Comments by "Perhaps" (@NoEgg4u) on "Don't Walk, Run! Productions"
channel.
-
183
-
64
-
49
-
47
-
34
-
19
-
18
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
6
-
The Electoral College prevents fraud from affecting other states.
So if one corrupt town stuffs their ballot boxes, they could swing the state. But that is it.
If the President was chosen strictly by the popular vote, then every election, we would have recounts everywhere. Absolutely everywhere.
Every court in the land would be inundated with lawsuits.
Remember Bush vs. Gore and the Florida gridlock?
Without the Electoral College, that gridlock would have no bounds.
Did the Democrat win California. Probably. But did California stuff ballot boxes? Probably. Does it change the election results? Unlikely, because California would go Democrat, anyway. But without the Electoral College, those extra, fraudulent ballots in California cause the results of the election to change nation-wide.
One small town, anywhere, would be able to swing the election, if it were based on the popular vote.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@7:28 -- The Florida recount:
Folks, the Electoral College ensures that corruption by a state, or by a county in a state, does not spread beyond that state's borders.
In other words, if the corruption does not get addressed, then it will win the state for the cheaters. But since the popular vote does not count, the winning of the state (albeit bad), will normally not change an election.
Without the Electoral College, a single, corrupt, voting precinct would upset the totals for the nation.
The Electoral College prevents the cheating from affecting the totals for the nation.
Also, as it pertains to Florida.
There were endless court battles. But those court cases were limited to Florida.
Without the Electoral College, then after every election, we would have endless court battles in every local, state, and federal court, from sea to shining sea.
The founding fathers were brilliant.
1
-
@3:56 "In fact, we produced more oil domestically in my first year in office than my predecessor did in his first year"
The question is: Why?
Answer:
In President Trump's first year, he was taking over from President Obama, who was anti-oil. So it took President Trump nearly a year to undo the damage from his predecessor and ramp up domestic oil production.
For President* Biden, he took over from President Trump. So in Biden's first year, the domestic oil production was on blast from the Trump administration. But in the months after President* Biden took office, he killed oil production, leading to what we now have.
Imagine an idiot buying a company from a genius.
It takes time for the idiot to destroy the company. In the first few months that the idiot owns the company, it will still be in great shape form the genius that owned it. But a year or two later, that idiot's mismanagement of the company becomes terminal.
Such is the case of President* Biden's first year, after being handed a booming economy and oil production.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Without the right to keep and bear arms, We The People cannot have a well regulated militia, a well oiled militia, a well dressed militia, a well bathed militia, a well [fill in the blank militia], or an unwell militia, or any militia.
Regardless of how anyone chooses to interpret "well regulated", you can't have that without the right to keep and bear arms.
And radical leftists know that. They simply use any mumbo-jumbo language to attack our right to keep and bear arms.
None of our constitutional freedoms are derived form any government entity.
None of our constitutional freedoms need approval from any government entity.
Yet, radical leftists tell us that the government dictates our Second Amendment freedom. They have that backwards. But with tyrants, it is all about their power, by way of attempting to take away The People's power.
We need our Second Amendment, precisely because of Jamaal Bowman, and like-minded, tyrannical, radical leftists like him.
1