Tuesday, November 29, 2016

U.S Election For President 2016

Mainstream media has to recall magazines 'reporting' that Clinton won printed before the election, claiming that they prepared versions for her main opponent's victory which have yet to appear during the week of the election. All of the mainstream media magazine as Time, Newsweek, the Atlantic and even the Economist display a heavy pro Clinton bias.

Facebook is replete with claims of political violence targeting people for supporting either main candidate. Numerous photos appear of hand written notes with racist and or sexist messages upon people' automobile windshields or spray painted upon buildings, ostensibly targeting Clinton supporters. Numerous videos appear of people physically assaulting persons for voting for her main opponent. In an after the election interview televised Sunday November 13, the President elect tells his supporters to 'stop it' regarding any such actions. As of that date, Clinton, outgoing US President and Vice President Obama and Joseph Biden, and Clinton primary challenger Sanders have yet to issue any such public order.

Within a day or so after the election, substantial protests appear in about 12 cities across the USA protesting Clinton's defeat, with photos of the buses said to be used to transport participants and of craigslist ads purportedly recruiting people to participate in such protests for pay. Such protests are in marked contrast to the relative lack of protests earlier this year over the DNC's conduct favoring Clinton over challenger Bernie Sanders in the primaries, particularly California where a 69% support for Sanders indicate by polls would be whittled down to a loss via confusing and arcane ballot forms and accessibility with rules prohibiting poll workers answering questions from people seeking to vote for Sanders in California's "open" primary.

The President elect meets with Barack Obama in the White House where they discuss the transition.

Clinton supporters, citing reports that she won the nationwide popular vote, call either for abolishing the electoral college or having its electors go back upon their pledges to voters and instead vote for Clinton. Numerous figures including former USAG and current Washington DC powerhouse law firm partner Eric Holder call for the first option, something which they apparently never advocated before the election. The NY Times calls the first option with a piece claiming that Clinton won by some 3 million votes. Google within a week of the election, shows a 380,000 or so Clinton lead. Other sources show the opposite, claiming censorship by Google, and noting that not all of the absentee ballots have been yet counted. Clinton supporters as the pop performer Lady GaGa call for the 2nd option, though if only an upwards of 37 electors chose to violate their pledges to voters than the election gets to be decided by the Republican controlled U.S. Congress. No word yet what happens if it ends up that Clinton actually lost the popular vote.

Though Clinton conceded the election early morning of November the 9th, she has reportedly endorsed an effort taken up by Green Party candidate for President Jill Stein, calling for a recount of the election results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania where Clinton lost, but not of any states where she reportedly won by similar margins, such as Maine and New Hampshire. The President elect meanwhile has asserted that he actually won the legitimate national popular vote, if votes by illegal aliens were excluded. Mainstream media organs as the New York Times are bashing this claim, ostensibly because of a lack of proof, though are supposed to be believed despite failing to mention the discrepancies with the Democrat Parties handling of the Clinton-Sanders primary, as if only the Republican Party was corrupt.

Indeed, the popular vote count continues some 3 weeks after the election, with Clinton's reported "lead" growing to over 2 million. No word anywhere that I have seen regarding whether this has ever occurred before, nor if any such continuing count would be so heavily shewed to one candidate. Nor is there any word that I have seen on an *actual* official source for these figures (AP and Google are not official sources). None of the media accounts providing an official source, such as a U.S. nor State of California government web site.

California is quite significant in this; without it, Clinton in-arguably lost the national popular vote, with the election results with most states voting for her challenger, and with her voter support outside of California primarily clustered in the major population centers of New York City, Chicago, Washington D.C. and Dade County Florida.

Indeed the vote geographically revels a serious disconnect between both main parties respectively with the urban and rural demographics. Recall that it was Hillary Clinton, who reportedly has not driven an automobile in about 20 years, who suggested that we reinstate a 55 mph or so National Maximum Speed Limit, during her 2008 run for the White House who expressed her support – reportedly unscripted by her handlers, and has even admitted to being “out of touch” with much of the general population.

One would think that in this day and age there would be official vote count sites from the federal government and the 50 various states, each with a real time log of blocks of votes as they come in, available in a spread sheet form downloadable to the general public to guard against later tampering. Alas so far, any such mention of something as that in media and political figure sources remains lacking.

No comments:

Post a Comment