Recount rumors

There's a conspiracy theory floating around, most prominently on American Thinker and promoted by Drudge Report, that the real strategy behind the recount called for by Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton is to throw the election to the House of Representatives. Let me tell you up front that either the conspiracy theory is flawed, or the plan the theory exposes is flawed. Here's why.

Now, for those that may not be familiar enough with the actual electoral process for selecting the president, here's how it works.

The states choose electors to elect a president. You don't elect a president, and never have elected a president. It has never been intended for you to elect a president. If you thought otherwise, you thought wrong. But now you know.

The electors meet at their respective state capitals and actually vote for president and vice president in December. Congress sets the date for this, and this year, it's December 19.

The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

The votes are then counted in Congress in January and the actual election of the president and vice president is announced. If no one gets a majority, the House of Representatives choose a president from the top three recipients, or two if there is a tie at 50%. The states caucus and vote as a single entity. Each state gets one vote. A majority of states is required to elect a president.

The Senate would then select a vice president from the top two vote recipients. Each Senator gets a vote. A majority is needed to choose a vice president.

Now, back to the theory. It says that the intent is to tie up the vote in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Those three states voted for Trump, and account for 46 electoral votes. And, according to American Thinker, the master plan is to get those electoral votes to not be counted.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters. If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232. No one hits 270.

That much is true. If -- and it's a big if -- those states aren't able to choose electors by the deadline, they don't get to vote for president. And, if that happens -- again, a big if -- Trump would indeed have only 260 votes.

The whole thing hinges on the denying of 270 votes, with the thinking that the House of Representatives would then elect the president. And, since the GOP controls the House, the intent is to make Trump seem like an illegitimate president, not receiving a majority of the popular vote nor a majority of the electoral vote.

But that's the flaw. If the three states don't select electors, and the final vote is Trump 260, Clinton 232, the fact is Trump still wins the electoral vote.

The thinking at American Thinker is that denying 270 votes throws the election to the House. But, in the scenario laid out, it would not. You see, an actual reading of the Constitution, particularly the 12th Amendment, says that's not so.

the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed

And that's the key: "a majority of the whole number of electors appointed." If Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania don't appoint electors, they don't figure into the mix. That means instead of 538 electoral votes cast, there would be only 492 votes cast. In that case, 247 votes are needed to elect a president.

Hillary would still only have 232 votes, while Trump's lowered total of 260 is still a majority.

So, if the plan is to deny Trump 270 by getting electoral votes not counted, it's a badly flawed one. Regardless, the American Thinker isn't thinking very clearly.

UPDATE:

The American Thinker has updated the post (scroll to the bottom) with information along the line of what was laid out here on this little blog:

If a state never gets to name electors, the number needed to win goes down; a majority of those named is enough. Even with 260-232, Trump should win unless there wee lots of faithless electors....

If someone has a majority of electoral votes submitted, the Senate and House open the tally and merely name the winner. Clearly this process is now subject to recount mischief in the future, now that Jill Stein and Clinton campaign have in essence argued any close state that Trump won should be challenged.

I'm glad to see The American Thinker is once again thinking clearly.

Counting the votes

January 6, 2017, 1:00 PM EST

Ladies and gentlemen, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, it gives me great pleasure to introduce the President of the Senate, the Honorable Joseph R. Biden.



Thanks, Pat.

Paul.



So, we vote now, right? I was thinking onions, mushrooms, and bacon. Oh, and extra cheese. What about you guys?



Mr. President, we're here to ...

Oh, is Barack here, too? I suppose that means no bacon.



No, I'm addressing you as president of the Senate. While the Senate is in session, as it is now with the House, you are presiding. So we call you Mr. President. And you call me Mr. Speaker.

"Paul Speaker?" That's a funny name. Anyway, are you telling me that all this time, I didn't need to worry about Barack watching me? Jeez. I wish someone had told me. So, is he here? Do we get bacon or not?



