Archive for Thursday, July 20, 2017

Kobach won’t acknowledge that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote

July 20, 2017

Advertisement

WASHINGTON — The vice chair of President Donald Trump's voter fraud commission says we may never know whether Hillary Clinton really won the 2016 election's popular vote.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach was asked in an interview Wednesday with MSNBC whether he believed Clinton had won the popular vote because of fraud.

He responded, "We will probably never know the answer to that question" because even if ineligible voters were determined to cast votes, it would be impossible to determine whom they voted for.

There is no evidence of mass voter fraud in the 2016 election, despite the president's repeated claims to the contrary.

Trump won the Electoral College by a comfortable margin. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes.

None by MSNBC

Comments

Larry Sturm 3 months ago

Trump and Kobach are both blowhards.

Steve Jacob 3 months ago

Clinton got the most popular votes, Trump got the most electoral votes. Everyone needs to accept these facts. Three million people did not vote illegally, Russia may have interfered but did not alter peoples ballots.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 months ago

Ink ANY universe, except this one with the constitutional fraud of the 18th century "Electoral College" Hillary Clinton was the choice of a majority of the national voters. She was elected President of the United States by A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS.

Donald Trump was "inaugurated" on the basis of the 18th century fraud that should have been removed from the U.S. Constitution long ago with slavery and denial of the right to vote for women.

Hillary Clinton should have ben inaugurated President of the United States.

Hillary Clinton got the most votes.

Donald Trump knows it. Kris Kobach knows it......and they are on a crusade to affirm the fraud that national elections should be conducted in a manner completely different than ANY OTHER ELECTION IN THE COUNTRY.

Who wins governor, senator, representative or club president??

THE WINNER IS THE ONE WHO GETS THE MOST VOTES!!.

Donald Trump KNOWS he lost the "real" election. Kris Kobach KNOWS that Donald Trump lost the "real" election.

They both know this. They continue to make excuses, commentaries and frauds supporting this constitutional fraud.

Hillary Clinton should be President of the United States....Donald Trump should be back in Trump Tower stiffing his creditors, building golf courses and hiring illegal aliens as is his practice.

Reality sucks........doesn't it.

Ron Holzwarth 3 months ago

Go to work and try to get a Constitutional Amendment passed. The Constitution is an ever-evolving document. Or, you could try to get a Constitutional Convention called, then a new Constitution will be written.

But, stop and think about it. One out of every four Americans lives in California. I personally would not like to see California having that much political power. Californians would be picking the President!

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 months ago

Ron.......what do you have against California? I have been there. Nice people and great scenery. So what is your beef with California??...........Oh I get it.......you think that too many of the "Bobs" "LIBERALS" live there, eh??

Prejudiced folks like you and your ilk disgust me.

Ron Holzwarth 3 months ago

I've lived in California, and I met a whole lot of people that were not nice.

Bud Stagg 3 months ago

Why would we want to give California and New York and Florida that much power over what happens in the rest of the states? That would not be wise.

Ron Holzwarth 3 months ago

"I wish the constitution, which is offered, had been made more perfect; but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time. And, as a constitutional door is opened for amendment hereafter, the adoption of it, under the present circumstances of the Union, is in my opinion desirable."
- George Washington

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 months ago

How many "electors" does California have? Kansas????? I rest my case.

MerriAnnie Smith 3 months ago

But every eligible person to vote can get out and vote, and if every single registered voter in the entire country voted, would California still have more than all the other states? Just curious.

If the person getting the most votes wins, then the person who represents the most people in the country's needs would win.

To me, a president who represents the MOST people, regardless of which state, is the one I want to win. If I find myself in the minority, then I'll be sad, but I will at least be able to logic it out that it happened because most people wanted it.

To me, that's good. Even if it makes me sad. And it might inspire me to think about why I'm different from most people.

MerriAnnie Smith 3 months ago

California registered voters: 18,055,783

Registered voters in the entire country: 200,081,377

So, it's clear that California could never elect a person that the majority of the rest of the country did not want to elect.

The majority of the COUNTRY will always elect the president IF we did not have the Electoral College.

Andrew Applegarth 3 months ago

Not true, unless you hold runoff elections or limit it to the two primary political parties. Take this past election for example. While Hillary won a plurality of the popular vote, nobody took a majority of the votes. You wouldn't know it from listening to most of the Hillary blowhards around here as they tend to ignore that little fact, but the truth is that every candidate had more people vote against them than voted for them.

