• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Why so little hitlery campaigning?

John A.

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
Had a discussion earlier about how few campaign stops hitlery is making in a highly contested and close race (according to polls), and it just doesn't add up or make sense.

One of the answers that was discussed is that she already has it in the bag because of all the voter fraud and backdoor deals and already knows she's got it so why waste her time for nothing more than looks to the public.

Couldn't help but notice with only about 2 weeks left before election day, and according to the scheduled events at https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/ and she has a grand total of 3 stops scheduled for herself between tomorrow (2 stops in Iowa) and nothing further scheduled until November 8th, election night event.

page 1.PNG
page 2.PNG
page 3.PNG
page 4.PNG



give-that-man-a-tin-foil-hat-thumb.jpg
 
She has avoided any unnecessary contact because she and her staff know that anything she says of substance can only antagonize people outside of the Koolaide base she already has wrapped up. The more people know the less likely they are to vote for her. Ignorance rules.

9d7fcd84ade8d5cc0993718cbb7bfa19.jpg
 
Why should she campaign? She feels she has the election in the bag. But she is just a hag-in-a-bag. A chewed up old rag. Bill Clinton's nag...

Sorry, been up for over 18 hours...8 hours of advanced engine class, over 7 hours driving home from Milwaukee. Having a beer to settle the highway jitters so I can sleep. maybe I need two...
 
Her running mate pulled a whole 30 people at one of his last stops. The more she compaigns the more it shows her numbers are down. Besides she has a lot of coordination to manage to pull off this unriggable election.
 
When she walks she looks like a marionette with a couple of strings broken...
 
From the Natural News 10.27.2016

As reported by Top Right News and other outlets, during a recent interview with Bloomberg News, Soros – a Democrat mega-donor – openly admitted that Trump will win the popular vote in a "landslide."

However, he said that none of that would matter, because a President Hillary Clinton is already a "done deal."

In the interview, which is now going viral, Soros says with certainty that Trump will take the popular vote, despite what the polls say now (which are completely rigged to oversample Democrats), but not the Electoral College, which will go to Clinton.

When the reporter asks if that is already a "done deal" – that Clinton will be our next president no matter what – Soros says "yes," and nods his head.

Is Soros just making a prediction out of overconfidence? Or does he truly know something most of us don't know?

In a recent column, Natural News founder and editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, says that Soros and Democrats have "bribed electoral college representatives" in a bid to "fix" the election outcome in favor of Clinton. In truth, that would be the only way it could be done, short of massive voter fraud through electronic balloting, as some reports have already claimed.

Adams further pointed out that Soros was one of the main money men behind the Black Lives Matter movement, which is being blamed for generating hatred and mistrust of police officers all around the country – some of which has led to the deaths of several officers already.

Soros also funds left-wing websites and groups that locate, pay and deploy volunteer "agitators" at Trump rallies, to start fights and engage in physical violence against Trump supporters (acts that the establishment media then blames on Trump).

But aren't electors legally obligated to cast a ballot for the presidential candidate who won the majority vote in that elector's district? No, they're not.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/055789_George_Soros_Hillary_Clinton_electoral_college.html#ixzz4OPBocVb5
 
Well, well, well.

Looks like someone got word that the fbi is investigating hitlery again, and some folks have cancelled a lot of his scheduled events polling for the hill.

Who could it be?

Take a look at my screenshots earlier and compare

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=45780
 
CaddmannQ said:
From the Natural News 10.27.2016

As reported by Top Right News and other outlets, during a recent interview with Bloomberg News, Soros – a Democrat mega-donor – openly admitted that Trump will win the popular vote in a "landslide."

However, he said that none of that would matter, because a President Hillary Clinton is already a "done deal."

In the interview, which is now going viral, Soros says with certainty that Trump will take the popular vote, despite what the polls say now (which are completely rigged to oversample Democrats), but not the Electoral College, which will go to Clinton.