Mr. President, we're not here to vote on pizza.

It's one o'clock and it's a Friday, Mr. Speaker. I'm thinking extra-large. There are more here than I realized. How many is this? About 50?



Well, the D.C. House delegate is here, so 536.

We better get two pizzas. And bread sticks.



Joe, we're here to open the electoral votes to select the president.

You just told me I was president.



For Heaven's sake, Joe, we're picking the next president of the United States. Your term as vice president of the United States and as President of the Senate is up in two weeks, so we need to pick the next person for the job.

Didn't I do a good job? I've seen my picture all over the Internet. I must be doing something right.


Listen, Joe, it's time to open the votes and count them.

Oh, okay. I hope we get bacon. I'm tired of pepperoni. So, how do we do this?



The same way we did four years ago. You have the ballots in front of you. Open them in alphabetical order and read the total. Hand them to the tellers, who will record the totals. When all the states are counted, they'll add them up and give you those totals, and you announce the next president and vice-president.

Alphabetical? So, we start with Delaware, right? Why is Alabama on top? Delaware is the first state.



No, Joe. Alphabetically, it's Alabama, followed by Alaska. Delaware is, let's see, 8th on the list.

No, that's not right. Delaware is the first state. I know my algebra.



This is the order they want us to read them, Mr. President.

Okay then, Mr. Speaker. We'll do it that way. But I do get extra cheese?



Joe, I've just been informed that an extra-large pizza with onions, mushroom, bacon -- and extra cheese -- has won. If you'll follow me to your car, we'll head over to ... um ... Amy's ... and introduce you.

Yay! Another job well done!

Promises, Part 2

You said I would win!

You said you had a soul.

Promises

You wanted to see me?


Sit down!


Is something wrong?


"Is something wrong?" Yes something's wrong. I'm running against Donald Trump -- DONALD F#@%$#% TRUMP -- and the polls are tightening and it looks like I might not win this thing! Doesn't that sound like something's wrong to you?!


I'm not sure why you're angry with me about this...


You're not sure why I'm angry with you? Listen, moron. You told me you had a sure-fire way of guaranteeing my coronation, election, and if the trend keeps up, instead of celebrating a victory, I'll be at Epstein's place trying to forget this whole fiasco. And I'll make sure you're there, too, but not as a guest. You get me?


Yes, ma'am.


What?!?


Yes, Your Highness.


That's better. Now you get that piece of $#@% on the phone and get this fixed. And you tell that #$%@&%-$#%&@% that I'll Vince Foster him so fast he won't know what hit him.


Hello, Nick?


John! Lovely to hear from you again.


Look, Z, we got a problem.


There are no problems, only opportunities.


Hillary's pissed.


Not at me. I've done my part.


She's not running away with this thing. It's close. She might lose.


Well, now, with everything I've done, if she's not winning, it's her own fault.


Look, Z, I need you to step up.


You can count on it. Don't worry. I got this.


I'll tell her. And I appreciate that. See you at dinner?


Sounds lovely. Bye bye, now.


It's under control.


It damn sure better be.

... Meanwhile ...


Hello? Yes, I wanted to renew my offer. I can guarantee you ...


Save it. I don't need your help.

Dear #NeverTrump (and others): STFU

This has been a very frustrating election. Of course, most elections have been very frustrating elections. It just seems that this one has been more frustrating. Or maybe just more are voicing their frustration. And perhaps I've let it impact me and cause me to be more frustrated. Which is frustrating.

Anyway, one group of people, a group that consists of many people I've read online and respected for years, has really frustrated me: the #NeverTrump crowd.

Now, I don't consider myself a #NeverTrump member. No, I didn't support Trump with my vote, my money, or any thing else, because I don't like the idea of a liberal who has been a huge supporter of Democrats over the years being in the White House. So, I'm certainly not pro-Trump.

