# Election Day and Results



## AWP (Nov 8, 2016)

The race is over, time to discuss election coverage, results (Presidential and other races), fallout, etc.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 8, 2016)

Can't wait!!!!:wall:


----------



## Polar Bear (Nov 8, 2016)

Positive thought for today, it is Taco Tuesday!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 8, 2016)

This morning I was handed an "I voted" sticker and the response of the judge when I said "no thanks" was priceless...he was appalled.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 8, 2016)

Bro, check your area.....its worth a free doughnut.....


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 8, 2016)

After work have a drink for the fallen and call it a day.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 8, 2016)

CLASSIFIED/TOP SECRET

110816/1103HRS 

I'M TYPING THIS FROM MY COMMAND TENT AT A SECRET LOCATION IN THE PONCE DE LEON MOUNTAINS. THE MEN HAVE BEEN BUSY ALL NIGHT DIGGING FORTIFICATIONS AND CLEANING WEAPONS. I HAVE PUT MY EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF LATRINE CONSTRUCTION. AT DAWN I ORDERED A RECON PATROL WHICH HAS JUST RETURNED. SO FAR, NO SIGN OF PRO-HILLARY FORCES, BUT IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME. LARGA VIDA A LA REVOLUCION!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 8, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> CLASSIFIED/TOP SECRET
> 
> 110816/1103HRS
> 
> I'M TYPING THIS FROM MY COMMAND TENT AT A SECRET LOCATION IN THE PONCE DE LEON MOUNTAINS. THE MEN HAVE BEEN BUSY ALL NIGHT DIGGING FORTIFICATIONS AND CLEANING WEAPONS. I HAVE PUT MY EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF LATRINE CONSTRUCTION. AT DAWN I ORDERED A RECON PATROL WHICH HAS JUST RETURNED. SO FAR, NO SIGN OF PRO-HILLARY FORCES, BUT IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME. LARGA VIDA A LA REVOLUCION!



What is most entertaining to me about your post, is that if I posted the above on the other board I frequent, half of the membership would be sending me PM's asking to join up or coordinate forces, and the other half would be openly flaming me for mocking their readiness.  

I wish I was being even somewhat sarcastic in my above statement.


----------



## Scubadew (Nov 8, 2016)

Work will be the same for me. 

In the meantime I'll work on my meme game.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 8, 2016)

Waited over an hour and a half this morning to vote.


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 8, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Waited over an hour and a half this morning to vote.



pshhh amateur.

I got up at 0500 and was first in line at 0545.

yeahhhhhh.gif


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 8, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> pshhh amateur.
> 
> I got up at 0500 and was first in line at 0545.
> 
> yeahhhhhh.gif



Amateur? As a civil service employee I was allowed to be in an hour and a half late today. That means I got paid to vote, legally.  :-":-"


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 8, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> CLASSIFIED/TOP SECRET
> 
> 110816/1103HRS
> 
> I'M TYPING THIS FROM MY COMMAND TENT AT A SECRET LOCATION IN THE PONCE DE LEON MOUNTAINS. THE MEN HAVE BEEN BUSY ALL NIGHT DIGGING FORTIFICATIONS AND CLEANING WEAPONS. I HAVE PUT MY EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF LATRINE CONSTRUCTION. AT DAWN I ORDERED A RECON PATROL WHICH HAS JUST RETURNED. SO FAR, NO SIGN OF PRO-HILLARY FORCES, BUT IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME. LARGA VIDA A LA REVOLUCION!


I'd love to see the "pro Hillary forces" of loony tunes she would muster. I have a strong feeling it would be a very entertainingly puthetic group.


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 8, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Amateur? As a civil service employee I was allowed to be in an hour and a half late today. That means I got paid to vote, legally.  :-":-"



Ahhh well played.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Nov 8, 2016)

I too was given the luxury of voting in the morning and coming into work late. 

I ate a nice breakfast, drank coffee, and being in my area of NC - voting lines don't exist. My car was still warm when I got back in to drive to work. No traffic to deal with and got a few extra Z's this morning in the process.

Very Well Played Indeed.


----------



## WarMachine504 (Nov 8, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> After work have a drink for the fallen and call it a day.



Best idea I've heard yet today.


----------



## Muppet (Nov 8, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> CLASSIFIED/TOP SECRET
> 
> 110816/1103HRS
> 
> I'M TYPING THIS FROM MY COMMAND TENT AT A SECRET LOCATION IN THE PONCE DE LEON MOUNTAINS. THE MEN HAVE BEEN BUSY ALL NIGHT DIGGING FORTIFICATIONS AND CLEANING WEAPONS. I HAVE PUT MY EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF LATRINE CONSTRUCTION. AT DAWN I ORDERED A RECON PATROL WHICH HAS JUST RETURNED. SO FAR, NO SIGN OF PRO-HILLARY FORCES, BUT IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME. LARGA VIDA A LA REVOLUCION!



Gold. Pure gold...

M.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 8, 2016)

Muppet said:


> Gold. Pure gold...
> 
> M.




You're welcome to join us, but you need an authentic "operator" outfit and have to bring your own beer and beef jerky. Guns are optional. We'll be fighting people who cry when you call them names.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 8, 2016)

Learned something fun this morning: there's one tiny district in New Hampshire, Dixville Notch, which is the first county in the nation to open and close.  Voting opens at midnight, and because there's only about two dozen registered voters in the entire unincorporated county, it closes at about 12:05.  

Clinton wins Dixville Notch, N.H., with 4 votes to Trump’s 2

This year, Dixville Notch went to Hillary!  CNN might as well call the race now 

The finall tally was:
Clinton - 4
Trump - 2
Johnson - 1
Romney - 1


----------



## Queeg (Nov 8, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> CLASSIFIED/TOP SECRET
> 
> 110816/1103HRS
> 
> I'M TYPING THIS FROM MY COMMAND TENT AT A SECRET LOCATION IN THE PONCE DE LEON MOUNTAINS. THE MEN HAVE BEEN BUSY ALL NIGHT DIGGING FORTIFICATIONS AND CLEANING WEAPONS. I HAVE PUT MY EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF LATRINE CONSTRUCTION. AT DAWN I ORDERED A RECON PATROL WHICH HAS JUST RETURNED. SO FAR, NO SIGN OF PRO-HILLARY FORCES, BUT IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME. LARGA VIDA A LA REVOLUCION!


 
Did you bring snacks?


----------



## Gunz (Nov 8, 2016)

Queeg said:


> Did you bring snacks?



No. But my SOF element brought Marlboros, Moon Pies and Orange Crush. And a lawn chair.


----------



## Muppet (Nov 8, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> You're welcome to join us, but you need an authentic "operator" outfit and have to bring your own beer and beef jerky. Guns are optional. We'll be fighting people who cry when you call them names.



I have my old SWAT BDU's, guns and bacon. Plus. I am a medic, so...

M.


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 8, 2016)

Need a foreign legion? I've got nothing better to do.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 8, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Need a foreign legion? I've got nothing better to do.



Fly here and we can invade from the North!


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 8, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Need a foreign legion? I've got nothing better to do.



Get a real job!


----------



## Brill (Nov 8, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Waited over an hour and a half this morning to vote.



That's a good sign!


----------



## Brill (Nov 8, 2016)

Baltimore's "top cop" voted!

Baltimore's top prosecutor posts, deletes ballot-box picture


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 8, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Fly here and we can invade from the North!



This may be our chance _to_ invade the North, IMO.  :-"  

You had to figure that the U.S. berzerky-ness would move upward at some point.   :blkeye:


----------



## Etype (Nov 8, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Learned something fun this morning: there's one tiny district in New Hampshire, Dixville Notch, which is the first county in the nation to open and close.  Voting opens at midnight, and because there's only about two dozen registered voters in the entire unincorporated county, it closes at about 12:05.
> 
> Clinton wins Dixville Notch, N.H., with 4 votes to Trump’s 2
> 
> ...


The guy who voted for Romney needs to disembowel himself.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 8, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> This may be our chance _to_ invade the North, IMO.  :-"
> 
> You had to figure that the U.S. berzerky-ness would move upward at some point.   :blkeye:



No need to invade.  Our tard in charge believes in open borders, is buddies with a lot of commie leaders and would give you all hugs at the border.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 8, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> No need to invade.  Our tard in charge believes in open borders, is buddies with a lot of commie leaders and would give you all hugs at the border.



You could use a lil Amurica in ya.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 8, 2016)

*Television networks have taken their pledge not to post results too early so seriously that they even quarantine their election night forecasters and polling professors who work for them.*

“The networks actually do this quarantine room *because they do not want this info to leak out*,” said Ken Goldstein, a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and a member of ABC’s decision desk. “That’s to their credit.”

Both Slate and VoteCastr feel they are on solid legal ground reporting projections early.

“The legal constraints generally have been those on exit polling, and those were restraints about physical distance and approaching voters,” said Karl J. Sandstrom, a lawyer for VoteCastr.

The group does not feel comfortable making outright calls of winners, but rather intends to show “ where things stand” throughout the day. “The appeal is not to out-CNN CNN or declare the election over at 10 a.m. on Election Day,” Ms. Turner said.

Either way, some say the group could be getting ahead of the results and threatening how elections should be covered.

*“I’m profoundly uncomfortable with characterizing election results during Election Day,” Mr. Goldstein of ABC said.



I'll give you 3 guesses what ABC is doing right now.........and the first 3 don't count. :wall:


*


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 8, 2016)

Virginia 2016 Presidential And State Election Results

Far from being over,  but Donald is leading in Virginia according to NPR.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 8, 2016)

You know you get a free Glaze when you walk into a Krispy Kreme, everyday.  It's called guilting you into buying six.  Southern Maid does the same shit...but Southern Maid has Kolaches!


----------



## DC (Nov 8, 2016)

Outta my element...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 8, 2016)

- Rant on -

FUCKING LESTER HOLT, WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY WE ARE A REPUBLIC!"

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

 Stop lecturing me about the electoral college and one citizen one vote. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> You could use a lil Amurica in ya.



I'd say America could use more than a lil America in it right now.


----------



## Brill (Nov 8, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> - Rant on -
> 
> FUCKING LESTER HOLT, WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY WE ARE A REPUBLIC!"
> 
> ...



Clinton could change that via EO.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 8, 2016)

Florida is starting to scare me. VERY close. Too close?  Please not 2000 again


----------



## compforce (Nov 8, 2016)

This is the part that pisses me off...  How is this not trying to influence the election through false reporting?  How do they call the state for Hillary when she has half the votes so far and only 0.5% reporting?  She may eventually win it, but they have NO right to say it's over in the state.  Some people may not have voted yet, see this and say "oh, we already lost" and not vote.

Either that or the Electoral votes were given before the results were even in, which is even worse in my opinion.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 8, 2016)

It's looking like Ohio will fall to Clinton. Virginia is probably a win for Trump.  I'm also calling Florida for Trump. NC for Clinton. Trump needs Pennsylvania, Wisconsin , and Michigan for any chance. I don't believe it will happen.



compforce said:


> This is the part that pisses me off...  How is this not trying to influence the election through false reporting?  How do they call the state for Hillary when she has half the votes so far and only 0.5% reporting?  She may eventually win it, but they have NO right to say it's over in the state.  Some people may not have voted yet, see this and say "oh, we already lost" and not vote.
> 
> 
> View attachment 17089



Exit polls and early voting. Plus he's been polling pretty badly there anyways.


----------



## compforce (Nov 8, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Exit polls and early voting. Plus he's been polling pretty badly there anyways.



Doesn't matter, the vote hasn't been counted..   They can make a note of it, but actually calling the state for HRC is ridiculous until they count the votes.  The same would hold true if the candidates were reversed.



NavyBuyer said:


> It's looking like Ohio will fall to Clinton. Virginia is probably a win for Trump.  I'm also calling Florida for Trump. NC for Clinton. Trump needs Pennsylvania, Wisconsin , and Michigan for any chance. I don't believe it will happen.



Too bad there's almost no chance Trump takes New York.  That would set the whole thing upside down going into Cali


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 8, 2016)

compforce said:


> Too bad there's almost no chance Trump takes New York.  That would set the whole thing upside down going into Cali



If Trump takes New York, I'm gonna need more beer!!!:-"


----------



## Brill (Nov 8, 2016)

If FL, NC, VA, and OH go Trump, I think we're facing our own BREXIT vote.



compforce said:


> Doesn't matter, the vote hasn't been counted..   They can make a note of it, but actually calling the state for HRC is ridiculous until they count the votes.  The same would hold true if the candidates were reversed.



They called ND and WY at 9:02. I thought they were Canadian provinces now?


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 8, 2016)

Ohio and Virginia results are both surprising.  FL and NC were coin flips so they aren't surprising.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 8, 2016)

I had to put more beer in the fridge.


----------



## DC (Nov 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> They called ND and WY at 9:02. I thought they were Canadian provinces now?



no way.hunting is off the chart


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> They called ND and WY at 9:02. I thought they were Canadian provinces now?



We'll take them, how about Alaska?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 8, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Ohio and Virginia results are both surprising.  FL and NC were coin flips so they aren't surprising.



Those 4 states are close.  I'm showing Trump up barely in all 4 on the site I'm on:
www.conspiracytheories.com/iftrumpdoesntwinitsrigged/putyourtinhaton:911   :-"

Here's their Prediction...I think its close....


----------



## DC (Nov 8, 2016)

Nigel Farage: The World Could Be in For a Shock - Fox News
Nigel Farage: The World Could Be in For a Shock


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 8, 2016)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 8, 2016)

Trump is now up if you're a betting man.  Also, I have Trump winning in fantastical fashion based on live data...would never have thought.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 8, 2016)

This little map might help, it did me:







It shows the earliest you can see state numbers actually reflect....ie Cali won't go to HRC until 23:00:01!!!


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 8, 2016)

Virginia has been called for Clinton. I think northern Virginia just needs to become part of Maryland.


----------



## Dienekes (Nov 8, 2016)

Just call Florida already damn it!!!!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 8, 2016)

Ummm...TV folks are panicking. Trump doing much better than expected.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 8, 2016)

This is actually the site I am on, and they haven't called Virginia yet.....

2016 Election Results: President Live Map by State, Real-Time Voting Updates


----------



## Brill (Nov 8, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Virginia has been called for Clinton. I think northern Virginia just needs to become part of Maryland.



In MD, felons still can't vote.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> In MD, felons still can't vote.



But you can take photos of your ballot...and put them "on the line"....


----------



## DC (Nov 8, 2016)

CNN and the rest of the democrack media will lose what little credibility they have left with this clusterfuck election prediction. Donald is Trumping Hillariously

Googles map is slightly behind


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 8, 2016)

Well this didn't take long:

_"Global financial markets plummeted Tuesday night as early voting results showed Donald Trump unexpectedly ahead in the race for the White House," the Washington Post reports._


----------



## DC (Nov 8, 2016)

Fuck Colorado. Too many bong hits


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 8, 2016)




----------



## DC (Nov 8, 2016)

A *landslide* victory is an *electoral* victory in a political system, when one candidate or party receives an overwhelming majority of the votes or seats in the elected body, thus all but utterly eliminating the opponents.

Could it happen?


----------



## Stelthy (Nov 8, 2016)

Florida for  Trump and she's still in the race?


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 8, 2016)

Florida goes to Trump, and North Carolina will probably go for him.

New Mexico was a surprising win for Clinton, Colorado was kind of expected.  I expect Nevada to go for Clinton.

Michigan shows an early lead for Trunp which is interesting.  I expect that it'll go to Clinton, but we'll see.

It looks like my 332 EV projection is out of the window.


----------



## DC (Nov 8, 2016)

CNNs Tapper gargling Trumps balls right now. Someone needs to kick him off the wagon. I say bias media needs to remain bias even in defeat.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 8, 2016)

Here's a coool site to look at while we see how the numbers shift..

How has your state voted in the past  14 elections?

I expected NM to go Blue, Santa Fe is worse then Boulder!!!:blkeye:

@Deathy McDeath you still have a shot, I only see him at 197...
He can get 9 and you still can run your Miss Cleo palm reading business out of your van...


----------



## DC (Nov 8, 2016)

Albuquerque is worse. Demo rap central. Went to high school there years ago. Weirdo central. Cool historical maps. Cali is shameful. Welfare state.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 8, 2016)




----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 8, 2016)

My site shows Ohio going to Trump.......someone please confirm!

I was just in Ohio and on the TV they said Ohio hasn't gone against a President since 1960.  I believe everything I see on TV....

ETA... was close....HRC gets California at 23:03.00....


----------



## Dienekes (Nov 8, 2016)

With Nevada, Utah, NH, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, that puts Trump at 274. That's not counting a potential win in Arizona


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 8, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> My site shows Ohio going to Trump.......someone pleas confirm



Every site I've been on has conceded Ohio to Trump.


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 8, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Every site I've been on has conceded Ohio to Trump.



results - Google Search


----------



## Brill (Nov 8, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> results - Google Search



There's no way WA goes red...is there???


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 8, 2016)

NYT still refusing to give Florida to Clinton. 

The New York Times


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> There's no way WA goes red...is there???



I'm seeing Trump up but they are at 10%, assuming Eastern part of state....


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 8, 2016)

Yeah eastern Washington is red, but it's like 20% of the state population.  King County is super blue.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 8, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> King County is super blue.



Yeah, they invented coffee that's not coffee.....:-/


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 8, 2016)

PA is REALLY close: Pennsylvania Elections - Summary Results


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 8, 2016)

At least if Hillary loses she may finally get the message that a lot of people really don't like her, maybe we can even get a likable candidate or two next election.


----------



## DC (Nov 8, 2016)

In other news...Kommiefornia now requires background checks for ammo sales AND...marijauna is legal


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 8, 2016)

DC said:


> In other news...Kommiefornia now requires background checks for ammo sales AND...marijauna is legal



I want a like and hate, like marijuana, hate the ammo thing.


----------



## DC (Nov 8, 2016)

Blitzer is gunna wet hisself...he keeps hoping

Google has it 232-209 Trump


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 8, 2016)

DC said:


> In other news...Kommiefornia now requires background checks for ammo sales AND...marijauna is legal


Never moving back...last election as a citizen of that Republic.


----------



## DC (Nov 8, 2016)

Allegedly House AND Senate will be red.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 8, 2016)

Wisconsin was a surprise pick


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 8, 2016)

I'd bet the Republicans keep the Senate.
It'll be close, he can still fall 2 electoral votes short; but she gets a Republican House and Senate to work with.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 8, 2016)

I got Trump 289-249 Hillary.  

NY Times say 95% chance Trump is president.  Here's the thing...he's the real gangster in this.  

This idiot female on the Colbert Show...


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Never moving back...last election as a citizen of that Republic.



Kali as a place is the best. The gov and transient transplants from shitty places ruining it for us natives is why it sucks. What state elects the same dipshit(Brown) twice after he fucked it up the first time? Retards


----------



## Brill (Nov 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Wisconsin was a surprise pick



PA??? Wow!

IF PA goes red, she's done.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

At this point, Hillary has to win ALL remaining states, to even have a chance.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 9, 2016)

If he takes WI and MI (both relatively likely), it's over.


----------



## AWP (Nov 9, 2016)

I can't believe it is this close. If Trump wins....holy shit. I never expected that and I doubt I'm alone here.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I can't believe it is this close. If Trump wins....holy shit. I never expected that and I doubt I'm alone here.



I voted for Trump but didn't think he had a shot in hell


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

Trey Gowdy for AG!


----------



## Brill (Nov 9, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I can't believe it is this close. If Trump wins....holy shit. I never expected that and I doubt I'm alone here.



I'm fucking shocked...but not enough to shake Weiner's hand.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

Hey @lindy - looks like they'll be lots of time to look at more e-mails......lol


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 9, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Trey Gowdy for AG!



THIS.

If he says, after reviewing everything, that she's clean enough to not prosecute, then I'll personally consider it a dropped matter. He's beholden to the nation and the constitution, nothing else. I'd also vote for him for president in a heartbeat.


----------



## Brill (Nov 9, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Trey Gowdy for AG!



I'm reminded of the scene from The Godfather series when they are at the party in Havana and get the news that it's time to flee.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Trump will have a lot of promises to fulfill. If appoints the right people in the right places(Gowdy) this country can get back to being THE USA


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

3 months of non stop HRC ads....and I do mean "Non Stop." Even with all that money, all the main stream media lined up behind her, all those celebrities backing her, all those celebrity appearances and Soros' money and still, the evil and corruption caught up with her. The American people did what the FBI and the DOJ couldn't.....finally, hold her accountable.


----------



## Dienekes (Nov 9, 2016)

In Johnson's absence, Hillary would have won. I haven't calculated that, but I believe nearly all Johnson voters would have voted for Hillary over Trump which would have given her a fairly high EV win.

And I am really excited to see Trump's cabinet.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

Dienekes said:


> In Johnson's absence, Hillary would have won. I haven't calculated that, but I believe nearly all Johnson voters would have voted for Hillary over Trump which would have given her a fairly high EV win.



Yeah, ok.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 9, 2016)

Dienekes said:


> In Johnson's absence, Hillary would have won. I haven't calculated that, but I believe nearly all Johnson voters would have voted for Hillary over Trump which would have given her a fairly high EV win.
> 
> And I am really excited to see Trump's cabinet.



  Anyone I know considering or voting for Johnson would have voted for a Republican candidate had Trump not taken the nomination - none of them would have even considered supporting Hillary.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

So is the election still rigged?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 9, 2016)

Yes, by the electoral college.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 9, 2016)

I still think Trump was the only Republican with enough backbone to take her on.
Cruz annoys people and "Little Marco" isn't experienced enough to take her on.



TLDR20 said:


> So is the election still rigged?


Yes, via the media and the electoral college all or nothing format.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 9, 2016)

Holy Fuck balls, PA is close

96% reporting, 48.2% for both, and Trump has a sqeakers lead in votes by roughly 2500 votes....

Sad that it is this close, but damn is it great to see all the naysayers and experts choke on their own cocks....


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Yes, via the media and the electoral college all or nothing format.



Your horse is winning man. The media is saying it, he is winning the electoral college. How the fuck is it rigged?


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Your horse is winning man. The media is saying it, he is winning the electoral college. How the fuck is it rigged?


Because they did everything in their power to dissuade and diminish him. Worse yet, the experts have been wrong concerning his campaign every step of the way.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Media is rigged.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 9, 2016)

It's still not over, I'm not celebrating with my victory copenhagen just yet.  I have them tied in PA and NH aka Florida 2000 style.

She has MN and ME.

Its still anyone's game in WI and MI too but yes the system is rigged...no matter who wins.

Just because your horse wins doesn't mean there isn't cheating....


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 9, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Holy Fuck balls, PA is close
> 
> 96% reporting, 48.2% for both, and Trump has a sqeakers lead in votes by roughly 2500 votes....
> 
> Sad that it is this close, but damn is it great to see all the naysayers and experts choke on their own cocks....



PA website is showing 2,599,535 to 2,548,697 (diff of 50838 for Trump).  It's been close, but as numbers have come in, he's pulled ahead by 5 digits.

ETA: source, Pennsylvania Elections - Summary Results


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

If your not cheating your not trying


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 9, 2016)

@Il Duce rember that polling failure we were talking about?


----------



## Brill (Nov 9, 2016)

It's interesting how far apart Fox and CNN projections are.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Pa and Mi going red


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> It's interesting how far apart Fox and CNN projections are.



CNN hasn't updated theirs in roughly an hour...


----------



## Brill (Nov 9, 2016)

And CNN goes all cray cray.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 9, 2016)

DC said:


> Pa and Mi going red


As well as AZ.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

too busy grandstanding liberal rhetoric 



Totentanz said:


> CNN hasn't updated theirs in roughly an hour...


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> It's interesting how far apart Fox and CNN projections are.



On what?  President or Senate/House?  I haven't deviated from my site.  I don't want to know the future, if I did I would watch Jim Cantore on the Wx Channel, those guys have it down to a science on predicting everything from storms to global warming...

They've only been wrong every day since I've been on this blue planet for 38 cycles of the yellow sun...:dead:

I am on a page with no predictions...there are 3 colors:
Blue - the enemy
Red - Freedom loving mfers
Cyan maybe a lighter blueish teal I'm bad with colors - Undecided

:-"


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

DC said:


> Media is rigged.



Stephanopoulos is choking on his words from earlier right now.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Tonite is the death of the media. They talk about shit that doesn't matter anymore. BOLO for the stories about bee deaths and Kardashian sex changes. A lot of faggottry and douchbaggery dialogue on CNN now


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 9, 2016)

Bee deaths is actually a big deal....


----------



## Dienekes (Nov 9, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Yeah, ok.





Totentanz said:


> Anyone I know considering or voting for Johnson would have voted for a Republican candidate had Trump not taken the nomination - none of them would have even considered supporting Hillary.



I didn't know a soul voting for Johnson so that was apparently misguided speculation. It will be very interesting to see his effect analyzed weeks from now though.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Bee deaths is actually a big deal....



Myth. I have billions everyday in my yard that sting the fuck outta my German Shepherds tongue because he thinks they are flys. He hates flys....


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 9, 2016)

Not that's it's an electoral college longdick, but NH is currently reporting <100 vote difference.

283,009 for Hillary, 282,913 for Trump.  For those of you who can do math (or operate a calculator), 96 vote difference.  Wow.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 9, 2016)

Wakey wakey hands off snakey...Alaska is alive with  3...BOOM!!!


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Pa goes red. 264-215. This is long shot making the line.wat a bet


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 9, 2016)

RealClearPolitics has Trump at 274.  The ones trailing behind... AZ and WI both are showing a strong Trump lead that is unlikely to be broken with further reporting.

On the plus side, for all the crap that went down, I think it opened the door for the influence of, if not full contention by, third parties.  I think Johnson's a clown, but his run may have given the Lib party what it needs to become relevant.  I'm not going to hold my breath, but it would be nice to see the two party chokehold broken.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 9, 2016)

DC said:


> Pa goes red. 264-215. This is long shot making the line.wat a bet



Yeppp...any of the following: AZ, WI or MI...all double digits.......puts us over 270.....


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

Like it or not, this is history in the making.

How many people gave his shot any chances, when all this began in the first place?

To win? Even more, and from within his own party as well.

If and when he does go over and it's official, I will say it now. Those who lined up against him, that blew him off, didn't take his run seriously and thought he had no chance today, and didn't show up at the polls, have no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 9, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> On the plus side, for all the crap that went down, I think it opened the door for the influence of, if not full contention by, third parties.  I think Johnson's a clown, but his run may have given the Lib party what it needs to become relevant.  I'm not going to hold my breath, but it would be nice to see the two party chokehold broken.


Agree, with the caveat that too many parties makes alliances essentially the same problem as a two party system.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 9, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Agree, with the caveat that too many parties makes alliances essentially the same problem as a two party system.



Agreed; the win would be them having to consider factors outside their own hubris in making decisions (as they figure out how to work with a new challenger).  Over time it would stagnate back to what we currently see, but twisting their arms temporarily would be a good thing.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

Podesta is playing cheerleader right now.

Telling the crowd to go home, we'll see you in the morning.....

Clinton has gone to bed.


----------



## AWP (Nov 9, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Podesta is playing cheerleader right now.
> 
> Telling the crowd to go home, we'll see you in the morning.....
> 
> Clinton has gone to bed.



I just saw that. What a 'holy shit' moment for her followers.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 9, 2016)

Local news is reporting that Clinton will not speak tonight.  She needs to take the high road and deliver a concession speech.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Local news is reporting that Clinton will not speak tonight.  She needs to take the high road and deliver a concession speech.



Like I said above -  Podesta showed up at her campaign Hqs and essentially sent everyone home.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 9, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Like I said above -  Podesta showed up at her campaign Hqs and essentially sent everyone home.


What a "leader".....


----------



## Raptor (Nov 9, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> What a "leader".....


I don't think Trump would have reacted much better, if better at all, if he had lost.


----------



## Rapid (Nov 9, 2016)

First Brexit, now the POTUS election... How does all that "expert analysis" taste, guys?


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> What a "leader".....





Centermass said:


> Like I said above -  Podesta showed up at her campaign Hqs and essentially sent everyone home.



Until someone  calls it I don't think she should concede. Don't get me wrong, she fucking lost, but until someone calls it I don't see conceding.


----------



## Rapid (Nov 9, 2016)

"He'll never run. He'll never file. He'll never get above 10%. He'll never get above 15%. He'll never get above 20- 50%. He'll never get the delegates needed. He'll never be the nominee." 