MerriAnnie Smith 3 months ago

You guys sure like to twist things around so it sounds like Hillary didn't get more votes than Trump. :)

Andrew Applegarth 3 months ago

That is almost funny. I did no such thing. I very clearly stated that she won a plurality.

I'm sorry that you don't like the facts that I clearly stated and are trying to distract from them, but I'm not surprised since it's the people implying that she won a majority when she only won a plurality that are dishonest and twisting things.

Ken Lassman 3 months ago

Hillary was only 1.9% short of getting a majority of the votes cast, while Donald was 4% short of a majority. I call that a very strong plurality indeed, nothing more, nothing less.

Andrew Applegarth 3 months ago

Oh, look. Another idiot who thinks they need to twist the facts.

Ken Lassman 3 months ago

Stop looking in the mirror, Andrew--check out the official Federal Election Commission for yourself if you don't believe me: https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/2016presgeresults.pdf

The exact percentages:

Clinton only 1.82% short of a majority

Trump 3.91% short of a majority

Andrew Applegarth 2 months, 4 weeks ago

Surprise! It says that she only won a plurality and not a majority. Thanks for proving I was right.

Will White 3 months ago

Glenn Frey and Don Henley:

I turn on the tube and what do I see A whole lotta people cryin' "Don't blame me" They point their crooked little fingers at everybody else Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves Victim of this, victim of that Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat Get over it Get over it All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit Get over it, get over it You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash But you might feel better if they gave you some cash The more I think about it, Old Billy was right Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight You don't want to work; you want to live like a king But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing Get over it Get over it If you don't want to play, then you might as well split Get over it, get over it It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak You're makin' the most of your losin' streak Some call it sick, but I call it weak You drag it around like a ball and chain You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down Complain about the present and blame it on the past I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass Get over it Get over it All this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit Get over it, get over it Get over it Get over it It's gotta stop sometime, so why don't you quit Get over it, get over it

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 months ago

Hilary lost the the electoral vote; she did not win the popular vote. It's Trump and his supporters who are keeping this fact alive. Trump and his supporters are whiney little witches.

And Kobach isn't about proving or disproving the popular vote thing. He will make sure to delete as many people as possible from the voting registration list. Make sure you check your registration every day, clear up to the deadline. Don't let them delete you.

And Will, that's not whining. That's standing up for my right to vote. You, or KKKobach or Trump is going to get in the way. Don't even try.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 months ago

He thinks we are doing the whining, but I hear more from our whiner in chief, than from us. And I'm real sure that Don Henley does NOT support Trump.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 months ago

Thanks for the quote, Ron. I agree with President Washington completely. This "electoral college" has affected elections before and if retained, will continue to do so. We can all see the incredible damage that has been caused by this election of an incompetent, unqualified fool.

My hope is that he will try to fire the special council that is working the Russia probe and that will bring the hammer down on the Trump "Administration" "President Pence" cannot possibly be as incompetent, unprepared, or ignorant as the current "electee".

Alex Landazuri 3 months ago

no...he will just create a christian state.....

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 months ago

That would be preferable to the present fascist state............

MerriAnnie Smith 3 months ago

Pence wants to push religious laws.

To me, that is worse than Trump.

And just as bad, Pence will work in the dark. We won't know what he's doing. Trump is out int he open on everything. Pence will be able to get a bad PenceCare done and he will get the huge tax cut for the wealthy and we won't even know when he's near to doing that.

An enemy you can see is better than one you can't see.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 months ago

"Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach" Is he still on the payroll in Topeka??

Ken Lassman 3 months ago

Why doesn't anyone push a pencil any more? There are around 323.1 million folks in the US, 218.9 million eligible to vote and 146.3 actually registered to vote.

California has around 25 million 18 years or older, and of those, 18.1 million have bothered to register: that's 11.4% of eligible voters in the US and 12.4% of those who have registered. Interestingly, California has 55 electoral votes, which is only 10.2% of the 538 electoral college.

New York has around 13.7million eligible voters, or 6.2% of the US and 8.5 who have actually registered, or 5.8%. Their share of the electoral college (29) is 5.3%.

Kansas has around 2.2 million eligible voters (1%), 1.6 million registered voters (1.01%) and 6 electoral votes (1.11%).