But, he's not THE reason that I joined the Libertarian Party -- that lies fully at the doorstep of the Republican Party and their abandonment of conservative principles. But, the fact that I am a member of the Libertarian Party should tell you what I think about not only the Republicans, but their candidate.

However, many many people see this as a choice between Trump and Clinton. And I can't disagree with that. Well, not and be honest in my assessment. Which is why I'm so frustrated by the #NeverTrump crowd. And have been silently shouting "STFU" for months now.

It's not that what the #NeverTrump crowd is saying about Trump isn't true. Well, most of it's true. Some is just plain crazy, but you can figure out who the crazies are on your own. It should be obvious. And they should always STFU.

No, I'm talking about the ones that are normally straight-thinking individuals who are dissatisfied with Trump as the nominee of the GOP. I'm not happy with Trump being there, so I understand that. What I don't understand is the way the attacks on Trump, and the proudly waving the #NeverTrump banner, has obsessed them.

The reason? Simple. Who benefits? If they are successful in turning people away from Trump, where will most of those turned turn?

To Clinton.

Now, some say there's no difference between Trump and Clinton. Remember I said some were just plain crazy? Yep. Those are the ones. As awful as Trump is -- and he is -- he is not as awful as Clinton.

Now, I'm not saying choose the lesser of two evils. I'm saying you don't have to limit your choices. Of course, none of the candidates that are on all the ballots nationwide are great candidates. Heck, I can't find a good one. No, I'm not a fan of Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, either.

To my main point, though, is the #NeverTrump crowd that thinks Trump is as bad as Hillary is wrong. They are not the same. That's like saying one felony (kidnapping) is as bad as another (murder). Both are bad, just not equally bad.

So, the #NeverTrump crowd that focused solely on the negatives of Trump instead of the positives of an alternative candidate, I'm no longer quietly saying STFU. I'm simply saying STFU.

And not just the #NeverTrump crowd. There's the Trump-obsessed fanboys and fangirls that are constantly posting poorly-spelled missives saying how great Trump is and how awful people who haven't mortgaged their houses to finance his campaign and aren't constantly singing Trumps praises ... well you can STFU too.

You aren't going to win any friends -- or more importantly, votes -- by being an ass. You seem to forget that a reluctant vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic vote. But that's not good enough for you. You clowns remind me of those mindless Obabambots and Paulbots of the last couple of election cycles.

Not all Trump supporters fit into this, to be sure, just like not all #NeverTrump crowd members are stark-raving insane.

But those who are bat-shit crazy for or against? Just STFU already.

Both ways

This whole "Trump won't accept the results if he loses" nonsense is ... well, nonsense.

It's be almost funny if it just wasn't so ... well, okay, it is funny, despite everything.

On the left, including the media, they're getting their panties in a wad because Trump wouldn't agree to unconditionally accept the election results. This is the same left that backed Al Gore's refusal to accept the 2000 election results until the Supreme Court ended that hissy-fit.

The other group that's jumping on Trump is the #NeverTrump crowd, many of whom have a field day with Hillary's rigging of the Democrat nomination.

I understand the dislike of Donald Trump. I'm no fan. But the #NeverTrump crowd getting in bed with the pro-Hillary crowd ... well, let's just say I'm torn between disgust and disappointment. Some of those carrying the #NeverTrump banner are people I've thought a lot of over the years. I'm hoping they wise up.

Back to the election rigging thing, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler nailed it:

After the farcical “investigation” by Comey’s FBI of Hildebot Clintoon’s clearly treasonous and criminally negligent handling of classified material, not to mention every single other investigation of Congress’ ending up in nothing at all no matter how damning the evidence? After Project Veritas publishing, on a daily basis, irrefutable proof of ProgNazi operatives not only admitting to, but bragging of their massive vote fraud operations? After the IRS being used as the armed goons of the ProgNazis to suppress dissent up to the 2012 election (and the inevitable pointless show “investigations” not leading anywhere afterwards)? After the too numerous to count reports of precincts voting more than 100% Democrat in previous elections? We could go on for another 200 pages, but we trust you get the point.

