Hillary Clinton Latest Crime

david starling said:

Just curious. Are you saying Trump had no financial dealings in Russia?

Click to expand...

katydid said:

Clinton's people have been screaming about Trump/collusion for almost a year now.

And it turns out that the people colluding with Russia were the Clinton crew, not the Trump crew.

I doubt that main stream news will ever run any stories admitting as much.

Click to expand...

Dubyadude1986 said:

Currently awaiting denial and excuses.

"The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.5a90aea45963

Click to expand...

ALL OUT WAR: THE PLOT TO DESTROY TRUMP

JUPITERASC said:

ALL OUT WAR: THE PLOT TO DESTROY TRUMP

That's what the media, the Democrats
and the Never-Trump Republicans
are waging on the democratically elected president of the United States.

book is by Edward Klein and currently available on amazon

Click to expand...

david starling said:

Trump is not the "democratically" elected President, HRC is. Trump is the beneficiary of an outmoded Electoral College system, originally designed to preserve the institution of Slavery.

Click to expand...

david starling said:

Trump is not the "democratically" elected President, HRC is. Trump is the beneficiary of an outmoded Electoral College system, originally designed to preserve the institution of Slavery.

Click to expand...

Dubyadude1986 said:

D.S. - - The U.S. is a constitutional republic and we use the electoral college like we have for ever and ever...

The US is not a direct democracy. The U.S. is an indirect democracy.

Click to expand...

david starling said:

It's indirect because we elect representatives to make decisions for us, instead of having to make them all ourselves. These representatives are elected by majority Popular-vote. It's the Popular-vote feature that makes it a Democracy. Since the President is the representative of the entire Country, it's necessary that he, or she, be elected by a majority, Popular-vote, nationwide. Why should the President be the only undemocratically elected representative?

Click to expand...

Dirius said:

In "direct democracies", you usually end-up with a president who was voted by a small number (yet a majority number) of the population. Like the current right-wing president of Austria who was elected with only 31,5% of the votes....

Furthermore, not all countries have a direct democracy approach, but rather a more complicated one:

- In the U.K. people don't actually vote for prime minister, but rather for a representative in the house of commons, and the party with majority seats "chooses" their prime minister to form a goverment.

- In France they use "2-round" system, in which the two candidates with most votes go for a final showdown at the ballots, usually getting votes from people that didn't vote for them initially.

- In Germany the system is similar to the U.K, and the chancellor is elected by the parliament (thus indirect voting).

In countries such as France and the many others, more often than not you end up with a president that wasn't originally wanted by most people, and only wins because he is by default one of the two only choices, meaning most people have to vote for the "lesser of two evils". In parliamentary elections, such as U.K and Germany, your parliamentary vote is tied to your PM/Chancellor, meaning you can't really choose 2 candidates from different parties.

The long story short, there is no perfect system, and crying about it is silly. Direct democracy, parliamentary and 2-round systems also have many flaws when you look at them from every possible perspective. The reason you have the "winner takes all" system is to promote a bi-partisan system, nothing more.

Click to expand...

JUPITERASC said:

Click to expand...

david starling said:

Since a Democracy requires a Popular-vote majority, Hillary is the Democratically elected President of California. Trump is the Democratically elected President of Texas. This split between States is causing bitter divisiveness in our Nation. According to the intent of the Constitution, which is spelled out in the Preamble, one intent is "a more perfect Union". Another, is "National Tranquility". This winner-take-all version of the Electoral College vote therefore violates the original intent of the document upon which our Nation was founded. We currently have an undemocratically elected President of the United States, and it really is a problem for our Representative Democracy.

Click to expand...

Dirius said:

There isn't one that is better over the other. The U.S. is the most federal of all countries in the world, with the states pretty much regulating themselves for most things, thus why the electorate system sort of makes sense.

In a direct democracy you would end up with elected presidents who would have only been voted by like 20% of the people. It happens very often. That, to me, seems very flawed.

The 2-round system, is a bit of an upgrade on a direct democracy, by giving the chance to cast a second ballot for the 2 remaining candidates. This however tends to end up as a "lesser of 2 evils" choice by the large majority, being forced to choose among 2 candidates they don't really like. Its certainly better than a direct vote because at least it provides you with an extra choice, but its still not "perfect". It is also important to note, that this type of system has a huge amount of corrupted dealings, because a small party can provide support to a larger party (before the second round of voting) in exchange for future benefits.

The parliament system bothers me, because your vote for a parliament representative and for the head of executive power has to be the same, and thus your vote becomes indirect. This also means you can't split your votes and thus reduces the choices you have.

Personally, I don't have a preference. In all honesty they all have so many flaws, its a matter of personal perspective. Some people will, for example, prefer 2-round system over direct democracy, while others won't.

Click to expand...