Pafret: based on your reasoning, most of us would not be allowed to drive a car either, because few people actually know all the electronic and engineering intricacies that go into making a car run, nor could they successfully explain how a car engine generates the necessary torque to move the vehicle along. Restricting those on welfare from voting because "they have a vested interest in voting for whoever promises the biggest handout and they "have no skin in the game" - isn't that sort of like "blaming a horse for being a horse?" The majority of people on welfare are NOT on it because they WANT TO BE....ask your friends - I'm sure you know at least a few people on welfare -as I do also. Most of those on welfare are there usually because of some misfortune in their lives, whether it be lacking the necessary skills or education to get work or a disability. So, instead of denying them their constitutional right to vote, would it not be better to create programs that will teach/train them so they can get a job and work and NOT be on welfare? Of course, that is one of the programs Obama created, that your republican brothers shot down. It appears that Republicans are great believers in "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" - but republicans are not willing to give anyone boots or allow them to purchase them from republican owned stores.....if you understand what I mean!

I have advocated competency tests for voters. If the person voting is ignorant of the candidate's policies as stated and of the rudiments of the political process why should they be allowed to vote? In my opinion all voters should have to demonstrate that they know who the candidates are and what are their policies on the issues of the day. I would also deny anyone on welfare, who is not disabled, the vote, because they have a vested interest in voting for whoever promises the biggest handout and they "have no skin in the game". Unfortunately it is unconstitutional to deny the vote to any individual as well as being non-egalitarian.

There was not a problem with Obama and the EC because he won the EC votes deservedly....you know, most qualified, best educated, held public office, good character, etc. Now I do admit that there were problems with the EC 2 other times in history, well before you, I or anyone living today was even born. Your brazen anger is a possible clue to your responses - inside you know that what I wrote is true...and it upsets you. Well, you should be upset....but not with me. Your angst should be for those who so flippantly and disgracefully usurped the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold. Me, and my brothers and sisters in the military did not risk our lives daily (like the millions before us) to see people trounce on the very laws we support and are sworn to protect for ourselves and our families, for you and your family. Your anger seems to include a serious dislike (or lack of understanding) about what is fair, right and equal. Are you one of those who believe only in "white privilege?" Do you not understand that the white man did not build America alone? What would have happened if the Native Indians had told the Pilgrim's "turn your ship around - we don't accept immigrants here?" So far, nearly everything Trump has done has been a sham....he seems bent on repealing or reversing EVERYTHING that Obama did for the country....simply because Obama did it! Wouldn't Trump's time be better served in working with both parties to FIX some of the things Obama was not allowed to (your republican congress tried to block every proposal the man suggested) or could not get too? When will people learn that there will never be peace as long as one group thinks and acts as if they are the only one's who have a say in what should be? <That sir, is the definition of stupidity!

With that being said, "why did the majority of the EC appoint Trump?" He lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million, (of course if we believed his 3-5 million illegal voters that number could be much higher), has never held public office, dropped out of college, 6 bankruptcies, a confirmed adulterer, womanizer, fraud, tax evader, chronic liar, narcissist, racist, misogynist, and accused sexual predator among other accusations. All of this begs the question: "was the EC bribed or blackmailed into appointing Trump?" I find it very difficult to pass on that thought.

Most people, whether Republican or Democrat at least agree that this past election has been unusual to say the least. Filled with the elements of intrigue normally found in a Tom Clancy movie ('Clear and Present Danger' - Hunt for Red October), false accusations, tales of corruption, etc., -there is still a question I have not seen any news on: "Why isn't the EC being investigated?" The EC is charged with 2 main tenets in the Constitution in regards to the presidential election: 1) to affirm the winner of the popular vote, and 2) to appoint the best qualified candidate by means of education, experience, and character. With that being said, "why did the majority of the EC appoint Trump?" He lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million, (of course if we believed his 3-5 million illegal voters that number could be much higher), has never held public office, dropped out of college, 6 bankruptcies, a confirmed adulterer, womanizer, fraud, tax evader, chronic liar, narcissist, racist, misogynist, and accused sexual predator among other accusations. All of this begs the question: "was the EC bribed or blackmailed into appointing Trump?" I find it very difficult to pass on that thought.

You need a course in Civics. The Electoral College does not appoint anyone. their function is to vote for the candidate who received the most votes in their state. This is what makes our nation a Republic and this is why we have a Republican form of government. It is deliberately done this way to prevent rule of the mob (Demos) we are emphatically not a Democracy, we have a democratic form of government ONLY, in that one man or women gets one vote, to exercise or not as they see fit.

The electoral college normally votes for the candidate their fellow statesmen selected. Occasionally there are faithless electors and this is what prompted the barrage of cajolery, pleas, and outright threats of bodily harm, to electors, in an effort to cause them to be faithless.

If you want to rail at anyone, set your sights on all the idiots demonstrating with "Not My President " signs who couldn't be bothered to exercise their franchise and vote for their candidate. They have plenty of time to riot in the streets but wouldn't take an hour to vote.