:blkeye:


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Until someone  calls it I don't think she should concede. Don't get me wrong, she fucking lost, but until someone calls it I don't see conceding.


Fair enough, but to send everyone home like that lacks class. She is doing exactly what she said Trump would do. To me, it speaks to her character.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 9, 2016)

Yeah, I can see going to bed, its only the President of the United States of America on the line....sure.....I bet its that pesky pneumonia again...


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

Hillary Clinton has officially conceded according to CNN.

And Clinton just called Donald Trump and conceded the election.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 9, 2016)

Fox News has called it and Trump is coming on to give his speech right now.  Holy shit.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

If she was going to concede within the hour she should have made a speech. Pretty fucking weak.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 9, 2016)

Kind of a "different" speech.  I don't know that I'd call it inspiring...maybe subdued?

Flipping between networks.  The Dolts on MSNBC are their typical classless selves.  That network should go away.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 9, 2016)

No shit, eh.


TLDR20 said:


> If she was going to concede within the hour she should have made a speech. Pretty fucking weak.



You seem surprised.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 9, 2016)

So, "main stream media" has blown another election.  How does this play out for them?  Tough to recover.


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 9, 2016)

I'll be damned, the moron won it. 

Life will go on but what a terrible choice.  Reaction in the coming days will be interesting, to say the least.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> No shit, eh.
> 
> 
> You seem surprised.



To be honest I think you should practice what you preach. She sure seemed to do what I feared Trump would do, she tried to take her ball and go home. That is a loser move in my opinion.



Blizzard said:


> So, "main stream media" has blown another election.  How does this play out for them?  Tough to recover.



I mean, they can only publish poll results. When people are dishonest, or they aren't being polled there is only so much they can do.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> To be honest I think you should practice what you preach. She sure seemed to do what I feared Trump would do, she tried to take her ball and go home. That is a loser move in my opinion.


Everyone knows Hillary is never available between 2 and 3am. Just ask Chris Stevens.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I mean, they can only publish poll results. When people are dishonest, or they aren't being polled there is only so much they can do.


Agree to a point but then they should probably do away with the speculation altogether (we both know that won't happen).  But, in my view, it's even bigger than that.  It's also how they chose to cover/demonize him over the past year and a half.  Unless the media can figure out how to detach themselves from "the story" and refocus objectively, they'll very quickly find themselves irrelevant.  They took another step in that direction today.  A disconnect clearly exists between them and the populace.  Revelations, such as the one with CNN, don't help their case.  They're losing or have lost the trust of the public.



Ranger Psych said:


> Everyone knows Hillary is never available between 2 and 3am. Just ask Chris Stevens.


That there is fucking solid.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 9, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> Agree to a point but then they should probably do away with the speculation altogether (we both know that won't happen).  But, in my view, it's even bigger than that.  It's also how they chose to cover/demonize him over the past year and a half.  Unless the media can figure out how to detach themselves from "the story" and refocus objectively, they'll very quickly find themselves irrelevant.  They took another step in that direction today.  A disconnect clearly exists between them and the populace.



I was watching on CBS online the coverage.... it was hilarious as they were still trying to shill the party line, and actually weren't reporting what Google was, that Trump was in the lead all over the place. Their responses, facial expressions, everything was "oh shit we dun fucked up" in such a huge way it was glorious to watch.  Then when Google was coming back with him even more in the lead, then that he won, their tune started to change towards how awesome he was as an individual, bla de blah... hilarity.  I haven't seen anyone backpedal that hard since I was a kid in a paddleboat race and it was the final stretch with the dock looming in view.

MAGA.


----------



## AWP (Nov 9, 2016)

Watching Anderson Cooper throughout the night was entertaining. I pictured him going off screen to throw up between takes.

Let's go to Facebook and see how my friends react.


----------



## Brill (Nov 9, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Podesta is playing cheerleader right now.
> 
> Telling the crowd to go home, we'll see you in the morning.....



His "proof of life" video.

I'm still shocked.


----------



## Etype (Nov 9, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> I'll be damned, the moron won it.
> 
> Life will go in but  what a terrible choice.  Reaction in the coming days will be interesting, to say the least.


Better a moron than a mob boss.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 9, 2016)

As a community service, I am willing to fly to Hollywood and help them pack. After all, isn't 3/4 of the entertainment industry  leaving the country now?


----------



## Etype (Nov 9, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> As a community service, I am willing to fly to Hollywood and help them pack. After all, isn't 3/4 of the entertainment industry  leaving the country now?


I wonder how many of them Canada will actually take.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 9, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> No shit, eh.
> 
> 
> You seem surprised.



This isn't her first rodeo and she should have been prepared for this and had the maturity to either stick it out with her supporters until called or put on her big girl panties and graciously concede. 

I'm glad to see she finally made up her mind and went with one of those.


----------



## compforce (Nov 9, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> As a community service, I am willing to fly to Hollywood and help them pack. After all, isn't 3/4 of the entertainment industry  leaving the country now?



Some are going to have to pack more than others...



> Cher tweeted this summer that if Trump gets elected, “I’m moving to Jupiter.”



Celebs who said they’d leave country if Trump won


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 9, 2016)

Etype said:


> I wonder how many of them Canada will actually take.



Apparently the Canuck immigration website crashed due to high traffic last night. Not sure if someone is drawing connections that don't exist but it made me LOL.


----------



## pardus (Nov 9, 2016)

I can't believe Trump pulled it off.
I seriously didn't think he could do it.
The people are pissed with the status quo and this election reflects that with the outcome. 
I'm very happy Hillary lost. 
Not particularly happy that Trump won though.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 9, 2016)

Take that you LIBTARDS!!! The Donold just grabbed America by the PUSSY!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I mean, they can only publish poll results. When people are dishonest, or they aren't being polled there is only so much they can do.



First and foremost, to my liberal and/or anti-Trump folks on the board, thank you for some great debate and genuine enlightenment. I learned to be more of a free thinker and not always walk the party line.

For that reason alone, this was one of the greatest elections ever for me. 

Regarding the polls, it is two things for me.

- who were they polling?  Or weren't they polling? I've said from the beginning that folks who haven't voted in years would be coming out of the mountains and back country to vote Trump.

- the campaign, media, and entertainment industry spoke in a way that you were made to feel embarrassed if you voted for Trump.


----------



## Etype (Nov 9, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Take that you LIBTARDS!!! The Donold just grabbed HILLARY by the PUSSY!





Ooh-Rah said:


> - who were they polling?


People with jobs and/or families probably aren't as willing to take time for polls.


----------



## AWP (Nov 9, 2016)

You have to wonder how many votes were lost by the "grab 'em" video, a private email server, the DNC's open corruption, the media's biased coverage, and a general "fuck it" attitude towards this election.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 9, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Everyone knows Hillary is never available between 2 and 3am. Just ask Chris Stevens.



She was shoping for a ticket.....


----------



## Etype (Nov 9, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> She was shoping for a ticket.....
> 
> View attachment 17100


Hillary uses a Mac?

Shocker!

I mean, come on guys, right???
^college girl voice^


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 9, 2016)

Etype said:


> I wonder how many of them Canada will actually take.



Not as many as would like to go, considering you can't even get into Canada with a DUI, even if just a short visit.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 9, 2016)

I think the world is going to run out of this today.





Ranger Psych said:


> Not as many as would like to go, considering you can't even get into Canada with a DUI, even if just a short visit.



Canada has enough Liberals as it is, we don't need any more.


----------



## Scubadew (Nov 9, 2016)

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Trump won the election, 
China


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 9, 2016)

Humble in victory. Gracious in defeat. 

Clinton should have attended the post election gathering of the supporters who worked so hard for her. I can't recall a POTUS election where the loser did not personally thank their staff, and gathered supporters. It should not have been left to Podesta, who just said," go home".


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Take that you LIBTARDS!!! The Donold just grabbed America by the PUSSY!



Quality commentary


----------



## Gunz (Nov 9, 2016)

I watched a movie and went to bed at 9, fully expecting a Clinton win. I got up this morning, turned on the TV and was stunned.

If this doesn't prove the polling is ridiculously biased, nothing does.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 9, 2016)

The sun shined (shone?) the day after Obama won (and Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan...), it's shining today.  Time to bury the hatchet and move forward.

As for me, I had far too much merlot and Woodford Reserve last night.  I am feeling every one of my 48 years.


----------



## Queeg (Nov 9, 2016)

Just heard on the high side that the CDS has directed all RCAF fighter assets BPT intercept and shoot down incoming "Freedom Bird" flights of Hollywood elites fleeing to Canada.


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> @Il Duce rember that polling failure we were talking about?



I do, and I think this is a pretty clear case of President-elect Trump and his backers getting it right - with people like me getting it wrong.  They were absolutely right about not trusting polls, about a significant chunk of the electorate not voicing their support out loud, and about the huge strength DT showed in rural areas.  Very disappointing for me and those with my political views but I hope we don't behave in the minority the way conservatives did under President Obama.  I guess time will tell.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 9, 2016)

I don't remember the volatile butthurt like this on the book in 2012.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 9, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I watched a movie and went to bed at 9, fully expecting a Clinton win. I got up this morning, turned on the TV and was stunned.
> 
> If this doesn't prove the polling is ridiculously biased, nothing does.



I gave it an hour after the polls closed on the East Coast, before surfing into Fox. By 2300, it looked like a steady climb for Trump. I went to bed about half an hour later feeling pretty good about a Trump win.

As for the polls, both pre and exit, are media events. The media has not been honest square with this nation for years. Perhaps this is a wake up call for them too; but I doubt it.


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 9, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I don't remember the volatile butthurt like this on the book in 2012.



Really dude?  You're talking about reactions in view of your previous post?

Hunh.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 9, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Really dude?  You're talking about reactions in view of your previous post?
> 
> Hunh.


Nothing on here...just the stuff I'm reading on Facebook


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

I don't know how I didn't see this earlier . Michael Moore called it. Sometimes it is hard to have empathy for what you don't understand. I understand partially why many voted for Trump.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 9, 2016)

Now...it's time to drive on and start accomplishing some missions as a nation!

There is much work to be done and the sun rose this morning just like I knew it would!


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 9, 2016)

compforce said:


> Some are going to have to pack more than others...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Any chance she can take Dicaprio with her....


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 9, 2016)

Two things that will always stick out in my mind about this election-

1. Donald Trump won an election after behaving the way he did and was largely supported by disenfranchised rural whites that finally had a candidate "say the things that I have been thinking my whole life but cant say out loud". Not policy, not platform, just the fact that he says "non-PC" shit on the regular and "normal" people can't get away w that because if they said the things he does at work or in public they'd be fired or confronted for being a racist or what have you.

2. The 18-45 demographic voted 10% in favor of "other". That fact alone speaks to the bullshit we just endured.

I was thinking about this earlier today- Donald Trump *sort of* represents what a lot of those disenfranchised whites want to be in a utopian sense. The American Dream isn't to work hard and be rewarded anymore; the American dream is global validation of personal entitlement.

Millions of Americans wish they grew up rich and privileged and went to the best private schools. They wish they could exploit the system and make more money hand over fist without your own skin in the game, because you get a small million dollar loan for nothing other than being the offspring of a wealthy parent. They wish they could fail and claim bankruptcy and negatively impact peoples lives/careers and 100% get away with it and just start over with no repercussions.

They wish they could be famous, have their own show, hang out with celebrities, act like a celebrity, grope who you want (or at least intimate that you do), and then be elected to the most powerful position possible regardless of logic or personal experience or skill. They wish they could say, "I hate illegals I wish I could build a wall" or "All Muslims need to be tracked or monitored or screened because Muslims are bad", but they can't. They wish they could just blame others for their mistakes, never apologize.

Donald Trump can and does do that, Hillary didn't and further cemented her "pro-establishment" perception.

The real kicker- a foreign state influenced our election process and put the easy choice- the amateur that already has ties- in the White House. If anyone here thinks that wasn't a calculated move by Putin and Russia, well, I think you may be a little naïve. The time to figure out the nuances of geopolitics with near-peer nuclear competitors isn't the first time you sit across a table from people that are going to  own you simply because they know the game better than you do.

Anyway, @lindy @Etype @compforce and all the Trump voters/apologia- you have made your bed. Hope you are ready to lie in it.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Time to get busy in Washington. This team is capable of a huge win. Pick your leaders wisely, listen before action, get all the facts and review ancillary fallout. plan the dive dive the plan. The media fear spin is falling on deaf ears. Thier opinions don't matter anymore or never did. Let's get busy America.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't know how I didn't see this earlier . Michael Moore called it. Sometimes it is hard to have empathy for what you don't understand. I understand partially why many voted for Trump.



I saw this the day he said this.  He nailed it.

To me it wasn't about Trump but rather my utter disdain for HRC generally and the entire establishment specifically, D AND R.  Although I am cautiously pleased, I think everyone who voted for him (well, me and those I know anyway) see him on a VERY short leash.  We can make an entirely different decision in 4 years, and I am not above voting for a democrat if it's the right one (a la Webb).


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

Etype said:


> I wonder how many of them Canada will actually take.



Funny how none of them want to go to Mexico.....:-"


----------



## The Hate Ape (Nov 9, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Two things that will always stick out in my mind about this election-
> 
> 1. Donald Trump won an election after behaving the way he did and was largely supported by disenfranchised rural whites that finally had a candidate "say the things that I have been thinking my whole life but cant say out loud". Not policy, not platform, just the fact that he says "non-PC" shit on the regular and "normal" people can't get away w that because if they said the things he does at work or in public they'd be fired or confronted for being a racist or what have you.
> 
> ...



Your whole post reeks of emotions & feels.

Lets say everything about every candidate is true. Lets say Trump is racist, a misogynist, a communist sympathizer, a lunatic and a con artist. Lets say Hilary is a liar, a profiteer, a corrupt world leader and a poor military/tactical strategist. Lets agree to all of these things on a hypothetical basis. What issues are we left with?

For starters both way heavily for or against:
-Increased Government Regulation
-Budgets, like - in general.
-Foreign Policy / Geopolitical / Socioeconomic Reform.

Lets now consider that the next head of the this country decides directly on the Supreme Court Justice. Lets remind everyone also that never before has a house, senate, and congress been so unified to one party. I care about a political party about as much as I care about the Kardashian women who will _not_ sit on my face; a unified government guarantees that something will be done about key issues and actually make it through. One reasonable expectation - pretty predictable even... the government healthcare.

You among many others need to yank the cord on the tampon because hurt feelings doesn't run a country. I like your point about Putin and think its a healthy and abstract way of thinking, totally plausible. But this race card, woman oppressing card, I don't give two fucks. He could be the most racist, unhealthy and unkind piece of shit - if he can run the country then fuckit, Walt Disney for president.

People need to dump their emotions and recognize what is really up.


R/ (as always)

H/A


----------



## Etype (Nov 9, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Anyway, @lindy @Etype @compforce and all the Trump voters/apologia- you have made your bed. Hope you are ready to lie in it.


'Trump voter, yes; Trump apologist, no.

If you truly think Russia influenced our election, you are an unwitting rider on the Democrat bandwagon.  Russia didn't write those emails, they MAY* have exposed them, but Hillary wrote them.  Russia being responsible is just a smoke screen for her actions.

*may- because spoofing and misattribution is a real thing, and Russia is as good at it as anyone else when it comes to the internet.


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 9, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Two things that will always stick out in my mind about this election-
> 
> 1. Donald Trump won an election after behaving the way he did and was largely supported by disenfranchised rural whites that finally had a candidate "say the things that I have been thinking my whole life but cant say out loud". Not policy, not platform, just the fact that he says "non-PC" shit on the regular and "normal" people can't get away w that because if they said the things he does at work or in public they'd be fired or confronted for being a racist or what have you.
> 
> ...



Truthy post of the week.

Its very easy to look at things with rose colored glasses just post election, regardless of whichever of the two dumpster fires made it into the White House this time around.  The catch is, either one of them still had to actually _be_ POTUS, a position Donnie will likely wreak havok with in more glorious fashion.

Also, the above comments about the Putin/ Russia subject are dead on, IMHO.  If we're giving the go ahead to use the morons vs. mob boss comparison, what are we imagining the bosses do with the morons?


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

Etype said:


> If you truly think Russia influenced our election, you are an unwitting rider on the Democrat bandwagon.  Russia didn't write those emails, they MAY* have exposed them, but Hillary wrote them.



Classified ones on an illegal, unsecured, private server no less. For all you Trump haters, nothing you can say will ever change that.  She finally got her answer to "What difference does it make?" Enjoy it. The departed @Benghazi resting up above, can finally look down and smile.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

And at least we didn't get that Grinch looking guy as VP either........


----------



## AWP (Nov 9, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Two things that will always stick out in my mind about this election...



I think the world of you, but this post is insane.


----------



## Queeg (Nov 9, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Classified ones on an illegal, unsecured, private server no less. For all you Trump haters, nothing you can say will ever change that.  She finally got her answer to "What difference does it make?" Enjoy it. The departed @Benghazi resting up above, can finally look down and smile.


 
 It's a bit of poetic justice that the death of Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith was avenged by Hillary's criminally shoddy information management practices.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 9, 2016)

The ball is in now firmly in Republicans court; they have Congress and the White House.  A rare opportunity.  Will they get some meaningful work done or will they dick it up like usual? 

If past is an indicator of future, I won't hold my breath.  They have a way of focusing on and bickering about the most non-important issues; usually bullshit social agenda topics.  Would love to see true tax reform, restructuring at federal level, and renewed commitment to defense and foreign policy.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> The ball is in now firmly in Republicans court; they have Congress and the White House.  A rare opportunity.  Will they get some meaningful work done or will they dick it up like usual?



Can it be worse then the Last 8 years? Maybe. Can Trump unify the country? Maybe. A lot of maybes. Hopefully the future is better. I prefer my last days on this blue marble to be the best days ever.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 9, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Two things that will always stick out in my mind about this election-
> 
> 1. Donald Trump won an election after behaving the way he did and was largely supported by disenfranchised rural whites that finally had a candidate "say the things that I have been thinking my whole life but cant say out loud". Not policy, not platform, just the fact that he says "non-PC" shit on the regular and "normal" people can't get away w that because if they said the things he does at work or in public they'd be fired or confronted for being a racist or what have you.
> 
> ...



White/rural voters went with the guy who was best for them, and you bitch about that?
95+% of the blacks voted Obama, because they thought he was best for them, did you berate them for that?
Woman and Latino's have voted overwhelmingly Democratic because they thought it was in their best interest?  Can you quote the post where you criticised them?
Immigration cost the Republicans the House and Senate during the Bush years, last night it cost the Democrats the White House.
Maybe the results would have been different if the Democrats hadn't rigged their own elections.
Trump is the only Republican who could defeat Hillary, and a Biden/Webb ticket may have been able to beat Trump/Pence.
Being against illegal immigration does not make me a racist.
Asking to vet "refugees" does not make me an Islamophobe.
Asking that migrants go into a quarantine before kicking them into the general population is racist why?  Asking that gang recruiters be segregated from the general population and deported quickly makes me a "bad person" why?
Your side's unwillingness to engage in dialogue combined with spineless Republican Leaders and a complicent media resulted in a Trump victory.


----------



## Rapid (Nov 9, 2016)

Never forget. It's people like these media turds, and other left wingers, who created a situation which put Trump where he is.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 9, 2016)

I think Trump's speech last night was thoughtful and gives me hope. I do hope he appoints a great cabinet of qualified people ans surrounds himself with great advisor's. The division within our country is massive and cannot continue.  The games that we have been playing with Russia need to stop on both ends. We do need to focus on rebuilding our industry and infrastructure vs rebuilding other nation's and allowing our skilled work jobs go to other nations. We have got to get our national debt under control. These are all things that need to happen. I won't say Trump will accomplish all of this, but even if he can do a few of them, it will make us a better country for it. 

I've never seen so much crazy in my life, either it be this election, or the countless shit that has taken place over the past 8 years. I could take the time and list it all, but we all lived through it and know how stupid crazy it has been. If we can finally turn that around and redirect people to stop being butt hurt, treat others with some respect and regain some of our dignity. That would make me happy.

I personally don't mind having a debate on social policy, laws, politics and how we may progress into the future. What I do mind is being told that my views are wrong, outdated or being called names because of it (not that it happens much on here). I like to joke, and sometimes get under people's skin, but I've always tried to find middle ground.  I don't feel like that has happened much in the past 6-8 years from the liberal people I've met and talked with. I hope that changes and when policies start to swing back the other way, I hope most conservative leaning people keep that in mind and try to look for that middle ground.

That all said, I am shocked that Trump of all people, is the next POTUS, and I will be praying that he is able bring us back together as a country. 

I do hope they appoint a special prosecuter and fully investigate what has happened in the DoJ, the FBI, and everything the Clinton's have done. There is a lot of wrong that has happened there and it needs to be righted and as a nation, we must have confidence in our justice system and the methods it uses. I personally don't have that confidence right now.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 9, 2016)

P.S. Did the Russians also hack amlove1's account?


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> P.S. Did someone hack amlove1's account?



Colin Kapernick is that you?


----------



## The Hate Ape (Nov 9, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> P.S. Did the Russians also hack amlove1's account?



Probably the Russians.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 9, 2016)

Somebody needs a hug -

NSFW - language 








Rapid said:


> Never forget. It's people like these media turds, and other left wingers, who created a situation which put Trump where he is.


----------



## Etype (Nov 9, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> P.S. Did the Russians also hack amlove1's account?





The Hate Ape said:


> Probably the Russians.


Rocky and Bullwinkle told me that Russians make the best scapegoats.


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 9, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I think Trump's speech last night was thoughtful and gives me hope. I do hope he appoints a great cabinet of qualified people ans surrounds himself with great advisor's. The division within our country is massive and cannot continue.  The games that we have been playing with Russia need to stop on both ends. We do need to focus on rebuilding our industry and infrastructure vs rebuilding other nation's and allowing our skilled work jobs go to other nations. We have got to get our national debt under control. These are all things that need to happen. I won't say Trump will accomplish all of this, but even if he can do a few of them, it will make us a better country for it.
> 
> I've never seen so much crazy in my life, either it be this election, or the countless shit that has taken place over the past 8 years. I could take the time and list it all, but we all lived through it and know how stupid crazy it has been. If we can finally turn that around and redirect people to stop being butt hurt, treat others with some respect and regain some of our dignity. That would make me happy.
> 
> ...




Things Donnie has done or said just during his campaign alone:


Being less than coherent about the details of his policies and stances in debates.

Being divisive.

Being butt hurt and thin skinned.

Ignoring the guidance of qualified people.

Accusing the Department of Justice of collusion.

Playing verbal footsies with Putin.


Its official:


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 9, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Never forget. It's people like these media turds, and other left wingers, who created a situation which put Trump where he is.



Yep.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Things Hillary declared didn't matter. 

Benghazi


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 9, 2016)

Some early reports are saying that Clinton actually took the national popular vote, albeit by a very slim margin.  I don't think that all of the votes have counted yet, but if this is true, I will laugh incredibly hard right before taking another shot. 

 Imagine: a populist candidate losing  the popular vote.  (I know, I know.  The popular vote doesn't determine elections, but you have to admire the potential irony)


----------



## Gunz (Nov 9, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Never forget. It's people like these media turds, and other left wingers, who created a situation which put Trump where he is.




The Liberal talking heads in the media are falling all over themselves trying to figure out how this could possibly have happened and I think they're missing one simple reason: People just don't like Hillary Clinton. Period. And many would've voted for _anybody_ but her.

Secondly, the Left is a victim of it's own propaganda. It believed it's own skewed polls and it's own skewed vision of America. The liberal urban elitists who control most of the large media outlets, including Public TV and NPR, live in a cloistered upscale universe in and around the major cities and have a very narrow view of what _real_ America is like. They just can't relate. Neither can these wealthy, pampered Hollywood stars with their insipid political views.

This was not necessarily a vote for Trump. It was a vote against the Clintons--true--but it was also a vote by people who are tired of having the Left's view of morality, ethics and political correctness shoved down their throats. We elected a Black President. Twice. That tells you that this country is _not_ inherently racist (although Trump voters are being called that today, and worse). 

Maybe this election will be a wake-up call to the media and the progressives that in their dishonesty and their presumptions they've alienated many Americans and deluded themselves.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 9, 2016)

The Hate Ape said:


> Your whole post reeks of emotions & feels.
> H/A


Meh. If me saying, "I think Trump is a piece of shit and I think people who supported Trump made the wrong decision" puts me in the feels category, I suppose that's fine. But that's_ all I am saying_. My postulation as to why people voted the way they did could be way off, man. Just my opinion. Who knows. Turns out I am not a political expert. Or an anthropologist or a sociologist. Although I am guessing you aren't, either. Pretty sure no one here is.

IMO Trump is going to make an awful president and I think the American people made a huge, huge mistake. Not because I am a democrat (I am not), but because I am a citizen of America and I don't think he's gonna be a good president. That's about the long and short of it.

@DA SWO , I think you're internalizing an awful lot. I'll stand by my statement- it seems that you voted for Trump. I think you made a huge mistake. That's all. No one is calling you a racist, misogynist, whatever. I am saying you voted for someone with that history and those tendencies. And I am saying I don't think that dude should be president.


Etype said:


> If you truly think Russia influenced our election, you are an unwitting rider on the Democrat bandwagon.  Russia didn't write those emails, they MAY* have exposed them, but Hillary wrote them. * Russia being responsible is just a smoke screen for her actions*.
> 
> *may- because spoofing and misattribution is a real thing, and Russia is as good at it as anyone else when it comes to the internet.


I do think it's possible Russia influenced this election.  I also think it's possible that your bolded is true, for the record. I don't know if we are every going to get solid proof of either. I totally agree with @Diamondback 2/2 's last paragraph.


Freefalling said:


> I think the world of you, but this post is insane.





Blizzard said:


> P.S. Did the Russians also hack amlove1's account?





DC said:


> Colin Kapernick is that you?



Lol, fair enough. And it's actually me. Not drinking, not hacked, not pulling a 2007 Britney. I would never shave my head.

Of all the insane shit on this board (specifically the presidential race thread), I find it odd that my post was a sort of line in the sand. We had people talking civil war, moving to other countries, screening people and putting them in a database and denying entry to the country based on a religious affiliation. We  talked about making a paramilitary force in order to forcibly remove illegal aliens. People speculated wildly about cloak and dagger politics and pay to play and a host of other issues.

But when I say, "If you voted for Trump I think you were wrong" and "Here is a wacky personal opinion about why parts of a demographic voted for him and how he ended up winning", you guys lose your mind? I am all about calling bullshit, but does no one see the irony of overly emotional "butt hurt" responses to my post which was labeled as emotional?


----------



## Gunz (Nov 9, 2016)

110920161505

CLASSIFIED/TOP SECRET

From my command tent at a secret location in the Ponce De Leon Mountains: at 1400 hrs I will lead my brigade to the nearest Qwickie Stop for celebratory Busch Beer and Slim Jims. We are disappointed that we didn't get to kill anything, but the mosquitoes drove us crazy, there were scary frogs and I have a heat rash between the ass cheeks. This will be my last transmission.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 9, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Somebody needs a hug -
> 
> NSFW - language



I wanted her head to literally explode... she could have had a new medical condition named after her and Trump.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Best day ever. The Fonze is on CNN selling reverse mortgages. Ain't this shit GREAT!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 9, 2016)

@amlove21 Your previous post reminds me of every liberal person I'm friends with on Facebook.  Instead of wanting to work with their fellow Americans they resort to calling Trump voters naive.  Trump didn't win this election because of the poor working whites that have been dismissed by both parties for the last 30 years.  I'm pretty sure that won him the nomination.

What won Trump this election was all the minorities and women who were like: Hillary, hell No!  

And Trump showed yesterday that he is gangster as hell.  Media was against him, even Fox didn't care for him.  And then the majority of the Party leaders didn't care for him after the awesome private conversations were released.  I'm all about progress, and Trump gives us a business leader we haven't had in forever as a President.  I was super pissed that the market opened flat.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 9, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Somebody needs a hug -
> 
> NSFW - language




Somebody needs a 7.62 right between the peepers.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 9, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Somebody needs a hug -
> 
> NSFW - language



This right here is exactly why I swear that we just need to remove all the warning label's and safety equipment from within the USA. The only reason this person has survived this long is because someone else has been feeding and protecting it.

