This is GREAT for people that have NO CLUE!!! AOC...Bernie...Eliz Warren, etc...who push for the "Green New Deal"...no more oil / gas wells just wind and solar?? How are we going to replace all the products made from crude oil??
Video 540
Visit Counter
Friday, January 31, 2020
Life Without Petroleum
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Another whopping lie
Schiff says Obama would have been impeached if he asked Russia to investigate Mitt Romney
Sure he would. So if Schiffless is telling the truth (something he's incapable of doing) and forgetting about Romney for a moment, how come Barry didn't get impeached over the myriad of scandals he was involved in. I won't get into the weeds touching on all of them but just imagine this. Trump calls the IRS and tells them to target liberal groups. Or at the very least, he knew full well what was going on at the IRS. The perpetrators who committed the crime plead the 5th and not one went to jail. Along with that think of the astronomical odds 7 computers simultaneously crashed at the IRS... its beyond comprehension! Then suddenly in Clintonesque fashion critical emails into the investigation are deleted.
I can see Trump claiming on FOX news, "The first time I heard about the IRS scandal was when I heard it on the news." I'm sure Schiff would have said...case closed right?
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff answers a question from Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz at the Senate trial of President Trump.
House manager Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Wednesday said former President Obamawould have been impeached if he had done what President Trump has been charged with in the first article of impeachment.
Schiff was responding to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz’s argument that a president can’t be impeached for a quid pro quo if he believes it’s in the country’s interest.
Schiff called the defense’s example of Obama being caught on a hot mic in 2012 telling former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he would have more “flexibility” after his re-election a “poor analogy” and “whataboutism.”
“But let’s use that analogy and make it more comparable to today and see how you feel about this scenario,” Schiff told the Senate.
He suggested the hypothetical example of Obama telling Medvedev, “I know you don’t want me to send this money to Ukraine cause they’re fighting and killing your people. I want you to do me a favor though,” Schiff said, echoing wording in Trump’s July call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which he allegedly asked him to investigate the Bidens.
“I want you to do an investigation of Mitt Romney and I want you to announce you found dirt on Mitt Romney,” Schiff continued with his hypothetical. “And if you’re willing to do that quid pro quo, I won’t give Ukraine the money to fight you on the front line. “
Schiff then asked senators if there is any question Obama would have been impeached for that kind of conduct.
“That’s the parallel here,” he said.
Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked in the hypothetical whether or not Obama would have had the authority to seek an investigation into Romney's son if he had evidence he was earning $1 million a year from a corrupt Russian company and Romney had acted to benefit that company.
Republicans have alleged former Vice President Joe Biden used his White House position to help his son, Hunter, while he served on the board of a Ukrainian oil company, but no evidence of wrongdoing has been found.
Schiff answered that “for a president to withhold military aid from an ally [or] to benefit an adversary to target their political opponent is wrong and corrupt. Period. End of story.”
He added that “rationalizing” that conduct is impeachable.
Earlier, Dershowitz argued that even if there was a quid pro quo by withholding $391 million in military aid to Ukraine it wouldn’t matter because “if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Perhaps Putin has been hanging with Khamenei a little too long
Supreme Ruler Putin? Kremlin Non-Committal on Proposed New Job Description
Trump accused of 'American Collusion' in the Russian election process.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Wednesday that President Vladimir Putin had no view on a proposal that would see his job description change to Supreme Ruler from head of state after a government commission said it was considering the idea.
The title change is one of an array of possible alterations to the Russian constitution put forward by members of a government commission set up after Putin earlier this month said he wanted to change the Russian basic law.
Putin, 67, proposed his own constitutional changes, which were widely seen as giving him scope to retain influence once his current presidential term expires in 2024, though he has said he does not favor the Soviet-era practice of having leaders for life who die in office.
The overhaul, which triggered a change in government, also cemented Putin's control of the transition process and was seen by some as an attempt to reduce intra-clan infighting between now and 2024, while allowing Putin to show he is responding to public discontent after years of belt-tightening.
