Will the “Joker” Trump an Ace, or How the Winner Can Take Them All?
While writing about politics, one cannot avoid the topic of Presidential elections for too long. The truth is: I tried being neutral and giving everyone a chance to persuade me that they can be trusted with leading our country before I have to decide who to vote for in November of 2016. Something tells me that I’m not the only one who’s waiting on the sidelines till the very last week to finally make a decision on who to vote for. Is that the reason why we have Hillary Clinton leading in so many primaries, which was inconceivable to many of us just half a year ago? From what I see, the whole purpose of primary elections is to exclude other candidates from the ballots and leave only the most known and most wealthy ones (which goes side by side, as more money for campaign means more publicity and exposure to more people) and make everyone choose between the two choices only.
What’s so inconceivable is that many democrats (especially women) choose to vote for Hillary. I bet it’s because she’s a woman, and we pretty much got sick of all male shenanigans in the White House. I can tell you the female logic behind it, since when I’m faced with the choice of several officials for local offices showing up on a ballot, I too choose a woman. The logic behind it is simple: “A woman deserves to have a fair shot at leading, and she cannot be too bad for people because she must be caring and kind like I am. Besides, how bad can she be, right?” Wrong! Many of us have avoided politics like a plague, considering it to be a little dirty business for “big men”. The day has come, however, when we need to get intimately involved with choosing elected officials of all levels. Why? Because if we don’t, we will soon be sent to war we want to have no involvement with, and we’ll be ordered to sacrifice our children and their future for the gains of U.S. Military Industrial Complex. Unfortunately, ever since the World War II, American Army is not fighting for “our freedoms and democracy”, as we often hear from many American veterans who want to believe this silly explanation or else some may commit a suicide, if they become disillusioned in the “ideals of Democracy.” It’s a very sad world out there, folks!
Many who still work in Corporate America have already gotten used to the idea that in most cases some unknown leaders get hired to lead us instead of someone being promoted from within. Thus, we got used to obey to the orders of unknown leaders or else we’ll have nothing to eat and pay our bills with. Just like we are used to elect our leaders not by the votes of the masses, but through this old tradition of the Electoral College mystery that was created back in times when the means of communication between the states were the mailmen in the bandwagons. Considering how far just IT industry went in the past twenty years, this U.S. Electoral College tradition seems very outdated to me. Someone must be interested in keeping this system afloat. Is it because they figured out a way to manipulate it and tweak it to their advantage for the purpose of electing someone who “they” have chosen to lead us? Isn’t it time to jump off this “bandwagon”?
You may object by saying that Electoral College selects the candidates in the General Elections in November based on the majority votes that determine how many electoral votes will go to each of the candidates, with each state having various number of votes, and all votes from each state going into either democratic or republican “bucket.” Unless you have lived in a country where referendums among all population are common, and where the winner is determined by the maximum number of popular votes, you may not get a hint how autocratic and unfair the U.S. elections are. Just look at how the winner is determined in the Primary Elections of Democrats, supposedly determined by the popular vote, where supposedly “every vote counts.”
Granted that the race is still on, so far Hillary Clinton is at around 63% now, compared to Bernie Sanders’ 37%, since she currently locked a total of 1703 delegates, while Bernie Sanders got only 985 delegates. This would all be good if these results were attained fair and square. Of course, the Democratic frontrunner will be selected (not necessarily elected) at the Democratic Convention, but that doesn’t make this any more democratic.
In Arizona, for example, Hillary Clinton got 58% of the votes, a total of 235,667 votes. Bernie Sanders got 40%, a total of 163,368 votes. Half of that vote total came from Arizona’s biggest city Phoenix with population of 1.5 million. But Phoenix is a Democratic city in a Republican county, and, like most places, has a Democratic machine that is working closely with the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. What is disturbing is that numerous types of voter disqualifications occurred across the Arizona state and especially in Phoenix. According to “The Horn” publication in Arizona, many registered Democratic voters came to their polling places and were told that they were listed “independent”, and could not vote as democrats because Arizona has a closed primary for both parties.
In addition to that, AZCentral.com reported that decision was made before the primary elections to cut the usual 200 polling places in Phoenix metro area down to just 60, allegedly “to save costs.” In comparison, in the 2012 primaries, Maricopa County had 200 polling places for 300000 voters. This year it had only 60 polling places for the estimated 800000 voters. AZCentral quoted that angry voters ended up waiting more than 3 hours, and many ended up not voting because the media declared Clinton to be the winner shortly after the polls closed at 7 pm – merely based on the exit polls. According to another report from one polling place, some voters from downtown Phoenix didn’t get a chance to cast their “democratic” vote in the Democratic primary until after midnight. After the victory is declared, who would bother to recount and contest the victory?