People making comment's that they are going to leave the country or kill themselves if Trump is elected. That's not normal thinking, at all. Those type of voters, are exactly how we end up with a Trump and Hillary election.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> @amlove21 Your previous post reminds me of every liberal person I'm friends with on Facebook.  Instead of wanting to work with their fellow Americans they resort to calling Trump voters naive.  Trump didn't win this election because of the poor working whites that have been dismissed by both parties for the last 30 years.  I'm pretty sure that won him the nomination.
> 
> What won Trump this election was all the minorities and women who were like: Hillary, hell No!
> 
> And Trump showed yesterday that he is gangster as hell.  Media was against him, even Fox didn't care for him.  And then the majority of the Party leaders didn't care for him after the awesome private conversations were released.  I'm all about progress, and Trump gives us a business leader we haven't had in forever as a President.  I was super pissed that the market opened flat.



I would check your demographics. The only portion of women he won with was white women without a college degree. That kind of plays into the whole "uneducated" and "white people" thing. He didn't win even close to a majority with any minority, regardless of education.

2016 Election exit polls: How the vote has shifted


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Somebody needs a 7.62 right between the peepers.



That's not PC....WOW that feels good!


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I would check your demographics. The only portion of women he won with was white women without a college degree. That kind of plays into the whole "uneducated" and "white people" thing. He didn't win even close to a majority with any minority, regardless of education.
> 
> 2016 Election exit polls: How the vote has shifted


@ThunderHorse , yeah , what he said.

Trump got smoked in the demo's you'd expect- women and minorities- and did really well w young white uneducated males and old people.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

NSFW NSFW NSFW



Democrats explode?


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I would check your demographics. The only portion of women he won with was white women without a college degree. That kind of plays into the whole "uneducated" and "white people" thing. He didn't win even close to a majority with any minority, regardless of education.
> 
> 2016 Election exit polls: How the vote has shifted



Honestly, none of that matters now does it?  It would be the same no matter the Republican candidate.  The hatred and division on both sides is what has brought us to this point.  Time for the grownups to act like grownups and work together.  Every one else, well, let their heads explode like the chick above.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Democrats won the Left Coast. Here is Californicrat ammo requires a background check to buy(more money taken),multiple frivolous bonds were voted in(higher taxes in an already high tax state), marijuana is legalized(and will be taxed to be used for waste of money special interests) and this fucked up state passed an amendment to allow schools in Ca to create non English speaking instruction. They didn't get the Prez spot but they are continually trying to fuck up a good thing here in my experience. Outta here soon...


Oh and it's 97 degrees on the coast here right now


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 9, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Honestly, none of that matters now does it?  It would be the same no matter the Republican candidate.  The hatred and division on both sides is what has brought us to this point. * Time for the grownups to act like grownups and work together.  *Every one else, well, let their heads explode like the chick above.



If this is specifically the goal, we direct our attention to the example and guidance of the president-elect at our peril.

My wait for the piper to come around and be paid now begins.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 9, 2016)

DC said:


> Democrats won the Left Coast. Here is Californicrat ammo requires a background check to buy(more money taken),multiple frivolous bonds were voted in(higher taxes in an already high tax state), marijuana is legalized(and will be taxed to be used for waste of money special interests) and this fucked up state passed an amendment to allow schools in Ca to create non English speaking instruction. They didn't get the Prez spot but they are continually trying to fuck up a good thing here in my experience. Outta here soon...
> 
> 
> Oh and it's 97 degrees on the coast here right now


Yeah.  I voted for weed, against the death penalty, for the tax increase, but against the ammo background checks.  You can yell at me as a proxy for all of California if you want to.

If you makes you feel any better, at least Barbara Boxer is out.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 9, 2016)

DC said:


> Democrats won the Left Coast. Here is Californicrat ammo requires a background check to buy(more money taken),multiple frivolous bonds were voted in(higher taxes in an already high tax state), marijuana is legalized(and will be taxed to be used for waste of money special interests) and this fucked up state passed an amendment to allow schools in Ca to create non English speaking instruction. They didn't get the Prez spot but they are continually trying to fuck up a good thing here in my experience. Outta here soon...
> 
> 
> Oh and it's 97 degrees on the coast here right now




If what I read was correct, marijuana is "legal", medical and personal use, in something like 28 states now.


----------



## Brill (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> The only portion of women he won with was white women without a college degree. That kind of plays into the whole "uneducated" and "white people" thing.
> 
> 2016 Election exit polls: How the vote has shifted



That plays into your Moore clip from earlier. I think the avg Joe and family are hurting and felt nobody in DC was listening.

@amlove21 , I wonder if this election was a vote against Clinton. It's tough to explain how ALL the polling could be so wrong, how a 3:1 advertising expense budget had little effect, and how a person with ZERO political experience can become President.


----------



## Bypass (Nov 9, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> pshhh amateur.
> 
> I got up at 0500 and was first in line at 0545.
> 
> yeahhhhhh.gif


I rolled out of bed at 9 drank a cup of coffee and went to vote and there wasn't even a line.


----------



## Brill (Nov 9, 2016)

I wonder if they will become Moore's party? There are some valid issues in here that seem to support the idea the Democrats lost it.

I'm still shocked at the color of WI, MI, and PA today.

Democratic Party in crisis


----------



## Etype (Nov 9, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Also, the above comments about the Putin/ Russia subject are dead on, IMHO.


Do you really believe that propaganda???

You're either a willing stooge, or another shill touting Hillary's misinformation.

The source of the Russian involvement information is the Hillary Campaign, not these mythical "17 agencies."

We probably couldn't trace a Russian state sponsored hack on a private email server while it was happening, we have NO CHANCE to track it down after the fact. It's complete and utter nonsense.  All we are sure of is that one of the billions of people here on earth did it.

Here's some evidence of Russian involvement in our political system- Obama and Sanders and their socialist beliefs.  They are the direct product of Soviet penetration into the universities and "social elites" of our country some 30-40 years ago.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

One more time please, someone please explain to me how this election was rigged.

I still don't get it.

The media did it?

The electoral college did it?

Voter fraud?

Please give me solid examples of the outcome being rigged. It has been rigged all along(supposedly) and now we have President -Elect Trump.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> That plays into your Moore clip from earlier. I think the avg Joe and family are hurting and felt nobody in DC was listening.
> 
> @amlove21 , I wonder if this election was a vote against Clinton. It's tough to explain how ALL the polling could be so wrong, how a 3:1 advertising expense budget had little effect, and how a person with ZERO political experience can become President.




That is pretty much the way I've viewed the voting outcome.  HRC was pretty much staying the course with the Obama plan. Those who voted for Trump are  those who voted for a change. I was a little surprised with Michael Moore's view, which seemed to be more conservative than it has been in earlier years. Given all of the prep work, such as:  Senator, SecOS, and a two year run up to the election, media support, and a POTUS husband, she was set up pretty well; better prepped than most. This was Clinton's election to win or loose; she lost. As did McCain, and Romney to Obama.

As @TLDR20 pointed out, America moves on. Pick up your ruck and we move on.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Yeah.  I voted for weed, against the death penalty, for the tax increase, but against the ammo background checks.  You can yell at me as a proxy for all of California if you want to.
> 
> If you makes you feel any better, at least Barbara Boxer is out.



No way. Your right to vote.
 I voted for weed, no tax issues, for death penalty and no ammo BGs.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> That plays into your Moore clip from earlier. I think the avg Joe and family are hurting and felt nobody in DC was listening.
> 
> @amlove21 , I wonder if this election was a vote against Clinton. It's tough to explain how ALL the polling could be so wrong, how a 3:1 advertising expense budget had little effect, and how a person with ZERO political experience can become President.


Hard agree.

I think it was just too easy to polarize the candidates, really. Trump = outsider, Clinton = "the Man".

I think there were a lot of "vindictive" votes. I don't like agreeing with Michael Moore out of sheer principal, but I buy the argument that Trump was the human hand grenade that DC and politics needs. Sometimes the only way to build something is to blow it all up first.

Some men just want to watch the world burn, and for average Joe American (ESPECIALLY in states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin), this was their time to really affect the system and boy, did they ever.


----------



## Etype (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> One more time please, someone please explain to me how this election was rigged.
> 
> I still don't get it.
> 
> ...


Who is saying it was?


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

This is going to make Brexit's effects on the market look small potatos, IF he holds his promises:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately



Etype said:


> Who is saying it was?



Have you not looked at posts in this thread? 

How about the entire election thread. This election was supposedly rigged out the ass. But I guess only if Clinton won...


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 9, 2016)

Etype said:


> Do you really believe that propaganda???
> 
> You're either a willing stooge, or another shill touting Hillary's misinformation.
> 
> ...



Believe propaganda?  No, not a big fan.

That Vlad is even better than Donnie at the playing people game?  Without question, yes.  He's smoothing over our alleged POTUS-elect, as we'd say here.

But again, if the obviousness of that is escaping the buffoon-voting majority, I'll go ahead and tentatively blame it on those rose tinted glasses and the damn crazy pills.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

Etype said:


> Who is saying it was?



See below in just this thread:




Ranger Psych said:


> Yes, by the electoral college.





SpongeBob*24 said:


> It's still not over, I'm not celebrating with my victory copenhagen just yet.  I have them tied in PA and NH aka Florida 2000 style.
> 
> She has MN and ME.
> 
> ...





DA SWO said:


> I still think Trump was the only Republican with enough backbone to take her on.
> Cruz annoys people and "Little Marco" isn't experienced enough to take her on.
> 
> 
> Yes, via the media and the electoral college all or nothing format.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

What is funny is that Trump lost the popular vote and won the electoral college. But "it is rigged" so in that case using that logic, it must have been rigged for Trump.


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 9, 2016)

Second is possible considering it's not finalised yet. The others might be a bit more difficult. 

I don't think he'll be able to do what he thinks he wants to do so easily, and that goes for everything really.


----------



## compforce (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> This is going to make Brexit's effects on the market look small potatos, IF he holds his promises:
> 
> * FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205
> 
> ...




All 4 of which I like

First - We're getting killed by NAFTA.  The only thing it has done for us is give us a cheap place to move American jobs.

Second - This one is #1 on my personal wish list.  TPP will absolutely destroy the American labor force in two areas, Tech and low-paying jobs.  It's a globalists dream, no borders and no visa requirement to cross them for work.  At that point you no longer have a country in anything other than name.  Oh, and it's a "living document".  Once ratified, it can be changed without having to go back to Congress for approval of the changes.  China's not a signatory, but if they later want to be the President at the time can just pencil them in without Congress.  Want to make a national gun registry?  Just make it a condition of trade under TPP that firearms in partner countries must be registered and send it straight to a liberal Supreme Court bypassing Congress entirely.

Third - absolutely true and needs to be done

Fourth - what do you have against protecting American workers?  Shouldn't we take care of ourselves first and everybody else only after ourselves?


----------



## Brill (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> What is funny is that Trump lost the popular vote and won the electoral college. But "it is rigged" so in that case using that logic, it must have been rigged for Trump.



Are you saying that Sanders' primary loss was free and fair and the DNC had not conspired to ensure Clinton was nominated?

The kicker is, had Sanders won the primary, I think he would have EASILY defeated Trump long before Election Day.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> Are you saying that Sanders' primary loss was free and fair and the DNC had not conspired to ensure Clinton was nominated?
> 
> The kicker is, had Sanders won the primary, I think he would have EASILY defeated Trump long before Election Day.



Well people were saying that this race was rigged via the electoral college, and voter fraud. Those things have nothing to do with the DNC. I am talking about the general election.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

compforce said:


> All 4 of which I like
> 
> First - We're getting killed by NAFTA.  The only thing it has done for us is give us a cheap place to move American jobs.
> 
> ...



I have no issue with 4, but it reads strangely to me. 

His whole first 100 days plan reeks of someone who doesn't understand civics:
Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days


----------



## compforce (Nov 9, 2016)

The biggest outcome I want to see in the short term is the next South Park when they have to let Mr. Garrison win the election...


----------



## compforce (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I have no issue with 4, but it reads strangely to me.
> 
> His whole first 100 days plan reeks of someone who doesn't understand civics:
> Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days



It does read a little strange, but I interpret it to mean "Identify areas where an unfair burden is placed on American workers but not others with the intent to remove the burdens on the American worker"

I don't have a problem with that statement at its face, but will have to wait and see what materializes in the longer run.

This is the part that I think he's talking about:


> End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.


----------



## CQB (Nov 9, 2016)

compforce said:


> All 4 of which I like
> 
> First - We're getting killed by NAFTA.  The only thing it has done for us is give us a cheap place to move American jobs.
> 
> ...


I would agree with scrapping the TTP, it's dreadful. 
The result does tie in with other movements: Brexit (of course), Pediga in Germany, Marin Le Pen in France & we have our right wingers here too. If you have no employment prospects but are assured that globalisation is good for you, you'd become pretty angry when you live in a different reality. 
Like Reagan, who he admires, I trust that The Donald will get sound advice.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 9, 2016)

Interesting article...Dear Democrats, Read This If You Do Not Understand Why Trump Won

You Hillary voters could have had Webb.  Think about it, a real leader for America.


----------



## Polar Bear (Nov 9, 2016)

Three things I posted on FB yesterday and today. To me I voted for the Supreme Court, nothing more.

May God have mercy on our souls! This election determines our children's future. I have a feeling in our now instant gratification life we will have made the wrong choice based on us and not the future.

The media which got everything wrong on the election, is now going to tell us all the bad things that are going to happen, as a result of the thing they said couldn't happen!

I was just having this conversation this morning. If what the news said was true then Trump would have lost. Blacks, Hispanics, Females, and Homosexuals would not have voted for him. Guess what they did. Everyone is tired of the status quo. All those Tea Party candidates that where elected 2, 4, and 6 years ago on Changing stuff in DC. Here is your chance don't screw it up.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## Gunz (Nov 9, 2016)

I like the electrical college. And I love technology.


----------



## Polar Bear (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I would check your demographics. The only portion of women he won with was white women without a college degree. That kind of plays into the whole "uneducated" and "white people" thing. He didn't win even close to a majority with any minority, regardless of education.
> 
> 2016 Election exit polls: How the vote has shifted


You don't need a majority, just some of them. (Read my post on polls and media that I posted prior) As being married to a woman that has a masters and not a degree in basket weaving underwater. I know she did not vote for Hillary. So the polls on demographics are worthless. If the polls where true and portrayed by the media, Trump would have lost by a landslide and Trump supporters would be crying today. I think all the candidates were bats shit crazy. So figure out who I voted for or even voted.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

Polar Bear said:


> You don't need a majority, just some of them. (Read my post on polls and media that I posted prior) As being married to a woman that has a masters and not a degree in basket weaving underwater. I know she did not vote for Hillary. So the polls on demographics are worthless. If the polls where true and portrayed by the media, Trump would have lost by a landslide and Trump supporters would be crying today. I think all the candidates were bats shit crazy. So figure out who I voted for or even voted.



Yeah these were exit polls, so much different.


----------



## CDG (Nov 9, 2016)

People had 3 choices in this election.  Vote for Hillary and the continued status quo, regardless of her experience in politics.  Vote for Trump and a MOAB into the heart of DC and the political elite, regardless of his experience in politics.  Or they could have thrown their vote away/protested the poor choices by not voting or voting for a third party.  A move that only you and your closest friends know about, and has next to no chance of becoming a big enough "thing" to change Washington.  So, do you vote for a candidate you don't necessarily like because you know it's going to contribute more to making a statement?  Or do you stage your personal protest and feel a little better about sticking to your guns, but realize you accomplished nothing?  I wish we would have had so many people not vote or vote for someone else that the election was forced to be invalidated and the parties were forced to come up with better candidates.  It's highly probable that will never happen.  So, what are you left with?  Vote for the lesser of two evils.  I didn't like either of these candidates.  I think Hillary is unbelievably corrupt and I find it hard to believe people think we actually have all the facts about her and what she's been doing for the last 30 years.  I think we are barely scratching the surface and I would love to see Trey Gowdy become the AG and get let off the leash.  I think Trump is massively underqualified everywhere but economics and I think his bluster and non-PC attitude is not always the appropriate response.  Here's what I like more about him though, the man isn't afraid to state his opinion.  Even if it seems wildly unpopular, he does not play the constant equivocation and waffling game.  I may not always like that, but I respect it. I don't think it's a great quality for a President to possess, but I do believe it is a great tool for a President to have in his toolbox and I believe it is a great tool for the world to know he has in his toolbox.  Do you honestly think Hillary believes all, or even the majority, of what she says?  She has been a cog in a massive machine that has been built on lies, cover-ups, half truths, obfuscation, and arrogance.  That machine is Washington.  A candidate like Trump being the President Elect is the biggest possible fuck you that America can give to Hillary and the rest of Washington, just like Michael Moore said.  I think we lost either way, but I think we lost less by electing Trump.  I, for one, am very anticipatory of the first 100 days Trump spends in office.  I am equally as interested to see what happens while President Obama closes out his term.  Are charges brought against Hillary so that he can issue a pardon?  If so, does Trump challenge that as soon as he takes office?  Does President Obama work to have a smooth handover, or does he say "fuck it" and leave Trump twisting in the wind as much as possible?  Just solely looking at the fact that the American people sent a Clinton and a Washington elite packing is a step in the right direction.  Trump was not the best candidate, but putting Clinton and her ilk on notice that shit needs to change is not a bad first step to turning this country around.  I am not apologizing for Trump and I am not saying he will "Make America Great Again".  I am saying that electing him is the American people saying that enough is e-fucking-nough, and that first step away from the status quo needed to happen.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah these were exit polls, so much different.


I don't care about exit polling data either.  

What Polar Bear said is all that matters...you don't need to win them all, you just need to win enough.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I don't care about exit polling data either.
> 
> What Polar Bear said is all that matters...you don't need to win them all, you just need to win enough.



In the right places


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Trump got smoked in the demo's you'd expect- women and minorities- and did really well w *young white uneducated males and old people.*





Centermass said:


> If and when he does go over and it's official, I will say it now. *Those who lined up against him, that blew him off, didn't take his run seriously and thought he had no chance today, and didn't show up at the polls, have no one to blame but themselves.*



Like I said above earlier.

C'mon dude. That comment right there smacks of elitism and ghost guessing. Don't give me that garbage that Rasmussen or anyone else knows for sure who pulled the handle on the ballot machines and for whom. Yesterday already proved that polls are bull shit - exit or otherwise. So, I  suppose if you have to blame the "Working Class" well then, I doubt any one of them will have a problem with that.

It also resembles the same rationale below......



TLDR20 said:


> What is funny is that Trump lost the popular vote and won the electoral college. But "it is rigged" so in that case using that logic, it must have been rigged for Trump.



You're right. Although, he had a lot of instances where one could perceive that. Between the teflon robe hillary is constantly cloaked in, the last second crap of all those women claiming what they did, and then, all of a sudden, disappeared along with the MSM and their selective coverage. ABC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, NYT, WaPo, etc (And Fox as well) cheerleading the content of their topics instead of just sticking to reporting the news, I get it. 

Well,

That's all I got for now. This post wore me out. Us old, uneducated white guys, need to go grab a Boost and then, take a nap.


----------



## Polar Bear (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah these were exit polls, so much different.


Really? Personally I have never given the truth when polled. None of there business. When you take a poll in Harlem and you get 30 white women do you think they are educated? Do you think they told the truth? You find a poll that supports you and I will find one that supports me. Not different. America was/is a train wreck for at least a decade. I hope this is a reset, good or bad to get to that reset.

Trump Pence....say it fast

Thank gawd it was Taco Tuesday or I would have been sad


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

Polar Bear said:


> Thank gawd it was Taco Tuesday or I would have been sad



Guess that would make today "Trump Day"


----------



## Dame (Nov 9, 2016)

I am neither uneducated, nor white.
My office mate is also not white, and _better_ educated than I.
This is true for many, many of the women where I work.
We do not like Trump but we hate Hillary for her dishonesty, incompetence, arrogance, and so many other things I simply cannot list all of them. We certainly do not reveal what we think in a public polling situation. 
So I wouldn't be so sure that he didn't win certain segments of the population.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 9, 2016)

This here is your "Educational System" at work. Wanna know what's wrong with America? Well, here it is. 






> Many colleges are offering their students the same general advice; unplug from social media, find a healthy escape, and “connect” by spending time with friends or volunteering. This general advice emphasizes the importance of self care for when the students are confronted by situations that can’t be moderated with a safe space.
> 
> The University of Washington, Wake Forest University, The University of Illinois, and the University of Rochester are some of many schools that are providing students with “election stress relief guides.”
> 
> ...





Link To All Those Grief Stricken


----------



## Brill (Nov 9, 2016)

Scorched earth anyone? Looks like the Democrats themselves are "brexiting".

Democratic Party must burn for a new start - CNN.com

The Democratic Party Establishment Is Finished. What a Joke.

Does the Democratic Party Have a Future?

There's no leadership for the Democrat Party right now, Chuck Todd says


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 9, 2016)

To your Safe space everyone....


----------



## Etype (Nov 9, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Believe propaganda?  No, not a big fan.
> 
> That Vlad is even better than Donnie at the playing people game?  Without question, yes.  He's smoothing over our alleged POTUS-elect, as we'd say here.
> 
> But again, if the obviousness of that is escaping the buffoon-voting majority, I'll go ahead and tentatively blame it on those rose tinted glasses and the damn crazy pills.


I'm going to assume, based on your profile, you have no background in the intelligence field.  With that assumption, I will say this-

The obvious has escaped YOU. You've fallen victim to Hillary's pool of agents of influence. Her shills who parrot her claims blindly, with no concern for their veracity.

Quoting Abe Lincoln.
Emails about yoga and grandkids.
Russia did this and that.

You and your likenesses are the victims of the subterfuge. Russia is not working here. The Democrat and Clinton machine are, you were their target. It is text book for anyone who's been trained to do it.

Being from Illinois, I'd think you would know it when you see it.


----------



## Brill (Nov 9, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> That Vlad is even better than Donnie at the playing people game?  Without question, yes.  He's smoothing over our alleged POTUS-elect, as we'd say here.



Didn't we already try the reset aka overcharge? Can't forget this little gem:

Obama Asks Medvedev for 'Space' on Missile Defense


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 9, 2016)

*President Obama once said, "Don't Know How To Drive. They Can Ride With Us If They Want To, But They Got To Get In The Back Seat."*
*
So my DNC friends, enjoy the back seat. When you all scream for partisanship, remember this quote that 95% of you were eating up. *


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> *President Obama once said, "Don't Know How To Drive. They Can Ride With Us If They Want To, But They Got To Get In The Back Seat."
> 
> So my DNC friends, enjoy the back seat. When you all scream for partisanship, remember this quote that 95% of you were eating up. *



You have no excuse now. Whatever happens going forward is on your choices. Good,bad, or otherwise. There is no obstacle to the Great America you have been promised. 

I hope that everything goes well for all our sake. I will continue to respect the office of the presidency, and our elected officials. 

If President-elect Trump turns out to be a con-man, you people who voted for him have only yourselves to blame.


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 9, 2016)

Etype said:


> I'm going to assume, based on your profile, you have no background in the intelligence field.  With that assumption, I will say this-
> 
> The obvious has escaped YOU. You've fallen victim to Hillary's pool of agents of influence. Her shills who parrot her claims blindly, with no concern for their veracity.
> 
> ...



Well.  

Intel folks have a lock on the facets of human nature.  I learn something new every day. 

 The APA and it's members are going to be disconcerted, but nothing stays the same.


----------



## Rapid (Nov 9, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Well.
> 
> Intel folks have a lock on the facets of human nature.  I learn something new every day.
> 
> The APA and it's members are going to be disconcerted, but nothing stays the same.



99% of psychologists don't know shit about the kinds of operations at play here (not in the full, big picture). The stuff involved has nothing to do with any of the mainstream fields of human nature that are studied at most institutes. I say that having successfully studied psych to postgrad level in a world class university...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 9, 2016)

And now we have protests in Seattle, Berkeley, Chicago, and NYC not organized by the Democrats but by Socialists groups according to CNN's folks on the ground.


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 9, 2016)

Rapid said:


> 99% of psychologists don't know shit about the kinds of operations at play here (not in the full, big picture). The stuff involved has nothing to do with any of the mainstream fields of human nature that are studied at most institutes. I say that having successfully studied psych to postgrad level in a world class university...



There is no sarcasm intended with my last post.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 9, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> And now we have protests in Seattle, Berkeley, Chicago, and NYC not organized by the Democrats but by Socialists groups according to CNN's folks on the ground.



Anger over Trump explodes; protesters set fires, smash glass

Just 5 miles from my home....
Protests, tensions on the rise in Minnesota following Trump victory


_________________________________________________________________________________
And I called this back on October 31st -


October 31st
2016 Presidential Race thread


----------



## Brill (Nov 9, 2016)

What are they protesting: Trump, the people who who elected him, or the process?


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Medias last dying gasp. Elections over so now comes the spin. Switching to off on the media. They are wrong all of the time.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 9, 2016)

Might be time for a wall...

Canadians pledge their own wall to block Trump-fleeing US liberals


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 9, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Like I said above earlier.
> 
> C'mon dude. That comment right there smacks of elitism and ghost guessing. Don't give me that garbage that Rasmussen or anyone else knows for sure who pulled the handle on the ballot machines and for whom. Yesterday already proved that polls are bull shit - exit or otherwise. So, I  suppose if you have to blame the "Working Class" well then, I doubt any one of them will have a problem with that.


I have no fucking clue what you're on about. I am not placing blame on anyone, but certainly not the demographic that I am a part of.

I did lol at the elitism comment though. It's like they give you guys all the same pamphlet.

"When challenged, win or lose, be sure immediately revert to these stock expressions, regardless of the actual substance of the argument. Remember, if people disagree with you, they're liberals! And that's BAD! Be sure to compare them to a college student and ignore the subject, even if it makes you look stupid!"


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 9, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Might be time for a wall...
> 
> Canadians pledge their own wall to block Trump-fleeing US liberals



The Commonwealth must be defended. I have already decided only hockey loving refugees will be allowed entry. They will have to pass an advanced hockey knowledge test to prove their worth.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> pic


Hey bro, you can't do that. You just a-salted me. 

GET IT


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 9, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Hey bro, you can't do that. You just a-salted me.
> 
> GET IT



Look if it means anything I still believe your hair won this election.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 9, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> Look if it means anything I still believe your hair won this election.


I don't think that was ever in question, honestly. Even if we completely discount the hair polling (which, until this point everyone agreed were valuable and generally trustworthy), my hair still won in a landslide. 

It's so good I even have a hair apparent with his own bodacious quaff.


----------



## DC (Nov 9, 2016)

Hurry up and busy leaving 

The 2016 presidential election was one of the most divisive and polarizing presidential elections in recent American history. Several celebrities publicly stated that they would "leave the U.S." if Donald Trump was elected President of the United States of America. Unfortunately for them, their worst fear came true on the night of November 8th, 2016 when became clear that Donald Trump would become the next Commander-In-Chief.

1. Amy Schumer
2. Rosie O’Donnell
3. Lena Dunham
4. Jennifer Lawrence
5. Barry Diller
6. Barbra Streisand
7. Bryan Cranston
8. Jon Stewart
9. Cher
10. Chelsea Handler
11. Samuel L. Jackson
12. Whoopi Goldberg
13. Neve Campbell
14. Keegan-Michael Key
15. George Lopez
16. Ne-Yo
17. Rev. Al Sharpton
18. Raven-Symoné
19. Eddie Griffin
20. Omari Hardwick
21. Jenny Slate
22. Zosia Mamet
23. Chloe Sevigny
24. Natasha Lyonne
25. Elisabeth Moss
26. Spike Lee
27. Kathryn Hahn
28. Lily Depp
29. Gabrielle Union
30. Matt Damon
31. Ruth Bader Ginsburg
32. Will.I.Am

While many conservative Americans are silently enjoying their victory others have taken the opportunity to remind these celebrities of their promise to flee the country. Martin Shkreli, ex-pharmaceutical executive and internet celebrity, has offered to provide airfare for any celebrity that threatened to leave.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 9, 2016)

The POTUS elect has spent plenty to make the comb over stay in place no matter what. He is one of the few candidates to wear any kind of head cover while on a podium. Trump has serious, I mean PJ/SEAL level concerns for his hair.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 9, 2016)

The national infrastructure budget is going to be spent on keeping that mane in place


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 9, 2016)

DC said:


> Hurry up and busy leaving
> 
> The 2016 presidential election was one of the most divisive and polarizing presidential elections in recent American history. Several celebrities publicly stated that they would "leave the U.S." if Donald Trump was elected President of the United States of America. Unfortunately for them, their worst fear came true on the night of November 8th, 2016 when became clear that Donald Trump would become the next Commander-In-Chief.
> 
> ...