Seems like the electoral college is a form of voter suppression in more populated states, one which comes into play in close elections. But to say that it will have a huge impact if the electoral college method of electing is a pretty big leap. There's not THAT huge of a difference between popular votes and electoral votes. So I say get rid of it and go to one vote for each voter, thereby getting rid of the endless arguments that we keep hearing over and over.

Andrew Applegarth 3 months ago

I'm sure you'll just clarify that you didn't mean what you said, but I'll point out your ignorance of US Government anyway...

People like you and Fred like to ignore the fact that we are the United States of America rather than just America. This wasn't just a cooler name. It was the philosophy for our government. The larger (population) states still tried to get a unicameral legislature in the constitution to give themselves more power from their large population centers. However, enough of the founding fathers were well aware that such a consolidation of power was dangerous to the nation. In fact, the Senate was largely created to "to counteract the dangerous notions expected to emerge from the House of Representatives." Thus, we have the House of Representatives to represent the people and the Senate to represent the states.

Now, as to your percentages. Once again, you ignore the purpose of the electoral college. Of the 538 electors, only 435 electors are based on population while 100 are based on the fact that we are still a union of states and 3 are based on the notion that Washington DC should get some votes. If you look at the appropriate numbers for each state, you get:

California - 53 - 12.2%
New York - 27 - 6.2%
Kansas - 4 - 0.9%

As you can see, California's 12.2% of population based electors is greater than their 11.4% of the eligible voters you cited while New York matches and Kansas is slightly underrepresented. Now, if we look at the statehood based electors, you get:

California - 2 - 2%
New York - 2 - 2%
Kansas - 2 - 2%

Wow, that seems pretty evenly matched to me. Perhaps you should redirect your anger at whoever failed to teach you US Government.

There is a reason that the President of the United States of America is elected in this manner and it's not voter suppression like you would like people to believe (nor because it's no different than picking a dog catcher like Fred has claimed). The electoral college, like the bicameral legislature, is a balancing act between the two primary forces in this country: people and states. If you are so gung-ho on a power grab via densely populated cesspools, be proud of your power hungry nature and move to have the Senate dissolved as well. They both represent the same compromise, so you can't really oppose one and not the other.

Here's some math for you to do. The United States covers roughly 3.797 million square miles. New York City covers 302.6 square miles, or 0.008% of the country. Los Angeles covers 503 square miles, or 0.013%. After you add all of the precincts that voted Democrat, what percentage of the country was actually covered by blue? (HINT: A very rough estimate based on counties rather than precincts is less than 16%.)

Ken Lassman 3 months ago

Andrew, Thanks for starting things off with an insult. I will forego the temptation myself and attempt to respond in a civil manner. So regarding the source of the electoral votes for each state, you have explained why some states are underrepresented and some are over-represented by tying the electoral votes to the number of representatives and senators allocated to each of the states. You are correct that the Senate provides two votes from each state regardless of their population or geographic size, and this boosts the influence of less populated states like Kansas in relationship to states like California. But there's more going on here than your textbook explanation. Since California has 11.4% of eligible voters, that should amount to 61 votes if the vote were entirely representational and they only have 55--how do you explain that? Using the influence of the 100 Senators, even if you took away 2 votes for this reason, they should still get 59. And regarding Kansas, the margin of error is greater than adding or taking away one electoral vote, so since we are on the over-represented side, we can't complain and others can't accuse us of exactly hogging the votes since we're barely overrepresented and it's just one vote out of 538 anyway.

The other thing in play here is that each state, with the exception of Nebraska and Maine, is winner take all. That automatically throws out all the popular vote for the candidates who fell short even by one vote (and for practical purposes, in Florida/2000 that is exactly what happened), something that reduces our campaigns into states where the candidates have a chance of edging out the other, which are typically only a handful. So how is that system any better than a direct vote method where the candidates would presumably focus on population centers? Kansas gets ignored either way, so it certainly doesn't matter one whit around here. Actually, it would be interesting to see how the candidates would develop a national strategy under direct vote. We might actually see a Republican candidate show up at the state fair, for instance, and have a Democrat nominee show up in Topeka, Wichita or Lawrence to shore up statewide organizers. Citizens might show up at the polls more if they thought that their vote might actually have a say in the outcome instead of being filtered out in "winner take all" states. I would think it would boost red state Democrat voting and blue state Republican voting.

