surfsteve wrote:It's the voting machines and who is in charge of them, the ones that count and total even our paper ballots; that determine who is going to be president. Between Hillary being the most corrupt politician ever to seek office and her threat of a no fly zone in Russia; which would have started WWIII, she could not have been allowed to win. From the massive crowds that attended Trump rallies compared to the handful that Clinton had, to the endless sea of lawn signs for him; it's clear there was virtually no support for Hillary. Had Bernie Sanders run against Trump there would have been a lot more support for him. Especially if he'd had the Clinton machine behind him. Whoever said "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws", never took nuclear Armageddon into consideration nor the depths of corruption that the Clintons were willing to sink to.
Virtually no support for Hillary? She got more total votes than Trump, didn't she? She obviously had a lot of support. It was just concentrated mostly in a handful of states. The states she won, she won big. Trump just squeezed by in the key states that mattered the most. He won, but the popular vote was essentially a tie. If it weren't for the electoral college, she would have won with a popular majority. So don't tell me she had no support! True confession: I voted for Trump. But I'm honest enough to realize that the electoral college made it look like he won by more than was actually the case.