Will Trump Fundamentally Change the US Constitution?

Is the American Constitution Obsolete?

During his tenure as President – assuming he closes the deal on January 20th without incident – do you think that a President Trump will change the Constitution in a fundamental way? While walking home tonight, I was thinking about him and about that. I wondered whether, seriously, the species known as humanity has taken a turn, and whether the United States specifically has had a sudden change that will catapult us from the world the founding fathers envisioned to a different  and new one that will be applicable for the next 300 years. I wondered if “change” occurs spontaneously after a specific time span whether we are ready for it or not.

Cause a lot of stuff in the constitution is old and rotten and inapplicable, I think. And I think Trump thinks so too. And he is going to encourage serious and deep and radical change. He is going to just do a gut rehab. And nobody is going to be able to stop him. They may not even want to.

He will change amendments and actual articles. He will modify a lot of things. The First and Fourteenth Amendments for sure will get torched by this guy. But even articles like the Article II that applies to the presidency will be edited, I think. And maybe it needs to be. Because we do not live in the same world the founding fathers lived in. We don’t even live in a world they envisioned. They did not envision this world. They did not envision the Internet, for one thing. They certainly did not envision a woman being president. They did not envision  a guy like Trump. I think they also did not properly analyze the electoral college and things like that.

Trump probably won’t touch the electoral college bit. But a lot of other things, I think, will be added and cut out under this president. And frankly, I think maybe the time has come to do exactly that. I think maybe the whole document is obsolete. It’s like the Bible for Christians or Koran or Torah. Is it reasonable for people to abide, word for word, by what these documents written 2000 year ago say? I think anyone who has read these documents in totality will say the notion is absurd at best.

I think the same is true with the Constitution.

I think it is absurd how we are still governed by this document which, frankly, is inapplicable to our lives today. At least in part. I think a lot of it needs to be changed. Or maybe we need a whole new Constitution.

Do you agree?

How Does a Person Become Secretary of State of the United States, Kellyanne Conway?

Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s former campaign manager and current “senior advisor” has been having a public kinnipfit over the very notion that Mitt Romney could be appointed “Secretary of State” by president elect Trump. This is unusual by all accounts and some have wondered whether Kellyanne is just jealous or whether she is part of a coordinated take down/public humiliation (along with Mr Trump himself) of Mitt Romney – a retaliation for the take down Mr Romney did of Mr Trump during the presidential campaign.

Kellyanne’s beef with Romney seems to be that he is not “loyal” to Mr Trump. Well, I agree with her in part. I also think Mitt was very…I don’t even know if the word is “loyal” at this point because there has to be a certain type of relationship in the first place where loyalty can be expected in the second. And I don’t think Trump and Mitt had such a relationship. But Mitt did throw Trump under the bus when Trump was in need of friends. And had this been a different situation or a different guy, this hurl and toss would have been fatal.

Didn’t work on Trump, as we can all discern.

My big thing is, what in the world would possess Trump to summon Mitt to Bedminister to discuss the most important job in his cabinet after what Mitt did to Trump? It is not even about loyalty. Because LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT, KELLYANNE, IS NOT A JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE JOB OF SECRETARY OF STATE.

Indeed, from John Jay to John Kerry it looks like the United States has had 68 individuals who have had the title of “Secretary of State.” The list includes the likes of people like Madeleine Albright, Warren Christopher, Alexander Haig, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton. Did any of these people get their jobs because of “loyalty” to the president who appointed them? Well, look, maybe as a threshold matter, they did. I don’t think any president appointed any of these people if he did not think that at the threshold, this person would be loyal to him. But it is so much more, Kellyanne, than just that and you should make a wider argument, not so much against Mitt but for some other candidate.

And please, let it not be Rudy Giuliani because while he was arguably loyal to Trump, I am not fully persuaded that he possesses the requisite characteristics essential to the job. First of all, he is not an expert on Foreign Relations.

How does a person become Secretary of State? According to this article I just read:

In the United States, it’s a political and public office held by a representative of the people, who is also an expert on foreign relations. Technically, if you take a look at the position of the Secretary of State, the person holding the position is the highest ranking member of the cabinet and the 3rd ranked in the hierarchy pyramid following the President and the Vice-
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-to-become-a-secretary-of-state.html

Emphasis, I think, should be given to the parts about “expert on foreign relations” and “representative of the people.” In other words, the person who holds this job should be more concerned about being loyal to the American people than to being loyal to the president who appoints him or her. And he or she must,  a threshold matter, be an expert in foreign relations.