And regarding your geographic exercise, last time I checked it was one person one vote, not one acre, one vote, even with the current skewed filter of the electoral college.

Andrew Applegarth 3 months ago

You're welcome! Sometimes the truth slips past my proofreading. Normally that would have been removed along with the other truthful observations that the censors don't allow me to post.

"Since California has 11.4% of eligible voters, that should amount to 61 votes if the vote were entirely representational and they only have 55--how do you explain that?" - As you acknowledged that I already did, I explain it by explaining the difference between population based electors and statehood based electors. The Office of President of the United States of America is a very special office. It is not by chance that the filling of said office so closely resembles our bicameral legislature. It was a deliberate effort to capture the same compromise. So, I say again, you are nothing but a hypocrite until you put as much effort into abolishing the Senate as you do the Electoral College on these grounds.

As to how the states assign their electors, the constitution gives that power to the individual states. If you don't like how your state does it, get your state to change it. If you don't like how another state does it, tough. It's not your state, so it's not your choice.

I wasn't the one who did the math, but I believe this to be correct. If all states had assigned their electors in the same manner as Maine and Nebraska, there would have been no winner on election night. Trump would have been one elector shy of a majority. Hillary would have trailed by 10 electors with the third party candidates claiming those 10. The choice of president would have went to the House of Representatives, but for a more Senate like vote of 1 vote per state. Thus, Trump would most likely still have become President.

Trump 269, Clinton 259, Johnson 7, Stein 2, McMullin 1

Even going with a method that didn't give both statehood electors to the statewide winner, the third party candidates prevent a majority vote of electors (by taking even more electors) and send it to the House to elect Trump. The main difference is that Hillary has one more elector than Trump, so you, Fred, etc. go on to rant about how it's unfair that the Electoral College requires a majority instead of a plurality and we're basically in the same boat we are now...

I wasn't claiming that we should get to vote per acre. I was simply pointing out how the Democrats' base membership is largely holed up in small strongholds. It's interesting to me because they are so dependent on the rest of the country for food and raw materials. I suppose it's natural for them to want to have control over those they are dependent on; to turn a weakness into a strength of sorts. It's very akin to the concept of slavery, to want to have that control over others, and I think that is an interesting insight into the minds of the Democratic party to see brought to light occasionally.

Ken Lassman 3 months ago

Well, you've convinced me: even a proportional electoral college stacks the deck because of the gerrymandered districts that it would use. For instance, Clinton won the state of Virginia in the popular vote by 5 percentage points, but because of the gerrymandered congressional districts, she would have only won 5 of the state's 11 congressional districts, and such disparities exist such that even if her margin had been more than double with the national vote (i.e. 5% national plurality instead of 2.something), she could have still lost the electoral college because of the disparity of the HR districts. In fact, many Republican legislatures have been lobbying for switching to proportional electoral votes for exactly this reason: the illusion of fairness while maintaining the reality of bias. Thanks for educating me about this, Andrew. For more details, check out Nate Silver's http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/under-a-new-system-clinton-could-have-won-the-popular-vote-by-5-points-and-still-lost/?ex_cid=story-twitter .

Nah, if you want a one-person-one-vote democracy, have one, and not some gerrymandered, biased numbers game that is a shellgame for all kinds of shenanigans.

And I'd be very careful about telling city folks that they are so dependent on the rest of the country for their food and raw materials: exactly who gets the most subsidies: rural folks or urban folks? And who pays more for the privilege of our federal services, rural or urban? And I speak as someone who has lived in the country most of his life. Why don't you read this little piece and get back with me with your assertions, OK?

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article4470904.html

Andrew Applegarth 2 months, 4 weeks ago

You call it stacking the deck. I call it leveling the playing field. I believe in the philosophy of a union of states, which is how this country was designed. You apparently do not.

My main assertion: The author of that piece is just as ignorant of where their food comes from as the people I was referring to. Thanks for supporting my position.

It was interesting to see them admit that a big factor within the city blocs is the infighting over who gets to be in control and who gets the money, despite it leading to them getting neither. Their failure to recognize that the solidarity of the rural strongholds comes more from agreeing on the principles rather than fighting for control was another weak point of the article.