Hence the need for a Canadian wall.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> You have no excuse now. Whatever happens going forward is on your choices. Good,bad, or otherwise. There is no obstacle to the Great America you have been promised.
> 
> I hope that everything goes well for all our sake. I will continue to respect the office of the presidency, and our elected officials.
> 
> If President-elect Trump turns out to be a con-man, you people who voted for him have only yourselves to blame.



I don't recall ever saying I voted for him. I'm simply referring to the fact that Republicans now control Congress and the White House.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 9, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The POTUS elect has spent plenty to make the comb over stay in place no matter what. He is one of the few candidates to wear any kind of head cover while on a podium. Trump has serious, I mean PJ/SEAL level concerns for his hair.


YOU'D THINK I LIKE HIM MORE RIGHT!?

I want to put this out there while we have a moment where people aren't screaming at their keyboards and typing with fists- Mr. Trump is the future POTUS. I don't care about the dude, and I would prefer someone else in that seat, but I respect the living fuck out of that office and I'll be just as good an NCO for President Trump as I was for Obama and Bush.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 9, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> I don't recall ever saying I voted for him. I'm simply referring to the fact that Republicans now control Congress and the White House.


 
That was more of a "you" as in general. I probably should have been clearer. If you didn't vote for him great!


----------



## Snake (Nov 9, 2016)

Okay so I think something that we all can be happy about is that Eric Greitens is now the governor of Missouri.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 9, 2016)

Also, Joe Arpaio was finally unseated as Sheriff of Maricola County.  Good riddance!


----------



## Etype (Nov 9, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Well.
> 
> Intel folks have a lock on the facets of human nature.  I learn something new every day.
> 
> The APA and it's members are going to be disconcerted, but nothing stays the same.


They have a pretty good lock on what effective manipulation looks like, and how to proliferate a lie.



ThunderHorse said:


> And now we have protests in Seattle, Berkeley, Chicago, and NYC not organized by the Democrats but by Socialists groups according to CNN's folks on the ground.


They are smashing and burning their bastions, brilliant.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 9, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> @ThunderHorse , yeah , what he said.
> 
> Trump got smoked in the demo's you'd expect- women and minorities- and did really well w young white uneducated males and old people.


Why does a lack of college make someone uneducated?


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 9, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Why does a lack of college make someone uneducated?


Because that's what the specific poll we referenced used as a parameter. 

Nothing more.


----------



## Polar Bear (Nov 9, 2016)

I did not write this but it sums up for all of us who voted against Hillary and that does not mean we voted for Trump. We have been in the shadows for 8 years waiting for our time. Since no one was willing to listen. Working hard everyday. It is a slam against you who blindly support Trump and those who hated him. Take your feminist, environmentalist, racist, and homosexual bull crap and stuff it where the sun don't shine. If you do not rise up and do your part and make us better. YOU ARE TO BLAME. I have stayed out of 99.99% of these threads. Unless it suits my need to add fun. You don't have to love your brother, you just have to listen to him and understand his point of view. I have not seen that lately on this board.

As a deplorable I am a collage educated white male with a BS in PolSci and Culture Anthropology. You are all fucked up as a football bat. Welocome to life as we know it.

Regards,
The Deplorable's

I voted against Trump, but I am on the Trump train today.

Donald Trump didn't win because "he was a racist who hates minorities". He won because of your arrogance and cultural elitism. You found them to be deplorable. He certainly won some votes on "building a wall" but that didn't carry him to the presidency.

He won because he galvinized rural america. He won because he spoke to the class of people most of you elitists feel are too uncouth to talk to. You mock them in the stores, online - their culture and economic status was witty punchline of a New Yorker joke. This was a cultural battle; your Patagonia jacket versus their carhart jacket. 

You called them "working class whites" online because it was slightly more PC than calling them "white trash"; although in social circles you certainly said worse. Even during the election polling it became the norm to say "the non college educated white vote". You didn't build a culture of inclusivity with your elitist groupthink.

You were too busy labelling Donald Trump a racist when Donald Trump was in the trenches of rust belt cities promising to stop trade deals that took jobs out of "fly over states". They never saw economic recovery. The new digital economy was never going to come to them. 

You were focused on his declassé political rhetoric when he was confronting automakers for destroying the economic viability of middle America. He offered plain text solutions to a world built around the clouded vision of technicrats.

Don't sit here and lecture us how this was win for racism. It was your own hubris and disdain for plebians that was the real monicker of hatred. You can't say you are a tolerant person when you look at whole swaths of the country like they're deplorable miscreants.

Go, listen to some of the promises Donald Trump has to offer. It was the same message as Sanders. Go and sit down with working class americans. Turn off the news and listen to your fellow American. The guy who lost his factory job, the restraunt worker who can't afford health insurance, the veteran dealing with the VA.

Listen to them. Own up to your mistakes and move on.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> Scorched earth anyone? Looks like the Democrats themselves are "brexiting".
> 
> Democratic Party must burn for a new start - CNN.com
> 
> ...



Meh, 8 years ago today pundits were saying this about the Republican Party, 4 years ago today Pundits were saying this about the Republican Party.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 9, 2016)

Polar Bear said:


> I did not write this...


Well, I am glad you didn't write it. 

Trump promised a wall. 

*"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" *

He promised to reject muslim refugees and create a deportation force to get illegal aliens out. He promised to open up libel laws so we can easier prosecute the press- and that was as a candidate. He's the president elect now.  

"*The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. *

He has promised to appoint a supreme court justice that shares his own personal views. Not one that's best for America, mind you, one that is in line with his personal ideology. 

I _am _a working class American. I have family without jobs, living hand to mouth in Ohio. My family works hard. And their life is hard. 

When Mr. Trump tables real, tangible policy that affects jobs, or vets, or any of the things you're saying he promised (except those that sort of contradict our constitution), I will start getting on board. I'll even reverse my position and say "you're right, things are better". I am ok with that.  

Fucked up as a football bat, indeed. The stances he took, the points he held- those are all still in play. It's not as if the election is over and *poof* we must forget that this is the same guy that doesn't know if his mic is on for a TV show in a fucking production bus talking about grabbing chicks by the pussy.  

Our shared mistake was the election. I own that. But "move on" isn't "free pass and never speak of it again."


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Also, Joe Arpaio was finally unseated as Sheriff of Maricola County.  Good riddance!


That sucks...a man that takes dudes to jail in pink hand cuffs and enforces immigration law...


amlove21 said:


> Our shared mistake was the election. I own that. But "move on" isn't "free pass and never speak of it again."



Moving on is a part of it.  You either work together for progress or you act like the rest of the petulant liberal white guilt people I'm reading on my timeline.  Trump has a mandate, so we'll see how this whole thing shakes out.


----------



## Snake (Nov 9, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> That sucks...a man that takes dudes to jail in pink hand cuffs and enforces immigration law...


He made what the criminal justice system has always attempted to do actually happen; making criminals not want to return to jail... Not up to date on whatever else he has done though.


----------



## CDG (Nov 9, 2016)

I will take the skeletons in PE Trump's closet over the skeletons in Hillary's closet.


----------



## AWP (Nov 10, 2016)

My Facebook is full of everything wrong in America today. The divisions continue, the alternating butthurt and righteous indignation from one side while another side gloats and calls them names. It is a goddamn shame we're acting like this and we should be embarrassed. Whatever you think of Trump, whatever you think of Clinton, nothing will change as long as we continue to split our world in such a manner. Tonight I'll have a steak and some wine, toasting my nation and those we've lost. I wish my country were better than the social nonsense I'm seeing, but we know that isn't the case.  If won't change ourselves we can't expect the system to change. Do what y'all have to do, but I'm going to grab 'em by the America and get on with life.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 10, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I have no fucking clue what you're on about.* I am not placing blame on anyone,* but certainly not the demographic that I am a part of.
> 
> I did lol at the elitism comment though. It's like they give you guys all the same pamphlet.



As for the "Elitism" comment, I stand by it....and it sure as fuck didn't come from any fucking pamphlet. 



amlove21 said:


> "When challenged, win or lose, be sure immediately revert to these stock expressions, regardless of the actual substance of the argument. Remember, if people disagree with you, they're liberals! And that's BAD! Be sure to compare them to a college student and ignore the subject, even if it makes you look stupid!"



Yeah,

You're right. I guess being my own man, having my own opinions and formulating them, based on my own experience, makes me a stupid, non college educated male, in your eyes, no problem. 
However, watch out. Next time I comment, I may just actually use and reference a fucking "Pamphlet"


----------



## compforce (Nov 10, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Well, I am glad you didn't write it.
> 
> Trump promised a wall.
> 
> ...



Yes, and that door was located on Ellis Island, not the entire southern border.  You can have a wall and still have a door.

In everything he's said, it's been about putting American _citizens_ first.  Not whites, not whites and blacks, _citizens_.  That's not racist... That's Americanist.   BTW, you do realize that we had a National Quota system from 1929 until it was repealed in 1980 that limited immigration by issuing a limit on the number of immigrants from a given country.  That period was arguably America's period of greatest accomplishment.  You know, back when you had to have a skill that America needed in order to immigrate here.

Early American Immigration Policies



> He promised to open up libel laws so we can easier prosecute the press- and that was as a candidate. He's the president elect now.
> 
> "*The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. *



I am torn on this issue.  Libel means, by definition, telling hurtful, deliberate untruths about someone.  I don't think any of us will argue that the media today still maintains the standard of truth and associated due diligence that existed in the past.  In the knee-jerk publishing of the online era, most stories are patently wrong at first and then corrected over time.  Freedom of the press means no restrictions on the stories they relate, NOT the right to deliberately publish factually incorrect materials.  I'd be OK with being able to prosecute the press for the deliberate or negligent publication of falsehoods.  Maybe the press would take a step back and start doing the research on what they publish before putting it out there.



> He has promised to appoint a supreme court justice that shares his own personal views. Not one that's best for America, mind you, one that is in line with his personal ideology.



And Obama didn't put Sotomayer on the bench because she shared his personal views?  Reagan didn't appoint Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor because they shared his personal views?  The argument that he would appoint someone that shares his personal views is specious.  Congress would ensure that they are good for America, just like they have always done.


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

I understood the wall on the southern border to slow down illegal immigration AND the flow of drugs. Cheap Mexican heroin is destroying this country; both wealthy and poor.

I also understood that his plan to freeze immigration from conflict areas (e.g. Muslim ban) would be in place until only until the refugees could be properly vetted.  How would anyone be able to confirm the identity of Abu Safiya and his family? Europe has not been able to do it yet.

I'm all for holding press accountable especially when they repeat outlandish crap.

All Presidents stack the court but Congress has a say too.

I fully expect this President will have disappointments, like others before him but I think setting the stage of accountability within the Executive branch will be a win for all of us. I do believe that in a Trump admin many agency heads (with trickle down effects) will act differently than previously where they openly had contempt of Congress and the People (e.g lavish GSA parties, DOS spending spree on silver, etc).


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 10, 2016)

Any wall won't slow down the drug trade very much or at all.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 10, 2016)

Dear Mr. Putin,

Yes, we all know you are former KGB and also know you believe that you will be able to play President Elect Trump like a Russian accordion. But please calm down the rhetoric just a titch?  Mmmm-Kay?

The Kremlin says victory for Hillary Clinton would have sparked World War Three | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Gunz (Nov 10, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> *"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" *



"I am for open immigration, but that sign we have on the front of the Statue of Liberty, "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses..." can't we just say, "Hey, the door's open, we'll take whoever you got"?_ *Do we have to specify the wretched refuse?* ..."
_
Jerry Seinfeld


----------



## Etype (Nov 10, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> *"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" *


That's just a poem written by citizen.

That's not law, policy, or otherwise.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 10, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Well, I am glad you didn't write it.
> 
> Trump promised a wall.
> 
> ...



"Free pass," totally agreed.  He is, and should be, on a short leash.

RE: the wall; how is that possibly a bad thing?  Border security should be an important part of a comprehensive homeland security policy.  Right now, it's a joke.

RE: deportation/limited access, you can thank Carter for having a hand in that.  He proposed banning Iranian immigrants during the crisis.  I don't think he should, or could, ban all Muslims from every country (he as much has said so), but enforce an immigration structure with better vetting, and banning from Syria/Iraq until we get a handle on exactly who is coming in is a pretty good idea.

RE:  SCOTUS appointments, perhaps what he considers a candidate who would be good for the country does share his personal beliefs _vis-a-vis_ constitutional authority.

I think the life cycle of any politician is largely based on two parts: the campaign rhetoric, and the reality of the job.  Unless he plans to execute a shit-load of unconstitutional EOs the way Obama did, he simply cannot wish into existence policies that underscore his campaign rhetoric.

The man has been president-elect for 36 hours; we have to give him a chance.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 10, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Dear Mr. Putin,
> 
> Yes, we all know you are former KGB and also know you believe that you will be able to play President Elect Trump like a Russian accordion. But please calm down the rhetoric just a titch?  Mmmm-Kay?
> 
> The Kremlin says victory for Hillary Clinton would have sparked World War Three | Daily Mail Online


It is not a stretch to say that had HRC been elected, the probability of WW3 would have increased substantially. This is the same reason I did not want to see Firorina or Christie get the nomination. The hardline stance against Russia does nothing to help further our interests, or gain support for global influence without over extending ourselves. A nuclear exchange (even on a small scale) is more likely than it has been since the collapse of the USSR.

Currently, Russia is where the US was in the 50's. A little socially backwards, but proudly trying to grow itself economically.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

Special Warfare School Changes Name To Trump Yuuuge Platinum Warrior Academy


----------



## AWP (Nov 10, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> A nuclear exchange (even on a small scale) is more likely than it has been since the collapse of the USSR.



There's a somewhat tongue-in-cheek joke at work about "I hope I'm not on shift when WWIII breaks out." One on hand it is black humor, on the other...we wonder about it sometimes.

I have maintained since my first days in Afghanistan back in 2004 and nothing's changed: if the American people knew what went on in the greater CENTCOM AOR they would riot in the streets.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 10, 2016)

It would appear the good folks at The New Yorker are not taking this well...

Presidential Election 2016: An American Tragedy


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 10, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> It would appear the good folks at The New Yorker are not taking this well...
> 
> Presidential Election 2016: An American Tragedy



"At this point what difference does it make??"

Here's the problem:  They were so utterly believing that HRC was going to win, and _deserved _to win.  Anything less cannot be possible since any reasonable and sane person would have to vote for her.  The election was to be _pro forma_, a mere formality of ascension.  People like this cannot see past the end of their pointy little noses down which they cast glances at everyone other than the reasonable and sane people.  People like this cannot fathom that the citizenry does not want another Clinton, and does not want a Republican politician who has "been there, done that."  People like this can't get and never will.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 10, 2016)

In any event where there are two sides competing, there is a winner and a loser. No different for POTUS.

People need to grow up and move on. If there is one trait that I can't stand, it's sore, wimpy, whining, losers.

Grow up and move on!


----------



## The Hate Ape (Nov 10, 2016)

I'm loving the compilations of crying, sobbing, snot & drool faced voters.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 10, 2016)

Somebody out in Berkeley or somewhere burned a giant paper mache effigy of Trump's head. I mean, who has time to build a giant paper mache head???


----------



## Rapid (Nov 10, 2016)

The Hate Ape said:


> I'm loving the compilations of crying, sobbing, snot & drool faced voters.



I'm loving what these people must be feeling after their continuous (at every stage of the way) denial that Trump could ever be President.

A fat fuck like Michael Moore managed to figure this out (though he did not endorse him -- quite the contrary). And yet they, along with all the experts and intelligentsia, couldn't.







And they still don't understand that _they_ created a situation where someone like Donald Fucking Trump was electable!

I think this comment sums up people's indignant and repugnant reactions all over social media right now:


----------



## Rapid (Nov 10, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Somebody out in Berkeley or somewhere burned a giant paper mache effigy of Trump's head. I mean, who has time to build a giant paper mache head???



Women's Studies graduates and other unemployables.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 10, 2016)

Rapid said:


> post


I hate that fat fuck, but he nails it brilliantly in the video. Great call.


----------



## The Hate Ape (Nov 10, 2016)

Hell yeah Michael Moore.
(Never thought I would write that)


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 10, 2016)

Yet one more reason I love this country and the systems we have in place.  Election is over, name calling is over, we move on.

Everyone.


In a cordial beginning to their transfer of power, President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump met at the White House Thursday.

'Excellent' first meeting for Obama, Trump


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 10, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Somebody out in Berkeley or somewhere burned a giant paper mache effigy of Trump's head. I mean, who has time to build a giant paper mache head???



The hair alone had to take 3-4 weeks!!!!


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 10, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Yet one more reason I love this country and the systems we have in place.  Election is over, name calling is over, we move on.
> 
> Everyone.
> 
> ...



Looks like he's ready to set an example of acceptable behavior and I hope his adherents take note.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 10, 2016)

@0699 You want to back up that disagree?


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

Agoge said:


> In any event where there are two sides competing, there is a winner and a loser. No different for POTUS.
> 
> People need to grow up and move on. If there is one trait that I can't stand, it's sore, wimpy, whining, losers.
> 
> Grow up and move on!



I agree to a point. Whether you agree or not, to many people this election was about more than policy. To many this election was a trial for whether or not such an apparently shitty human being would be elected. The things Trump said hurt many people. To those people his election was an affirmation by Americans that what he said was ok. To victims of assault, to certain minority groups, and to many women, this was seen as an assault on them personally. 

It is hard to tell those people to just grow up and move on. I do think that moving on is necessary, and I have done just that. To be perfectly honest the actions of the president have almost no impact on my day to day life, or at least they haven't thus far. Hopefully that continues.



Rapid said:


> I'm loving what these people must be feeling after their continuous (at every stage of the way) denial that Trump could ever be President.
> 
> A fat fuck like Michael Moore managed to figure this out (though he did not endorse him -- quite the contrary). And yet they, along with all the experts and intelligentsia, couldn't.
> 
> ...


I posted that video yesterday. Welcome to the thread.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> To be perfectly honest the actions of the president have almost no impact on my day to day life, or at least they haven't thus far. Hopefully that continues.



I agree. The crux of what I was trying to say -- in my own way -- was what you conveyed in the above quoted portion of your post. 

HRC did a lot that I completely disagreed with, yet, had she been elected, I would go on as I always have. They both said things that were hurtful to many people and everyone -- on both sides -- simply have to move on if they truly want things to get better.

I am a huge supporter of protests...as it is our right to do so. I simply don't like or agree with rioting for riotings sake. Hopefully, this post is understandable and the point I am trying to convey is at least somewhat clear.


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Any wall won't slow down the drug trade very much or at all.



"Mules" are literally rucking bags of high grade weed and X across the border!



Freefalling said:


> if the American people knew what went on in the greater CENTCOM AOR they would riot in the streets.



Do you think a new kind of CINC will empower his military leaders so that stops?

In @Ooh-Rah 's pic, did anyone notice how small Trump's hands look?


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> "Mules" are literally rucking bags of high grade weed and X across the border!



If you think a wall will stop this you are ignorant of reality.


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> If you think a wall will stop this you are ignorant of reality.



Slow...not stop. Never said it would stop.

You are ignorant to infer that my ignorant post implied my ignorance!


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> "Mules" are literally rucking bags of high grade weed and X across the border!



If I may play one of the cards from your deck... I know what I'm talking about and you'll have to believe me.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> If you think a wall will stop this you are ignorant of reality.



No it won't stop it but it can slow it, funnel it and control movement.  Allow reallocation of resources to combat it elsewhere.


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> If I may play one of the cards from your deck... I know what I'm talking about and you'll have to believe me.



I will absolutely concede such! My detailed knowledge of DTOs is pre-Chapo arrest.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I agree to a point. Whether you agree or not, to many people this election was about more than policy. To many this election was a trial for whether or not such an apparently shitty human being would be elected. The things Trump said hurt many people. To those people his election was an affirmation by Americans that what he said was ok. To victims of assault, to certain minority groups, and to many women, this was seen as an assault on them personally.
> 
> It is hard to tell those people to just grow up and move on. I do think that moving on is necessary, and I have done just that. To be perfectly honest the actions of the president have almost no impact on my day to day life, or at least they haven't thus far. Hopefully that continues.


Hillary and POTUS seemed to spare no kindness towards people they disagreed with.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 10, 2016)

So glad they changed their minds.

Canadians lash out at celebrities threatening to move to their country after Trump win | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 10, 2016)

White House staff look on as Obama greets Trump.  Now I'm no expert on body language but...


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Hillary and POTUS seemed to spare no kindness towards people they disagreed with.



Bro what does Hillary have to do with this, or the President?



lindy said:


> Slow...not stop. Never said it would stop.
> 
> You are ignorant to infer that my ignorant post implied my ignorance!



It won't slow down shit. 

I do like that second part though.


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

The Hate Ape said:


> Hell yeah Michael Moore.
> (Never thought I would write that)



Along those same lines, I'm posting a great piece by MSNBC related to MSM cheerleading vice reporting.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

Mules do move drugs into and out of Mexico. But there is lots of fence there now, solution? Tunnels. Lots and lots and lots of tunnels. They are already there, and unless the wall,which I don't think will be built, plans to go down 50 or so feet, I really don't think shit is going to slow down.

The best way to reduce the influx of illegal weed is to legalize it. That is where the vast majority of drug demand stems from. Legalize and let American farmers grow it.

Decreasing demand for illegal weed cuts out the base from which the narcos feed. Heroin is also a problem but nowadays a lot of that is getting hopped up once in the states.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 10, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Hillary and POTUS seemed to spare no kindness towards people they disagreed with.


Robert Gates, Roy LaHood, James Comey, John Hunstsman, Chuck Hagel, and Ben Bernanke were all Republicans.  Petraeus too.


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 10, 2016)

Well this is no real surprise. 

Muslim ban gone from Trump website


----------



## DC (Nov 10, 2016)

The hate fear rhetoric is ALL media driven. Until they are held accountable the shit spewing will continue. It's like the movie The Right Stuff. Every time the media was on the sound of cicada locusts was soundtracked. Bunch flies landing on shit and spreading it around.


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> The best way to reduce the influx of illegal weed is to legalize it. That is where the vast majority of drug demand stems from. Legalize and let American farmers grow it.



I could get behind that IF the states and USG would tax the shit out of its purchase to fund research into its medicinal quality and organic compounds.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> I could get behind that IF the states and USG would tax the shit out of its purchase to fund research into its medicinal quality and organic compounds.


Well they are taxing the shit out of it, where legal.


----------



## DC (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well they are taxing the shit out of it, where legal.



Just passed here. Typical Cali no plan if it does(did). Rec use immediately but actual licensing of shops will have to wait until 2018. The already established shops will get licensing first. Perceived tax of 15% and taxing buds and leaves individually. How that will work no idea. Regardless along with all the other tax increases there will only be rich and poor around to indulge.


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

Trump's victory devastated the markets...wait...news...

DOW at record HIGH???



@compforce , SWHC is killing me!


----------



## Rapid (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I posted that video yesterday. Welcome to the thread.



I didn't know we couldn't post things more than once or reference them.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

Rapid said:


> I didn't know we couldn't post things more than once or reference them.



That normally is accompanied by a quote. Posting the same media over and over takes up space and is genererally not the norm on a board. Whenever something is posted more than once it is pointed out. You have been around long enough to know that.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well they are taxing the shit out of it, where legal.



Which won't do Shit for the illegal market, which is priced lower than legal markets.  We're going through the legalization process in Canada right now and it's not going to do anything for the black market.  Even the medical side is priced out of reach of the those that actually need it.  Government licensing, taxes and security needs make it near impossible for producers to lower prices to compete with the black market.  

As for your tunnel argument, that's another area that resources can be redirected.  Invest in LiDAR for aerial surveillance, vehicle mounted GPR and allocate more resources to help the Mexicans take on the cartels.

More money needs to be put into preventional education, addictions and mental health resources.  Make your health care actually affordable, so people can afford proper care and medication.

I could go on but that would need its own thread.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

The cost argument is funny, particularly when looked at in context with the legalization in the states. People are buying plenty of it legally in Washington Oregon and Colorado.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> The cost argument is funny, particularly when looked at in context with the legalization in the states. People are buying plenty of it legally in Washington Oregon and Colorado.



Sure but they aren't the demographic that the black market targets.  They are yuppies that can afford it.

@TLDR20  A little reading.  I'm a MMJ patient, have friends within the legal market and know lots that still use the black market.  I'm well versed on the subject.

Is It Cheaper to Buy Weed on the Street or at a Dispensary?

Colorado Lost $25,000,000 to The Black Market


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 10, 2016)

Thought these were pretty interesting articles:

Commentary: The unbearable smugness of the press

Doggedness and Defiance: How Trump won


----------



## DC (Nov 10, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Thought these were pretty interesting articles:
> 
> Commentary: The unbearable smugness of the press



CNN agenda model.


----------



## Rapid (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> That normally is accompanied by a quote. Posting the same media over and over takes up space and is genererally not the norm on a board. Whenever something is posted more than once it is pointed out. You have been around long enough to know that.



I could argue about the context, but it's pointless. It just seems a little petty to play the admin card for something so trifling, and likely because of opposing views. The thread won't fall apart if I don't explicitly state, "By the way, this was previously posted x pages ago by y" when making a reference to something or making a point. But in future I'll make sure to reference any media previously posted, APA style.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> It won't slow down shit.
> 
> I do like that second part though.



One thing you don't see is the BP up in arms about it.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 10, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> White House staff look on as Obama greets Trump.  Now I'm no expert on body language but...
> View attachment 17133



Pretty much the same look Bush got from Clinton staffers. Same, same really. I understand that  a lot of office keyboards were missing the letter "W" when Bush/Chaney moved in. Perhaps that is just rumor, but it fit the times.

ETA: How do we know for sure they were not eyeballing Obama?


----------



## compforce (Nov 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> Trump's victory devastated the markets...wait...news...
> 
> DOW at record HIGH???
> 
> ...



And gold (NUGT) crushed me yesterday in a bad day trade... in @15.50 and out @13.93  Thank god I got out, it closed at 10.97 today.  As for my bet against the S&P, it's not dead yet, but it is getting close to unrecoverable.  I need 2120 or less by 18 NOV to make anything on it.


----------



## Rapid (Nov 10, 2016)

Apparently, YouTube has been deleting this video and issuing strikes against those uploading it. Protecting the narrative once again?

"A bunch of thugs attack a trump voter and steal his car and wallet"



Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 10, 2016)

Anyone read this yet: How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

I tried to have civil discourse with a liberal today, got deleted.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 10, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Apparently, YouTube has been deleting this video and issuing strikes against those uploading it. Protecting the narrative once again?
> 
> "A bunch of thugs attack a trump voter and steal his car and wallet"
> 
> ...


That is seriously fucked up but nothing a little .40 or 9 mike-mike couldn't fix.


----------



## compforce (Nov 10, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Anyone read this yet: How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind
> 
> I tried to have civil discourse with a liberal today, got deleted.



Big thumbs up to that article.  He hits the 10 ring...it would be an X, but he left out some pieces IMO.  Easily the best Cracked article I've read and not a single piece of satire in it.



Blizzard said:


> That is seriously fucked up but nothing a little .40 or 9 mike-mike couldn't fix.



Chicago... what's he going to do, throw it at them?


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 10, 2016)

compforce said:


> Chicago... what's he going to do, throw it at them?


touche


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

Centermass said:


> One thing you don't see is the BP up in arms about it.



They have just about the most job security imaginable right now. I'd be happy too.



Rapid said:


> I could argue about the context, but it's pointless. It just seems a little petty to play the admin card for something so trifling, and likely because of opposing views. The thread won't fall apart if I don't explicitly state, "By the way, this was previously posted x pages ago by y" when making a reference to something or making a point. But in future I'll make sure to reference any media previously posted, APA style.