While there is no solid evidence of the involvement of Clinton’s campaign in the primary election “setup” in Arizona, it’s not the first time the results in a state primary or caucus have been fixed this year. Still, why does this happen in the states where Clinton ended up winning? In Iowa, Nevada and Massachusetts, for instance, the results were expected not to favor Clinton, but yet, she won them, and there is a reason to doubt those results.
In Iowa, where Clinton won by a fraction of 1%, the rules call for a coin toss to settle a caucus tie. Apparently, a coin toss is required to break a tie in certain instances, according to caucus rules: “In a case where two or more preference groups are tied for the loss of a delegate, a coin shall be tossed to determine who loses the delegate,” the Iowa caucus guide states. And thus, the coins were tossed in all six of the precincts where there was a virtual tie between Clinton and Sanders, and surprise! The Clinton’s campaign won all six coin tosses, which, mathematically speaking, has a probability of 1/64, or 1.6%! How is that for a coincidence?
In Massachusetts, where Clinton won by one percent of the vote, the following question was being asked: “How come she won in Boston – a college town with a youthful population that is demonstrably pro-Sanders?” And yet, based on the exit polls, which are usually accurate predictors of actual balloting because people are being asked how they voted as they leave the polling places, Sanders should have won by about 10%.
The mystery of such difference may be in the fact that in Boston, were voting is done by a machine, it may be easier to manipulate the numbers by some creative programming techniques. I’m saying this as a programmer with 16 years of professional IT experience who can program an elephant by now (maybe not the Republicans’ elephant, but I think you got the point). Otherwise, why would Sanders win in the western part of Massachusetts, where paper ballots were used and then counted by hand, with representatives from both parties being present? These doubts are a reason why I myself chose to vote on paper this time, though I did see that everyone else used the electronic machines instead. Somehow, I was not much surprised that in Illinois, where so many democrats prefer Sanders instead of Clinton, the difference in votes to her favor was about 30000! Are we giving away all our freedoms to computers and corporate sponsors of the voting application?
The whole political system in this country seems to be built on corruption, kickbacks, and lobbying. What we call “campaign donations”, all forms of corporate lobbying and any negotiable kickbacks paid for certain “favors” in both corporate world and politics – are nothing but bribes! These are called “bribes” in all other countries, while in U.S. they’re legitimately used. Why were they legalized? Who are we letting to lead our country and risk the security and well-being of other countries and the whole Planet?
Finally, why there’s so much hype about Hillary and so much negativity in the news about Trump? Who’s paying for all this negative publicity? Why is Mister Soros investing in Hillary Clinton to become the next U.S. President? What’s in it for him, the Wall Street and our Military Industrial Complex who sponsor the first Lady – Miss President in the making? And what does Donald Trump knows that we don’t if he has stated out loud during an interview last summer that “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama created ISIS”?
Try watching randomly just a few full interviews with Trump, listen to what he says about the state of affairs in the U.S. and our foreign policy lately without taking his words out of the context or calling him bad names, and try to disagree with what he has said. I, certainly, cannot disagree with his statement that our horrendous 19-20 trillion dollar debt is something we have to deal with and try to minimize for the sake of our children. I also agree that we cannot afford to pay for more wars and foreign interventions, that our cities have aging infrastructure that needs huge capital investments, that our own spending needs to be brought under control fast, and that our manufacturing and our IT jobs that went overseas with Bill Clinton signing the Free Trade Agreements (though, there’s nothing free about them, as they cost a lot to all hardworking and now jobless Americans) need to be brought back into the country if we plan to live here at all!
I get why Mister Trump is seen as a very controversial choice for many, and may seem as a big joke that’s no longer funny. He acts like a Joker. He’s so straight forward in his speech that he sounds too radical and too harsh. On the other hand, Clinton (I almost want to write her last name as ‘Clean tone”) says what people want to hear when they want to hear it, while, in the meantime, she has by far the longest body count list and strongest thirst for war with Russia and China out of all the candidates! Bernie Sanders definitely seems like the lesser of two evils. However, when I thought of the meaning of his last name (if written as “Sunder”), I couldn’t shake the feeling that he was brought into this equation to divide and split apart the Democratic party (sunder means “split apart”), which is exactly what’s happening now between the “underdog” Bernie Sanders and the “Ace” – Ms. Hillary Clinton. Could Republicans take over the lead by using their “Trump” card of a “Joker” that they themselves are so afraid of? Or is it time for all of us to dismantle this bipartisan system and start acting more democratic by giving a peace-loving Green Party candidate Jill Stein a fair chance? Can we ever win this game of Presidential elections or is America heading for abyss?
Stay tuned and pray… God, help us all!
March 28, 2016.