Ken Lassman 2 months, 4 weeks ago

Putting the votes of Kansans together with the votes of each of the other states does a much better job of unifying our state with the other states than the manipulatable Electoral College does. The Electoral College in either the winner-take-all or the proportional formats we have discussed emphasizes political parties over states in my opinion, and from what I see, politics at the national level has been dominated by political parties for quite some time, often at the expense of states.

I don't see that what passes as political discourse at the national level as anything more than special interest auctioneering these days, so where is our state's interests nowadays? Where is your evidence that anyone is agreeing on principles rather than fighting for control in today's fiasco politics? You seem to be living in a dreamland, Andrew.

And are you disputing the disparity between the per capita income from the feds when it comes to urban and rural that was stated in that article? As someone who has raised his own food and the food for others, I know where food comes from, and will defend the investments that Americans have wisely made to stabilize our food supplies, but I see no less of a need to provide for good education, a safety net for the sick, disabled and aged, as well as opportunities for all to participate in the economy. And all of these things cost money and benefit everyone regardless of what state you live in.

So it is with this in mind that I say that a one-vote-one person system is the best way to elect our president and vice president. The effort to level the playing field has turned into stacking the deck too many times in our history, and I see no difference in our future that would tell me that this won't continue to occur.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 months ago

Thanks, Ken.....I have been saying that every since President Gore was knocked out of his office by Bush. And now it has happened again......And the country is in for what may be the worst debacle in Federal Government Control In history.

Steve Jacob 3 months ago

Hard to use the word "debacle" when the stocks markets are going up everyday. People will put up with a lot when the economy is going well.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 months ago

The markets were doing well when Bush became president. Look what happened at the end of his 8 years.

Andrew Applegarth 3 months ago

You mean when the mass media manipulated consumer confidence to tank the economy and get Obama elected, only to discover that they lacked the power to rebuild that which they popped and watched helplessly as the economy descended into the recession that they instigated?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 months ago

Oh, so another scapegoat? The banks had nothing to do with it? Gotta protect those poor little rich people. Never their fault, because God loves them. That's why they are rich. They are blessed, so nothing is their fault, even when they rip off people. Is Trump paying you? Or are you really that brainwashed?

Andrew Applegarth 3 months ago

Come back when you can actually read and comprehend what I wrote. I know from previous posts that you struggle with that, but start a new thread if you're going to go off on an unrelated rant.

David Teska 3 months ago

I'm afraid that if we went to purely 100% popular vote (and jettison the Electoral College) we'd see national elections (POTUS, VPOTUS) turn more on the coast voters in CA, NY, and the other east coast states. The EC was designed (as I understand it) to serve as a check on that; others reading this may know more than I and can correct/amplify what I've written.

Ken Lassman 3 months ago

I used to think that, too, but I really don't think that the winner-take-all system of most states is equitable either, since candidates focus only on those states where they can steal away all the electoral votes from their opposition, despite being very, very close with the popular votes in that state. How is that democratic?

And when is the last time one of the party nominees visited Kansas after they were nominated? Besides Bob Dole, that is. They haven't exactly beaten a path to our door except for an occasional primary visit, in my lifetime, and a popular vote-based election won't change that.

If we are going to keep the electoral college for some reason (and I can no longer defend it personally), then states should cast their votes proportionally like Nebraska does, so that the electoral votes are split in a way that mimics the popular vote.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 months ago

According to my understanding, the "Electoral College" was established in the 18th century to prevent undue influence on the elections from the presence of slavery in the south.I am uncertain how this was supposed to work. Slavery was banished from the Constitution many years ago and the Electoral Collage should have gone with it. But as long as we have weak, frightened careless and clueless representation in Congress, nothing will be done. We will continue to see such terrible events such as the election of the present incompetent fool in the White House.

Andrew Applegarth 3 months ago

The 3/5 Compromise was about two things. One was the composition of the House of Representatives. The other was the collection of taxes. Generally speaking, the northern states wanted non-free individuals counted for taxes but not for representation while the southern states wanted them counted for representation but not for taxes. The compromise was in using the same formula for both taxes and representation as well as settling on the 3/5 number.

While this did have an impact on the Electoral College since it was based on House and Senate membership, it was not created for nor because of the electoral college. It simply affected the makeup of the Legislature which the Electoral College used for determining who picked the electors.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 months ago

Or maybe more people would decide that their votes counted, and more people would vote.

