Oh, just to sit and wonder at the ingenuity and cognitive abilities (for you in Rio Linda and any libocrat that means the ability to THINK) of our fore fathers, the Founders of this great country of ours. This land and country we call The United States of America. There has been some dispute lately about the ability to actually think about how things work in this world as it is now and how to come to accurate conclusions based not on your political bias but on how things actually are. This is indeed a huge difference.
Just consider how farsighted the Founding Fathers of this country were. Now (and this is the important part) they were all from radically different points of view on how to govern this great country. They all held different concepts on how to rule wisely all of the various peoples with their various ideas and ideals and yet to rule so all of the various people felt they were fairly represented. Never before in the history of mankind had there been a successful attempt at wise and just government. For all of the types tried before and now after fail, and some fail so miserably they defy literate description.
True democracies will always fail and they will fail for one reason. That reason being the one describing what happens when humans discover they can vote to give themselves breads and circuses at the expense of someone else. This system will always fail because sooner or later (mostly sooner) the takers of the breads and circuses outnumber the people who provide the money necessary to provide the breads and circuses. It is called the tipping point and every democracy reaches it. It is this point that 2012 Republican candidate for President Mitt Romney referred to when he stated there were 47.9% of the US population on the receiving end of governmental giving (the aforementioned breads and circuses). There is no form of government that can continue to take goods and services from the creators of those goods and services and dole those goods and services out to takers (almost always in the form of “assistance to those in need”). The creators begin to wonder why they work so hard only to see the sweat off their brow given to those who did not even bother to get up and shave in the morning. The takers, on the other hand, soon begin to wonder why their taking should stop at bread and milk, but should soon include cars, houses and cell phones.
Well, no form of government can or should provide those cars, those houses, or those cell phones to those who do little or nothing for such a magnanimous gift. And it is true now in many countries around the world (and in some libocrat run cities) that even a cell phone is now considered something everyone should have as a civil right, along with free food and housing (and in NY free college education). In fact, our last POTUS (Obama) won his first term as POTUS by handing out cell phones to get people to register to vote and then to vote for him. So, in a true democracy of one man one vote, those who produce what it takes for the country to have a vote are soon overtaken by the people who benefit themselves by voting for policies that allow them to work less and get more freebies. It is a downward spiral system that can end in the destruction of that society. The end of that society is written into the lack of a moral code in us humans and we bring about the end of our own society by our own societal lack of the moral and ethical strength to vote what is best for all, not best for ourselves
While a true democracy can survive for a long while, another form of governmental rule usually does not last very long. It does not last long because it is based on the charisma of the despot holding the ruling hand at the time. And make no mistake, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler are just among the latest of evil men using whatever words were necessary for them to gain their power. There is no “beauty pageant” election needed to put these evil men into positions of authority. Just plain brutal force is needed while their charisma gets their feet, and then their arms, inside the doors of governmental power. But even that is not enough to sustain such a government. For once again, the creators of the nation have their assets taken away (this time at the point of a gun) and the despots ruin the very people who provide the country with the items it needs to survive. Have not one of you libocrats ever wondered why Russia, with all of the vast steppes, could not grow enough wheat and corn to feed even the people of its own country?
There was never enough food or meat to sustain the Russian peoples even though the country itself is so much larger than the USA. The breadbasket portion of Russia is vaster than the entire USA itself, but it cannot grow enough food to feed its own people. Neither can China, nor most other countries around this entire globe. In a study published by the Huffington Post in 2012, the USA produces enough foodstuffs to feed 35% of the world population from the breadbasket of America (the central part of the USA, from the Alleghenies to the Rockies). The USA has less than 4% of the world’s population, but it feeds 10 times that many. Most of the other countries around the world have larger land masses, and more people, but they can not produce products the way America does. Have none of you libocrats ever bothered to wonder why this is?