Rudy Giuliani is neither of those things.

What are the duties of the Secretary of State? According to this website, the duties of the secretary of state include the following:

Serves as the President’s principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;

  • Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
  • Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
  • Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
  • Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
  • Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
  • Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
  • Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
  • Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
  • Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
  • Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
  • Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
  • Administers the Department of State;
  • Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

Nothing in this bit goes to this issue of loyalty to the president, btw. It seems more about advising the president (in an objective fashion impliedly) and negotiating deals and ensuring the best interest of the United States in international affairs. Again, I don’t think Rudy is the best qualified here. His loyalty to the president is commendable but he does not possess the right CV for this post.

So what is my point? I guess I am saying that Kellyanne is jealous and she wants the job for herself. And really, if he could consider giving it to two unqualified men, he can also give it to Kellyanne even though she is also unqualified, and in spite of the fact that she is a woman – cause at least she speaks well.


My money is still on Trump picking a stunner like Bernie Sanders. (But is Bernie technically qualified? I leave it to ya’all to decide.)

American Voters Should Demand a Recall of the Election NOW. Recall & Redo!

I have had enough. I think American voters need to take control and demand a little bit of respect. We have 3 presidential candidates playing around with our emotions and it is unacceptable. Who won this darn election? We have one woman who won about 1 percent of the votes saying there was fraud. We have a guy who won 306 electoral votes out of a total of 538 votes saying he is the president elect and we have a woman who won the majority of popular votes by phocking 2.2 million people who did not win and who is backing a recount by a woman (she is backing the recount, not fronting it!) who won 1 percent of the vote. Added to that, the guy who actually won says there was massive voter fraud in 3 major states! Millions of votes were fake, he says. MILLIONS!

This is not funny.

This is not acceptable.

This is not right.

This is not fair to American voters.

We need to take control. We need a redo of this mess. We need this election recalled and we need a redo and we need assurances and controls put in place to prove that the second go at it will be legit.

Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, they need to extend President Obama’s presidency to another 4 years.


I’m. done.

What. About. You?

“Une Grave Fraude” Even In France, “Serious Fraud” and American Elections Used in Same Breath

https://fr.news.yahoo.com/trump-d%C3%A9nonce-fraude-millions-d%C3%A9lecteurs-060348097.html  grave fraude” électorale le 8 novembre, affirmant sans en apporter la preuve que des “millions de gens” avaient voté “illégalement” au scrutin qu’il a remporté contre Hillary Clinton.

Le républicain a largement gagné la présidentielle américaine en empochant au scrutin universel indirect 290 grands électeurs, contre 232 à sa rivale démocrate. En revanche, en termes de suffrage populaire, Hillary Clinton a recueilli 2,2 millions de voix de plus que Donald Trump.

I mean, everybody is listening to this and watching this American election spectacle. How can anyone take us seriously? We have to redo this election. Or something. Something has to be done to restore the global confidence in the American election system. Because when even the president elect is saying there was a big fraud that took place, I mean….

Poor Mitt Romney. Trump Probably Had Him Go to Bedminister Just To Make Him Drop To His Knees

I am blushing. And that is hard to do when you are chocolate-skinned like I. I feel bad for Mitt Romney. Trump may have set him up to look like a twerk. Giggle, giggle. OMG. Can you imagine if instead of ordering Mitt to “drop to your knees” Trump had told Mitt to “Get down and twerk?”

For heaven’s sakes. This election has corrupted me.

But anyways, do ya’all think Trump is gonna choose Mitt or Rudy?

Me? I hope neither one. They are both opportunists. Rudy is not all he is cracked up to be and I think Trump knows that which is why this debate is even occurring in the first place. Trump knows something about Rudy and this thing makes him hesitate.

Moreover, Trump only seems to be listening to Kellyanne and Newt and everybody else. He knows what he is doing and he knows who he wants to pick. He is using them to create drama and controversy and this way, when he makes a pick, we can all blame the dramatists. He is shifting blame so he can do what he really wants.

