Post by Dwayne Wayne MilesJesus, people. Of course the presidents have royal lineage.
Loki, people, there is no 'of course' about this.
Post by Dwayne Wayne MilesBurke's Peerage Book of Genealogy lays it all out and it's the most accurate book
that traces and tracks Royal Lineage in the world. It’s located in the UK but you can
also access the data online. I’ve never seen a more accurate account.
https://www.burkespeerage.com/families.php
Back in the 1990s, Burke's was bought out by a self-promoting charlatan genealogical hack. It is not authoritative.
Post by Dwayne Wayne MilesSo please stop spreading BS on forums if you dont know what you're talking about people.
That is good advise. You might want to consider taking it.
Post by Dwayne Wayne MilesEvery president who sat in the white house since the first elections in America in 1789,
(only during elections) has been the candidate with the most European royal genes or...
the most genes connected to an Aristocratic family of Europe.
This is just plain false, as addressed elsewhere. Thomas Jefferson gained no royal ancestors between when he lost to John Adams in 1796 and when he beat him in 1800 - not only was this not a general pattern, it didn't even survive the first two contested elections. John Quincy Adams did not become less royal between 1824 and 1828, etc. This lie was publicized by Burke's Peerage - that tells you everything you need to know about their reliability.
Post by Dwayne Wayne MilesPres. Bill Clinton for example is genetically related to the house of Windsor, genetically
related to every Scottish Monarch, and to King Henry III and to Robert I of France. But
his wife is not. Ever wonder how she got 3 million more votes than Trump, but still lost.
By losing Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by a minuscule number of votes, in spite of winning California, New York, Massachusetts and Maryland by overwhelming majorities. Scottish monarchs have nothing to do with it.
Post by Dwayne Wayne MilesPresidents (because of the Electoral College) have been installed not voted in.
Not exactly. They have indeed been voted in, only they were voted in by either the electors of the Electoral College or (1800, 1824) by the House of Representatives, the members of which are in turn voted in.
Post by Dwayne Wayne MilesUnless you get rid of the Electoral College system you will never break this cycle.
The Aristocratic families of the East coast of America are obsessed with interbreeding.
Curiously, it was the House of Representatives that sided with the eastern elite's favored candidate in 1824, even though the Electoral College had given a plurality but not a majority in favor of the backwoods hick. All of this conspiracy theorizing aside, there have only been a small number of US elections that could be deemed as manipulated in a manner not envisioned by the Constitution, in which I would count 1800, 1824, 1876 and 2000. In the original Constitution, each electors had two votes and the person who got the most overall would be President, he who received the second-most Vice President, but it had naively not anticipated the emergence of political parties, and in 1800 every pro-Jefferson elector would also vote for this VP-candidate-designate, so the two ended up with the same number of electoral votes, the VP-designate decided there was no reason he should not be President and did not yield, and much backroom chaos (and eventually the most famous duel in American history other than the Shootout at the OK Corral) ensued. In 1876, there was dispute over the status of one elector from one state (a partisan Governor declared one winning elector to have been ineligible and appointed an elector of the opposite party, which would have swung the majority in the opposite direction. This required an Electoral Commission to sort out and they reached a despicable compromise - they ratified the unsubstituted electoral panel, in exchange for the winner removing all of the post-Civil War strictures that ensured the vote to freed slaves, and as a consequence, African-Americans were disenfranchised, initially throughout the south but later in much of the nation for the next 9 decades. Finally (or perhaps not) in 2000 the candidate who rightly won a majority of states' electors did not become president, because the Supreme Court terminated a recount at an incomplete stage, such that the winner was not the person eventually found to have won the most votes in that state. I am not seeing a pattern here of manipulation by 'the eastern elite' to seat a given president, and in particular in 1876, elections for the next 4-score and more years were distorted at the cost of _not_ having their man as president in this one election.
taf