Yet we’re supposed to just forget all about that and hand our lying, cheating, thieving oppressors a blank check to go forth and continue using us like a rented mule?

Like I said, I'm no fan of Trump. But I'm not going to call him out when he's right. And on this, he's right.

Vote early and vote often

I'm not a fan of early voting. The reason is simple: it gives Democrats more time to rig an election.

Now, don't think I'm biased against Democrats. My dislike is based on experience. But I have no illusions that many Republicans wouldn't do the same thing.

If a bunch of Republicans could rig the vote and get away with it, they would. But, since the media is full of Democrats and their ilk, they'd be all over the Republicans while ignoring the Democrats.

Now, not all media members are dishonest. I suspect if Chris Wallace (Fox News) or Jake Tapper (CNN) became aware of voter fraud, they'd report on it, regardless of who did it. But most members of the media are so full of Democrat Kool-Aid that they would believe any excuse a fraudster would spew.

So, the Republicans won't get away with vote fraud. Democrats will. And have. And do.

And the biggest avenue they have is this whole "early voting" thing. It's nothing more than a way for crooks to be crooks and commit fraud.

Voting should be on a set day. One day. And, if someone can't be bothered to vote on that one day, great. We have too many low-information voters already.

I'm voting on election day, not before. If I am out of town, I'll vote by absentee, as I did when in the Army. But, my schedule will have me where I can vote at home on election day, so I will. You should too.

Geraldo is shocked!

Don Surber noted that the level of media support of Clinton shocks Geraldo Rivero.


[The YouTube]

Why wait till the election to start rigging things?

A lot of people seem to be getting their panties in a wad about the possibility -- check that -- the likelihood of vote fraud in the upcoming election. What these people seem to not realize is that it's already begun. At least, I think it has. And, I suspect you know it, too, whether or not you think much about it.

Isaac Schrodinger was one of the ones pointing out that the polls are all conflicting:

...one poll has Clinton up by 10 while another has Trump up by 6.

Of course, they both can't be correct. It's likely that they're both wrong.

So, what's the truth?

The truth is, I think, that if enough polls showing Hillary in the lead make that the expectation, then one of two things will happen:

1. Those opposing Hillary won't bother to vote, since they figure she's going to win anyway.
2. If Hillary loses, they'll use the rigged polls (accepted as truth) as evidence that the Republican must have cheated.

What evidence do I have? Well, what evidence would satisfy you? Obviously you don't recall those same arguments in elections in the past. Not wide-spread, but they were there?

Didn't see or hear those? Maybe you weren't paying attention.

The polls are rigged. Many of them, any way. And that's important in perception, because people put a lot of faith in polls.

An honest, scientifically accurate poll will give a good indication of how things stand at a point in time.

Polls are a tool for research. The problem is they are used as tools of manipulation. By tools.

Voting your conscience

David over at Third World County had an interesting take on one person's use of scripture to pick a candidate. He called BS on one person's statement that Christ gave "very specific vetting lists for consideration when choosing candidates for leadership of a nation."

I'd like to have the scripture citations where Christ noted the qualifications for "candidates for leading a nation," please. TY. I do recall the scripture where he told some folks to "render unto Caesar [a pagan with questionable morals by biblical standards] that which is Caesar's," but cannot seem to put my finger on his "vetting lists" for candidates to be voted into civil office. . .

Link

David has a point. I do know of some Old Testament references to choosing judges and other leaders, but I don't recall anything from Christ in the New Testament about it.

Why is that? Is it because people didn't elect Roman emperors? Is it because the Bible is more focused on helping you be a better person and not on electing someone to solve your problems for you? Or something else?

I think a little of both.

