Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

tonyroma

Subscribe to tonyroma's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Friday, December 02, 2016

With a recount effort now underway in the three razor-tight swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, it turns out Hillary Clinton has already moved closer to winning those states than had originally been announced. But the sudden shift in Pennsylvania voting totals is dramatic, in that it wipes out around one-third of Trump's lead in the state ahead of the recount. Here's what happened: according to this USA Today article and several other sources, the vote totals in Pennsylvania had Donald Trump winning by 70,638 votes – a number which was often quoted as a reason for why Hillary Clinton would supposedly have no chance of flipping the state in a recount. But earlier today, the respected Decision Desk HQ posted the newly revised totals from Pennsylvania, which have Donald Trump ahead by just 46,938 votes. That means Trump's lead in the state has now shrunk by 23,700 votes, based on what it says are newly revised numbers out of Philadelphia. read more


With a recount effort now underway in the three razor-tight swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, it turns out Hillary Clinton has already moved closer to winning those states than had originally been announced. But the sudden shift in Pennsylvania voting totals is dramatic, in that it wipes out around one-third of Trump's lead in the state ahead of the recount. Here's what happened: according to this USA Today article and several other sources, the vote totals in Pennsylvania had Donald Trump winning by 70,638 votes – a number which was often quoted as a reason for why Hillary Clinton would supposedly have no chance of flipping the state in a recount. But earlier today, the respected Decision Desk HQ posted the newly revised totals from Pennsylvania, which have Donald Trump ahead by just 46,938 votes. That means Trump's lead in the state has now shrunk by 23,700 votes, based on what it says are newly revised numbers out of Philadelphia. read more


Thursday, December 01, 2016

A federal court on Tuesday ordered North Carolina to hold a special legislative election next year after 28 state House and Senate districts are redrawn to comply with a gerrymandering ruling. U.S. District Court judges earlier this year threw out the current legislative district map, ruling that 28 of them were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. They allowed the 2016 election to continue under the old maps, but ordered legislators to draw new districts in 2017. Tuesday's order settled the question of whether the new districts would take effect for the regularly scheduled 2018 election cycle, or if a special election would be required. "While special elections have costs, those costs pale in comparison to the injury caused by allowing citizens to continue to be represented by legislators elected pursuant to a racial gerrymander," the three-judge panel wrote in the order. read more


Even as Wisconsin officials go to court to try to limit the scope of the statewide recount requested by Jill Stein and subsequently backed by Hillary Clinton, more voting anomalies surface within the state by the day. The latest such anomaly, which is more accurately described as a mathematical impossibility, comes from Waukesha County. The elections results on its official website currently list two different instances of more ballots cast than registered voters. A closer look at the Waukesha originally reported numbers suggests that something is off. The County's strangely high 89% voter turnout is enough to raise eyebrows on its own. But the true red flag is that two different voting blocks in the county are listed as having had more ballots cast than registered voters. read more


On Aug. 5, 2015, when President Barack Obama was making the case for the Iran nuclear deal, he journeyed uptown to American University, where decades earlier John F. Kennedy had delivered a famous address on peace and the future of nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union. Hoping to bathe himself in some of the glow of JFK, Obama framed the deal as another critical step forward in the march toward world peace. In 1963, Kennedy had offered the same sense of hope. After giving his American University speech, Obama met with a handful of foreign policy reporters and columnists, this reporter among them, for a 90-minute roundtable on Iran policy and whatever else those in the room wanted to bring up. Unlike similar sessions he has held over the years, this one was fully on the record. read more


Comments

That is the purpose of the Electoral College.

One purpose. The other expressed purpose was to keep the majority from empowering someone that was unfit for the office of POTUS.

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
(See All of the Federalist 68)

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others. www.historycentral.com

IOW, the call for electors to reject Trump isn't just because of partisanship, it's because our Founders created the College to thwart demagogues and charlatans specifically like Trump even if the citizens at large should choose such a person.

So do we want the Electoral College to judge the worthiness of Trump's ascendancy or do we want to ignore the mechanism our Founders created independent of any political party's needs, wants and desires to preserve the dignity and respect of the presidency?

[...] As I stated, he is reporting FACTS from other sources, not printing his feelings. Here are the sources:

USA Today

Decision Desk HQ

You're tilting at windmills Don Quixote but it's fun watching you flap in the breeze. Recounts are going on and totals are changing. Your feelings on the subject are moot and the voter's preferences will be determined whether I tell you about it or not.

What would you have him say Gal.

Read this and see if you can figure it out for yourself.

Wisconsin recount: officials find Presidential votes that counting machines missed

Now that the statewide recount in Wisconsin is officially underway, first hand reports are coming out of various recounting stations in counties across the state. Eighty-three percent of Wisconsin's counties have opted to do hand recounts after a judge ruled that it was up to the counties to decide whether to recount by hand or by machine. And the hand recounts are already resulting in some Presidential votes now being counted that appear to have been originally missed by the counting machines.