In his head what does he really want? I will tell you. I understand this man and can read him to my great amusement, like a book. He really wants his son in law Jared Kushner. He just doesn’t know how to do it so it looks kosher. So he creates this controversy with the two top pick and Mitt was thrown in for good measure for the added pleasure Trump will get out of watching him twerk and then say, “you didn’t go low enough, Mitt, sorry.”

So he wants Jared. But he is not sure how he can pull it off with all the rules. He drops hints about Jared being able to broker peace in the Middle East. I mean, Jared is young and glamorous and attractive etc; but “broker peace in the Middle East?” on what is Trump basing this astonishing claim? The boy has no experience with brokering peace! But Trump is just dropping hints. He is just trying to see how to do what he wants to do.

Ultimately he may determine that what he wants is not possible. And he will probably have to pick one of those….individuals….

Me? If I were him, I would go for a stunner. I would not even ask anybody’s opinion, I would not even tell Ivanka. I would just wake up, call the person, offer the job (just about anybody he calls will say yes) and then announce it. And it will be a stunner. I would go for a stunner. Somebody completely unexpected.

…..this is for you directly Trumpy…if you go with Bernie Sanders, and you then get all his people on your team, can you imagine that paying any dividends down the road?

What about if you go with Elizabeth Warren?

….Me? I think you should be looking to do something stunning like that. But hey. That’s just me. Nobody ever listens to me. Nobody, except for Donald Trump!

I think the 2016 Election Results Should Be Invalidated by Referendum (updated)

I think we need a referendum. The people need to vote to say whether the 2016 election results should be tossed out and for the country to revote. Too many doubts about the integrity of the results. The latest comes from the President elect himself. Trump just came out and said on Twitter that he actually won the popular vote!  According to the records, he did not. Hillary won by 2.2 million votes. To me, an astonishing advantage especially considering that she lost the presidency.

2.2 million. And she lost. WTF?

But now Trump says she did not win 2.2 million more votes than he did. He said that those 2.2 million were due to voter fraud! This means illegal alieans, dead people etcetera that voted illegally giving her the popular vote advantage in states like California, New York and, I guess, New York where she won big.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein have asked for a recount in states Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania where Trump won. These are swing states that historically have gone either Democratic or Republican but some have not voted Republican since the 1980s. And Trump won them by a combined 107,000 votes or something like that. Not by a lot in raw numbers but the margins are historically bigger than any candidate has overcome in a recount. So experts are saying even if you recount, Hillary still can’t win.

Still, Trump is riled up by the request for a recount and he is now on the defensive.

Apparently no sitting president has ever suggested that the election results were fraudulent. This is very serious stuff. It is not funny at all. If Trump is serious about what he said, action needs to be taken immediately to invalidate this election.

I think this calls for some kind of serious investigation. Because if America’s election system is a mess, if we can’t trust the integrity of the American election system, what is going to happen around the rest of the world? Can we ever really go into any other country to “monitor” elections? Do we have any credibility left after the 2016 election?

Both candidates are expressly or impliedly saying that the system was subject to fraud!

We need to invalidate this election!

And do it over!

I think it calls for a referendum. It was by referendum that the British people voted for BREXIT, btw.

Is there any precedence in American law for a political referendum? Could it legally occur whereby we vote by referendum to redo our election???



So I did a quick wikipedia search on referendum under American law. And yes, this happens all the time in certain states! You can “recall” an election! By referendum! Never happened on the federal level, I don’t think but happens all the time on the state level. The following is from Wikipedia:

Recall first appeared in Colonial America in the laws of the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1631.[4] This version of the recall involved one elected body removing another official. During the American Revolution the Articles of Confederation stipulated that state legislatures might recall delegates from the continental congress.[5] According to New York Delegate John Lansing, the power was never exercised by any state. The Virginia Plan, issued at the outset of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, proposed to pair recall with rotation in office and to apply these dual principles to the lower house of the national legislature. The recall was rejected by the Constitutional Convention. However, the anti-Federalists used the lack of recall provision as a weapon in the ratification debates.
Several states proposed adopting a recall for US senators in the years immediately following the adoption of the Constitution. However, it did not pass.
Only two governors have ever been successfully recalled. In 1921, Governor Lynn Frazier of North Dakota, was recalled during a dispute about state-owned industries. In 2003, Governor Gray Davis of California was recalled over the state budget. In 2012, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin became the first US governor to survive a recall election.[6] Additionally, in 1988, a recall was approved against Governor Evan Mecham of Arizona,[7] but he was impeached and convicted before it got on the ballot.[8]
In Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, and Washington, specific grounds are required for a recall. Some form of malfeasance or misconduct while in office must be identified by the petitioners. The target may choose to dispute the validity of the grounds in court, and a court then judges whether the allegations in the petition rise to a level where a recall is necessary. In the November 2010 general election, Illinois passed a referendum to amend the state constitution to allow a recall of the state’s governor, in light of former Governor Rod Blagojevich’s corruption scandal. In the other eleven states that permit statewide recall, no grounds are required and recall petitions may be circulated for any reason. However, the target is permitted to submit responses to the stated reasons for recall.
The minimum number of signatures and the time limit to qualify a recall vary among the states. In addition, the handling of recalls once they qualify differs. In some states, a recall triggers a simultaneous special election, where the vote on the recall, as well as the vote on the replacement if the recall succeeds, are on the same ballot. In the 2003 California recall election, over 100 candidates appeared on the replacement portion of the ballot. In other states, a separate special election is held after the target is recalled, or a replacement is appointed by the Governor or some other state authority.

I think there is serious enough grounds here, URGENT GROUNDS, to recall this federal election immediately and redo it. Both Trump and Hillary and Jill Stein have made very disturbing explicit or implicit charges against the election results. Voters in America can start a petition and demand a redo of this election by REFERENDUM.

What if Trump is Really a Russian Spy?

I just had a very peppery dinner and I walked away from the table thinking “what if Trump is really a Russian spy?”

I am not even sure if it is appropriate to ponder something like this. Could I get into trouble? For asking this? I know I have to do a better job at self censorship. I am very adolescent in my behavior sometimes. On one level, I know what I say is probably inappropriate but on the other level I am utterly unable to stop some of these outlandish and outrageous utterances. But yea. It is a question. Have you ever wondered? If he is really a spy working for the KGB?

I mean, is the KGB still a thing?

Will Trump’s Presidency Destroy the European Union Once & For All?

Brexit was the first jolt. Then came the election of  Donald Trump as the President of the United States. What will be the third strike against Europe – the EU – as we know it?

Trump seems more inclined to team up with Putin. Putin is not exactly bff with the EU. Trump and Putin are locked in the ultimate “game.” Trump has sealed his fate with the way he ran the election. For sur there will be a Trump Tower in Moscow. But that is only the beginning. Game theorists are putting on their bullet proof vests – just in case. Trump is definitely going to be more loyal to Russia than he is to the EU.

Together, these two men will rule the world. Assad will be restored to power – for certain. NATO is a question mark, as is the UN.  This is just for starters.  Will they stabilize the Middle East? Will they eradicate terrorism?

In France, almost surely a “conservative” candidate will be elected in 2017. Nationalism will rise just like in England, America, Germany, Austria and others. Foreigners, immigrants, minorities and “others” will be even more excluded from mainstream privileges than ever.

Could Europe wind up in conflict with either America or Russia? What role will China play?

What happens when Trump and Putin are done with their stint? Where are we? What kind of world will we have become? Better? Worse?

Will the EU become a historical relic?

Mitt Romney and Donald Trump Would Make the Strangest of Bedfellows

Politics make strange bedfellow alright. But how strange does it have to get? I can see how Trump could appoint Ben Carson for Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development agency.  I mean, it’s strange. But I can understand the pressure he felt to prove something with Ben. I can’t see how he kicked Chris Christie (whom I don’t respect very much but who nevertheless was the first “serious” person to come out and publicly support Trump’s candidacy) to the curb – in spite of the fact that Chris on a few occasions attempted to throw Trump under the bus – and turn around and seriously consider Newt Gingrich for the job of Secretary of State.  Oops did I say Newt Gingrich? I meant whatshisface. Mitt Romney.

But then again, I believe that sometimes it is worse to pretend to be a friend and then try to throw me under the bus than to be open and notorious from the beginning and let it be known that you are not my friend. Romney never lied to Trump. Christie did. Trying to throw Trump under the bus was tantamount to a lie and this is worse in my book when your “friend” does that than when a stranger does. Traitors are the worse of the bad.

But. Mitt is not that interesting that Trump should go all out to hire him for the biggest cabinet post. This is taking the strange bedfellows thing too darn far. I mean, I don’t think Rudy Giuliani should get the job either. But Mitt? Nah. I don’t think so.

