Alexander Hamilton Has Been Proven Wrong

Alex Hamilton: The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest -- That which is best administered is best...

-- yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration. The Federalist Papers #68, March 12, 1788.

Thom Hartmann: Alexander Hamilton thought he (and the others who wrote the Constitution) had it all figured out. He and his colleagues never imagined that a group of billionaires would spend 43 years and billions of dollars to seize the US Supreme Court, which would then legalize political bribery.

They never conceived of a foreign billionaire family coming to American and building a nationwide media ecosystem that was capable of convincing Americans that up was down, wrong was right, and a convicted fraudster and rapist would be a noble president.

Without billionaire-controlled media (including billionaire-owned social media) and billions spent to carpet-bomb America with extraordinarily deceptive advertising, Donald Trump would never have had a chance.

Deranged Capitol Rioters Need To Be Held Accountable Despite The Failure Of Their Attempted Coup

The pro-Dotard blogger Minus FJ argues that they don't need to be held accountable. Because insurection isn't insurection if your coup fails.


The rioters were deranged and they were trying to overthrow the government. Five people died, yet Minus downplays what happened by (abssurdly) referring to the rioters as LARPers. The reason is that he doesn't want anything to be done about ANY of it. The false "election fraud" claims or the violence.

The reason? The following two comments lay it out.

Glenn Kirschner on the 1/29/21 airing of the Stephanie Miller Show...

"An Attempted Coup without accountability is nothing more than a trial run".

Thom Hartmann on the 1/29/21 airing of his eponymous program...

"If you look at how national political cults get destroyed, look at the end of WWII and Germany and Japan. The cult of Tojoism and Nazism... those cults were destroyed when the people (who engaged in the atrocities based on their belief in those cults) were prosecuted. That took down the cult.

So, one of two things is going to happen... either the Biden Administration is going to hold these people accountable, including the legislators who were there... Mo Brooks, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, who were whipping this thing up... and Donald tRump. And the people who went into the Capitol building. Either they hold them accountable and prosecute them and bring down this movement. Or January 6th was a rehersal and you're going to see it play out again in four years. It's probably not going to be tRump. It's going to be Tom Cotton or Josh Hawley.

Orange Shift

At their best, provisional ballots provide voters who would otherwise be turned away from the polls to have their votes counted, but at their worst, the offer of a provisional ballot can be "a way to brush off troublesome voters by letting them think they have voted". It is possible for parties to force certain voters to cast provisional ballots so they can suppress the vote total of an opponent being counted on election night. (Source).

The following is an excerpt from the 11/11/2016 airing of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program (edited for brevity and clarity by me).

Thom Hartmann: Yesterday I said I was going to share these exit poll results with you, but I couldn't verify them. I've now seen them from 3 different sources. ... this came from CNN and is available through tdmsresearch.com (Exit Polls and Computerized Vote Counts.

What they're pointing out is that, in North Carolina, according to the exit polls, Hillary Clinton won by 2%. But according to the official count? Donald Trump won by 3.8% [5.8% swing]. How does that happen? How so you get that much of a swing, which probably swung the Senate race as well.

In Pennsylvania, the exit polls showed that Hillary Clinton won by 4.4%, and presumably the down ticket Democrats [won by a similar margin per the exit polls]. Yet the official count was that Donald Trump won by 1.1% [5.5% swing]. In Wisconsin, the exit polls showed that Hillary Clinton won by 3.9%. Yet the official count says Donald Trump won by 9/10th of a percent [aproximate 4% swing]. In Florida the exit polls showed that Hillary Clinton won by 1.4%. Yet the official count showed that Donald Trump won by 1.3% [2.7% swing].

If those four states had gone the way of the exit polls - North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida - Hillary Clinton would be president, and Democrats would control the Senate. A number of people are saying this is proof the voting machines are rigged. I think that the exit polls were probably right.

The Republicans for 40 years now -- this goes back to Paul Weyrich - have been pushing this idea that there's voter fraud out there, and therefore we need to take people off the voting rolls because they might fradulently vote. [Kansas Secretary of State] Kris Kobach has this list of roughly 7 million people, the Interstate Crosscheck, well funded by petro-billionaires. And he's got some 30-odd Republican controlled states working with him to throw people off the voting rolls [actual number of states that use the Interstate Crosscheck is 27].

As Greg Palast laid out here [on the program when he was a guest last week]. It's mostly people with common names. You get a "Jim Washington" in Wisconsin and a "James Washington" in Florida. According to Kris Kobach they're the same person. So take them both off the voter rolls. It's somebody trying to commit voter fraud.

When, in fact, it's just a common name among African Americans. Last names of "Hernandez", "Kim" or "Park". Ethnic names are among the most common now in the United States. As opposed to the old Anglo-Saxon ethnic names like "Smith" and "Jones". They are still common, but not like this.

People went in and thought they voted. But they weren't on the voter rolls and were given a provisional ballot which never got counted. Which swung an election. Like in North Carolina, but 5.8 points.