Youre not just imagining it: the Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump vote totals do look rigged

[bigmonkey]

37. She wanted to "preserve confidence in the system".

My quotes, I'm not quoting her. I've been thinking about this at least since 2004. It first became an issue for me when I saw Bev Harris, who later became crackpotty, demonstrate to Howard Dean how easy it was at that time to alter election results. Nothing came of it, and he's no dummy, and was in charge of the DNC then. Her later crackpot status doesn't obviate the validity of that demonstration.

Since then, the question is, how come the Democrats never bring this up at a high level? My conclusion is that they think that undermining citizen confidence in the system is worse than losing elections. Perhaps they decided to work inconspicuously to improve the situation (they have, somewhat), and lately were hoping that this most recent election was so clearly Clinton's that they could blow by the problem and correct it with a Democratic congress, without letting on how corrupt the election process had been.

About ten years ago I did some research on Smedley Butler, and his investigated, substantiated testimony to Congress that a fascist group had tried to recruit him for a takeover of the U.S. government during FDR's tenure. Even though those hearings definitely took place, and were reported in the papers, the actual Congressional testimony is very difficult of access - minimal, practically suppressed. My take-away from that experience is that when actual subversion is discovered in the U.S., the un-discussed, customary pattern in official circles is to cover it up as much as possible, to (my quotes again) "preserve confidence in the system". This pattern might be repeating itself right now.

Retro-fitting that to the Smedley Butler case, I like to imagine that Roosevelt called a meeting with J.P.Morgan and his co-conspirators, and gave them a choice: support the New Deal, or hang. No need to confront them in public.