The State Duma, the Russian lower house of parliament, has already given its backing to his reforms in a preliminary vote. The government commission is considering further possible changes.
"There are... some very curious proposals among those put forward. For instance, they proposed renaming the position of head of state to 'Supreme leader'," Pavel Krasheninnikov, the government commission's co-chair, told the Rossiiskaya Gazeta government newspaper.
When asked about the idea on Wednesday, the Kremlin was non-committal, calling it a "new initiative" and one of various proposals that may or may not be implemented.
"Right now all this is at the discussion stage," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. "President Putin has no view on this."
Other proposals include formally recognizing Russia's status as a "victorious power" in World War Two and recognizing Orthodox Christianity as the country's main religion, the Kommersant newspaper reported.
"Naturally some (of the proposals) will be eliminated, some will be accepted and from this the commission's sought-after result will appear," Peskov told reporters.
Russia's TASS news agency said Vladimir Zhironovsky, leader of the nationalist pro-Kremlin LDPR party, had suggested the president be known as the Supreme Leader many times in order to move away from job titles derived from foreign languages.
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Hunter Biden has agreed to pay child support to the Arkansas woman he fathered a child with while he was also dating his brother's widow
A real class guy just like his old man!
Wasn't he the scuzzbucket who swore up, down, and sideways emphatically denying he was the father? So if he lied about something so provable just imagine what else he's lying about when it comes to Ukraine and China.
-------------------------
Hunter Biden on Monday agreed to pay child support to the mother of his lovechild in Arkansas.
Linden Alexis Roberts gave birth to Biden's child in August 2018, but took legal action in May 2019 after Biden stopped paying child support.
A DNA test in November 2019 identified Biden as the father. Biden had denied being the father in initial court filings.
Biden agreed to backpay child support to November 2018. The amount is not know, and was redacted in the court order on Monday.
Hunter Biden has agreed to pay child support to the mother of his child in Arkansas, and backpay 13 months of missed installments.
An agreed order from Independence County Circuit Court released on Monday said Biden had agreed to a deal with Lunden Alexis Roberts, who mothered Biden's child in August 2018.
Judge Holly Meyer, however, noted that she couldn't narrow down what was appropriate for Biden to pay in child support "based off the defendant's income" because she "lacks sufficient information."
Biden will backpay child support to November 2018 and pay Roberts' legal fees, according to the order. He will pay child support from February 1, 2020, and on the first of every month.
Roberts first filed a petition for paternity and child support in May 2019, and requested that Biden pay healthcare for the child.
Legal council for Roberts said that she only filed because of Biden's "refusal to continue to support his child."
She asked for $11,058 in fees, and filed a petition for paternity and child support, court filings show.
In November 2019, a DNA test confirmed "with scientific certainty" that Biden was the father.
Biden had previously denied being the father in an August 2019 court filing. He is yet to comment publicly.
"He's doing the right thing by finally stepping up and paying what he should've been paying," Roberts' attorney, Clinton Lancaster told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
"He's going to begin paying monthly child support. He's going to pay retroactive child support back to November of 2018. And he's going to pay attorney's fees and costs."
Roberts met Biden while studying at George Washington University, her lawyers said.
After Roberts appealed to the court, Biden is to face contempt proceedings after he failed to give the courts relevant financial documents.
His case will be heard on March 1, unless he provides the information, according to the court order.
Biden's relationship history is complicated. In 2017, he finalized his divorce from Kathleen Biden, his wife of more than 20 years, after she accused him of spending money on drugs and strip clubs.
That year, he started dating Hallie Biden, his brother Beau's widow and the mother of his niece and nephew.
Additionally:
He was listed as a customer of Ashley Madison when the pro-adultery site was hacked in 2015.
He married a South African woman named Melissa Cohen, who is 17 years younger than him. Married her like 10 days after they met. She is also pregnant.
Kicked out of the Navy after getting two waivers...1) For being over 42 years old, 2) Past drug-related conviction, and then failing a drug test for cocaine. If his old man wasn't VP think he would have gotten in?
Like I said a class act.
Report: Comey’s Brother Works for the Law Firm That Handles Clinton Foundation’s Taxes
The shit keeps getting deeper. This article was written in 2017 back then I don’t recall reading anything about the Comey brothers interaction with the Clinton’s. It appears the Comey’s had closer ties to the Clinton’s than we thought.
-------------------------------------
Ousted FBI Director James Comey’s ties to the Clinton Foundation and the conflicts of interest that lie there are too close to not raise red flags.
James Comey worked several years in the public and private sector.
Comey served as general counsel atLockheed Martinuntil 2010 when he departed with over $6 million to show for it. That same year Lockheed Martin became a member of the Clinton Global Initiative and “won 17 contractsfrom the U.S. State Department, which was led by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,”Big League Politics reports.
Comey just so happened to have joined the board of the British bank HSBC Holdings in 2013, which just so happens to be aClinton Foundation partner.
Noting all of this, one of the most important conflicts of interest is Comey’s brother Peter Comey’s role at the Washington law firm DLA Piper, where he serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas”.
As Big League Politics reported, “DLA Piper’s offices [shortly before the election] . . . confirmed that the law firm immediately [patched] callers through to Peter Comey’s direct line there.”
DLA Piper is one of thetop ten all-time career campaign donorsfor Hillary Clinton. On top of this, DLA Piper also happens to do the Clinton Foundation’s taxes. DLA Piperperformed the 2015 auditof the Foundation when the scandal first broke.
Big League Politics reports:
Property records show that James Comey owns the mortgage on his brother Peter Comey’s house in Virginia. Therefore, James Comey had a direct financial relationship with a DLA Piper executive at the time he was investigating Clinton.
These relationships, though egregious, are symptomatic of the brazen culture of crony capitalism that exists in our nation’s capital. The public usually is prevented from learning these kinds of things, with the mainstream media blocking information from coming out. Sunlight is the only remedy.
When President Donald Trump finally fired James Comey as FBI director, Tucker Carlson said that everyone in Washington knows it was well past due.
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Millions of locusts are swarming in Kenya. This striking photo shows just how bad the outbreak is
Outbreaks of locusts have been occurring for thousands of years. There are many passages in the bible that refer to the scourge of swarming locusts. Only now has it become the result of climate change.
It's the worst locust outbreak to hit Kenya in 70 years.
Hundreds of millions of the small bugs are swarming in from neighboring Somalia and Ethiopia with unprecedented size and destructive potential, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization.
The Desert Locust, the most devastating of all locust species, is eating up crops in areas already susceptible to food and water shortages.
"This has become a situation of international dimensions that threatens the food security of the entire subregion," FAO Director-General QU Dongyu said in a press release.
Some scientists say climate change is at fault: Heavy rainfall in locust breeding areas has allowed breeding conditions to remain favourable, FAO said. East Africa had one of its wettest years on record last year, thanks to warming waters in the Indian Ocean, Nairobi-based climate scientist Abubakr Salih Babiker told the Associated Press.
(And if it didn’t rain when crops died causing a widespread famine they would have blamed it on what?)
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Friday, January 24, 2020
Thursday, January 23, 2020
'It's not in our DNA': Soleimani thought he was untouchable, and for more than a decade he was
Some additional insight into who Soleimani was and what he did. After reading the article I'm somewhat shocked about those who could have pulled the trigger and chose not to. I wonder what they're thinking now knowing the world didn't come to an end and coming to grips with the realization Trump was the only one who had the balls to kill him. I'm a simple guy and this article makes killing Soleimani more complicated than it was. All I needed to know Soleimani killed more than 600 U.S. troops. How many more did he have to kill before they did something?
None according to Trump!
-------------------------
Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani in 2005. (Photo: Sipa/Shutterstock)
One afternoon in Baghdad in the final months of 2007, a few members of a U.S. special operations task force were monitoring the feed from a Predator drone over the Iraqi capital, scanning for signs of trouble, when they spotted a large crowd gathering in the neighborhood of Sadr City.
From their large, air-conditioned tent near Baghdad International Airport, the operators sprang into action. They belonged to Task Force 17, which focused on combating the Iranian-supported Shiite militias that were killing thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of U.S. forces. Sadr City was the dense, teeming home to 3 million mostly poor Shiites. Whatever — or whoever — was bringing crowds into the streets there demanded Task Force 17’s attention.
Using an encrypted chat platform, an operator quickly texted a simple message to the drone pilot from the U.S. Air Force’s 3rd Special Operations Squadron, who was almost 7,500 miles away at Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas: Hold the drone above Sadr City. The personnel of Task Force 17, which operated under Joint Special Operations Command, watched as crowds filled the neighborhood’s thoroughfares. It soon became clear that an important visitor was receiving a hero’s welcome. “It was like someone was welcoming Obama to the streets of Sadr City,” said a former U.S. intelligence officer. “It was electric.”
But the drone’s feed was too grainy for the Americans to identify the VIP. In the tent, Navy personnel assigned to the National Security Agency went to work, intercepting real-time communications from Sadr City to find out more about the rally — and the man at its center. They quickly learned the mysterious visitor’s identity: Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
As leader of the Quds Force, the covert action wing of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Soleimani was the patron of many of the Shiite militias then waging a vicious campaign against U.S. troops in Iraq. The Quds Force was providing its Shiite militia proxies with explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), a deadly type of roadside bomb that could pierce armored vehicles and would eventually claim the lives of more than 600 U.S. troops. But the EFPs weren’t the only reason that Soleimani was on Task Force 17’s radar. He was also actively supporting the Shiite militias in their bloody sectarian campaign against Iraq’s Sunni minority, and earlier that year, his operatives had helped plan a sophisticated and brazen Shiite militia attack on a joint U.S.-Iraqi military facility in Karbala that left five U.S. soldiers dead.
Iraqi Shiites from the Badr forces militia protest against the military intervention in Yemen, in Baghdad, Iraq in 2015. (Photo: Karim Kadim/AP)
Now Soleimani was in the Predator’s sights. “We said, ‘holy s***, it’s Soleimani, pressing flesh with a bunch of people,’” said the former U.S. intelligence officer. The drone tracking Soleimani was armed with missiles, and the U.S. military could have killed the Iranian commander — and probably many others — instantly. Within the tent, “there was a discussion, of course, of whether we should do something,” said the former intelligence officer. But, even if Soleimani had been alone, the task force members present knew that the Quds Force commander was “untouchable,” said the former intelligence officer. As they watched, Soleimani parted the crowd, stepped into a building and was gone.
More than four and a half years into the U.S. occupation of Iraq — and Iran’s parallel effort to sabotage that occupation — Soleimani had also come to realize he was untouchable. He had not always believed that to be so.
In the first years of the occupation, Soleimani had moved back and forth between Iran and Iraq “constantly,” but had always taken the precautions to be expected from a seasoned intelligence officer, said John Maguire, a former senior CIA official stationed in Baghdad in the mid-2000s. Soleimani disguised his rank and identity, used only ground transportation and avoided speaking on the phone or the radio, preferring to give orders to proxies and subordinates in Iraq in person, according to Maguire. “They knew we listened to everybody,” he said.
Soleimani grew bolder. During the last years of the President George W. Bush administration, U.S. officials discovered that, with the help of Iraqi contacts, he had successfully snuck into the Green Zone — the highly fortified section of Baghdad that included the U.S. Embassy — several times. “This was a bit of an embarrassment to some in the Bush administration, and there were several officials who wanted to detain him next time this happened,” recalled a former CIA official.
However, in what became settled U.S. policy for the next dozen years, the order came down to keep American hands off the Quds Force chief. “We were asked for our assessment of what would be the fallout, and we said the Iranians would see this act as inflammatory,” said the former CIA official. “The Bush folks decided that escalating things would not be worth it and moved on.”
In their massive station in Baghdad and in smaller bases around Iraq, CIA officers quietly stewed as they watched Soleimani and his deputies gradually seize control of Iraqi institutions, taking advantage of a series of American missteps after the success of the initial U.S. invasion in March 2003. “Soleimani realized quickly that we did not have an accurate understanding of how Iraq worked,” said Maguire. “He realized that the insurgency would tie Americans in knots and allow him to kill Iraqis he had wanted to kill for years.”
Those Iraqis were mainly former members of the Saddam Hussein-era military who had fought in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. Soleimani was an Iranian veteran of the same war. Iraqi Shiite politician Ahmed Chalabi, who was deputy prime minister from May 2005 to May 2006, gave Soleimani or his associates all the data they needed to organize a campaign of sectarian mass murder by their Shiite proxies, according to Maguire. “They started systematic murder every cycle of darkness,” he said. “They killed probably 30,000 Iraqis that way.”
Qassem Soleimani speaks during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. (Photo: AY-Collection/SIPA/Shutterstock)
The CIA was closely monitoring all of this. The agency and the U.S. military had access to “a lot of cameras” in Sadr City that allowed them to watch live video of trainers of the Quds Force and its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, instructing Shiite militiamen in urban warfare, Maguire said. But when CIA officers asked Army Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), and other senior U.S. officials, about targeting Soleimani and other Iranian intelligence figures, their requests went nowhere, according to Maguire. “I was told, ‘No, these are Iranians,’” he said. “There was no appetite for it” in the Pentagon.
A Bush administration directive shortly after the invasion meant the CIA could not take matters into its own hands, according to the former senior CIA official. “We were limited to straight intel collection,” he said. “No covert action, no influence operations.”
The CIA’s Iraqi counterparts were equally frustrated at Washington’s reluctance to kill Soleimani. “The Iraqi intel service wanted to kill him and couldn’t understand why we wouldn’t target him,” Maguire said. “They thought he was the most dangerous guy in Iraq.”
To CIA officers on the ground in Iraq, the United States was ceding the battlefield to Iran. “We turned the field over in the short term to the Iranians, then we were stunned how effectively the Iranians moved in our way,” said the former senior CIA official, who compared the Quds Force’s efforts in Iraq to his own agency’s successful 1980s program to help the Afghan mujahideen in their fight against the Soviets. “They pulled on us what we pulled on the Russians in Afghanistan. It was like a mirror program.”
It wasn’t just some in the CIA that felt their hands were tied. Task Force 17, the special operations force established to go after the Quds Force’s Shiite militias in Iraq, was likewise hamstrung. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki placed tight restrictions on any targeting of the Shiite militias and particularly Quds Force operatives. The task force frequently detained Quds Force officers, but Maliki always forced the Americans to release them within hours. The few Iranians killed in Iraq by coalition forces were “in the wrong place at the wrong time,” too close to their Shiite militia counterparts during firefights or in bomb-making facilities, said the former senior CIA official. Generally, Soleimani and his lieutenants knew they were safe in Iraq.
This state of affairs persisted throughout the U.S. occupation of Iraq. McChrystal, the former JSOC commander, wrote last year of an opportunity he had in 2007 to strike a Quds Force convoy containing Soleimani as it crossed from Iran into northern Iraq. He decided to just monitor the convoy, in order “to avoid a firefight, and the contentious politics that would follow.”
U.S. officials feared targeting Soleimani or other Quds Force officers would risk escalating with Iran. “Nobody wanted to cross an official line to kill Iranians in Iraq, because that would put us at war, and we had enough with Iraq and Afghanistan,” said the former senior CIA official.
Iraqi volunteers for the Quds Army march at a parade in Baghdad to finish their military training in 2001. (Photo: Jassim Mohammed/AP)
Though violence persisted, by the end of the 2000s, the Quds Force was shifting its focus from killing U.S. military personnel to long-term political influence operations. In order to transmit backchannel messages to Soleimani and the Iranian leadership, senior CIA officials in Iraq would meet “behind the scenes with senior Shia political party members, very powerful influencers in Iraqi Shia politics and say, ‘The militias must cease attacks on U.S. forces or the consequences will be severe for you and your Iranian advisers,’” recalled Douglas Wise, a former CIA Baghdad station chief.
“For the Iranians, it was an easy message to have delivered, and to accommodate, because they had already achieved their desired outcome from their position,” which was greater influence in Iraq, and a drawdown in U.S. troops, Wise said. In these meetings, the Shiite political leaders would “sit silently and listen, their chief of staff would take notes, but they knew the tide had turned.”
The proxy war didn’t die down entirely, however. Even as U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq in 2011, Soleimani kept up the attacks. “They were hitting us hard with rockets and EFPs,” said Douglas London, a retired CIA senior operations officer. “It was clearly just to bleed us. … They wanted to ensure we wouldn’t come back.”
With the United States temporarily out of the picture, “Iran increased its penetration of the Iraqi government,” said Daniel Hoffman, the former chief of the CIA’s Middle East division. But the rise of the Islamic State group — which owed much to the sectarianism of the Shiite militias and the Maliki government — brought U.S. forces back to Iraq in 2014 to prevent the fall of Baghdad to the Sunni militant group. This forced the Shiite militias and the U.S. military into an awkward partnership, with Soleimani pulling the strings of the militias.
A Zelzal ballistic missile is launched during the second day of military exercises by Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard at an undisclosed location in Iran in 2011. (Photo: EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)
By now, the Iranian general was no longer operating in the shadows. He was frequently spotted on Iraqi battlefields, taking selfies with militiamen and appearing very relaxed. The Quds Force commander was “moving around with impunity” in Iraq, Hoffman said. “Though he was in Baghdad, he might have been in Tehran.”
This made it even easier for U.S. intelligence to keep tabs on him. “We had almost daily information about his whereabouts for the better part of the last decade,” retired Army Gen. Tony Thomas wrote on LinkedIn after Soleimani’s death.
Thomas, who commanded JSOC from 2014 to 2016 and was heavily involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, said he had twice parked his airplane beside Soleimani’s during visits to Irbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. “We never had the guts or the interest to do anything about him (other than ‘sanctions’ that we didn’t enforce),” he wrote. “The reality was that he had the ability to roam and do whatever he wanted to do back then.”
There was still no interest in Washington in a strike against Soleimani or his subordinates that might trigger a wider conflict with Iran, particularly as the Obama administration negotiated with Tehran to reach a deal that would curb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions.
Although he was a two-star general, Soleimani benefited from the view in some quarters of the U.S. government that the Quds Force was an intelligence organization. “From our perspective,” said a former U.S. intelligence official, the Quds Force was seen as the equivalent of the Soviet Union’s KGB during the Cold War: a rival in the spy game, but not an organization against whose members the United States could use lethal force.
Even after U.S. officials concluded around 2013 that Iran may have been targeting undercover U.S. intelligence officers working for the Defense Department in Europe for potential assassination, there was no talk of killing Quds Force members, according to the former U.S. intelligence official. “You don’t kill the other side’s intelligence operatives,” the former official said. “It’s not in our DNA.”
When Soleimani stepped out of a Cham Wings Airbus A320 at Baghdad International Airport and climbed into a waiting SUV in the early hours of Jan. 3, he clearly was under the impression that these unwritten rules were still in effect. For so long considered the ultimate intelligence operative in the Middle East, the veteran Quds Force commander had failed to detect the shift in attitude in Washington — and in particular, in the White House — that now imperiled him. Whether he realized the extent of his error in the split seconds before a Hellfire missile incinerated his SUV is unknown.
A burning vehicle at the Baghdad International Airport following an airstrike Jan. 3 that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force, at the direction of President Trump. (Photo: Iraqi Prime Minister Press Office, via AP)
Thursday, January 16, 2020
319 SQUARE MILES
On a tip from Tom Nicholas
I thought you'd find this interesting?
I didn't understand this fully until now, and it should never be changed.
"Subject: 319 Square Miles"” A 39 second read you will want to pass on.
In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the
Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?
Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the
Electoral College makes sense.
Do share this. It needs to be widely known and understood.
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!
And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)