Even Jeb would be better because Jeb never took down Trump the way Mitt did. Marco Rubio is easily the most annoying politician who ever lived but even he is better than Mitt. I hope Trump does not subject me to Ted Cruz for anything. Please, Mr Trump.

I think he should do something utterly unforeseeable with the Secretary of State gig. He should create a thing with that. He should go out of the box with it. Choose somebody totally unforeseen.

Like who? Well, I suggested Elizabeth Warren. Or maybe even Kellyanne. Or his son in law. Or Jeb Bush.

I think Mitt is the worst idea. But Trump may have his machiavellian reasons.

Seriously, Does Jill Stein Have Standing to Ask for a Recount?

I just read on a Cornell University Website about “standing”:


Standing, or locus standi, is capacity of a party to bring suit in court. State laws define standing. At the heart of these statutes is the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.
At the Federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy). Only those with enough direct stake in an action or law have “standing” to challenge it. A decision that a party does not have sufficient stake to sue will commonly be put in terms of the party’s lacking “standing”. For Supreme Court decisions focusing on the “standing” issue, see, e.g., County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), Northeastern Fla. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993) and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).

And I wondered if Jill Stein can successfully argue that she has sustained a “direct injury” or “harm” that is “redressable?”  I mean, I don’t know. I think it is a legitimate question.  Or it certainly would have been if the request had been refused.

Having standing is a very specific thing by law. You can’t just sue or make demands if you don’t have standing. Now, of course, she did not petition the court. She petitioned the Board of Elections, I guess. Or the State. Who does she ask for this recount?  Is it mandatory or optional? Do they have to give it to her? I think not. I think it is optional. But they have already indicated it will go forward. And can Trump then go to court and challenge this decision? On the grounds of standing?

The trouble seems to be that they have to complete it by December 13th otherwise there is a risk that the Wisconsin electoral votes will not get counted. That could benefit Hillary but only if she is able to get Michigan and Pennsylvania votes cancelled as well. And she cannot. Unless she moves ahead of Jill Stein to demand a recount that has to be completed by December 13th. If  for any reason it is not or cannot, she can move to have these electoral votes excluded.

Of course these state electors would have the right to object. They could go to the Congress. But it definitely would be an issue if they have not sorted this out by December 13th.

Maybe it is worth is for Hillary to usurp Stein and request recounts in these other states as well.

Trump would have done exactly that.

Does he have standing to say that all these recounts are harming him? That is the question.

What Happens if the Election Recount and Challenges Takes Longer than January 20th?

The Green Party is going full speed ahead with their recount demand. No confirmation if Trump will challenge Jill Stein’s standing but rumor has it that he will this Monday. Meanwhile, the Green party says that it is “not about the outcome, it is about the process.” Is this enough to give her standing? Is she harmed by the process insofar as her candidacy? Or is she only harmed by the outcome which clearly would not affect her candidacy under the particular set of facts of this election?

Be that all as it may, what if this mess takes longer than January 20th to clear up? What happens? Do we prolong Obama’s presidency? Or do we carry on without a president? And for how long?

I was just glancing at the Constitution and it says that Congress is empowered to designate an “Officer” in the event that the “President” cannot discharge his duties due to death, incapacity, resignation, etc.”

It is silent on the specific scenario that would exist if this thing goes beyond January 20th. If the unthinkable happens, though, what do you think the current Congress would do? Which officer would they appoint?

Could Trump Still “Lose” the Presidency and Not Get Sworn In?

Is there any precedence for an American president winning the presidential election but not getting sworn in as president? Or is this an oxymoron? Can you say you are the president prior to taking the oath? I think not. He is not president yet. Indeed, as President Obama said “we can only have one president at a time.” I am not sure that the Constitution says that explicitly but in practice it would seem logical that we can only have one president at a time. (Isn’t it fascinating how many new questions have been posed of this Constitution due to Trump’s unprecedented run?!)

But yea. I don’t think you can say you are president, even after the electoral college submits its votes on December 18th or whenever it is, until you actually take the oath. Nobody is president until they take that oath! Isn’t this insane?