You can keep you shitty attitude. My admin card was played because that is a site norm.  You can keep your attempt at saying it is because of opposing views, especially after the last day or two and people who are no longer members here.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 10, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> I'm a MMJ patient



Don't try to church it up son, don't you mean "Pot Head"





LOL, I'm kidding brother, I'd smoke dope tomorrow if it was legal here and helped my bullshit.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 10, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Don't try to church it up son, don't you mean "Pot Head"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Haha the wife prefers the pothead me over the angry Asshole.


----------



## AWP (Nov 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> That normally is accompanied by a quote. Posting the same media over and over takes up space and is genererally not the norm on a board. Whenever something is posted more than once it is pointed out. You have been around long enough to know that.



You could have done it without the "Welcome to the thread" comment, particularly given your mutual polar opposition throughout the entire election.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> You could have done it without the "Welcome to the thread" comment, particularly given your mutual polar opposition throughout the entire election.



Fair enough.


----------



## Trev (Nov 10, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Apparently, YouTube has been deleting this video and issuing strikes against those uploading it. Protecting the narrative once again?
> 
> "A bunch of thugs attack a trump voter and steal his car and wallet"
> 
> ...


Funny how liberals say 'Trump is LITERALLY Fascist." Then you see the same group of people using violence to enforce a political idea. All that's missing are matching shirts.


----------



## Ex3 (Nov 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> Are you saying that Sanders' primary loss was free and fair and the DNC had not conspired to ensure Clinton was nominated?
> 
> The kicker is, had Sanders won the primary, I think he would have EASILY defeated Trump long before Election Day.


Agreed. The Democratic Party is to blame for Trump. They gerryrigging the primaries to favor Clinton; if they'd let the Bernie train run, the people that wanted 'change' and an 'outsider' would've gone for him and I think he would've won in a landslide.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 11, 2016)

Ex3 said:


> Agreed. The Democratic Party is to blame for Trump. They gerryrigging the primaries to favor Clinton; if they'd let the Bernie train run, the people that wanted 'change' and an 'outsider' would've gone for him and I think he would've won in a landslide.


I think Bernie would have won more states but still would have lost because the Super Delegates were bought and paid for.  I remember previously that Super-Delegates were semi-free agents with still a tie to a state.  I guess they're now all free agents and no pseudo tie to a state.

Also...when you try to create a wave of Islamophobia with a false flag report:

Louisiana student ‘fabricated’ story of hijab attack, police say


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 11, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I think Bernie would have won more states but still would have lost because the Super Delegates were bought and paid for.  I remember previously that Super-Delegates were semi-free agents with still a tie to a state.  I guess they're now all free agents and no pseudo tie to a state.
> 
> Also...when you try to create a wave of Islamophobia with a false flag report:
> 
> Louisiana student ‘fabricated’ story of hijab attack, police say


Wait.... bought and paid for by Republicans? 

I think you just said that Bernie "would have won more states but still would have lost because the Super Delegates were bought and paid for..."

Are you saying that the election was rigged for Pres-Elect Trump no matter who the Democratic nominee was?

@Ex3 said Bernie would have won in a landslide.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 11, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Apparently, YouTube has been deleting this video and issuing strikes against those uploading it. Protecting the narrative once again?


Youtube only deletes shit to protect copyrights.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 11, 2016)

Ex3 said:


> Agreed. The Democratic Party is to blame for Trump. They gerryrigging the primaries to favor Clinton; if they'd let the Bernie train run, the people that wanted 'change' and an 'outsider' would've gone for him and I think he would've won in a landslide.


Obviously it's all speculation but Bernie didn't have enough mass appeal and his policies were problematic.  He spoke to a certain base but not one that is overwhelmingly popular.  While similar in presenting themselves as outsiders, etc.  Trump and Bernie were quite different in their appeal and I don't know that there is much, if any crossover in that demographic.  Trump was/is polarizing.  Yet, he still won handily.  Bernie was a different candidate than Clinton but not necessarily a better one.

Also consider the number of Republican victories in Congressional races.  Again, that evidence doesn't align with Bernie's ideology.

Either way, fortunately for us all, we'll never know what a Sanders presidency would've looked like.


----------



## Ex3 (Nov 11, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> Obviously it's all speculation but Bernie didn't have enough mass appeal and his policies were problematic.  He spoke to a certain base but not one that is overwhelmingly popular.  While similar in presenting themselves as outsiders, etc.  Trump and Bernie were quite different in their appeal and I don't know that there is much, if any crossover in that demographic.  Trump was/is polarizing.  Yet, he still won handily.  Bernie was a different candidate than Clinton but not necessarily a better one.
> 
> Also consider the number of Republican victories in Congressional races.  Again, that evidence doesn't align with Bernie's ideology.
> 
> Either way, fortunately for us all, we'll never know what a Sanders presidency would've looked like.



Point taken in the congressional races, but that's not set in stone. There have been several times where a republican won the White House and the democrats controlled congress - Eisenhower, Nixon, HW Bush.

Not fortunate for "us all". I'm not looking forward to the next four years. I wasn't a Clinton fan, but given the shitty choices, I thought she would've made a better leader. Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one.


----------



## Brill (Nov 11, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Youtube only deletes shit to protect copyrights.



Where is the Democrat condemnation of such acts? If President Obama had a son, what would he be doing?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 11, 2016)

Loud noises!!!!!!   :blkeye:


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> Where is the Democrat condemnation of such acts? If President Obama had a son, what would he be doing?



Wait, so whenever some idiots beat someone up, anywhere in a country of 330 million people I need to come out and condemn it, or just party leaders? I don't know where that happened, I don't know all the context, but it looks like some stupid ass shit. The police are saying it stemmed from a traffic incident, but what do they know? 

If President Obama had a son, I'm sure he would be in a very good private school in Washington DC. He'd probably be in the middle of basketball season right now. Unless you meant to imply something else...


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 11, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Loud noises!!!!!!   :blkeye:
> 
> View attachment 17137



I think a lot more people are protesting the republic than democracy.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 11, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Youtube only deletes shit to protect copyrights.



I recently had a picture of me in uniform deleted almost immediately after posting for "violating community standards" because I was carrying a rifle.  They delete whatever they want.

@TLDR20  "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" - Obama


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 11, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> I recently had a picture of me in uniform deleted almost immediately after posting for "violating community standards" because I was carrying a rifle.  They delete whatever they want.
> 
> @TLDR20  "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" - Obama


I got the reference. President Obama was saying that if he had a son he would look like any other black teenager. The implication underneath Lindy's post is that because President Obama's son would be black, he would be out being a thug right now... or am I wrong @lindy maybe you can explain what you meant.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 11, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> Obviously it's all speculation but Bernie didn't have enough mass appeal and his policies were problematic.  He spoke to a certain base but not one that is overwhelmingly popular.  While similar in presenting themselves as outsiders, etc.  Trump and Bernie were quite different in their appeal and I don't know that there is much, if any crossover in that demographic.  Trump was/is polarizing.  Yet, he still won handily.  Bernie was a different candidate than Clinton but not necessarily a better one.
> 
> Also consider the number of Republican victories in Congressional races.  Again, that evidence doesn't align with Bernie's ideology.
> 
> Either way, fortunately for us all, we'll never know what a Sanders presidency would've looked like.



I don't know.  I think Bernie represented a kind of populist appeal and if he was the party nominee he could have won.  I disagree with just about every single policy of his, but he doesn't seem as corrupt as HRC.


----------



## Brill (Nov 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Wait, so whenever some idiots beat someone up, anywhere in a country of 330 million people I need to come out and condemn it, or just party leaders? I don't know where that happened, I don't know all the context, but it looks like some stupid ass shit. The police are saying it stemmed from a traffic incident, but what do they know?
> 
> If President Obama had a son, I'm sure he would be in a very good private school in Washington DC. He'd probably be in the middle of basketball season right now. Unless you meant to imply something else...



I'm confident one day you will actually read our posts without trying to add your own spin on them in an odd attempt at a "Gotcha! I knew you were a "deplorable"!"  You're not moderating the flow of conversation by reading way to deeply, chasing "facts" and asserting innuendo that is absent when a reasonable person reads the same post!  @Rapid 's earlier post was spot on and, I suspect, his comments are widely shared by many members here.

Anyway, I was referring to the overall violence perpetuated by leftist and anti-Trump protesters (re: comments in the video about the victim voting for Trump) who are pissed off that they were led astray by infotainment, pollsters, etc who all said Clinton would win easily.  The violence nationwide is being committed by nationalities across the spectrum.

How can that video be considered anything other than political violence?

I am unaware of ANY national level democrat leader to condemn the violent protests. I DO remember multiple lectures from President Obama how racist this country is when a professor was arrested, blacks killed by police, etc well before any evidence was made public...many times showing that escalation of force was justified in the incident thereby negating the comments by the President.

I think this country could use a real fucking leader that would walk out into the Rose Garden and make comments such as this:






The Martin killing was an explosive moment in the US and the leader of the Executive Branch vowed to use his power to look into the incident.  The anti-Trump, anti-election, anti-transfer of power violence in the US currently is WORSE. I think Obama SHOULD state EXACTLY what you wrote above: if he had a son, he'd be in school learning civics and how to affect positive change upon this country instead of destroying property.  THAT would be HUGE!!!!

The silence on the violence appears to be giving the anarchists a green light given Obama's previous history of quick condemnation of earlier incidents and issues that counter progressive ideals.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> I'm confident one day you will actually read our posts without trying to add your own spin on them in an odd attempt at a "Gotcha! I knew you were a "deplorable"!"  You're not moderating the flow of conversation by reading way to deeply, chasing "facts" and asserting innuendo that is absent when a reasonable person reads the same post!  @Rapid 's earlier post was spot on and, I suspect, his comments are widely shared by many members here.
> 
> 
> How can that video be considered anything other than political violence?
> ...



You are right. I am totally biased in my moderation actions. You are persecuted here on SS, your opinions are totally right and not subject to any form of dispute.  


As to Rapid, as was pointed out, his media had already been posted. We discourage that despite the content. I'm glad you feel the need to question my moderation and administrative abilities. I don't remember you running during the last election. 

Without people of opposing opinions around a site like this rapidly becomes a cesspool of groupthink. This site is not far from that happening. If you come here solely to have your opinions lauded and agreed with, that day isn't far off.


----------



## Brill (Nov 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> You are right. I am totally biased in my moderation actions.



If you were back with your green tag, I'm confident the other admins would warn you about your over antagonistic posts directed at others who don't share your utopian progressive dream.  It's gotten to the point where you don't even articulate a viewpoint anymore *like you used to* but merely focus on a poster's minutiae.  

EDIT: your #338 post articulates my point better than I ever could have.

God forbid someone express a extreme conservative viewpoint or an evangelical religious belief.

MODs: I'm not trying to get into your world and I've said my piece, all the while realizing this has nothing to do with the thread.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 11, 2016)

Huh -

Please tell me this is "nothing".

500,000 People Sign Petition Asking Electoral College to Pick Clinton as President Instead of Trump


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 11, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh -
> 
> Please tell me this is "nothing".
> 
> 500,000 People Sign Petition Asking Electoral College to Pick Clinton as President Instead of Trump



Oh it's fucking real man...the liberal cousins of mine are pushing it all over facebook...only 600k more and three hundred million idiots who never read the Constitution are signing up: Electoral College Electors: Electoral College Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 11, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh -
> 
> Please tell me this is "nothing".
> 
> 500,000 People Sign Petition Asking Electoral College to Pick Clinton as President Instead of Trump



If this were to happen, a civil war of unspeakable magnitude would occur.  They think there are riots now??


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 11, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh -
> 
> Please tell me this is "nothing".
> 
> 500,000 People Sign Petition Asking Electoral College to Pick Clinton as President Instead of Trump



I guess what I mean by "nothing" is, while it is certainly possible, is it plausible?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 11, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Wait.... bought and paid for by Republicans?
> 
> I think you just said that Bernie "would have won more states but still would have lost because the Super Delegates were bought and paid for..."
> 
> ...


The statement has nothing to do with Trump.  Everything to do with as Bernie won more states, not a single Super-Delegate budged.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 11, 2016)

There's a tendency for Presidents, once inaugurated, to back off the campaign rhetoric and shift more toward center from their ideological poles, whether right or left. Some shift more than others, obviously...but it does happen. I can see Trump backing off to some degree.

Besides everybody panics when their candidate doesn't win, fearing what he or she might do. Eventually they calm down when they realize that life as usual goes on. A lot of people panicked when Obama got elected, that's why gun and ammo prices skyrocketed. He never did take our guns.


----------



## Raptor (Nov 11, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh -
> 
> Please tell me this is "nothing".
> 
> 500,000 People Sign Petition Asking Electoral College to Pick Clinton as President Instead of Trump


I don't know of any Change.org petitions that brought any serious change. I'm surprised people still use it.


----------



## Brill (Nov 11, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> If this were to happen, a civil war of unspeakable magnitude would occur.  They think there are riots now??



After all the crazy shit that's happened in 2016, would a soft coup really surprise anyone?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> If you were back with your green tag, I'm confident the other admins would warn you about your over antagonistic posts directed at others who don't share your utopian progressive dream.  It's gotten to the point where you don't even articulate a viewpoint anymore *like you used to* but merely focus on a poster's minutiae.
> 
> EDIT: your #338 post articulates my point better than I ever could have.
> 
> ...



You really do not know that would be the case if his tag is red or green. You are making a huge leap in deciding how staff would view someone else.

As for getting into the Mod's world, that is just what you did.

I disagree with your entire post, and you have strayed into the MOD/Admin lane, while denying you have done so.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 11, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh -
> 
> Please tell me this is "nothing".
> 
> 500,000 People Sign Petition Asking Electoral College to Pick Clinton as President Instead of Trump


LOL.

I'd bet they could get 60,467,245 signatures, give or take a few, if they really applied themselves.

Thing is, that's not how our system works.  Everyone had their chance to "sign a petition", so to speak last Tuesday.  They don't need to like but they need to accept it; their candidate lost - badly.  The clowns signing this or supporting that mindset need to grow the fuck up.  Their actions are child-like and meaninglessness.


----------



## Brill (Nov 11, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> You really do not know that would be the case if if his tag is red or green. You are making a huge leap in deciding how staff would view someone else.
> 
> As for getting into the Mod's world, that is just what you did.
> 
> I disagree with your entire post, and you have strayed into the MOD/Admin lane, while denying you have done so.



Yes, I do agree with you.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Without people of opposing opinions around a site like this rapidly becomes a cesspool of groupthink. This site is not far from that happening. If you come here solely to have your opinions lauded and agreed with, that day isn't far off.



I actually enjoy most of the back and forth, some of your opinions and views, have caused me to rethink my position and I see that as a good thing. I will say however, there are more than a few times where you have made more of a "you are just an idiot" styled comment vs backing it through factual information or clear examples.  To me that is fine, because I am more than guilty of this myself, but other may find that disparaging.  I for one hope you continue to be a liberal and state your views on here. It gives me something to read, research,  and argue when I am so inclined to do so vs just tossing out likes and agrees to everyone. Besides it's always mind boggling to me when you go way out into left field and I read something scratching my head thinking "this dude is a long tabber, been around the world, and thinks that, WTF"... LOL


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> Where is the Democrat condemnation of such acts? If President Obama had a son, what would he be doing?


Fuck man, where's the reaction from conservatives?  The only people reacting to this are jokers online trying to score points.  You don't actually care about the dude who was beaten.  You just want to be able to point to this and say, "See!  See!  It's the liberals who are actually violent!"  You know how I know?  The video doesn't even include the name of the victim, and I would bet $100 that you don't know either.  

It's David Wilcox, by the way.  He's shaken, but otherwise fine.

And while you're cranking your internet outrage generator Trump supporters are pulling the same kind of shit all over the country.  On election night, I was walking back home with a friend, who happens to be middle eastern, and a group of 15 dudes started screaming WHITE POWER at us. This was in fucking New York City.  Everyone in America is either amped up from the election or pissed off/scared.  As I said during the primaries and general campaign season, this kind of violence has no place in our society.  We're fucking better than this.  But dude, why not pretend like you actually care about the victim for a second, instead of just pumping up your e-penis?


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 11, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> And while you're cranking your internet outrage generator Trump supporters are pulling the same kind of shit all over the country.  On election night, I was walking back home with a friend, who happens to be middle eastern, and a group of 15 dudes started screaming WHITE POWER at us. This was in fucking New York City.  Everyone in America is either amped up from the election or pissed off/scared.  As I said during the primaries and general campaign season, this kind of violence has no place in our society.  We're fucking better than this.  But dude, why not pretend like you actually care about the victim for a second, instead of just pumping up your e-penis?


While there is no logical excuse for being screamed at in such a fashion, you have to give the opposition a chance to vent in a safe method versus a violent method (online versus in mobs on the street). We have to remember that all of our IQs drop while in a mob. Most of us have been force feed, screamed at, yelled at, or told for the past 8 years that we are horrible people. That because we don't see things the way others do that we are racists, elitists, Islamophobes, and more with no other proof than we have a different opinion.

Personally, I am sick and tired of hear about how much of a racist I am because I apply race equally, and not as a tool to allow one race to get advantages over another. I don't care about someone's skin color, or what their parents did. I judge them by their actions and/or abilities. I actually had a girl I was dating tell me she didn't call herself an American and celebrate the 4th because it all stands for slavery and slave owners. And that the only time she felt as if she belonged, didn't feel different, and was safe, was when she was in Africa. So yeah, I am gonna shake my head when I see a bunch of liberals/Democrats trying to gangbang someone that hasn't threatened them. Just like I am gonna shake my head at a bunch of religious fundies/Republicans that scream about how their god is damning them to hell for whatever genitalia they are aroused by or that someone is "evil" for ending a life that is nothing more than a collection of proteins, amino acids, and more before it even develops sentience. While both sides are prone to their excesses, one uses violence to further their aims, while the other uses fear mongering and false morality. What I am trying to say is that maybe he does care, but it is hard to fathom why you would attack someone who wasn't a threat? Maybe it is further justification for how a certain political affiliation isn't as "educated" or "civilized" as they proclaim? He's not the only one in here with an over-inflated e-peen.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 11, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Fuck man, where's the reaction from conservatives?  The only people reacting to this are jokers online trying to score points.  You don't actually care about the dude who was beaten.  You just want to be able to point to this and say, "See!  See!  It's the liberals who are actually violent!"  You know how I know?  The video doesn't even include the name of the victim, and I would bet $100 that you don't know either.
> 
> It's David Wilcox, by the way.  He's shaken, but otherwise fine.
> 
> And while you're cranking your internet outrage generator Trump supporters are pulling the same kind of shit all over the country.  On election night, I was walking back home with a friend, who happens to be middle eastern, and a group of 15 dudes started screaming WHITE POWER at us. This was in fucking New York City.  Everyone in America is either amped up from the election or pissed off/scared.  As I said during the primaries and general campaign season, this kind of violence has no place in our society.  We're fucking better than this.  But dude, why not pretend like you actually care about the victim for a second, instead of just pumping up your e-penis?


Did they stop and threaten your friend with physical harm or do the "tough guy" thing and drive off as quick as possible.
The video shows a hate crime in action, but the thugs will get away with it because DoJ doesn't seem to care if the victim is a white male.
Yes a Democrat (Hillary for example) should be DEMANDING a stop to VIOLENT protests.
If the tables were turned I'd expect the same from Republicans.
How many lynchings occurred in 2008 and 2012 after Obama's wins?
Has DoJ or Obama apologised to any of the officers wrongly accused?
Is BLM being told by POTUS to stop rioting?  
A lot of "White Anger" voted Trump because they perceive a different set of rules coming from D.C.


----------



## Brill (Nov 11, 2016)

@Deathy McDeath , Trump camp has come out against the violence.  Obama is still President.

Trump adviser urges Obama, Clinton to speak out on protests

Regarding your ugly statements, I have no idea what you're talking about. The idea that I'm relishing in someone's beating to score points is utterly insane.

Other anti-Trump violence.

Video: High School Girl Viciously Attacked For Supporting Donald Trump

Of all people to call for calm, Glen Beck.

"But just as President Obama was not a Manchurian candidate, Mr. Trump is not Hitler. I don’t question your right and reasons to feel fear. But don’t fear Donald Trump the way I feared Barack Obama. I read a perfect election summation: The people who were against Mr. Trump took him literally but not seriously. His supporters took him seriously but not literally. It is the same pattern of 2000 and 2008. We heard President Obama was coming for our church and our guns. We were mocked. We thought those who laughed were lying or stupid. Yet, I still go to church, sometimes with a gun."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/o...version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article


----------



## Gunz (Nov 11, 2016)

I wish some anti-Trump sore losers would attack me. I'd like to stay proficient engaging soft targets.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 11, 2016)

https://m.facebook.com/georgewbush/...114546728587728/1292213334154389/?type=3&fs=5

I don't know where to put this so Im putting it here.  I know a lot of people dislike President Bush, but I think those people don't know him on a human level.  The love and compassion he has for our troops is unmeasurable. I disagree with a lot of President Obama, but I think he would be a fun guy to have a beer with. And, we have a fair amount in common. For instance we both like the White Sox and golfing. I'm not saying those who don't agree with Trump will have anything in common with him, but you never know.


----------



## Polar Bear (Nov 11, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Fuck man, where's the reaction from conservatives?  The only people reacting to this are jokers online trying to score points.  You don't actually care about the dude who was beaten.  You just want to be able to point to this and say, "See!  See!  It's the liberals who are actually violent!"  You know how I know?  The video doesn't even include the name of the victim, and I would bet $100 that you don't know either.
> 
> It's David Wilcox, by the way.  He's shaken, but otherwise fine.
> 
> And while you're cranking your internet outrage generator Trump supporters are pulling the same kind of shit all over the country.  On election night, I was walking back home with a friend, who happens to be middle eastern, and a group of 15 dudes started screaming WHITE POWER at us. This was in fucking New York City.  Everyone in America is either amped up from the election or pissed off/scared.  As I said during the primaries and general campaign season, this kind of violence has no place in our society.  We're fucking better than this.  But dude, why not pretend like you actually care about the victim for a second, instead of just pumping up your e-penis?



Where is the reaction? Here is the reaction. Nothing, conservatives lost the last 2 elections. Did we head to the streets? Did we riot? We might have written an editorial or two but not acting like idiots. They buckled down and went on with their lives.

You may want to pop back to the Mod Forum and read what I wrote. You should be the voice of reason not gasoline while the house is on fire.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 11, 2016)

Simply put....


----------



## Brill (Nov 12, 2016)

I saw this on another site and feel it really sums up the vote.

"Be warned. British TV does not care about swearing in the same way that we do here. *If you are remotely upset by cussing then DO NOT WATCH THIS.* I am sharing it because, vulgar as he is, he is 100% right. If the Left listened they would improve their performance, but that’s not their way. They like echo chambers and feeling smug or victimized."

FOUL LANGUAGE WARNING: Why the Left lost, by a Lefty - Self-Reliance Central

And, no I'm not trying to start anything. I'm fascinated how EVERYONE got this wrong, to include myself. I thought a Clinton White House was a forgone conclusion and Florida was an anomaly...until North Carolina. Only then I thought he had a chance. After Pennsylvania turned red, I was in shock.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 12, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Simply put....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 12, 2016)

So Harry Reid chose to push some more divisive rhetoric upon us rather than condemn violent protests: Reid Statement on the Election of Donald Trump

And Joe Manchin D-WVa wasn't about that life:

‘An absolute embarrassment’: This Democratic senator lashes out at Harry Reid over Trump comments


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Nov 12, 2016)

@Diamondback 2/2
Dude, ewwwwww. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

That being said, it's crazy how fast some of these memes are spreading via social media. It's also kind of weird that Trump supporters are making memes, while Hillary supporters are being documented rioting and assaulting people.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 12, 2016)

amlove21 said:


>


----------



## Brill (Nov 12, 2016)

@SpongeBob*24  for the win!


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 12, 2016)

Who else is going to miss Crazy Uncle Joe?  ￼￼￼￼￼


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 12, 2016)

Hahaha even more.

People are imagining all the ways Joe Biden could prank Donald Trump on his way out of the White House.


----------



## 0699 (Nov 12, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> @0699 You want to back up that disagree?


Nope   Not when I'll get banned again for disagreeing with a moderator.  Now prove me right by deleting my post.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 12, 2016)

0699 said:


> Nope   Not when I'll get banned again for disagreeing with a moderator.  Now prove me right by deleting my post.


I urge you to PM someone on the staff you trust, if you don't want to explain your position here in the open.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 13, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> View attachment 17152
> 
> View attachment 17153


Kate McKinnon Opens Trumpless ‘Saturday Night Live’ As Hillary Clinton Singing Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah”


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 13, 2016)

I love that song.  But they just couldn't stay away from the politics, could they?  "I'm not giving up, neither should you."


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 13, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I love that song.  But they just couldn't stay away from the politics, could they?  "I'm not giving up, neither should you."



Agreed.  And you know do what a comedy show does and make it funny.  But hey, it is the end of the world...


----------



## Brill (Nov 13, 2016)

Looks like there is already some good from the election!

Moore has met with Conway and tried to meet Trump.  Van Jones sat down with Trump supporters to talk WITH them.

The messy truth about the gulf between Trump and Clinton voters - CNN.com


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 13, 2016)

The pins are being worn as an expression of support for those who feel Trump’s election has made them vulnerable.

Craft stores struggle to keep safety pins in stock after they become social activism symbol


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> Looks like there is already some good from the election!
> 
> Moore has met with Conway and tried to meet Trump.  Van Jones sat down with Trump supporters to talk WITH them.
> 
> The messy truth about the gulf between Trump and Clinton voters - CNN.com



One thing that has always been odd to me, is how and why did Van Jones ever become important? I remember the whole controversy during Obama's first term, and I thought he disappeared after that. But now I keep seeing him on the news again.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 13, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The pins are being worn as an expression of support for those who feel Trump’s election has made them vulnerable.
> 
> Craft stores struggle to keep safety pins in stock after they become social activism symbol



Well that's cute, "I'm feeling vulnerable so I wear this safety pin". Some of this stuff really couldn't get much more bizarre than it has. Once I finally get out of the city again, I ain't never coming back. I'm going to go buy my peice of a mountain, build my shack and shoot the double middle fingers off.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 13, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I love that song.  But they just couldn't stay away from the politics, could they?  "I'm not giving up, neither should you."


I was PUMPED until she closed. I had no idea McKinnon could even sing, let alone play the piano. Would have been better left unsaid.


----------



## CDG (Nov 13, 2016)

Harry Reid's comments are disgraceful, unprofessional, and needlessly inflammatory.  I appreciate that another Democratic senator came out publicly against him.  This is not the time for other elected officials to fuel the fires.  There is enough wrong behavior being perpetrated by both sides right now.  Fear-mongering and accusing everyone who voted for PE Trump of being a white nationalist is not going to help the issue.  Senator Reid had a chance to take the high road, and he showed his true colors.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 13, 2016)

Trying to decide how I feel about this.   I see her point, and it's a good one, but it also gives Trump an "out" when he cannot deport everyone he wants to. 

Going to be a pretty interesting 2017 boys and girls...

I believe NY City has already put out a similar edict.

To add - I had not ever heard of "sanctuary  cities" and did not know my fair city of Minneapolis was one until I read this.

Minneapolis mayor issues warning to Trump on illegal immigrants


----------



## Brill (Nov 13, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Trying to decide how I feel about this.   I see her point, and it's a good one, but it also gives Trump an "out" when he cannot deport everyone he wants to.
> 
> Going to be a pretty interesting 2017 boys and girls...
> 
> ...



Baltimore is also a sanctuary city. I don't understand why anyone would be against his deportation plan as noted below, which is from Trump vice the spin machine.



> “What we are going to do is get the *people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,” Trump said* in an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes.” “But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.”
> 
> He continued by saying that *after the border is “secure,”* immigration officials will begin to make a “determination” about the remaining undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
> 
> “*After the border is secure and after everything gets normalized*, we’re going to make a determination on the people that they’re talking about who are terrific people, they’re terrific people but we are gonna make a determination at that,” he said. “But before we make that determination...*it’s very important, we are going to secure our border.*”



President-elect Trump says how many immigrants he’ll deport


----------



## Poccington (Nov 13, 2016)

CDG said:


> Harry Reid's comments are disgraceful, unprofessional, and needlessly inflammatory.  I appreciate that another Democratic senator came out publicly against him.  This is not the time for other elected officials to fuel the fires.  There is enough wrong behavior being perpetrated by both sides right now.  Fear-mongering and accusing everyone who voted for PE Trump of being a white nationalist is not going to help the issue.  Senator Reid had a chance to take the high road, and he showed his true colors.



