Clinton and the "Popular Votes"

                                         Image source:  Pinterest Board


Needless to say, I'm NO fan of any U.S. leader.  Though what concerns me is foreign policy only, all of them have terrible problems with foreign as well as domestic issues. No one has yet had a spine strong enough that Israel hasn't yet been able to bend pathetically.
   
But the point is ::  There ought to be an element of logic and decency in every event to bring a semblance of civilization, at the very least. 

Many impartial alternative sources said it; but regardless, one didn't need to be a genius to assess that every aspect of foul play was in sync.  Rigging U.S. election 2016 was like ready-steady-go in favor of Clinton.  Despite the fortification, it failed to roll down the tide of Trump supporters on November 8.   After he acquired 274 electoral votes, the game was over according to the official rule.  However, rigging restarted for popular votes as fodder for anti-Trump camp to assist the course of future propaganda until 2020.   Generally the practice is that once a candidate crosses the 270 mark, bulk of the remainder ballots, particularly the absentee ballots, are tabulated.  So the exact figures on who got how many popular votes are insignificant and seldom made known officially.

While the electoral college is under attack, the real question is ::  What do "popular votes" mean .. votes cast or votes counted?   

The example of the elections in 2000 explains better, specifically on handling the absentee ballots.  Quoting Truthfeed:  "Hillary may win the “votes counted,” however, she will not win the VOTES CAST, which is the 'popular vote.'  States don’t count their absentee ballots unless the number of outstanding absentee ballots is larger than the state margin of difference. If there is a margin of 1,000 votes counted and there are 1,300 absentee ballots outstanding, then the state tabulates those. If the number of outstanding absentee ballots wouldn’t influence the election results, then the absentee ballots aren’t counted.  In 2000, when Al Gore “won” the popular vote nationally by 500,000 votes and the liberal media screamed bloody murder, there were 2 million absentee ballots in California alone. A 67-33 breakout of those yields a 1.33- to 0.667-million Republican vote advantage, so Bush would have gotten a 667,000-vote margin from California’s uncounted absentee ballots alone."

Considering that there has been no such official details on popular votes in 2016 plus the glaring bias of the establishment, how impossible would it be for majority of the ballots in favor of Trump to be tablulated and majority in favor of Clinton to be counted?

During the campaign, statistics have shown time and again that without well-planned foul play, a difference of over a million popular votes in favor of Clinton would be next to impossible.   For example, during the last one week of campaign rallies, if you had the presence of mind to check the total number of viewers in live online streaming at Youtube for both candidates, Trump viewers were on average 50,000 more.  In the final Clinton/Trump rallies on the evening of November 7 when mainstream Western sources were asserting that Clinton had 90% chances of winning, viewers of Clinton rally in North Carolina were barely 3,500.  Viewers of Trump rally in Grand Rapids were 70,902.  The supporting screenshot below says it all:

Never had the electoral college been so big a problem in any post-election period until 2016 when the U.S. establishment got a dose of its own medicine. She lost in 2008 primaries; she proved to be the worst Sec.of State in U.S. history in 2012; tugging a load of corruption cases, her popularity was steadily dipping and was below the gutter line by early 2016. Yet the  DNC could find none else but Clinton to run in November 2016.  About the primary 2016, Independent quoted Wikileaks November 9, "Donald Trump won elections because Democrats rigged system to have Clinton beat Bernie Sanders."    After all, as a surprise move only three weeks prior to the elections in October 17, Sanders did unendorse Clinton when he expressed his concern that elections would be rigged and warned the American people that the entire system run by the powerful elite was rigged.

Concerns of all, inside and outside of America, came to be true.  Initially when cheating didn't achieve the goal, it later resumed making the electoral college and popular votes the issues that America needs to abolish and focus upon, respectively. 

Writes Trent Lapinski, "Trump is what happens when you nominate a cheater and live in an echo chamber - please learn from this. I one hundred percent believe Sanders could have created a political revolution to beat Trump, but instead we're getting Trump's revolution.  The reason Hillary Clinton did not win this election is because she never should have been nominated in the first place."

Sadly history keeps repeating itself. In 2009 George Soros (the Hungarian-American Jewish multibillionaire business magnate) funded Hussein Musavi's campaign (so-called color revolution) in Iran.  Musavi lost and Soros incited violent protests in Tehran. In 2016 Soros funded Clinton's campaign pouring in millions of dollars.  She lost.  He incited nationwide violent protests via MoveOn  over Clinton winning the popular votes.  MoveOn is an activists organization in the U.S. supported and funded by Soros.   It released a press statement on November 9 that it would be organizing countrywide post-election protests. Writes Daisy Luther in Activist Post "Looks like George Soros is funding Trump protests .... Paid instigators are making an already bad situation much much worse."   The relevant question as put by Chuck Woolery, "Are paid protests really protests?"  Most of those protests had turned into riots within 48 hours, disrupting traffic, vandalizing cars and smashing windows .. exactly what they did in Tehran 2009.

A very clumsy and embarrassing fall of a system from grace to disgrace.