In this case, the oath is nearly a month away. There are actually about 54 days actually. 3 in November, 31 in December and 20 in January. So we are talking about 54 days left for just about anything to go wrong. It is an eternity, in fact. He could still lose. Because technically this election is still active. It is still going on. When you consider that ballots are still being counted in some places and a recount is going to happen, this is still an active investigation election! Anything could happen!

I think Trump should halt his cabinet picks till everything has been definitively concluded.

…………………………………………………….well, I just pulled out the Constitution and yes, it explicitly says “a” president. So that is singular. We can only have one at a time. And then the electors shall select from “two persons.” So that answers that.

Interestingly, Article 2 of the US Constitution also uses the word “he” when referring to the president. “He Shall hold his office during the term of four years…”

Think maybe we are going to need to amend that at some point you guys?

In Theory Trump Can Run the Country From Trump Tower. He Doesn’t Have to Move to DC

Guess what? The Constitution of the United States, to my knowledge, does not require the president of the Republic to reside at the White House in Washington DC. To my knowledge, eh? Everybody knows that I don’t “know” much. So don’t quote me. But I believe I am right on this. He is not required to live in Washington and he is not required to occupy the White House. If Melania has her way, neither she nor Barron – Trump’s youngest boy – will move there.

Should they be forced to?

The framers of the Constitution certainly did not anticipate the changes in technology that exist in our era that would allow a president to telecommute. But this is the reality of our era. Trump, or any president, can run the country from anywhere in America or even in the world!

Think about that. Think long and hard about that.

He also can continue to run his business empire and he has said as much to the New York Times.

It is conceivable that after Trump, the White House could become a tourist attraction open to the public as a museum. It is totally conceivable that Michelle and Barack Obama will be the last US presidents who ever lived in the White House. That would be pretty ironic on a whole lot of different levels. It would be saying something both expressly and impliedly.

But yea.

Trump is not required to live there and I doubt very much that he will for very long.

Jill Stein Explains Herself

I just listened to this video where Jill Stein explains her motivation for demanding a recount. She explained that she is not looking to overthrow Donald Trump. She just wants to make the point that in our democratic system of government, voters have a reasonable right to expect their voting system is trustworthy and reliable and accurate and they should not have to feel shrouded in doubt about the whole system or even to ask for verification.

I can respect that, actually. And I think for anyone to say there isn’t reasonable doubt here would be disingenuous. Trump told us in no uncertain terms that the system is rigged. He told us repeatedly. If he had lost but won 2 million popular votes, I think the country would have already been up in flames because he would have said the system is rigged and thus not reliable.

So let’s have a verification. Let’s recount in these states and depending on what happens, maybe in a few others.

Of course, if there is a problem, now we are looking an even bigger question: WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT? Do we have people revote in those states? Do we decide not to count the votes in those states? Do we say let Trump be president anyway just for peace? Do we allow Hillary to take the crown?

I mean, we all have to hope and pray that the results remain unchanged because I think anything else will lead to something very bad. At the same time, I think it is a disservice to ourselves to allow fear to stop us from verifying this election in these states and it is experts who wrote that initial article in New York Magazine who urged Hillary to demand a recount – of course she declined – which then led to Jill Stein picking up the mantle.

On another note, I never knew Jill Stein but now I do with this one simple gesture. This could be political genius what she has done for herself. She has thrust herself and her campaign into the national spotlight. If she plays her cards right, she could do amazing good for her campaign and her party in the future. She has put her party on the map. She needs to use this opportunity to sell their brand, I think.

But yea. The more this takes on life, the more I agree that the recount needs to happen no matter what.

Trump’s Legal Team to Move to Block Jill Stein on Monday

Using the argument that Jill Stein lacks standing to demand a recount since even with a recount she CANNOT even come close to probably winning and thus was not prejudiced in any way, the Trump campaign will seek an injunction to stop this “farce of a recount.”

Can they prevail in a court of law?

We will just have to wait and see. But Hillary definitely has standing so she may have to push forward on her own.  That would be ironic to say the least.

Trump Weighs in on Jill Stein’s Recount Demands: “This is a SCAM”!

Joe my god.
I thought Trump would be cool with this and humor Ms Stein but it seems not. She is on the verge of incurring his wrath.  He issued a statement today saying that it was all a scam, a way for Ms Stein to fill her coffers with money she had no intention of even using on this “ridiculous recount.”

Well, OK.

I am going to just be mum on this and let the chips fall where they may.