There's a lot of well paid people who are supposed to be showing leadership at this time, acting like spoiled children.

It's insane.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 13, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Trying to decide how I feel about this.   I see her point, and it's a good one, but it also gives Trump an "out" when he cannot deport everyone he wants to.
> 
> Going to be a pretty interesting 2017 boys and girls...
> 
> ...


She can go to jail.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 13, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The pins are being worn as an expression of support for those who feel Trump’s election has made them vulnerable.
> 
> Craft stores struggle to keep safety pins in stock after they become social activism symbol



The first thing I thought was 120 round bandolier.....


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 13, 2016)

Poccington said:


> *There's a lot of well paid people who are supposed to be showing leadership* at this time, acting like spoiled children.
> 
> It's insane.




President Obama's comments about the election:  classy.


----------



## Poccington (Nov 13, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> President Obama's comments about the election:  classy.



That is a brilliant speech. Exactly the kind of attitude that politicians right across both parties should be adopting.

The election is over, the people have spoken... Now dry your eyes and go earn your wages by making it work. It should be as simple as that.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 13, 2016)

DC said:


> Media is rigged.





Blizzard said:


> So, "main stream media" has blown another election.  How does this play out for them?  Tough to recover.



Someone (I forgot who) recently asked the question: "What exactly is the main stream media?" or words to that effect.

Well, anyone with who followed this caravan of talking heads and cheerleaders for HRC, along with those who did their utmost to demonize Trump during this election, whether satire or not, who watched it play out, over and over and over, time and time again, almost 24 hrs a day.

In a nutshell, better than I could ever hope to put it into words, the following puts it into perspective and frames it perfectly.


----------



## Brill (Nov 13, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> President Obama's comments about the election:  classy.



Why the heck isn't that all over the media???


----------



## Centermass (Nov 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> Why the heck isn't that all over the media???



See above video.


----------



## Polar Bear (Nov 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> Why the heck isn't that all over the media???


It was/has, the day it happen. I watched it live via Fox News


----------



## Brill (Nov 13, 2016)

The President-Elect is on 60 Minutes and is worth watching.  I was pretty annoyed at Stahl for her interview style, something that previous Presidents never encountered...perhaps Nixon...but other than that, it was pretty informative.

Especially his claim that he will only collect $1 per year salary because he believes some type of monetary compensation is required by law.


----------



## Dame (Nov 13, 2016)

CDG said:


> Harry Reid's comments are disgraceful, unprofessional, and needlessly inflammatory.  I appreciate that another Democratic senator came out publicly against him.  This is not the time for other elected officials to fuel the fires.  There is enough wrong behavior being perpetrated by both sides right now.  Fear-mongering and accusing everyone who voted for PE Trump of being a white nationalist is not going to help the issue.  Senator Reid had a chance to take the high road, and he showed his true colors.


Reid's only purpose at this point is to keep himself in the news. I've personally witnessed him breaking federal law in his former office inside the capital building. He is as low of a person as I ever hope to meet.


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> The President-Elect is on 60 Minutes and is worth watching.  I was pretty annoyed at Stahl for her interview style, something that previous Presidents never encountered...perhaps Nixon...but other than that, it was pretty informative.
> 
> Especially his claim that he will only collect $1 per year salary because he believes some type of monetary compensation is required by law.



I am watching it. Interesting to see so far.


----------



## Brill (Nov 13, 2016)

Dame said:


> Reid's only purpose at this point is to keep himself in the news. I've personally witnessed him breaking federal law in his former office inside the capital building. He is as low of a person as I ever hope to meet.



Wow.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 13, 2016)

President-elect Trump speaks to a divided country on 60 Minutes

Full 60 minutes interview..


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> President-elect Trump speaks to a divided country on 60 Minutes
> 
> Full 60 minutes interview..



Did you have a chance to watch yet?  Knowing that Trump was not exactly your first choice, I am very interested in your initial opinions.  I will watch tomorrow morning.

Thanks for posting this.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> Why the heck isn't that all over the media???


Becausethe media is biased.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 13, 2016)

Centermass said:


> ...post...


Great examples. Can you please post the "non-mainstream media" that foretold of a Trump victory, quoting polling numbers and projections prior to the the election? Did _anyone correctly call the states Trump won, even the Trump campaign?_

Or is the point of your post to say that _all _media is "mainstream" and that none of it was correct in this election season?

It looks like all the information available to the media as a whole pointed to a Trump loss, and that's what they reported. The election proved to the contrary; I'll ask this question.

In your life, personally, have you ever personally believed something to be 100% true only to find out that it wasn't and it changed your perceptions on life? And as a follow on. was that revelation extremely jarring?

ETA- this is the main issue with the whole aftermath of this campaign. PE Trump supporters aren't saying, "We have a Republican controlled senate and house let's make America better!", your're saying "You were wrong during the election we beat your ass OHHHHHHHH take that!" 

PE Trump promised to make America great again, you don't do that by gloating over your victory and keeping a list of people that made you sad during the election.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 13, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Did you have a chance to watch yet?  Knowing that Trump was not exactly your first choice, I am very interested in your initial opinions.  I will watch tomorrow morning.
> 
> Thanks for posting this.



I am not impressed. I think he doesn't actually have solid policy plans for much of anything. I think that he should put his assets in a true blind trust, rather than allowing his children to run his businesses, while I do not think that there will necessarily be any impropriety, I think that the potential for an ethical dilemma is unnecessarily high. I think he waffles pretty hard, talking about appointing pro-life Supreme Court justices to go after Roe v Wade, and sending it back to the states, then later saying gay marriage is a settled issue because of the Supreme Court's ruling (like WTF dude). I don't think it is surprising. Saying things like he is going to try and put term limits on congress to me, displays either a gross over-confidence, or a lack of understanding of the process.

He did seem more sober than he had in the past, but again that could be my previous bias playing a role, as I only saw him in campaign mode. I think we will see in the coming months what his demeanor will be like.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think he doesn't actually have solid policy plans for much of anything.



Not challenging you on this, genuinely curious.  Did Obama before he took office?  Or any new president-elect for that matter?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 13, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Did you have a chance to watch yet?  Knowing that Trump was not exactly your first choice, I am very interested in your initial opinions.  I will watch tomorrow morning.
> 
> Thanks for posting this.


My girlfriend watched while I was driving back to El Paso and stated Trump behaved, Barbara Walters' acted quite poor.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 13, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Barbara Walters' acted quite poor.



How so?


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 13, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> My girlfriend watched while I was driving back to El Paso and stated Trump behaved, Barbara Walters' acted quite poor.



Barbara Walters wasn't on the show.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 13, 2016)

Centermass said:


> ...once again with feeling...


Sorry for the double quote, but I refined my thought a bit and had a closing comment. 

I want the PE Trump camp to act like they've been there before. Granted, watching a speech like Conor McGregor's post fight is entertaining, where he said fuck the world he wasn't apologizing and he won so everyone can fuck off. That makes for great spectacle. 

That was like PE Trump's campaign. I need you, and all other PE Trump supporters to get past the bravado and start leading. Stop with the "Liberals are protesting; Horrible!" via twitter nonsense and engage them. They're your citizens now, you work for the people protesting. 

Stop making excuses and carrying out vendettas. I am unabashedly left of center. 

Show me how to make the country great again instead of telling me how I am wrong. Show me how to make America better. I am on your team now.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 13, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Not challenging you on this, genuinely curious.  Did Obama before he took office?  Or any new president-elect for that matter?



In 2008? I can honestly say I wasn't as into politics when I was 21, so I don't really remember. I was more interested in passing the Q course, specifically SFMS. I could probably do some googling, but honestly that doesn't matter. What PE Trump does is important now.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 13, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Great examples. Can you please post the "non-mainstream media" that foretold of a Trump victory, quoting polling numbers and projections prior to the the election? Did _anyone correctly call the states Trump won, even the Trump campaign?_
> 
> Or is the point of your post to say that _all _media is "mainstream" and that none of it was correct in this election season?
> 
> ...


Some Professor said Trump had an 83(?) percent chance of winning months ago.
Same guy also came out and said he thinks we have President Pence in the near future.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I was more interested in passing the Q course, specifically SFMS


Well ya got me there!  LOL


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Barbara Walters wasn't on the show.


Oh man...this is gonna be fun...stand by.



amlove21 said:


> Sorry for the double quote, but I refined my thought a bit and had a closing comment.
> 
> I want the PE Trump camp to act like they've been there before. Granted, watching a speech like Conor McGregor's post fight is entertaining, where he said fuck the world he wasn't apologizing and he won so everyone can fuck off. That makes for great spectacle.
> 
> ...



The majority of the PE Trump crow...god it took me a minute to figure out acronyms, I hate acronyms, I'd rather say the words, FUBAR at all, back on topic.

The majority of the crowd looks to be on message man.  You have a few folks gloating, but I see way more sore losers on facebook, in the streets breaking shit, and signing a petition asking to remove a part of the system of government they probably know nothing about.

I see Liberal pundits pledging divisiveness, saying hey because you did this for 8 years we're gonna do this.  Sorry, but conservatives didn't do this shit for 8 years.  The majority of them got on with their lives.

The CinC himself is leading, but he's getting drowned out by many in his party.  To include the loser.

Now personally I said it was over and as Americans we need to work together to progress, I got a few Hell Yeah, Let's make America Great Agains and then I got a few: NOs.  Maybe it's just your lens, but through my spotting scope I'm seeing something else.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 14, 2016)

I think every President elect, has ideas of grander as they come in office. Most of which is shattered by the reality of that office and the critical decisions that must be made, daily.

Term limits have been discussed for a long time. I can't speak for all states, but Texas is fed-up with DC. There is actually a pretty large movement in Texas that wants succession from the United States.  Now I think that is completely foolish, when we have other means to correct the corruption and over regulations from DC. One of those being a States Convention, that I posted about earlier. 

The honest truth, is Trump needs to go into DC and do exactly what he campaigned on, exposing corruption, push bills he thinks will help eliminate the special interest, work deals to bring business back here, bring jobs back here, invest in the inner cities, roads, bridges, etc.

If he does those things, and gets on TV and tells the people when he is being stonewalled, I think he will be living up to his promises.

The wall is fucking stupid, I hate it, think it's the dumbest idea ever. Anyone who has ever spent more than a day on the Texas/Mexico border, knows that it's impossible, and that it will destroy countless communities on both side of the border. It's just a dumb idea.

Temp ban on middle eastern people coming in, should have happened 15 years ago. I'm not anti Muslim, but I am anti terror attack in the United States. Temp ban followed up by stupid crazy vetting, followed with heavily supervised and controlled status. It just really needs to be that way.

Russia, better to be friends than enemies.  If we can work together, we should.

NATO I agree that it is beyond time for other NATO countries to meet their commitments both with troops and financial means. We have been playing world cop long enough, time for the other countries to meet that burden.

Deportation of illegals, I am mixed on this. I'm all for the criminal elements, as the ones who have committed additional crimes to illegally entering the USA. So If you commit a felony, or serious property damage, I think you should be sent home with a lifetime ban. If you are simply a worker, doing one of the millions of jobs that Americans don't want to do. I think they should get a pathway to citizenship.  That hardworker is the person we want, not the shit bag criminal, gang member, drug dealer.

I can go on and on, but that's some of the key talking points for this election.


----------



## Dame (Nov 14, 2016)

Leslie Stahl acted a little schizophrenic in my opinion. Some of the time she was trying to get him to tell her things with a little wink wink type of "Oh, c'mon, tell us." Other times she acted like his personal convictions were criminal. It wasn't a show I'd usually want to watch, but one that was educational.


----------



## Brill (Nov 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think he waffles pretty hard, talking about appointing pro-life Supreme Court justices to go after Roe v Wade, and sending it back to the states, then later saying gay marriage is a settled issue because of the Supreme Court's ruling (like WTF dude).



Given all the precedents, I don't see how that could be overturned, let alone meet the standard to be brought to SCOTUS, even if he picks pro-life judges. I didn't hear him say his DOJ would go after the case though.

I'm generally curious if there have been previous cases where established case law has been overturned due to a change in the court.  Maybe slavery and civil rights rulings but were those issues changed because of the Court or because We matured?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 14, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I see Liberal pundits pledging divisiveness, saying hey because you did this for 8 years we're gonna do this. *Sorry, but conservatives didn't do this shit for 8 years. *The majority of them got on with their lives.


I have to disagree with you there.  There are well documented comments of Republican leadership going on the record saying that they would do everything they could to black whatever Obama wanted to do.

These are just 2 examples of many.  

The GOP's no-compromise pledge

Obama: GOP blocked 500 bills

In my own personal fantasy world, now that the Republicans own the senate and the house, they will be a great example of what working with the opposition looks like, and not acting like gloating pigs.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 14, 2016)

Ladies and Gentlemen, the President Elect of the United States...

What's funniest about this is that Megan Mullally is on record as now HATING Trump, and was part of a Will and Grace mini-reunion show that was filmed for no other reason than to bash Trump and campaign for Hillary.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 14, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I have to disagree with you there.  There are well documented comments of Republican leadership going on the record saying that they would do everything they could to black whatever Obama wanted to do.
> 
> These are just 2 examples of many.
> 
> ...


There's a difference between being the opposing party and rioting.
The Republicans also gained power by promising to stop/slow the Progressive Agenda.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 14, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I have to disagree with you there.  There are well documented comments of Republican leadership going on the record saying that they would do everything they could to black whatever Obama wanted to do.
> 
> These are just 2 examples of many.
> 
> ...


Doing things in civil government is much different from rioting in the streets.

I like what Dave Chappelle did on SNL:





Whereas Jon Oliver is continuing the petulance.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 14, 2016)

@ThunderHorse -

Based on the wording of your text:


ThunderHorse said:


> I see Liberal pundits pledging divisiveness, saying hey because you did this for 8 years we're gonna do this. Sorry, but conservatives didn't do this shit for 8 years. The majority of them got on with their lives.



I thought that you were referring to the inner workings of Washington politics; not the protesters making asses of themselves.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 14, 2016)

lindy said:


> Given all the precedents, I don't see how that could be overturned, let alone meet the standard to be brought to SCOTUS, even if he picks pro-life judges. I didn't hear him say his DOJ would go after the case though.
> 
> I'm generally curious if there have been previous cases where established case law has been overturned due to a change in the court.  Maybe slavery and civil rights rulings but were those issues changed because of the Court or because We matured?




I agree that it likely won't be overturned, but it is confusing to hear him talk about one issue as if it is settled due to the SC ruling, and another as if it is in flux, also having a Supreme Court ruling. 

The exchange below:

STAHL: During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justices who were against abortion rights. Will you appoint-- are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?

TRUMP: So look, here's what's going to happen-- I'm going to-- I'm pro-life. The judges will be pro-life. They'll be very—

STAHL: But what about overturning this law--

TRUMP: Well, there are a couple of things. They'll be pro-life.... [H]aving to do with abortion if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states and--

STAHL: Yeah, but then some women won't be able to get an abortion?

TRUMP: No, it'll go back to the states.

Now he doesn't say, "I'm going to overturn Roe v Wade," but he doesn't have to be the one, nor does his justice department. There are already cases of states interfering with women's access to reproductive health services. Those cases are working through the lower courts and may end up in the Supreme Court.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 14, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> What's funniest about this is that Megan Mullally is on record as now HATING Trump, and was part of a Will and Grace mini-reunion show that was filmed for no other reason than to bash Trump and campaign for Hillary.


Which is sad because I really enjoyed the W&G show. That little skit they did to trash Trump was done in extremely poor taste and should have focused on the show itself. A shame because there was some really good comedy when they stayed out of politics. Oh well.


----------



## Brill (Nov 14, 2016)

@TLDR20 , I think you're right: he SHOULD say things to alleviate any fears people have because of earlier spin by opposition factors.  He has the pulpit: now is the time to be direct to his base as well as the country as a whole.  People appear to want assurances that law and order will prevail.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I agree that it likely won't be overturned, but it is confusing to hear him talk about one issue as if it is settled due to the SC ruling, and another as if it is in flux, also having a Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> The exchange below:
> 
> ...



A piece that highlights what I talk about above:

Trump says 17-month-old gay marriage ruling is ‘settled’ law — but 43-year-old abortion ruling isn’t


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 14, 2016)

A aviation themed one:


----------



## Centermass (Nov 14, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Sorry for the double quote, but I refined my thought a bit and had a closing comment.
> 
> I want the PE Trump camp to act like they've been there before. Granted, watching a speech like Conor McGregor's post fight is entertaining, where he said fuck the world he wasn't apologizing and he won so everyone can fuck off. That makes for great spectacle.
> 
> ...



I agree 100%. The point I was trying to convey is once upon a time - there were actual "Journalists" that reported the news and not their personal feelings. Reporting that was unbiased, unabashedly factual, whatever their personal party of affiliation happens to be, both left and right. 

Tim Russert was one, if not,  the best example I can think of, regarding this. I miss him and wish there were more like him.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 14, 2016)

I like this one.....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 14, 2016)

When you run a college and can't even quote Jefferson because he's racist: U.Va. faculty, students ask Sullivan not to quote Jefferson


----------



## Grunt (Nov 14, 2016)

History is history...it isn't all rosy and beautiful, but, that's what we are, what we did, and where we came from. We -- as a nation -- quote Hitler, Stalin, Guevara, and the like -- all the time.

People need to grow up. There are many things said by people who I deem to be crazy devils, but their statements and principles are true.

Maturity is a choice...sadly, I don't think many are going for that option these days.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 14, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> There's a difference between being the opposing party and rioting.
> The Republicans also gained power by promising to stop/slow the Progressive Agenda.


I want to point out that the Tea Party originated after Pres Obama's election in 2009. Just saying.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 14, 2016)

Agoge said:


> History is history...it isn't all rosy and beautiful, but, that's what we are, what we did, and where we came from. We -- as a nation -- quote Hitler, Stalin, Guevara, and the like -- all the time.
> 
> People need to grow up. There are many things said by people who I deem to be crazy devils, but their statements and principles are true.
> 
> Maturity is a choice...sadly, I don't think many are going for that option these days.





ThunderHorse said:


> When you run a college and can't even quote Jefferson because he's racist: U.Va. faculty, students ask Sullivan not to quote Jefferson



We can get all riled up about idiots, or we can remember that petition was signed by 469 of almost 24000 students and faculty. 

It is always easy to find idiots who will take anything too far. 

I try and remember whenever I see examples like this that the vast VAST majority of students, and even faculty don't push politics on campus. Most people are just too busy. That does change in certain departments, but even there they aren't often taken seriously as academics outside their safe spaces.


----------



## Brill (Nov 14, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I want to point out that the Tea Party originated after Pres Obama's election in 2009. Just saying.



They were created due to the Republican losses because the party lost their connection with their base (Democrats are going through this now). While protests were numerous and the Gadsden flag was everywhere, violence was very sparse (if at all).

In short, the Tea Party would have rose up regardless of which Democrat won the White House...the Senate...and the House.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 14, 2016)

I agree @TLDR20, in fact, I got up and went to work today -- the same way I did before the election -- and was none the worse for it. Henny Penny was wrong...the sky isn't and didn't fall.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 14, 2016)

lindy said:


> They were created due to the Republican losses because the party lost their connection with their base (Democrats are going through this now). While protests were numerous and the Gadsden flag was everywhere, violence was very sparse (if at all).
> 
> *In short, the Tea Party would have rose up regardless of which Democrat won the White House...the Senate...and the House*.



I guess we will have to leave that statement for what it is- a wild speculation that we can't possibly prove.  

We have some people on the Dem side acting like morons. In 2009 (2004 if you believe their home page) republicans were angry and lashed out to create the Tea Party. Those are both great examples of how extremists on either side can act inappropriately and hurt their respective parties. 

They both fit into the category of, "More harm than good", IMO.


----------



## Brill (Nov 14, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I guess we will have to leave that statement for what it is- a wild speculation that we can't possibly prove.



Huh?

Tea Party movement | American political movement


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 14, 2016)

Honestly, I'm really at a loss of why any of y'all are arguing this crap. The tea party acted like fucking idiots after Obama was elected in 2008. Showing up at rallys and protest armed with rifles and shit. These anti Trump protesters are acting like fucking idiots, destroying property and fucking with people trying to get home from work, beating up people, etc.

It's stupid as hell, we should all be in agreement on that.

The petition to get the Electoral College to vote against their state? Yeah that's fucking stupid as hell too.

The media and their bullshit, yep that shit has been old the last 8 years, I hope they all go bankrupt from independent social media reporters. Cable News is dead and local news ain't far behind.

Oh and incase I didn't quite state my opinion here, this debate of who was doing what, who should be denouncing this or that, is fucking stupid. I read some of this back and forth, and want to scoop my own eyeballs out with a fucking table spoon. There has got to be something better to discuss/read here.:wall::-/:whatever:


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 14, 2016)

This is an excellent analysis of how Trump won the White Working Class: What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class

No one still wants to address his gains in minorities though in my neck of the woods.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 14, 2016)

lindy said:


> Huh?
> 
> Tea Party movement | American political movement


In reference to your statement in bold- "_The Tea Party would have been formed no matter what dem got elected."_

From your link-_ "The catalyst for what would become known as the Tea Party movement came on February 19, 2009, when Boston Tea Party (1773) in his response to Pres. Barack Obama’s mortgage relief plan."
_
I just don't think you can retroactively speculate or outright say anything about the scenario (any other dem gets elected and the Tea Party sill happens) with any certainty. 



Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Oh and incase I didn't quite state my opinion here, this debate of who was doing what, who should be denouncing this or that, is fucking stupid. I read some of this back and forth, and want to scoop my own eyeballs out with a fucking table spoon. There has got to be something better to discuss/read here.:wall::-/:whatever:



Fair enough.


----------



## AWP (Nov 14, 2016)

Given the mood of the country I think a Tea Party would form in the wake of almost any Democrat's election, but its size and staying power would be in question.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Given the mood of the country I think a Tea Party would form in the wake of almost any Democrat's election, but its size and staying power would be in question.


I am actually sort of surprised there haven't been rumblings of something starting out of the dems.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 14, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I am actually sort of surprised there haven't been rumblings of something starting out of the dems.



It's still early. You never know, but, I think they may be a little skeptical about splitting their forces on multiple fronts. But, like I said, you never know!


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 14, 2016)

Agoge said:


> It's still early. You never know, but, I think they may be a little skeptical about splitting their forces on multiple fronts. But, like I said, you never know!


I mean, if there was ever a time where they could seize on a groundswell of people that are just angry and want to do something about it, the time is now. 

I have absolutely no clue what the hell that would look like, BTW.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 14, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I mean, if there was ever a time where they could seize on a groundswell of people that are just angry and want to do something about it, the time is now.
> 
> I have absolutely no clue what the hell that would look like, BTW.



No doubt. The field is certainly ripe for the harvest, but I think the Democratic Party has prided themselves on their "sticking" or staying ability while attacking the Tea Party and the perceived inability of the Republican Party to stay together. Whether the "split" was real or perceived, they (D's) presented it that way.

If they would form an offshoot of their party, I think they would give it a little time to come out into the open, but, like you said, I really don't have a clue what it would look like either. It would be interesting to see though.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 14, 2016)

Agoge said:


> No doubt. The field is certainly ripe for the harvest, but I think the Democratic Party has prided themselves on their "sticking" or staying ability while attacking the Tea Party and the perceived inability of the Republican Party to stay together. Whether the "split" was real or perceived, they (D's) presented it that way.
> 
> If they would form an offshoot of their party, I think they would give it a little time to come out into the open, but, like you said, I really don't have a clue what it would look like either. It would be interesting to see though.



I would be in a weird place personally. I have more in common with Clinton Democrats than I do the straight liberal progressives. I don't really do the identity politics part of I don't have to (obvious racism, sexism) and I do like firearms. I think a split would do similarly to the GOP and you would get progressives and establishment democrats. To me Hillary was exactly that. Basically a middle of the ride politician. Obviously she was made out to be some progressive liberal, but her policy didn't reflect that. She couldn't get real progressives to support her because she wasn't a real progressive. 

Bernie and his supporters forced her to come more to the left in some areas. The thing is though Bernie won't run again. Next up is Elizabeth's Warren if she wants the job.  She to me is a perfect candidate to beat whoever she is running against(I still don't think trump is in this thing for 8 years). She has experience in government, which I think is a plus, she has both establishment and progressive ties, and she fucking hates the banks.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I would be in a weird place personally. I have more in common with Clinton Democrats than I do the straight liberal progressives. I don't really do the identity politics part of I don't have to (obvious racism, sexism) and I do like firearms. I think a split would do similarly to the GOP and you would get progressives and establishment democrats. To me Hillary was exactly that. Basically a middle of the ride politician. Obviously she was made out to be some progressive liberal, but her policy didn't reflect that. She couldn't get real progressives to support her because she wasn't a real progressive.
> 
> Bernie and his supporters forced her to come more to the left in some areas. The thing is though Bernie won't run again. Next up is Elizabeth's Warren if she wants the job.  She to me is a perfect candidate to beat whoever she is running against(I still don't think trump is in this thing for 8 years). She has experience in government, which I think is a plus, she has both establishment and progressive ties, and she fucking hates the banks.



We shall certainly see my Brother! I think this four years will certainly be different. I think people will probably be on the extreme ends of the scale with Trump at the end of his term -- really like him or really dislike him. If they tend to dislike him or marginally like him at best...I think a Warren or someone like her would certainly put up a good fight. As it's extremely early in Trump's position, it will be interesting to see who the R's would put up...especially if it's a new generation of them rather than the usual career politicians.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 14, 2016)

Elizabeth Warren...another shill.  I'd like to return to youth please, Dems shat on Webb and O'Malley.  

It's funny how many think Trump is the right wing apocalypse...dude was a Democrat until 2004?


----------



## Brill (Nov 15, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I just don't think you can retroactively speculate or outright say anything about the scenario (any other dem gets elected and the Tea Party sill happens) with any certainty.



Jesus.

Definition of SPECULATION

Definition of OPINION


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> We can get all riled up about idiots, or we can remember that petition was signed by 469 of almost 24000 students and faculty.
> 
> It is always easy to find idiots who will take anything too far.
> 
> I try and remember whenever I see examples like this that the vast VAST majority of students, and even faculty don't push politics on campus. *Most people are just too busy.* That does change in certain departments, but even there they aren't often taken seriously as academics outside their safe spaces.



Or apathy.  Most students just don't care.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 15, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I am actually sort of surprised there haven't been rumblings of something starting out of the dems.


There is, media is reporting that many Democratic House Members want to delay the leadership vote, which means Pelosi's tenure as the House Democrat Leader may be over.

Flipping through the radio channels and some guy on Glen Beck (ironically) really had some good points.
Trump ran against the media, and people are so pissed at the perceived bias that the election was also a giant F.U. to the "Mainstream Media".
There is more to it, but I agree with that sentiment.
I really wished Webb would have stayed in, but he knew it was rigged from the get-go.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 15, 2016)

Yepp.....RIP!!!:-/


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 15, 2016)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 15, 2016)

I saw a petition that was for Bernie to be elected Senate Minority Leader...quite hilarious.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 15, 2016)

lindy said:


> Jesus.
> 
> Definition of SPECULATION
> 
> Definition of OPINION


Thank you for the definitions. 

"Speculation" is exactly what I meant to say. 

You have no idea. You are guessing. You're speculating. 

That's my opinion.


----------



## CDG (Nov 16, 2016)

Very interesting, and plausible, article from WOTR.  I am not saying I think this is likely, but I agree with the author that it could happen.  I don't think PE Trump is anywhere near the same league as a Putin when it comes to this stuff.

The Danger of Inadvertent War in the Next Four Years


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 16, 2016)

So PE Trump wants to increase the Army by 110k from the end strength the current draw down will end at, increase the size of the Navy by 80 ships, and the Air Force by 100+ Aircraft...too late.  Where's the money coming from though?