All of these accusations "a confirmed adulterer, womanizer, fraud, tax evader, chronic liar, narcissist, racist, misogynist, and accused sexual predator among other accusations." are drivel drummed up by Trump's opponents.

In the scales of Justice, both Clinton's corruption, venality, perjury, sexual predations, confirmed adultery and rape, chronic lying, threatening of witnesses in criminal proceedings and treasonous behavior which is proven fact far outweighs any allegation made against Trump . How many times is it recorded and proved that Trump rode the Lolita express with the Clinton's, to Pederast Paradise? It wasn't Trump who was called a liar by the Director of the FBI with regard to her criminal exposure of State Secrets to our enemies.

Your bringing up this ancient refuted bunch of stupid accusations with an additional charge of bribery of Electors is ludicrous. Why don't you claim Trump is an illegal alien, he came from Mars?
It is interesting that three times as many faithless electors failed to vote for Clinton, the damage they attempted to do to Trump rebounded to their detriment.

Most people, whether Republican or Democrat at least agree that this past election has been unusual to say the least. Filled with the elements of intrigue normally found in a Tom Clancy movie ('Clear and Present Danger' - Hunt for Red October), false accusations, tales of corruption, etc., -there is still a question I have not seen any news on: "Why isn't the EC being investigated?" The EC is charged with 2 main tenets in the Constitution in regards to the presidential election: 1) to affirm the winner of the popular vote, and 2) to appoint the best qualified candidate by means of education, experience, and character. With that being said, "why did the majority of the EC appoint Trump?" He lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million, (of course if we believed his 3-5 million illegal voters that number could be much higher), has never held public office, dropped out of college, 6 bankruptcies, a confirmed adulterer, womanizer, fraud, tax evader, chronic liar, narcissist, racist, misogynist, and accused sexual predator among other accusations. All of this begs the question: "was the EC bribed or blackmailed into appointing Trump?" I find it very difficult to pass on that thought.

You need a course in Civics. The Electoral College does not appoint anyone. their function is to vote for the candidate who received the most votes in their state. This is what makes our nation a Republic and this is why we have a Republican form of government. It is deliberately done this way to prevent rule of the mob (Demos) we are emphatically not a Democracy, we have a democratic form of government ONLY, in that one man or women gets one vote, to exercise or not as they see fit.

The electoral college normally votes for the candidate their fellow statesmen selected. Occasionally there are faithless electors and this is what prompted the barrage of cajolery, pleas, and outright threats of bodily harm, to electors, in an effort to cause them to be faithless.

If you want to rail at anyone, set your sights on all the idiots demonstrating with "Not My President " signs who couldn't be bothered to exercise their franchise and vote for their candidate. They have plenty of time to riot in the streets but wouldn't take an hour to vote.

All of these accusations "a confirmed adulterer, womanizer, fraud, tax evader, chronic liar, narcissist, racist, misogynist, and accused sexual predator among other accusations." are drivel drummed up by Trump's opponents.

In the scales of Justice, both Clinton's corruption, venality, perjury, sexual predations, confirmed adultery and rape, chronic lying, threatening of witnesses in criminal proceedings and treasonous behavior which is proven fact far outweighs any allegation made against Trump . How many times is it recorded and proved that Trump rode the Lolita express with the Clinton's, to Pederast Paradise? It wasn't Trump who was called a liar by the Director of the FBI with regard to her criminal exposure of State Secrets to our enemies.

Your bringing up this ancient refuted bunch of stupid accusations with an additional charge of bribery of Electors is ludicrous. Why don't you claim Trump is an illegal alien, he came from Mars?
It is interesting that three times as many faithless electors failed to vote for Clinton, the damage they attempted to do to Trump rebounded to their detriment.

Pafret: It seems that you are the one who needs to dust off the history books! There is unbiased proof of my claims against Trump on the WORLD news DAILY...not just the so-called American "fake news"- that your guy is trying to drown the voices of -like Nixon tried and Hitler did. Where is your proof on Hillary? Not that it matters because Hillary is not president. Yes, the EC stole that from her -despite the will and vote of the people. So, I feel it is a legitimate question: "Did Trump bribe the EC to vote for him?" US Intelligence Agencies (who have never been accused of banding together against one candidate until Trump arrived) confirmed that the Russians hacked our election -with the intent of helping Trump. Trump immediately flip-flops anytime the news is unflattering to him NO MATTER WHO brings the story out -now he's even declaring his favorite FOX News as "fake!" You probably don't know that what Trump is doing with the media is a basic attempt to shut them down to prevent them revealing the TRUTH about what he and others in Washington are up to - and yes, the people have a right to know - the truth. We do not need a Hitler or Mussolini, or Stalin running the country like its their personal right - America has never had a king, and we don't intend to start that process now or in the future. Insulting me is just further proof that either 1) you know that I'm right and it hurts you, or 2) you're not too bright. Either way, the point remains: if your candidate is 'so right' for leading America, why doesn't he ACT like an American president and release his tax returns, and stop insulting every news agency that presents a different viewpoint thaN his, along with the numerous groups, organizations, and people that he is so quick to dump on? Bottom line is: He is a fake president, and most likely a traitor....and he's going down BIGLY.