For the most part, both Africa and South America are virtually lands that can grow products just like America does, but yet, they have not done so before nor do they do so now. Have none of you libocrats ever bothered to wonder why this is? The “Rule of Occam’s Razo” does sum it up well (that is, usually the simplest explanation is usually the right one) and it would be that with virtually no exception, these countries are not a Representative Republic (like the USA is, we are not a democracy), but almost always ruled by a king, a tryrant, a despot, or a truly evil and despicable excuse for a human being, like Idi Amin or Pol Pot. The closest thing to a representative government (besides the USA) is the United Kingdom with its House of Commons (our House of Representatives) and the House of Lords (our Senate). If it is not apparent to you libocrats that there is something inherently unstable in any form of one man government (king, tyrant, despot, etc.) then you are not only blind to life but your biased and bigoted view of the world is self-destructive to both yourself and those around you. You must begin to understand that to have a system of governing humans, you simply must take into account the human frailties. And one of those engines that make us produce our best is the belief we have in our government that says we get to keep what we earn, not have it taken away and given to those who have not earned their “keep”.
So, this brings us back to the Founding Fathers and their wisdom in designing a system that selects our President every 4 years. For they knew all of the inherent faults in any governmental system for they also understood what drives mankind to perform his/her best. And that concept is simply called capitalism, where you get to keep what you earn. But they also had seen where even with the best of heart and mind, the system would fail if it only allowed the mass of the people to have their sway. So, they (in all their divided political aspects) knew that each and every separate state would have differing ideas of what was needed and when it was to be needed. And our system to elect our POTUS would have to reflect ALL of the various people of the country, not just some. So, the idea of each state electing representatives to come together and vote for the new POTUS as EACH STATE voted for the new POTUS came about, and we call it The Electoral College.
The Founding Fathers already knew about people concentrating in cities, and understood that if the Presidential election were a pure majority vote of the people nationwide, it would soon become little more than a beauty pageant (pardon the pun). And each of those men also understood that given that condition of election, each candidate would promise every voter the moon if only they would vote for him. And they also knew that three or 4 large cities would elect the POTUS instead of the people of the whole country. So, each state is assigned a certain number of Electoral College Voters and they vote for POTUS as the STATE wishes them to (not the biggest city in the state, but the whole state). So, 250 years ago they decided that we were not to be a pure democracy, with the winner of 50% of the popular vote plus one more becoming the POTUS, but rather a representative republic where the winner of the most electoral votes as represented by each separate state would become the next POTUS.
Surely, in most of our elections, the POTUS won not only the majority of the votes but the majority of the Electoral College votes too. The year 2000 results showed Bush did not win the popular vote but did win enough votes in the Electoral College and he became POTUS. Is it not about time you libocrats started trying to understand why you lost the election? I can tell you why with the latest results from none other than information provided by the Huffington Post (again).
First, I can dispel any myths concerning who won the popular vote (although by now you readers should realize I don’t give much of a tinker’s damn about the popular vote). Hillary won the popular vote of all the states and territories by 3,000,000 votes. Sounds like a lot of votes and it is. But, let us look deeper in what those numbers actually represent.
- Hillary won the state of California by 4,000,000 votes (yes, by that many numbskulls).
- Hillary won the state of New York by almost 2,000,000 votes.
- Hillary won those two states by 6,000,000 votes alone.
- Hillary won the total popular vote by 3,000,000 votes.
- Hillary LOST the OTHER 48 STATES AND TERRITORIES BY 3,000,000 VOTES.
- TRUMP WON 48 STATES AND TERRITORIES BY 3,000,000 VOTES. Okay you libocrats, this is why Hillary lost. Trump won the entire USA while Hillary concentrated on only certain parts of the USA
This is why the Electoral College exists. The POTUS is POTUS for the entirety of the USA, not just a few densely populated sectors of it. Hillary won 500 counties, Trump won 2600 counties, a 5 to 1 ratio. Trump won because he won the votes of the entire USA, and Hillary lost because she went only for a small part of the USA. Hillary forgot that she was to be POTUS for the entire USA, and that means us “deplorables” and “unredeemables” as well as her friends on Wall Street and in Saudi Arabia. Hillary wanted to be a beauty pageant winner but she was only an ugly duck.
and for you few who like to see my photos, here is the URL to my flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dawns_early_light/