----------



## AWP (Nov 17, 2016)

CDG said:


> Very interesting, and plausible, article from WOTR.  I am not saying I think this is likely, but I agree with the author that it could happen.  I don't think PE Trump is anywhere near the same league as a Putin when it comes to this stuff.
> 
> The Danger of Inadvertent War in the Next Four Years



At work the Ops folks joke "will I be on shift when WWIII breaks out" at least once a week. Not just the pessimists like me, but the "rainbows and butterflies" types as well. Cold War 2.0 is back.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 17, 2016)

CDG said:


> Very interesting, and plausible, article from WOTR.  I am not saying I think this is likely, but I agree with the author that it could happen.  I don't think PE Trump is anywhere near the same league as a Putin when it comes to this stuff.
> 
> The Danger of Inadvertent War in the Next Four Years



No, he is not.  We are always one event away from shooting, and maybe three events away from an all-out war.  That's why I am always concerned about where we put our military and why...it can go from a couple hundred troops in a support role to an unintended consequence of all-out war very quickly.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 17, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So PE Trump wants to increase the Army by 110k from the end strength the current draw down will end at, increase the size of the Navy by 80 ships, and the Air Force by 100+ Aircraft...too late.  Where's the money coming from though?



While I agree the military needs a $ and manpower bolus, where they get the money I haven't a clue, _especially_ in light of the tax cuts he wants to enact.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 17, 2016)

Trump has experience with major league funding and moving capital around. Obama came in with zero experience and with an economy in trouble. We'll see how the Donald does with the economy as a business man-V-politician.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 17, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> While I agree the military needs a $ and manpower bolus, where they get the money I haven't a clue, _especially_ in light of the tax cuts he wants to enact.



Lots of funds available once the fat is cut from the government machine.  Big government costs way to much.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 17, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Lots of funds available once the fat is cut from the government machine.  Big government costs way to much.



I agree but I foresee a Reagan scenario....cut taxes, spend in defense, government continues to grow and the economy stagnates (even more).  I wish PE Trump would cut some fat from the government, and I hope he does.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 17, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I agree but I foresee a Reagan scenario....cut taxes, spend in defense, government continues to grow and the economy stagnates (even more).  I wish PE Trump would cut some fat from the government, and I hope he does.



It is just my opinion, but a Reagan back in the Oval Office might be a good thing for the military; if not the entire Nation. Time will tell.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 17, 2016)

I think Hillary's going to run again in '20. She's already making speeches and sounding like the leader of the resistance...a role she could exploit given the mood of her vanquished followers.

I can't imagine having to endure her through another campaign season. The Dems need to find another woman. And _not_ Pelosi.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 17, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I think Hillary's going to run again in '20. She's already making speeches and sounding like the leader of the resistance...a role she could exploit given the mood of her vanquished followers.
> 
> I can't imagine having to endure her through another campaign season. The Dems need to find another woman.



I don't think so. She has literally no political capital left to spend. She is done. 












I hope.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't think so. She has literally no political capital left to spend. She is done.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well....I hope you're right. 

I'd actually like to see a woman president. Got no problem with it. But not her. For me, it would have to be somebody like a Maggie Thatcher.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 17, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> It is just my opinion, but a Reagan back in the Oval Office might be a good thing for the military; if not the entire Nation. Time will tell.



Reagan was great for the military, but he knew how to grow the hell out of the government.  If Trump could do the same thing he did re: the military and dampen spending elsewhere, it would be awesome.  If he could end up as inspirational and as an effective communicator as Reagan, that would be icing on the cake.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 17, 2016)

So Piers had something to say:

PIERS MORGAN tells millennials to stop whinging about Trump's win | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 17, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Well....I hope you're right.
> 
> I'd actually like to see a woman president. Got no problem with it. But not her. For me, it would have to be somebody like a Maggie Thatcher.



Elizabeth Warren?


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 17, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> Elizabeth Warren?



That woman needs to be locked up in a padded white room.


----------



## macNcheese (Nov 17, 2016)

Kanye is going to run in 2020. 

Kanye West fully intends to run for president in 2020: “I’m going to try to do it”


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 17, 2016)

You're all looking in the wrong direction. Ex-Gov. Pallin jumps ship from the spineless GOP, and straight into the vacuum the Clintons have left in their wake. She has two years to build her base, then two years to go after The Donald. :-".


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 17, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> You're all looking in the wrong direction. Ex-Gov. Pallin jumps ship from the spineless GOP, and straight into the vacuum the Clintons have left in their wake. She has two years to build her base, then two years to go after The Donald. :-".


Gotta disagree here. Pallin is a moron of the highest caliber. She wouldn't make it far in the primaries based on her previous performance as McCain's running mate. She would be an equally bad choice for the GOP as Warren would be for the Ds.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 17, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Gotta disagree here. Pallin is a moron of the highest caliber. She wouldn't make it far in the primaries based on her previous performance as McCain's running mate. She would be an equally bad choice for the GOP as Warren would be for the Ds.



Just trying to break up the flow with a little humor. I've had my fill of politics for a while.

ETA:  I just couldn't help myself fellas.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 17, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I'd actually like to see a woman president. Got no problem with it...


I also have no problem with it but I wouldn't go so far as to say "I'd like to see a woman president".  This is because I don't really care if the President is male, female, black, brown, red, white, green, or whatever.  The concept that we need to continue to propagate artifical gender and race barriers is stupid to me and ultimately does us all a disservice.  I don't give a shit about that stuff; it's just not a factor in how I make decisions.  Sometimes think we should go back to radio only format during elections! 

What I want is someone with integrity, objectivity, respect for the Constitution, and well reasoned policy positions - all while remembering they represent all citizens of this country, not just the ~25% of the population that may've voted for them.  In other words, select the best candidate based on their qualifications/positions.  If that happens to be a woman, great.  If not, that's great as well.


----------



## Polar Bear (Nov 17, 2016)

She has nice boobs


----------



## AWP (Nov 17, 2016)

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is available. 2020's calling!


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 17, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Well....I hope you're right.
> 
> I'd actually like to see a woman president. Got no problem with it. But not her. For me, it would have to be somebody like a Maggie Thatcher.



I truely do not believe she will have the physical ability to mount another run for the Oval Office. I do not believe her health is very good, and may have added to some of the frustration that came out at some of her rallies.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 17, 2016)

I feel as though this was her "Hail Mary" run and that since she didn't get it, it's probably over for her. She looked beat up in the news this morning when I was watching the footage of her speech the prior day. She looked physically and mentally drained. Neither her or WJC look like they can handle much more on the "political circuit"...book circuit...maybe. Political circuit...not so much.


----------



## AWP (Nov 17, 2016)

Clinton has some substantial hurdles to overcome if she's to have a chance at running again. With everything that transpired I can't see her receiving her party's nomination which will further damage her ego and reputation.

She has roughly three years to rehab her image and acquire enough voters to put her in the finals. "Appearance" and rep. mean more to her than anything and she just lost a metric shit-ton of face. I don't see potential 2020 Dem. opponents sitting idly by and not gathering dirt, especially in light of the Wikileaks DNC election rigging debacle. Unless Trump knocks his 4 years out of the park she'll be derisively remembered for losing to the guy. I think her party and the country in general are tired of the Clinton schtick, tired of her baggage, tired of her arrogance (anyone who couldn't see her body language and facial expressions this election is dense), tired of everything associated with her, and just tired of hearing the Clinton name.

I think she's done, but I also thought she'd win and the Jaguars would go 8-8.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 18, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Just trying to break up the flow with a little humor. I've had my fill of politics for a while.
> 
> ETA:  I just couldn't help myself fellas.


LoL damnit man! I completely missed the emojis. You're right, I missed it. Your oldness is infecting us :-"


----------



## Gunz (Nov 18, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> LoL damnit man! I completely missed the emojis. You're right, I missed it. Your oldness is infecting us :-"


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 18, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is available. 2020's calling!




I am saying this in light of the staff issues/complaints thread, but what _THE_ fuck are you thinking??


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 19, 2016)

Dear Diary,

What did I learn after the election?

- Nothing

Love, Liberal Democrats

_________________________________________

Yep, let's booo VP Elect Pence at a Broadway show of all places and then take the time to lecture him directly from the stage.  Surly this won't embolden those who voted Trump, or are now part of the new administration.  
Please, continue to mock, chide, talk down to, and attempt to embarrass us because our views do not line up exactly with your.

That worked so well last time.  :wall:

_'Vice-president-elect Pence we welcome you and truly thank you for joining us here,' Brandon Dixon - who plays Aaron Burr - said on-stage.
‘We sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. 
‘But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us. All of us.’

Hamilton cast address Mike Pence after he is booed by audience | Daily Mail Online

_


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Dear Diary,
> 
> What did I learn after the election?
> 
> ...



I have a feeling he will get booed at a lot of places he goes. The majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump/Pence.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> The majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump/Pence.


False. No need to spread this fallacy. The final results are not in, much less certified. In addition, the majority of Americans did not even vote in this election. Just over half of those eligible to vote even bothered to vote. So to put forth the argument that most Americans did not vote for Trump/Pence is disingenuous. Which is why the electoral college is good for the country as a whole, but that is a debate that is probably best left for another thread.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 19, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> False. No need to spread this fallacy. The final results are not in, much less certified. In addition, the majority of Americans did not even vote in this election. Just over half of those eligible to vote even bothered to vote. So to put forth the argument that most Americans did not vote for Trump/Pence is disingenuous. Which is why the electoral college is good for the country as a whole, but that is a debate that is probably best left for another thread.



Well it is up to 1.4 million as of yesterday. Maybe I should have been more clear. "Among those that voted, the majority did not vote for Trump/Pence".


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well it is up to 1.4 million as of yesterday. Maybe I should have been more clear. "Among those that voted, the majority did not vote for Trump/Pence".



I agreed with @ke4gde because I buy into the fact that we are a Republic, and not a democracy.  I'm not interested in "mob rule" and like the idea of the Electral College.

It is disappointing to see stories like this.  I was certainly no fan of President Obama, yet the idea of vocally "booing him" or even Hilary for that matter, seems so childish.  Especially in a non-political venue, you are at a freeking Broadway show for crisake.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I agreed with @ke4gde because I buy into the fact that we are a Republic, and not a democracy.  I'm not interested in "mob rule" and like the idea of the Electral College.
> 
> It is disappointing to see stories like this.  I was certainly no fan of President Obama, yet the idea of vocally "booing him" or even Hilary for that matter, seems so childish.  Especially in a non-political venue, you are at a freeking Broadway show for crisake.



I agree with the electoral college part. People booing though? President Obama got heckled by a congressman during his SOTU address, and I remember people(on here) applauding it. Hamilton isn't exactly a non-political venue as far as I know. 

People have every right to boo the fuck out of whoever they want, doesn't make it right, but I don't get too riled up about it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 19, 2016)

A less Daily-Mail version of the story....

President-elect Donald Trump demanded an apology from the cast of the Broadway musical "Hamilton" a day after an actor in the hit show delivered a pointed message about diversity to his running mate who was in attendance. The speech aimed at Mike Pence prompted angry responses from liberals and conservatives alike — underscoring yet again the fractious aftermath of the 2016 election.
Debate over 'Hamilton' speech exposes post-election cracks

I read the below paragraph in the story and laughed out loud.  Really?  I'm so glad to read this!  Of course I have a feeling that my definition of "proper exercise" and that of Mr. Romero might be very different.

"_President-elect Trump needs a refresher on his high school civics class. Americans don't apologize — not even to presidents or vice presidents — for the lawful and proper exercise of their constitutional rights," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero wrote in a statement._


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> A less Daily-Mail version of the story....
> 
> President-elect Donald Trump demanded an apology from the cast of the Broadway musical "Hamilton" a day after an actor in the hit show delivered a pointed message about diversity to his running mate who was in attendance. The speech aimed at Mike Pence prompted angry responses from liberals and conservatives alike — underscoring yet again the fractious aftermath of the 2016 election.
> Debate over 'Hamilton' speech exposes post-election cracks
> ...



Come the fuk on? Demanding apologies already?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I agree with the electoral college part. People booing though? President Obama got heckled by a congressman during his SOTU address, and I remember people(on here) applauding it. Hamilton isn't exactly a non-political venue as far as I know.
> 
> People have every right to boo the fuck out of whoever they want, doesn't make it right, but I don't get too riled up about it.


The reason I disagree is that Pence is the customer, they knew he was in attendance.  Who is always right?  The Customer!  Is it against the law? Nope! Is it a douche move? YES!

Jordan once said: Republicans buy shoes too!  It seems that everyone wants to respons with showing their ass rather than having decorum.

But last I checked...they're discriminating, not the VPE or the PE:

Nick Palmisciano on Twitter


----------



## 0699 (Nov 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> A less Daily-Mail version of the story....
> 
> President-elect Donald Trump demanded an apology from the cast of the Broadway musical "Hamilton" a day after an actor in the hit show delivered a pointed message about diversity to his running mate who was in attendance. The speech aimed at Mike Pence prompted angry responses from liberals and conservatives alike — underscoring yet again the fractious aftermath of the 2016 election.
> Debate over 'Hamilton' speech exposes post-election cracks
> ...



I wonder what Anthony D. Romero would say if the VP-elect called the cast of _Hamilton_ a bunch of crappy actors who couldn't act their way out of a paper bag.

I'm not a fan of bully pulpits and that's what the cast did to the VP-elect.  They knew he couldn't reply and they knew he wouldn't leave.  They showed zero class.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> "Among those that voted, the majority did not vote for Trump/Pence".


Also inflammatory, the final count has yet to be made. Until such time, all statements such as those are incorrect. Sorry.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 19, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Also inflammatory, the final count has yet to be made. Until such time, all statements such as those are incorrect. Sorry.


Ok, fair enough. 

Can you please tell me what he is "supposed" to say? In your own words? Accepting the fact that at this point, with the popular vote that has been counted, Trump has lost to Clinton? If this isn't true, feel free to post your own source with a count that differs.  

From my optic, you're being ultra sensitive about a pretty simple premise- no, not 100% of the votes have been counted. But, speaking for the votes that have, Clinton is winning the popular vote unless you can prove otherwise. Can you?


ke4gde said:


> *Also inflammatory, the final count has yet to be made. Until such time, all statements such as those are incorrect. Sorry. *


It's inflammatory to tell you the facts? Jesus, maybe you need to find a safe space.

We have all talked about this. Do you think your comment would have stood without your final passive aggressive "sorry"?

What about this conversation needs you to be a dick to get your point across?


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 19, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Also inflammatory, the final count has yet to be made. Until such time, all statements such as those are incorrect. Sorry.


Most of the uncounted vote is coming from California.  It's pretty safe to say that not only will Clinton still win the popular vote once all the votes are counted, but her lead will likely increase.

Does that change the outcome?  No.  However, it does mean that the Trump administration must be cognizant of the fact that they do not have a "mandate" from the American people, and need to act accordingly.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 19, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Also inflammatory, the final count has yet to be made. Until such time, all statements such as those are incorrect. Sorry.



Let's try this: It is very likely that her vote lead will be over 2 million when all is said and done. He isn't going to make up the difference. Is it equally inflammatory to call states? To say that Trump is President Elect because the EC hasn't technically voted yet? Your standard is a bit on the ridiculous side.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 19, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> However, it does mean that the Trump administration must be cognizant of the fact that they do not have a "mandate" from the American people, and need to act accordingly.



Deathy, I agree and disagree with your post -

Agree that Hilary won the popular vote, why is that even up for debate?  Trump won.

Disagree that Trump administration did not receive a 'mandate'.  

Now I am more than willing to be educated, but my understanding of a presidential election mandate has always been  a straight ticket win of the presidency, the house and senate.  Which happened here -

Am I incorrect in my definition ?


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Deathy, I agree and disagree with your post -
> 
> Agree that Hilary won the popular vote, why is that even up for debate?  Trump won.
> 
> ...


Well you're correct that Trump won.  That's not in dispute.  But when people talk about a "mandate" (notice the scare quotes here) vis a vis national elections, it's usually to refer to a succesful re-election bid, or an overwhelming electoral victory.  E.g. Reagan had the people's mandate in 1980 and 1984, as Obama did in 2008 and 2012, and GWB did in 2004 (though not in 2000).  Both President's inital victories were by overwhelming popular and electoral majorities, which clearly indicated that the will of the people was behind them.  That's the meaning of a "mandate".  Trump does not have it, even though he won the election.  

A president with a clear mandate is free to pursue every objective that was promised during the campaign, as it's clear that electoral momentum is behind them.  A president without a mandate needs to be more careful in what objectives they choose to go after.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Deathy, I agree and disagree with your post -
> 
> Agree that Hilary won the popular vote, why is that even up for debate?  Trump won.
> 
> ...


I see this one from both sides. 

@Ooh-Rah , I agree that the PE is the PE, and that the 'mandate' is implied in that election. Yes, PE Trump won and has an implied mandate from the American people. 

I think what @Deathy McDeath was saying was, "Despite electoral college decision, and in light of the popular vote, the majority of the people  that voted voted for the opposing view. Therefore, PE Trump does not have the support of the majority of the country and needs to act accordingly."

I could  be way off base, but I agree with both sides to a point.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 19, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Most of the uncounted vote is coming from California.  It's pretty safe to say that not only will Clinton still win the popular vote once all the votes are counted, but her lead will likely increase.
> 
> Does that change the outcome?  No.  However, it does mean that the Trump administration must be cognizant of the fact that they do not have a "mandate" from the American people, and need to act accordingly.


Disagree, his mandate is no different then those who proceeded him, he ran on a platform and needs to stick as close to it as he can.  That's his mandate.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 19, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Ok, fair enough.
> 
> Can you please tell me what he is "supposed" to say? In your own words? Accepting the fact that at this point, with the popular vote that has been counted, Trump has lost to Clinton? If this isn't true, feel free to post your own source with a count that differs.
> 
> ...


Whoa Whoa Whoa, You mean like how you can be a dick as well? The sorry was nothing more than a turn of phrase meant in jest. Like many of the board members here do with each other through their side jabs. I guess the fault is mine because I got too chummy with you. My bad. 

Since you want to play the provide sources game (yet you have failed your own test); CNN, NYT, IBT, Politico, even FOX show differing popular vote counts ranging from 300k to over a mil. With certain states doing recounts, some not finished counting, and further issues involving illegals voting. Now I will grant you the alleged 3mil illegals voting might be a stretch, but given how the ENTIRE media was absolutely wrong about Trump and his campaign, and several outlets were proven to and have admitted to colluding to help HRC win, is it any wonder some of us doubt news from the same sources that admitted they were not just wrong, but purposely tried to influence the election? Can you blame some of us for wanting an official final tally before proclaiming "AMERICA DOESN'T WANT YOU!!!!" You have yet to provide any facts. Even if HRC won the popular vote, it doesn't mean the people wanted her. If you look at the county wide election map it shows that "America" did not want HRC. Several large metropolitan areas elected HRC (a factual statement using any number of local sources). 

I wasn't intentionally being a dick, but I was responding to what I saw was an inaccurate and misleading statement. Especially given that the whole process for counting votes isn't finished, and the information we are getting about the process is from the same sources that lied to us, mislead us, and ultimately forgot what unbiased journalism was. That is also a fact, as is evidenced by this letter from the Executive Editor of the New York Times.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Let's try this: It is very likely that her vote lead will be over 2 million when all is said and done. He isn't going to make up the difference. Is it equally inflammatory to call states? To say that Trump is President Elect because the EC hasn't technically voted yet? Your standard is a bit on the ridiculous side.


Disagree. She conceded, therefore he won. It isn't inflammatory at all. Again, we don't know the final vote counts because all the "credible" sources out there have varying vote counts. Will she win the popular vote? Probably since the majority of her votes come from a handful of large metropolitan cities. However, we don't know yet with certainty do we? So the constant needling by those that did not vote for the current President-Elect, and believe him not to be the legitimate winner, is doing nothing but worsening an already stressful situation. 

I'm not trying to be all tinfoil-y, but goddamn, if the media outlets were intelligence sources they would have been classified as not reliable and had anything they said independently verified. Why is it bad that I don't want to believe what they say without independent verification? Such as an official final vote count.


----------



## 0699 (Nov 19, 2016)

Here we go AGAIN.  Moderators lecturing their personal viewpoints...


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 19, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Disagree. She conceded, therefore he won. It isn't inflammatory at all. Again, we don't know the final vote counts because all the "credible" sources out there have varying vote counts. Will she win the popular vote? Probably since the majority of her votes come from a handful of large metropolitan cities. However, we don't know yet with certainty do we? So the constant needling by those that did not vote for the current President-Elect, and believe him not to be the legitimate winner, is doing nothing but worsening an already stressful situation.
> 
> I'm not trying to be all tinfoil-y, but goddamn, if the media outlets were intelligence sources they would have been classified as not reliable and had anything they said independently verified. Why is it bad that I don't want to believe what they say without independent verification? Such as an official final vote count.



Media, especially reputable media (what you would likely call MSM), is used as a reliable intelligence source all the time.  It's one of the applications of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT).

I almost disagreed with your post too @Deathy McDeath.  You're of course correct on the technical specifications of a 'mandate' - though I've read some political scientists who believe there's almost no way to really leverage a mandate - with a bunch of caveats for LBJ and FDR of course.  But to me, I can only see this administration governing as though the slightly-more-than-half-the-voting-public that voted the other way doesn't matter at all.  The political shifts that have led us to an unprecedented level of control by the Republican party - all three branches of government - seem to exclude fear of the other side, or governance from the middle.  Instead, the political drivers seem to be fear of the right flank.  I could see an argument that the PE would be motivated to reach out in some respects to maintain the 2 million or so white non-college educated voters who crossed from the Democratic to the Republican party to vote but that sort of political calculus does not seem consistent with how he campaigned or what kind of cabinet he's putting together.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 19, 2016)

0699 said:


> Here we go AGAIN.  Moderators lecturing their personal viewpoints...


Bro, come on. No one is "lecturing". 

Do I agree w @ke4gde ? Nope. Do I respect his position and want him to engage? Absolutely. Am I grateful for his open and honest communication? Yep. Would I ever punish him for a man to man conversation in my role as a mod/admin? No. 

I am calling bullshit where I see it- yes I am voicing my personal viewpoint because _I happen to have an opposing personal viewpont. 
_

I will shoot you a PM so we can hash this out. I will also not continue my conversation w @ke4gde in this thread.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 19, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> Media, especially reputable media (what you would likely call MSM), is used as a reliable intelligence source all the time.  It's one of the applications of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT).


I am sure they are used as reliable sources. My point was that after what happened on election night, they should be called into question as to their 
reliability. After all, logic would dictate that sources of information can lose their credibility or reliability depending on what has occurred. At this point, the reputable media has lost its credibility with both sides of the isle.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 19, 2016)

0699 said:


> Here we go AGAIN.  Moderators lecturing their personal viewpoints...



And why shouldn't they be able to be contributing members to the discussions? While I may not agree politically with @TLDR20 or @Deathy McDeath, it doesn't mean I want them silenced. Differing viewpoints are one of many reasons I enjoy this forum. It's the only forum I visit. Yes, their names may be red but that doesn't mean their opinion is any more valuable than yours, @0699. Anyone here can lecture on a viewpoint until a thread gets locked, in which case, yes they can say as they please without our mob input.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 19, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Bro, come on. No one is "lecturing".
> 
> Do I agree w @ke4gde ? Nope. Do I respect his position and want him to engage? Absolutely. Am I grateful for his open and honest communication? Yep. Would I ever punish him for a man to man conversation in my role as a mod/admin? No.


Not to diminish @0699's concerns, and be fair, In @amlove21's defense, I can say without a doubt that he hasn't tried to throw is girth around. In fact he has been helpful in the past when addressing administrative issues.

He's still a liberal cock. Oh, wait... I promised not to do that... :-"


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 19, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> I am sure they are used as reliable sources. My point was that after what happened on election night, they should be called into question as to their
> reliability. After all, logic would dictate that sources of information can lose their credibility or reliability depending on what has occurred. At this point, the reputable media has lost its credibility with both sides of the isle.


And I agree with this. There is literally no drama. 

The media got the election wrong. They were exposed to be awful.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 19, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Not to diminish @0699's concerns, and be fair, In @amlove21's defense, I can say without a doubt that he hasn't tried to throw is girth around. In fact he has been helpful in the past when addressing administrative issues.
> 
> He's still a liberal cock. Oh, wait... I promised not to do that... :-"


lol, that is in fact a true statement. And it's ok for you and everyone here to have that opinion, as a matter of fact. 

In the interest of keeping the thread on track, please return to the initial conversation. Any staff issues should be put in the thread that's appropriate.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 19, 2016)

In case SecDef doesn't workout.


----------



## AWP (Nov 19, 2016)

1. There are too many "dicks" in this thread. While it seems to be hashed out, that doesn't make it right and should not have started in the first place. Christ...
2. Staff can participate in our discussions and are under no obligation to agree with the masses. Specified or implied bullying isn't tolerated. I'm sick of this topic (from both sides) and unless @ShadowSpear explicitly tells me otherwise I'm going to start kicking things up a notch with my spot corrections.

Back to the thread.


----------



## compforce (Nov 19, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> But to me, I can only see this administration governing as though the slightly-more-than-half-the-voting-public that voted the other way doesn't matter at all.



Of course they will.  It's the balance in the system.  Dems do the same thing.  Noone can legitimately say that Obama gave any credence to the conservative voices.  I can't remember a case where he reached across the aisle. There may be one or two, but they weren't on anything of substance.  The pendulum keeps swinging back and forth, further and further each time.  At some point it is not going to come back and that will signal the end of the US in all but name, regardless of which side it stops on.



> The political shifts that have led us to an *unprecedented level of control* by the Republican party - all three branches of government - seem to exclude fear of the other side, or governance from the middle.



It's not unprecedented at all.  As a matter of fact, the last time we had control of the executive and legislative by one party, we got Obamacare (09-10).  If you want to only include "by republicans".  Bush "W" had the congress and senate in both 03-04 and 05-06.  Presidents and Congresses


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 19, 2016)

The entire "winning the popular vote" argument is kind of silly to me; it seems to come up every election now when a certain group doesn't get their way.

Problem is that even aside from the pesky Consitutional constraints of our system, the fact remains that in 2016, approx 231M Americans were eligible to vote in the Presidential election, give or take a dead body or two.  Yet, similar to all modern U.S. elections, voter turnout didn't even top 60% of the eligible population.  For all practical purposes, Hillary and Trump each garnered only 60M votes.  Another way to look at is that only ~25% of the total eligible population in the U.S. felt compelled to come out and give either candidate their approval.  So, approx. 50% of the population chose to stay on the sideline for whatever reason; a rather embarrassing stat for our society.

With those facts in mind, it's difficult to think anyone really has a mandate or why anyone would really brag about "the popular vote".  When we have everyone (or a respectably higher percentage >80%) fully engaged in the process, then maybe that discussion carries more weight.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 20, 2016)

0699 said:


> Here we go AGAIN.  Moderators lecturing their personal viewpoints...


Devil, if ever you think a point i make is incorrect, you don't agree with it, or is just plain stupid, then say so!  You are absolutely allowed to say, "Hey @Deathy McDeath that point you made was so fucking dumb that I'm pretty sure I caught Downs from it."  I have never banned anyone for disagreeing and I never will. 
 I don't post on here to browbeat people because I got a red tag or some shit.  I genuinely enjoy the level of discourse here, and of course contributing to it.  Any mod will say the exact same thing.


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 20, 2016)

@compforce I think that's a misrepresentation of the Obama presidency - especially during the first 3 years.  Much of the tumult over the ACA was due to President Obama's efforts to include Republican votes.  Though I agree the later portion of his first term and second devolved to almost total gridlock.  I think political scientists and historians will credit the Obama administration with a great deal of outreach across the aisle - but also fault it for the lack of success.  I read somewhere that no party has controlled all 3 branches of government (including the judicial) since the 1920s - but I take your point on executive and legislative.

My larger point was that the pressure to reach across the aisle to legislate has largely dissolved over the last 15 years for a variety of structural reasons - and that's bad for democracy.  Both parties have to pursue an electoral strategy towards turning out reliable voters (and suppressing the other party's voters) vs trying to convince 'swing' or 'undecided' voters to move over.  It means there's very little room to compromise legislatively because of ideological pressure - even where the policy positions line up pretty well.

That's why I disagree with @Blizzard as well on the importance of the popular vote.  Wherever the final tally lies - and I've read it could be anywhere from .5 - 2 million against the PE - it displays a profound split in the politics of the country.  It seems structurally unsound to me to govern in a 'winner take all' manner when half your populace (or at least the ones that bothered to vote) disagree with your positions.  That should generate a desire to compromise or move to the middle in at least some areas.  But, I think looking at the electoral map with such a powerful demographic divide, rural/city divide, gerrymandered districts, dark money, tailored media, and the loss of earmarks it seems to me the institutional set-up pushes against that kind of governance.