When the reporter asks if that is already a "done deal" – that Clinton will be our next president no matter what – Soros says "yes," and nods his head.

Is Soros just making a prediction out of overconfidence? Or does he truly know something most of us don't know?

In a recent column, Natural News founder and editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, says that Soros and Democrats have "bribed electoral college representatives" in a bid to "fix" the election outcome in favor of Clinton. In truth, that would be the only way it could be done, short of massive voter fraud through electronic balloting, as some reports have already claimed.

Adams further pointed out that Soros was one of the main money men behind the Black Lives Matter movement, which is being blamed for generating hatred and mistrust of police officers all around the country – some of which has led to the deaths of several officers already.

Soros also funds left-wing websites and groups that locate, pay and deploy volunteer "agitators" at Trump rallies, to start fights and engage in physical violence against Trump supporters (acts that the establishment media then blames on Trump).

But aren't electors legally obligated to cast a ballot for the presidential candidate who won the majority vote in that elector's district? No, they're not.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/055789_George_Soros_Hillary_Clinton_electoral_college.html#ixzz4OPBocVb5
Click to expand...
Someone please educate me....

I have a question. I'm not so up to speed with all the ins and outs of your electoral system.

How is it possible for a candidate to win the "popular" vote of the public but that doesn't win them the presidency?

I find this terribly confusing and actually very unsettling......
 
Some electors represent more voters than others. Some must vote as their state voted, others do not. Some states give electors proportional to the state election results. Some have a winner-take-all system.

This means that a large State like California could send all 55 of its representatives to vote for Hillary Clinton even if she only got 51% of the popular vote here in the state.

The rules of other states would give 51% of the electors to Hillary and 49% of the electors to Trump rounded to the nearest reasonable number.

This is not a uniform process from state to state which is why It can come out this way.
 
Last edited:
I had to look this part up.

Except for Maine and Nebraska, all states have chosen electors on a "winner-take-all" basis since the 1880s.
 
CaddmannQ said:
Some electors represent more voters than others. Some must vote as their state voted, others do not. Some states give electors proportional to the state election results. Some have a winner-take-all system.

This means that a large State like California could send all 55 of its representatives to vote for Hillary Clinton even if she only got 51% of the popular vote here in the state.

The rules of other states would give 51% of the electors to Hillary and 49% of the electors to Trump rounded to the nearest reasonable number.

This is not a uniform process from state to state which is why It can come out this way.
Click to expand...
Makes a bit more sense now, but I didn't realize not all states had the same rules for federal elections...that seems kind of odd. You'd think they'd want uniformity across all states in something as important as that wouldn't you?

The other part I still don't understand though....bear with me here...let me give a hypothetical outcome.

Let's say Trump had 55% of the popular vote from the citizens...are you saying that if the electoral colleges were slanted in favor of Hitlery(bought off...whatever the case) that the will of the people can be overridden? If this is the case, I'm totally baffled how that can be considered democratic.

However, our electoral system has some weird wrinkles too. I don't know why it isn't more straight forward. Like dude with 51% or more wins....count the votes and that's it. Done. Democracy served.
 
Hey I forgot about the mugwumps and this brings up an important point.
From Wikipedia;

"Mugwumps were Republican political activists who bolted from the United States Republican Party
. . .They switched parties because they rejected the financial corruption associated with Republican candidate. . ."

Every American school kid used to read this in history class.

Anyhow we're going to have some reverse mugwumps this week, because this AM some more famous Democrats are jumping from the Hillary ship,
 
Thanks @CaddmannQ & @Water Monkey for your responses. Interesting, if not a little confusing still. But I get the gist of it.

Should be very interesting to see how things play out over the next week. If Hitlery loses her popular, big name backers....could be a huge game changer.

It never ceases to amaze me why people listen to the opinion of a celebrity just because of who they are anyway.

Sure, some are well informed and passionate but for the most part they're just whoring out their name for either free publicity or a payday AND free publicity!! Lol...stupid.:jester:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top