So, should you use the Bible and the teaching of Christ to choose a president? Sure. All Christians will. But, all Christians won't come to the same choice. Some will vote Trump, some Hillary, some Johnson, some Stein, some someone else, and some won't vote at all.

Some will attempt to say that God, Jesus, or the Bible told them to vote a certain way. They may even believe it when they say it.

Me? I think if we've learned or tried to learn the lessons the Bible has for us, and sincerely pray for wisdom in our votes, and then we go where we are truly led, we'll be okay.

Most, though, I suspect, will try to use it as a justification of their choices arrived at by selfish means.

The truth is, no candidate does -- or can -- live up to the standards set for us. None of the voters do, either.

H. L. Mencken was right

You've heard it paraphrased many ways, but the original quote of H. L. Mencken addresses elections specifically:

No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.

November 6, 2012 seems to prove this.

A vote for the goat

Last night, over at IMAO, I asked about the conflict I had regarding one particular local race. The Republican is a jackass, and the Democrat is a Democrat. Neither option was a good one. And, I didn't want to leave it off my ballot.

A lot of people offered some really good suggestions. Most indicated that a vote for the Republican would be the best route, although a few offered the perspective of getting rid of a lame Republican, then kicking out the Democrat next election.

Both sides had good points.

So, what did I do?

Well, before I tell you, I need to make a confession. There were actually two races like that. Both at the county level, and both featuring jackass Republicans running against Democrats. I only mentioned one race, because the same rules applied. How I handled one would be the way I'd handle both. So, I only mentioned one race.

Now, having said that, here's what I did.

I voted for a friend's goat. Really.

You can write in candidates, so I did. For one of the races, I wrote in the name of my friends' goat. Yes, their goat has a name. And a Facebook page. Really. And, now, one vote for a county government spot.

Oh, for the other county-wide race featuring a jackass Republican and a Democrat, I wrote in my cat.

I don't expect the cat to win. I don't expect the goat to win. But, if they did, they'd be a damn site better than the candidates on the ballot.

Job training

Sunday night, the president flew to Florida for a Monday campaign appearance. Then, he flew back to Washington and Bill Clinton took his place at the campaign event.

The question that some asked was why would Obama make the trip to Florida in the first place. Well, lost in the story is the fact that he did appear at a campaign office:

Yesterday, as he delivered pizzas to campaign workers in Orlando, Florida, Obama said he realized that the storm would impede his ability to make the final push for a second term in person.

See? He delivered pizzas.

That skill could come in real handy come January 21st.

Top of the charts

Bush!
Bush, Bush bo Bush, banana fanna fo Bush
Fee fi mo Bush, Bush!



Come on everybody!
I say now let's play a game
I betcha I can make a blame out of anybody's name.
The first four years, I treat it like it was not there
But a lot of silly reasons and excuses will appear
And then I say "No I wasn't to blame," and banana fanna blame a foe
And then I say that name and I make it very plain
And a fee fy on a foe
And then I say the name again and now you know my game
And there isn't any name that I can't blame



Clinton!
Clinton, Clinton bo Clinton, banana fanna fo Clinton
Fee fi mo Clinton, Clinton!



But if the first two years are ever brought up,
I drop my voice and say the name like
Bush, he killed the economy,
Clinton, she let the Ambassador die,
Osama, I killed him with my bare hands.
The media ignores anything that is contrary.



Everybody do Bush!

Bush, Bush, bo Bush, banana fanna fo Bush
Fee fi mo Bush, Bush!



Pretty good, let's do the rich!

Rich, rich, bo rich, banana fanna fo rich
Fee fi mo rich, rich!



Very good, let's do Wall Street!

Wall Street, Wall Street, bo Wall Street, banana fanna fo Wall Street
Fee fi mo Wall Street, Wall Street!

A little trick with YouTube!

YouTube, YouTube, bo YouTube, banana fanna fo YouTube
Fee fi mo YouTube, YouTube!



The blame game...