seem to vary). She only won 16% of the counties. She lost by about 84% if my quick head-math is right. But all that is irrelevant at this point. Reality is, many people did not vote, but the counties that favored their candidate by vote likely had prevailing numbers of people who would have voted according to the popular vote of each county. No one knows, but in fact the heartbeat of America was surely a landslide for Trump in spite of the useless, silly number twirling by the frantic, frenzied DNC and liberals who suffered what I consider a spectacular loss.
The problem is not Trump or Hillary.
It is not special interest groups.
It is not a broken political system.
It is not an imperfect election system.
The problem is a salt and light problem. God's people have disobeyed. The church and the people need to be purified. Unbelievers will act like unbelievers. The problem is not the sins of society, it is the sins of God's chosen people. We must not point at society, but at ourselves.
2 Pet 4:17 "It is time for judgment to begin at the household of God."
The solution to our deep trouble is a future King. The Messiah, Jesus Christ.
We don't wallow in self-loathing or fear for our children. A King is coming and the world will be restored, all things will be made right. Mal 4:1-2
bill_coley — 2017-11-11T09:46:42-05:00 — #14
Your numbers truly ARE "irrelevant," Gao Lu, but for a different reason than the ones you cite.
In elections, counties don't vote, people do. Winners of popular vote elections are those who receive the greatest number of votes from people, not jurisdictions. In presidential elections, the winner of a state's electors is the candidate who receives the most votes from people, not counties. Consider:
Here are the results a statewide election between candidates A & B in the three county state of XYZ...
- County 1
- Candidate A - 100 votes
- Candidate B - 50 votes
- Candidate A - 25 votes
- Candidate B - 30 votes
- Candidate A - 15 votes
- Candidate B - 20 votes
Who won the election? If we count counties, as you do in your numbers, then Candidate B won the election because Candidate B won two counties, while Candidate A only won one.
But if we count votes, then Candidate A won the election because Candidate A received 140 votes, while Candidate B received 100 votes.
Why might County 1 have cast more total votes than the other two counties? One possibility is more people live in County 1. If Candidate A wins by enough votes in enough of the larger-population counties in a state, it's very possible for Candidate B to win more counties (the smaller population counties) but still lose the statewide election.
In presidential elections, counties are land masses, collections of square miles. Given the urban population concentrations in our country, a 100 sq mile county can have far more people than ten larger land mass, predominantly rural counties combined. Thus, since we count votes not square miles, the number of counties won in a presidential election is irrelevant.
gao_lu — 2017-11-11T10:13:12-05:00 — #15
In spite of all your bluster that crook Hillary lost. Depending on how you look at it, she lost by a well-deserved landslide. Trump won. He won spectacularly no matter how you look at it. But however you look at all that I don't really care much, because it is irrelevant.
A King is coming and the world will be restored, all things will be made right. Mal 4:1-2
bill_coley — 2017-11-11T10:36:57-05:00 — #16
We're each entitled to interpret the final results of the 2016 presidential election as we choose. But my comments about the role counties play in presidential elections stand unchallenged by your response. AND, keep in mind that YOU'RE the one who raised the issue of the significance of Trump's win of more counties than Clinton. In response to Alex's reminder that Clinton won the popular vote by millions you wrote this...
My response was simply that whether Clinton "lost (the count of counties won) by about 84%," or won the county count by that much is irrelevant because counties don't vote, people vote. My post contained no "silly number twirling;" it simply proved the very specific point I set out to make.
You claim that Clinton lost by a "landslide," no doubt a term on whose definition reasonable people can disagree. But in my view, a presidential candidate who wins three million more total votes, and suffers an electoral college loss whose size was only the 46th largest out of 58 in presidential election history, did not lose in a landslide... unless you count the counties.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-11T14:10:52-05:00 — #17
And how exactly is he doing this? Economy is up, we are safe, how is he hurting MOST Americans?
You do realize that is a Congress failure right?
Actually it depends on the state.
bill_coley — 2017-11-11T16:32:57-05:00 — #18
To my knowledge, only Maine and Nebraska do not apportion all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in their states, choosing instead to give two electoral votes to their states' popular vote winner, and one electoral vote to the popular vote winner of each of their states' congressional districts. Neither Nebraska nor Maine distributes electoral votes on the basis of counties won.
So yes, actually, the winner of a state's electors is the candidate who receives the most votes from people, not counties.
gao_lu — 2017-11-11T18:07:46-05:00 — #19
Its all in how you look at a thing. I respect your views and I would hope you might respect mine. Fact is Hillary lost. Trump won. A year later you may as well admit it and get over that fact. I didn't vote for Trump and he is certainly not my cup of tea, but I was over it before the results even came out. I am mainly pointing out the absurdity of hanging onto one trumpet and blowing one note furiously when there are many other trumpets in the orchestra. Hillary Lost -- in my view by a spectacular landslide. Trump won.
It is true that people vote and not counties. It is true we have an electoral college for a reason. Electoral votes choose the President. Electoral votes go as the states go, which is as the counties go (truly representative American regions), which is as the people go. So, more than anything, counties count. Nearly always electoral vote follows the popular vote. Sometimes it may not--because voting isn't intended to reflect what can be achieved by special interest groups or power cells of politicians--it is designed to prevent such abuse and truly reflect America by region. And it works well. It ousted the Clinton regime. Thankfully.
Counties best reflect American thought by region. How counties choose as a region significantly reflects the reason we have an electoral college and why we should have one and why we must keep one. A few high population liberal outposts dominated by some big businesses (and the influence they hold regionally) do not represent America or American thought and have the ability to commandeer votes. Our American system prevents that. It is intelligent, wise and it works. Based on that system, Hill-o-beans lost hugely and rightly so.
And one more time (hopefully the last), I am not hung up on who won anyway..because what matter is Jesus Christ and Him crucified, resurrected and living in Heaven. To Him be all glory praise and honor. That is what matters.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-11-11T18:27:00-05:00 — #20
My point was it is not always the overall popular vote winner of the state.
next page →