Karen Fehlker, a Wisconsin recount observer in Dane County, has been sharing her experiences and observations directly with Palmer Report throughout the day. She informs us that the officials doing the hand recounts have already identified some ballots where voters clearly attempted to vote for President, but did so in a manner which the counting machines would have had difficulty reading. "Many people wrote Clinton's name on the bottom, or Trump's for that matter, and didn't mark a circle," she tells us, "so that counted as no vote originally." The reason for these odd methods of picking a candidate: "The ballot confused people."

While this does point to a number of Presidential votes in Wisconsin having been missed by the counting machines in at least one county, it doesn't yet point to how many may have been missed statewide, or even which candidate may now benefit from the hand counting of these irregularly filled out ballots. However this does, for the first time, shed some light on numerical discrepancies which have been noted in other close swing states.

If it's not plain now, it never will be. When election races are within 1% and millions of votes have been cast and tens or hundreds of thousands are undervotes, a full recounting should occur or we truly don't want to know the actual wishes of legal voters, we just want to embrace results that please us while dismissing the rights of other voters to have their intent fully counted when it's beyond dispute.

#7

You're not understanding the numbers. The election board publicly released a graph of election results. Also on the same graph was the total amount of voters casting ballots in each location. There were multiple instances where the number of tallied votes in only the presidential race exceeded the number of actual voters thus creating an impossibility. No one miscounted the number of voters since in every instance these extra votes were only found toward the benefit of Donald Trump and didn't show up for other candidates or in other races. Wisconsin has removed nearly 5000 votes that they publicly reported as being cast for Trump on election day that actually did not exist. There were no voters behind these votes, just votes for Trump that showed up in the totals.

This is election fraud whether it was done on purpose or was a series of mistakes in multiple counties and voting locales. Whether these anomalies turn over the announced results is secondary to finding out how and why this happened where it did. The obvious implication is that if intentional vote tabulation tampering is going on, what about the results that didn't move into the 'impossible' where they had to be explained? Wisconsin has repeatedly gone to court to keep many of their legal citizens without state-issued ID from being able to vote due to fears of illegal voters threatening the integrity of the elections. Actual evidence of voter tabulation fraud is being ignored and poo-pooed because of partisan fears that indeed the discovery of malfeasance might alter the announced results. Such people don't care about making sure only legal votes count, they could care less if the results are altered in their candidate's favor invisibly behind the scene and they decry those of us asking for needed investigation and forensic analysis of existing evidence of fraudulent results being publicly reported that cannot be denied by election authorities.

For example, can Laura and some of her friends pool their money for whatever reason to express themselves?

Yes, but only as individuals, not as a for-profit entity created for the initial purpose of economic enterprise and profit.

Just because some things can be fit inside the construct of law doesn't mean it was meant to based on the law's original spirit. It's synonymous with the Federalist Papers' explanation of the Electoral College and it's unambiguous charge to usurp the choice of the voters if the choice is obviously unfit or a threat to the furtherance of our republican form of government.

The spirit of our Constitution is not to empower those already possessing outsized wealth and influence over the federal government and the process to elect our representatives. I believe it is imminently fair for each eligible voter to give money to their heart's content as long as it's a race in which they themselves have a vote. I do not believe it fair that any citizen or group not under direct representation of a candidate or being directly impacted by referendum or ballot should be able to use money to sway the opinion of those who are/do. It's about that old representation thing. Admittedly, there are no laws restricting these activities, but I feel more strongly that if the Founders could have imagined our future they would have taken steps to make sure non-human entities were never afforded equal constitutional rights (outside of the protections needed for the conduct of business) as it regards the elective processes of corporeal citizens. There is no indication within our recorded history showing that such a reality was ever considered in their time. Logic tells us that capitalism is an amoral construct, ie. business exists for profits regardless of how they are accumulated. And our SCOTUS doesn't recognize that fact when they say the Constitution grants them the same rights as corporeal citizens living under laws defined as being based in morality and created to be just?

Again, wholly conjecture, but it's how I view the Founder's meta beliefs.

After six and a half years in office, Obama said that the tough calls -- to redeploy American troops to Iraq or to mobilize nato to launch airstrikes against Libya -- have convinced him more than ever of the need to make force a last resort. "In terms of decisions I make, I do think that I have a better sense of how military action can result in unintended consequences," he said. "And I am confirmed in my belief that much of the time we are making judgments based on percentages, and no decision we make in foreign policy -- or, for that matter, any policy -- is completely without hair, which is how we kind of describe it. … There's always going to be some complications."

The President leaned back in a leather chair pulled up to the center of the table. "So maybe at the same time as I'm more confident today, I'm also more humble," he said. "And that's part of the reason why, when I see a situation like this one, where we can achieve an objective with a unified world behind us -- and we preserve our hedge against it not working out -- I think it would be foolish, even tragic, for us to pass up on that opportunity." (for the Iran Deal) www.newyorker.com

Pretty much sounds like exactly what Sully and Nutcase continually criticize Obama as being oblivious of, doesn't it? For any US President, inaction on an issue can be fraught with as much potential peril or blowback as acting upon it. This is why we can't just criticize the result without first understanding all the other variables considered before the decision to act was made.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable