Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Penigma reveals the Russian mastermind who led to Trump's"surprise" Presidential Victory!

Catherine the Great!

Yep, you got that correct, Catherine II, also known as Catherine the Great (Екатери́на Вели́кая, Yekaterina Velikaya),  Empress of Russia from 1762 until 1796.

That's because the only thing which made Donald Trump president was the electoral college, an institution created by the US Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2-4).  So, if there really WAS any "Russian" influence in the process that made Trump president of the US, it would have had to have been produced during the reign of Catherine the Great!

The Fact is Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 65,853,516 (48.5% votes) to Trump's 62,984,825 (46.4% votes), but lost in the electoral college by receiving 232 (43.1%) of the electoral votes to Trump's 306 (56.8%) votes.

Of course, it is far easier to blame the Russians for this defeat than it is to address the real issues behind Clinton's loss.

Although, that is a strategy that is sure to backfire since any claims of "Russian" interference result in the faults of the Clinton Campaign: her being a weak candidate, DNC misconduct, and pretty much everything that was common knowledge to Sanders' supporters and Clinton opponents.

Any real discussion of Clinton's loss must include the faults of the US system of elections: especially the radical overhaul of the electoral college, which was supposed to have prevented foreign interference in the US presidential process ( The Federalist Papers, No 68).

It is blatantly obvious that the Electoral College serves no useful purpose, but that won't be addressed as long as people refuse to address the real cause of Trump's becoming president.

Then again, any real investigation of the US election would be a threat to the current Democrat-Republican duopoly. The duopoly thrives on the illusion that US elections are somehow "democratic", but it is hard to make that claim when an institution designed to be anti-democratic is allowed to continue its existence.

See also:


  1. I rarely differ with you, dear Laci, but the Electoral College in most instances has to reflect the voting of their respective state and/or district.
    Putin and his thugs worked to corrupt that vote.
    The Electoral College merely finished what they started, in stealing the US election.

  2. Laci, I think Clinton was tone-deaf. I said, as did a number of others, including most importantly Bernie Sanders, that the election was about the economic stagnation and eroding futures of the middle-class, despite a supposed recovery. So, Clinton was a vulnerable candidate, one who appeared to be in bed with the pro-business interests, and a tone-deaf candidate, one who believed her staff when they said that focusing on diversity issues would be enough.

    The thing is, though, despite those weaknesses, very likely she COULD have won. Why do I say that, because it is clear that voter suppression, and Russian activities on social media, and especially the revelations about DNC coordination with the Clinton campaign cost Clinton votes from people who would have voted for Sanders (who then voted for Trump) AND help cement a feeling that the game was rigged for Clinton. Do I think that was something which switched 5 million votes, no, but it is entirely plausible it made ENOUGH difference in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan to have tipped it and even if it didn't (and I'll say I think it probably did not), the FACT of Russian interference, whether fully effective or not, is an enormous threat to our democracy because it causes bright people to question whether our elections are credible.

    All that said, the biggest reason Clinton lost, and I think your point is, that Clinton ran a poor campaign against a man who should have been easily defeated by a candidate from a party which heretofore has been seen as representing workers. She could have EASILY taken up the Sanders mantle, but she failed to do so.

  3. How? Did they buy votes?

    Anyway, the Electoral College DOES NOT need to reflect the voting of their states. In fact, quite a few are winner take all, which accounts for the disparity in voted between popular and electoral votes.

    Simply put: the Electoral College is anti-democratic and has no place in the politics of a country which pushed for "free and fair elections" in other nations.

  4. No, my point is pretty simple:
    Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 65,853,516 (48.5% votes) to Trump's 62,984,825 (46.4% votes).

    Where she lost was in the electoral college by receiving 232 (43.1%) of the electoral votes to Trump's 306 (56.8%) votes.

    The electoral college is an anti-democratic institution and needs to go away, but it had fuck all to do with any "foreign interference".

    In fact, the electoral college was designed to prevent foreign interference in the election of the president.

    Saying that Trump was somehow "elected" by anything other than the electoral college and how it functions is an admission that this institution is obsolete and needs reform or abolition.