Alex Kritikos 3 months ago

If we can't know for sure whether Clinton won the popular vote, then we can't know for sure whether Trump won the electoral vote ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Michael Kort 3 months ago

Donald Trumps' new title : " BAD-LOSER-IN=CHIEF ".......and we all know that bad losers are the worst kind of losers .

Kobach is trumps' assistant loser whiner !

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 months ago

I prefer the title Hypocrite in Chief. I hear his hotels are agains applying for visas for workers in their resorts. The American First thing wins him the winner of the hypocrite of the year award.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 months ago

Is it just me or am I seeing more "anti-Trump" posts in these forums?? Hmmmm......Maybe he got that "meddling" that he sent his son, son-inlaw and other employees to obtain...........Ya think??

Michael Kort 3 months ago

So why is the stock market up ?

Back in the early 60s your ave. best luxury cars went for $6,000 .

Today ( we are speaking average ) they are roughly $80,000 to 90,000 well equipped ........and can go as high as $3million .

Inflation drives the price of everything up..........including stocks !........which after all represent the imagined price of something + or - which is not a given dependable thing .

The Dow is also populated by many zombie companies that are alive for the ride on cheap money they borrowed and fools who invest, while a much fewer very expensive tech stocks carry the real weight of a rising Dow averages .

Cheap money has allowed companies to borrow to buyback their stocks to inflate their earnings.......lipstick for pigs .

Low paying interest rates have driven normal bond buyer types seeking a dependable lunch into the market........more money chasing resources equals rising costs of something or the other including stocks ..

Prices go up because Trump is better than a TV Preacher........at fleecing the faithful in every way possible ........and when reality strikes the market, he will get mad and blame it all on Democrats because Obama is still president and the Dems. own both the house and senate !...........whatever .

Michael Kort 3 months ago

Can anyone tell us about the publicly traded stock of Donald J Trump Co ?

It went from a high of $44 down to non existent at $0 ........business genius !

FAKE NEWS ?.........FAKE NEWS ?...........FAKE NEWS ?

Paul Youk 3 months ago

Kobach is knowingly, intentionally lying because he intends to help Republicans rig districts and suppress voters all across America. This lie is not meant to be taken as truth, but rather is merely a pretext to justify his nefarious plans and actions that would continue to poison our democracy.

District rigging must die.

Paul Youk 3 months ago

Btw, if you hear 'gerrymandering', that's just the fancy $2 word for district rigging, the abomination the undermines our democracy--that Kobach loves and wants to expand.

Marc Wilborn 3 months ago

Inflation pushing stock prices up? What a laugh. Amazon stock has gone up because of inflation? Netflix stock has gone up because of inflation? How about Tesla? Did IBM stock go down because of no inflation?

Go back to school, please.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 months ago

"So why is the stock market up" Although I have most of my money in an account at Edward Jones, I do not know much about the stock market. Except that I am happy to see it rise.

But I do not see the discussion of the stock market in regard to the presence in the high office of the land of a debauched, perverted, immoral, incompetent, fool who way too was preferred by the strange mechanics of the "Electoral College". That is the issue and just where it will end. And who will be damaged or destroyed by this disgusting and curious departure from morality, sanity, and common decency in our society.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 3 months ago

I do not see it updated here yet, but Shawn Spicer has resigned. Another rat escaping the sinking ship. How much longer for the disaster knows as the (illegitimate) "Trump Administration"

He knows Hillary got more votes. He knows he lost in a "real" election. He has been trying to make all these hard facts go away. Now.....he knows Richard Nixon resigned before the halting congress could impeach him. It is now time to go. Go far and away. Quickly. Before we start World War III.

Seems that he has hired a new liar to spread his misinformation. Great!! The fraud goes on!!

Richard Heckler 2 months, 4 weeks ago

I want Kobach to pay back every dollar he is spending running around the country attending ALEC secret meetings and also seeking campaign dollars from "outside sources.

Bob Smith 2 months, 3 weeks ago

As the Constitution states, the winner of the Electoral College becomes President. The system worked as designed and all the screeching and moaning from the disappointed progressives will never make Hillary President.

Carol Bowen 2 months, 3 weeks ago

True, but the gerrymandering does impact the outcome. It will be interesting to see how the districts are realigned.

Bob Smith 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Moving the goalposts now won't change the outcome from last November.

Carol Bowen 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Of course not. Looking forward, not back.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...