I was reading an article that said what makes democracy strong is not it's efficiency or ability to get the right answer on policy - but it's ability to withstand internal pressure.  A democracy has the ability to peacefully transition power at multiple levels and ensures factions do not have to resort to violence to ensure their survival.  Its the ability to protect the minority that makes the majority stronger.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 20, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Well you're correct that Trump won.  That's not in dispute.  But when people talk about a "mandate" (notice the scare quotes here) vis a vis national elections, it's usually to refer to a succesful re-election bid, or an overwhelming electoral victory.  E.g. Reagan had the people's mandate in 1980 and 1984, as Obama did in 2008 and 2012, and GWB did in 2004 (though not in 2000).  Both President's inital victories were by overwhelming popular and electoral majorities, which clearly indicated that the will of the people was behind them.  That's the meaning of a "mandate".  Trump does not have it, even though he won the election.
> 
> A president with a clear mandate is free to pursue every objective that was promised during the campaign, as it's clear that electoral momentum is behind them.  A president without a mandate needs to be more careful in what objectives they choose to go after.



disagree. A mandate is based on winning control of the Congress and the Executive branch, not by how many individuals voted for the loser.


----------



## compforce (Nov 20, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> @compforce I think that's a misrepresentation of the Obama presidency - especially during the first 3 years.  Much of the tumult over the ACA was due to President Obama's efforts to include Republican votes.  Though I agree the later portion of his first term and second devolved to almost total gridlock.  I think political scientists and historians will credit the Obama administration with a great deal of outreach across the aisle - but also fault it for the lack of success.  I read somewhere that no party has controlled all 3 branches of government (including the judicial) since the 1920s - but I take your point on executive and legislative.
> 
> My larger point was that the pressure to reach across the aisle to legislate has largely dissolved over the last 15 years for a variety of structural reasons - and that's bad for democracy.  Both parties have to pursue an electoral strategy towards turning out reliable voters (and suppressing the other party's voters) vs trying to convince 'swing' or 'undecided' voters to move over.  It means there's very little room to compromise legislatively because of ideological pressure - even where the policy positions line up pretty well.



I didn't take his efforts during ACA to be outreach.  Saying "do what I want, the way that I want it" is not how you reach for compromise.  There wasn't a single part of his plan that the Republicans in Congress could get behind ideologically with the possible exception of the requirement to insure people with preexisting conditions.  Personally, as much as I abhor the liberal agenda, I think Obama missed a big opportunity by wasting the years he had Congress to push it through.  Think about how much of his agenda he could have pushed during that time.  He chose to use it all for his "legacy" instead.  I think you are going to be absolutely shocked by how much Trump is going to get done in the same time.

Your second paragraph above is what I was talking about in my pendulum analogy.  It used to be that a Democrat was someone that was just left of center.  With the progressives in the party getting more and more control, the "normal" left is now what used to be considered the radical left.  Likewise, the right has moved from being slightly right to a point where they would have been considered radical in the recent past (20-30 years ago).  As they move further and further apart, the Presidency and the Congress will enact policies that are further and further apart as we oscillate between the two sides, all while working to cancel the policies put in by the other side. At some point the needle stops moving and we end up with one side or the other.  And therein lies the danger.  If it stops on the extreme left, we get socialism.  On the extreme right we get fascism.  Either one is bad.  Right now the left is one amnesty/mass citizenship away from permanently controlling the government.  We need someone that can pull us back to the middle.  We need our own reset button.  If we don't get one, this country is over as an idea within the next 50 years.  We'll be the USSA instead.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 20, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> @compforce I think that's a misrepresentation of the Obama presidency - especially during the first 3 years.  Much of the tumult over the ACA was due to President Obama's efforts to include Republican votes.  Though I agree the later portion of his first term and second devolved to almost total gridlock.  I think political scientists and historians will credit the Obama administration with a great deal of outreach across the aisle - but also fault it for the lack of success.  I read somewhere that no party has controlled all 3 branches of government (including the judicial) since the 1920s - but I take your point on executive and legislative.
> 
> My larger point was that the pressure to reach across the aisle to legislate has largely dissolved over the last 15 years for a variety of structural reasons - and that's bad for democracy.  Both parties have to pursue an electoral strategy towards turning out reliable voters (and suppressing the other party's voters) vs trying to convince 'swing' or 'undecided' voters to move over.  It means there's very little room to compromise legislatively because of ideological pressure - even where the policy positions line up pretty well.
> 
> ...




Much of the "tumult" over the ACA was the fact that it was hastily crafted, overly complicated, and poorly sold to the American people.  Statements from Democratic leaders like "we have to pass the bill before you can find out what is in it" didn't help.  The bill was passed... people found out what was in it... and then the tumult REALLY started.

Your explanation of the necessity of appealing to extremities is excellent.  I think that's exactly the problem.  I wonder if we would disagree about the causes?  I hypothesize that an increased appeal to identity politics resulted in more, increasingly-polarized factions, and the competition for political coalition building is now such that even small groups have a greatly outsized voice in elections and policy decisions.  There's a rush to pander to these groups, in part to gain their votes but also to avoid being attacked by them, accused of some kind of "-ism" or being some kind of "-ist."  These smaller, ever-more-vocal and demanding groups are willing to engage in social, political, and physical violence at the drop of a hat... because that's what their leaders encourage them to do.  Because that kind of thing works.

I may have read the same piece about democracy you did.  If so, I think it also said that democracies have to be able to balance their internal contradictions.  I think the outcome of the recent election is a much-needed rebalancing.  The trick is going to be not swinging so far to the right that it spurs another far-left correction in 2-4 years.


----------



## AWP (Nov 20, 2016)

People complain about the injustice of the Electoral College yet it has existed since Day One of our nation. There's some "rabble, rabble" when a popular candidate loses the vote, but what's done, what changes?

Not a damn thing. No has even made a serious run at the concept in how many years? "Voter, please..."


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 20, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> @compforce I think that's a misrepresentation of the Obama presidency - especially during the first 3 years.  Much of the tumult over the ACA was due to President Obama's efforts to include Republican votes.


Strong non-concur here.  There was virtually no effort to include outside viewpoints/discussion in ACA.  Opposing views were dismissed and it was never overwhelmingly popular.  Democrats feared their window for slamming something through was closing (one thing they actually got right, as evidenced by their massive defeat in 2010 elections).  So, the legislation was ramrodded down our throats in a half assed effort.  Most never even read the bill and it was unanimously opposed by Republicans, in part for that reason (Reid allowed no discussion on it and Democrats had the numbers to push it).  That's one reason it was slapped with the Obamacare title and was so unpopular/controversial from the start.



Il Duce said:


> That's why I disagree with @Blizzard as well on the importance of the popular vote.  Wherever the final tally lies - and I've read it could be anywhere from .5 - 2 million against the PE - it displays a profound split in the politics of the country.  It seems structurally unsound to me to govern in a 'winner take all' manner when half your populace (or at least the ones that bothered to vote) disagree with your positions.  That should generate a desire to compromise or move to the middle in at least some areas.  But, I think looking at the electoral map with such a powerful demographic divide, rural/city divide, gerrymandered districts, dark money, tailored media, and the loss of earmarks it seems to me the institutional set-up pushes against that kind of governance.


It actually sounds like you agree with me here more than you disagree.  My point was exactly that.  To govern with a winner take all philosophy and arrogance is very misplaced.  Note:  Obama has done this IMO.  On more than one occasion, particularly after 2012 elections he took an "I won" approach to leading (President Obama to Republicans: I won. Deal with it.).  See comments above in re: Obamacare as further evidence to this.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 20, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I may have read the same piece about democracy you did.  If so, I think it also said that democracies have to be able to balance their internal contradictions.  I think the outcome of the recent election is a much-needed rebalancing.  The trick is going to be not swinging so far to the right that it spurs another far-left correction in 2-4 years.


And this is also where it's important that government not be overly efficient with "change" (not to be confused with efficiency in the delivery of it's services).  We don't want and shouldn't have wild swings in policy to the left or right on a regular basis.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 20, 2016)

When it comes to the ACA I don't ever remember the POTUS handing Pelosi and Reid a plan and thus saying:  get this done.  It was: hey, healthcare, get it passed.


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 20, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Much of the "tumult" over the ACA was the fact that it was hastily crafted, overly complicated, and poorly sold to the American people.  Statements from Democratic leaders like "we have to pass the bill before you can find out what is in it" didn't help.  The bill was passed... people found out what was in it... and then the tumult REALLY started.
> 
> Your explanation of the necessity of appealing to extremities is excellent.  I think that's exactly the problem.  I wonder if we would disagree about the causes?  I hypothesize that an increased appeal to identity politics resulted in more, increasingly-polarized factions, and the competition for political coalition building is now such that even small groups have a greatly outsized voice in elections and policy decisions.  There's a rush to pander to these groups, in part to gain their votes but also to avoid being attacked by them, accused of some kind of "-ism" or being some kind of "-ist."  These smaller, ever-more-vocal and demanding groups are willing to engage in social, political, and physical violence at the drop of a hat... because that's what their leaders encourage them to do.  Because that kind of thing works.
> 
> I may have read the same piece about democracy you did.  If so, I think it also said that democracies have to be able to balance their internal contradictions.  I think the outcome of the recent election is a much-needed rebalancing.  The trick is going to be not swinging so far to the right that it spurs another far-left correction in 2-4 years.



I hear you, I would likely quibble about the Presidents outreach and causes of the appeal to extremes - but, I don't think they're necessarily mutually exclusive.  I think you can have both - or more accurately a multitude - of competing strains of causation.  There's a great article in the opinion section of the NYT today (I linked it on FB yesterday) arguing against the liberal reliance on identity politics from a liberal perspective - think you might find it interesting.

I'm not sure I agree this most previous election was a re-balancing.  However, I am firmly on the liberal side so it's very difficult for me to see the executive in this election-cycle as anything but unprecedented and dangerous.  It may be that bias precludes me from seeing the necessity of conservative and populist policies over the next 2-4 years to counterbalance the last 8.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 20, 2016)

Good points.  For all his talk of "transparency" and "reaching across the aisle," I didn't see President Obama as being particularly interested in negotiating with the Republicans.  Other than the "Beer Summit," I don't recall any particular outreach efforts.  In fact, I remember the opposite, with quotes like "elections have consequences" and "I won" and believing he had a mandate from the people that equated to forcing the other side to bend to his will.  

Too Bad Obama Didn't Follow His Own Advice | RealClearPolitics 

I read the article you mentioned, it was a good piece but liberals aren't going to change.  There is genuine power in playing the victim in US society.  From business to college campuses to even the military, there are intrinsic and explicit rewards for "otherness."  The main thing that has changed is now the mainstream right has become tribalized as well.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 20, 2016)

_Hillary won the popular vote Hillary won the popular vote Hillary won the popular vote...
_
Shut the fuck up. :wall:


----------



## Gunz (Nov 20, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> People complain about the injustice of the Electoral College yet it has existed since Day One of our nation. There's some "rabble, rabble" when a popular candidate loses the vote, but what's done, what changes?
> 
> Not a damn thing. No has even made a serious run at the concept in how many years? "Voter, please..."



I wonder if there will now be an effort to do away with it? I mean by people who for some reason can't comprehend that it's a double-edged sword.


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 20, 2016)

There's an article on the Daily Kos talking about how the EC is very much in play. Should the unlikely happen, and EC day swing to HRC, the very ones screaming about how the EC is an unconstitutional scam will suddenly develop amnesia, and fight to protect it. 

Until they lose again.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 20, 2016)

Petitions to end the electoral college happen in every single election.  Literally every one.  They just gain more attention during contested elections, such as 2000 and this one.  It's really dumb.


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 20, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Good points.  For all his talk of "transparency" and "reaching across the aisle," I didn't see President Obama as being particularly interested in negotiating with the Republicans.  Other than the "Beer Summit," I don't recall any particular outreach efforts.  In fact, I remember the opposite, with quotes like "elections have consequences" and "I won" and believing he had a mandate from the people that equated to forcing the other side to bend to his will.
> 
> Too Bad Obama Didn't Follow His Own Advice | RealClearPolitics
> 
> I read the article you mentioned, it was a good piece but liberals aren't going to change.  There is genuine power in playing the victim in US society.  From business to college campuses to even the military, there are intrinsic and explicit rewards for "otherness."  The main thing that has changed is now the mainstream right has become tribalized as well.



Yeah, I think it will be interesting to see how the current administration is viewed in history - especially with the major policy reversals that are likely over the next 2-4 years.

It's interesting to read your comments on 'playing the victim.'  I know how you mean them but I immediately think of the 'victimhood' conceit by conservatives.  I wonder if that essentially proves your point - looking at yourself as a victim, as always under-siege, as someone who's rights are always just about to be infringed upon (or already infringed upon), is a powerful and necessary part of engendering political loyalty.

I think there's hope for liberal politics and ideas about identity - but I'm speaking as a part of the tribe so will admit to a great deal of skepticism.  I think this election cycle, and probably the 2018 midterms, will be sobering enough defeats to democrats and liberals to re-look some aspects of our politics.  I think there's not a huge amount of room to maneuver on major issues without losing more of the electorate than the party can avoid - so some serious re-thinking of messaging ideology might be in line.  I think it's one of the few times the DNC party leadership and party platform has the opportunity to actually influence changes.  However, if you're looking at the historical record of both national committees actually doing that you've got to go back more than 25 years so maybe my optimism is misplaced.


----------



## 0699 (Nov 20, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> And this is also where it's important that government not be overly efficient with "change" (not to be confused with efficiency in the delivery of it's services).  We don't want and shouldn't have wild swings in policy to the left or right on a regular basis.


Three constitutional amendments would fix this.

1) Raise the percentage of "yea" votes required to pass a new law.  Make it 80% approval or even 90%.  This will *FORCE* the politicians to work together, left or right, but it will also minimize the size of the law books.

2) Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment so that the state governments have some level of "say" in the creation and enforcement of federal laws.

3) Repeal, in one year, all federal laws that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and REQUIRE Congress to decide individually (under the new higher percentage requirement) which will be kept; i.e. no blanket "we will keep all federal laws currently on the books"-type legislation.  This will force the federal government to reset our laws and only pass those that are important.

A non-amendment change would also improve things; establish the length of each session of Congress at four months, pay all Congressmen 1/3 of their current salary, and shut down the Capitol building during the eight months they are out of session.  Our Fore Fathers never envisioned Congressmen as sitting at the SOG full-time, arguing about BS and hooded sweatshirts.  They should roll in, pass or not-pass laws as required, then they can go back to their district and work at being a businessman, lawyer, etc.  This full-time Congress stuff is BS.


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 20, 2016)

0699 said:


> Three constitutional amendments would fix this.
> 
> 1) Raise the percentage of "yea" votes required to pass a new law.  Make it 80% approval or even 90%.  This will *FORCE* the politicians to work together, left or right, but it will also minimize the size of the law books.
> 
> ...



I could agree to all of this and the best point is the Fore Fathers sitting in the SOG full time.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 20, 2016)

0699 said:


> .
> 
> A non-amendment change would also improve things; establish the length of each session of Congress at four months, pay all Congressmen 1/3 of their current salary, and shut down the Capitol building during the eight months they are out of session.  Our Fore Fathers never envisioned Congressmen as sitting at the SOG full-time, arguing about BS and hooded sweatshirts.  They should roll in, pass or not-pass laws as required, then they can go back to their district and work at being a businessman, lawyer, etc.  This full-time Congress stuff is BS.



I think that is an interesting idea. 

Don't you think they would just supplement their income from special interests?


----------



## compforce (Nov 20, 2016)

As much as I like your ideas, they will never happen because...politics



0699 said:


> Three constitutional amendments would fix this.
> 
> 1) Raise the percentage of "yea" votes required to pass a new law.  Make it 80% approval or even 90%.  This will *FORCE* the politicians to work together, left or right, but it will also minimize the size of the law books.


Nothing will every pass if you did that.  Not one thing.  I've sat at the table in corporate environments where everyone has just one goal...make money... and there still was never 80% concensus.



> 2) Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment so that the state governments have some level of "say" in the creation and enforcement of federal laws.


How about we just go back to the Government being responsible for national defense and acting as arbitrator when states disagree?  Or represent the states' interests on the global stage? When did it become the federals governments job to provide welfare, social security, oversight to make sure we don't hurt ourselves, etc?



> 3) Repeal, in one year, all federal laws that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and REQUIRE Congress to decide individually (under the new higher percentage requirement) which will be kept; i.e. no blanket "we will keep all federal laws currently on the books"-type legislation.  This will force the federal government to reset our laws and only pass those that are important.



Absolutely not.  The government would be even slower than it is now to react to changes in the world.  This one I vehemently disagree with.




> A non-amendment change would also improve things; establish the length of each session of Congress at four months, pay all Congressmen 1/3 of their current salary, and shut down the Capitol building during the eight months they are out of session.  Our Fore Fathers never envisioned Congressmen as sitting at the SOG full-time, arguing about BS and hooded sweatshirts.  They should roll in, pass or not-pass laws as required, then they can go back to their district and work at being a businessman, lawyer, etc.  This full-time Congress stuff is BS.


[/quote]

Term limits and reduced pay will never happen because Congress has to vote it in.


----------



## AWP (Nov 20, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Petitions to end the electoral college happen in every single election.  Literally every one.  They just gain more attention during contested elections, such as 2000 and this one.  It's really dumb.



Those aren't serious challenges. I'm talking about a proposed bill that gathers steam in Congress.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 21, 2016)

Very funny...but scathingly spot-on commentary by Jonah Goldberg in _The National Review. _(It even includes links to YouTube videos, like Bill Clinton's infamous laughing-then-crying scene at Ron Brown's funeral.)



_Among Hillary’s greatest problems wasn’t that she was a liar, but that she was so bad at it. When Bill lied, it was like watching a jazz impresario scat. You could pull him off an intern, slap him in the face with a half-frozen flounder, and he could, without missing a beat, plausibly explain that he was just a gentleman trying to help push the young lady over a fence. But when Hillary lied, which was often, it was like watching a member of the Politburo explain to a hungry mob of peasants that food-production targets exceeded expectations. Hillary never seemed to fully grasp that Bill’s lying skills did not become community property when they got married along with his collection of back issues of Juggs and that shoe box full of used pregnancy tests. There was music to Bill’s lying while Hillary deceived the way Helen Keller played the piano. _

The Fall of House Clinton


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 21, 2016)

Trump picks legendary Marine general for next Secretary of Defense: James Amos

#NotMyCommandant


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 21, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Trump picks legendary Marine general for next Secretary of Defense: James Amos
> 
> #NotMyCommandant



Such a good move!


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think that is an interesting idea.
> 
> Don't you think they would just supplement their income from special interests?



We have come so far from the aspect of the non-professional politician.  NC state rep Paul Luebke, just passed away, was a professor at UNC-G.  Just an example of being able to work full-time and be a representative in the state.  Most state legislators have part-time representatives who have to work to make ends meet.  Seems it could happen at the federal level, too.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 21, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> We have come so far from the aspect of the non-professional politician.  NC state rep Paul Luebke, just passed away, was a professor at UNC-G.  Just an example of being able to work full-time and be a representative in the state.  Most state legislators have part-time representatives who have to work to make ends meet.  Seems it could happen at the federal level, too.


In KommieFornia we pay our state legislators 6 figures.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 21, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Those aren't serious challenges. I'm talking about a proposed bill that gathers steam in Congress.


Well...I don't think it gets any steam, but in her final act as one of the worst Senators from California ever: Barbara Boxer introduced/will introduce a bill to do just that.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 21, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> In KommieFornia we pay our state legislators 6 figures.



Our house speaker gets $38K and change; the others, $1,400 a month.  Our senators get $1,162 a month.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 21, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Trump picks legendary Marine general for next Secretary of Defense: James Amos
> 
> #NotMyCommandant


Goddamnit, I got half way through until I realized this was a Duffleblog article. Bravo sir. +1 for you.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 22, 2016)

It got me too. This is what happens when I read this shit before the caffeine has had time to circulate.


----------



## AWP (Nov 22, 2016)

Santa knows who is naughty and who is nice.

Sanford mall Santa reassigned after putting Hillary on naughty list



> "Do you know who is on my naughty list? Hillary Clinton," said a Facebook post from the children's mother, reported WKMG.



Dick move, Santa, dick move.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 22, 2016)

Apparently Trump is talking about continuing to run his company whilst in office....

Can't be any conflict there at all.


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 22, 2016)

He does realise it's a 16+ hour a day job generally, right?


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 22, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Apparently Trump is talking about continuing to run his company whilst in office....
> 
> Can't be any conflict there at all.


Who is reporting that?


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 22, 2016)

^ Disregard...amazing how enlightening a 3 sec. Google search can be.

And concur...I don't know how serious the talk really is but doing so would be very problematic in my book.  On the other hand, at least I'd expect dealings to generally be above the table and any actions in the spotlight, unlike a lot of the other shit I imagine takes place in Washington.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 23, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Apparently Trump is talking about continuing to run his company whilst in office....
> 
> Can't be any conflict there at all.



If there was no interface between Trump Inc., and the US Government, it may be OK. There will plenty of room for argument and speculation over Trump's plan.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 25, 2016)

This story is beginning to cause me anxiety. 

President-elect Donald Trump pressed forward Friday with two more administration picks, as failed Green Party candidate Jill Stein took new steps to force recounts across key Midwestern battlegrounds.

With recounts looming, Trump adds new administration picks


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 25, 2016)

Recounts are not looming.  When you extend the vote in the states you win but still are losing at the same margin in the states you lost why would there be a looming recount?

Noam Chomsky today speaking to the bastion of journalistic freedom, Al Jazeera: Noam Chomsky on the biggest mistake the left made in this election


----------



## AWP (Nov 26, 2016)

AFN rotates news channels throughout the day. At times it is annoying, but there are times like today when it is illuminating. Listening to Chris Matthews and MSNBC hammering Trump with "How not to run for President AND STILL WIN!", bringing up everything he said or did during the campaign, revisiting the same points over and over.... They even have the audacity to say that Trump played the media.

Democrats, get over it.

You lost and whatever you think of the man (my opinion of him is in the toilet) he's our president. People want peace and love and respect....and they aren't doing a damn thing to foster that environment. He's evil, if you voted for him you want a fascist president/ country, you're a racist, Melania is a Soviet sleeper agent or whatever garbage they are vomiting up today.

You call yourselves "progressives" but you seem hell bent on clinging to the past. You want to show your leadership? Rise above the crap and LEAD. 4 years of whining and sniveling makes your job that much harder. 

And now they are blasting him for running a negative campaign.

Show the country you're a true "progressive" by leading and moving forward and stop acting like a 7 YO whose mommy won't buy him a candy bar.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 26, 2016)

I keep seeing little hints, to outright election result changing recounts. Is this grasping at straws, or a real threat?

In some ways it reminds me of a couple of summer jobs I worked construction and Highway Dept jobs. At the end of one day working on repaving a road, the crew truck was headed back with five of us sitting in the bed of the pickup truck. One of the "problem child, entitled" was late getting to the truck, and had to run to catch the truck. One of the guys extended a long-handled shovel for the guy to grab and get a pull up into the truck bed. As soon as he grabbed the shovel, the guy in the truck bed simply let go of the shovel. The guy did a full face plant. Our truck just gathered speed and headed back to the office. He did show up for work a couple of days later and put in a few more days, but he was gone after that. His dad was a local political figure and the kid thought he was getting a cake job of directing traffic at the job site. I remember his first day when they gave him a shovel as the foreman told him to start digging. The look on his face was priceless. I'm hoping this "recount" is just a grabbing the shovel event.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 26, 2016)

Yeah, this shit-show ain't over yet. 

Clinton campaign to participate in Wisconsin, other recount efforts


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 26, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Yeah, this shit-show ain't over yet.
> 
> Clinton campaign to participate in Wisconsin, other recount efforts



Does anybody actually believe Jill Stein came up with this on her own?


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 26, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Yeah, this shit-show ain't over yet.
> 
> Clinton campaign to participate in Wisconsin, other recount efforts


The collective voice of America: "Ugggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"


On a more serious note: How absolutely bananas would it be if a recount changed the EC results enough to give Clinton the 270?  I absolutely don't think it will happen, but what better way to cap off this absolutely ridiculous year than essentially having the electoral touchdown be called back because of pass interference?
I would laugh.  Then cry.  Then drink cheap whiskey.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 26, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> Does anybody actually believe Jill Stein came up with this on her own?


She raised twice as much money for this idiocy than she did for her campaign.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 26, 2016)

Yeah its weird....


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 27, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> Does anybody actually believe Jill Stein came up with this on her own?



Maybe; it's one of the only ways for her to stay relevant after this election.  She's not going to get a seat at the table in the Trump administration, and she's a non-entity as far as most Americans are concerned.  The first time I heard of her was when my daughter told me she voted for Stein in their mock Middle School election a couple of months back.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 27, 2016)

I know, I know, red tag. I'd like to just bring up a counter point.


Wasn't voter fraud and illegal voting a serious, serious issue prior to the election? And now we have someone that wants to look into voter fraud and illegal voting and it's a sham suddenly? If we want to #MAGA, shouldn't we all be inviting this inquiry?

I only bring this up for discussion. PE Trump stated he would have won the popular election if it wasn't for the illegal voting. Jill Stein wants to examine the results and recount certain states where it appears (at least to some) that illegal or improper voting happened. PE Trump echoes the fact that this election contained at least some 2 million illegal votes.

Is the recount helpful? If not, why not?


----------



## AWP (Nov 27, 2016)

Trump should embrace a recount. This is a chance to prove his claims and silence the "progressives" who are acting like children. "He's not my president"....uh, do you even Constitution, bro?


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 27, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Trump should embrace a recount. This is a chance to prove his claims and silence the "progressives" who are acting like children. "He's not my president"....uh, do you even Constitution, bro?


100% agree. 

I want everyone to be involved and make sure this is done correctly. Not sure why the initial reaction from the right is, "Just accept the loss already!!" if the party leader is still talking about fraud.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 27, 2016)

Trump should recount any states Hillary won by a close margin.
The big concern (to me) is paper ballots take forever to recount, so those big states could miss the 19 Dec EC Vote.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 27, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Trump should recount any states Hillary won by a close margin.
> The big concern (to me) is paper ballots take forever to recount, so those big states could miss the 19 Dec EC Vote.


Agree, as is the legal recourse in the country. 

But that's not what's happening.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 28, 2016)

PE Trump seems to lack some basic reason...

Donald Trump is making a strong case for a recount of his own 2016 election win


----------



## Dame (Nov 28, 2016)

Best theory I've heard yet:

This has nothing to do with election results. This is a few $million being laundered.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 28, 2016)

Both sides are saying there was some form of impropriety, it should get looked into. 

My biggest gripe so far about PE Trump, his apparent conflict of interest. 

Editorial from the WSJ:

No More Business as Usual, Mr. Trump


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Trump should embrace a recount. This is a chance to prove his claims and silence the "progressives" who are acting like children. "He's not my president"....uh, do you even Constitution, bro?



I saw a meme of Trump, said "I fully support a recount...and when I win again I won't be as gracious."


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 28, 2016)

The money being raised by the recounters are funds raised by losers.

This is a question that will never be answered, but just how many donating to the recount actually voted in the first place?

ETA: To think we thought this thread would have been concluded by this time. One truth we have learned is that the Clinton concession was also a lie.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 28, 2016)

Michigan finally goes to Trump...

Trump wins Michigan's 16 electoral votes, state board says :: WRAL.com


----------



## Gunz (Nov 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The collective voice of America: "Ugggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
> 
> 
> On a more serious note: How absolutely bananas would it be if a recount changed the EC results enough to give Clinton the 270?  I absolutely don't think it will happen, but what better way to cap off this absolutely ridiculous year than essentially having the electoral touchdown be called back because of pass interference?
> I would laugh.  Then cry.  Then drink cheap whiskey.




Never say never. And never drink cheap whiskey. No matter how crazy things get.


----------



## pardus (Nov 28, 2016)

This is my valuable contribution to this abortion of a thread.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 30, 2016)

A good article about election polls, statistics, and probability:

How to better communicate election forecasts — in one simple chart


----------



## Dienekes (Dec 1, 2016)

I haven't checked in awhile, but last time I saw, Hillary win the popular vote, and since most polls go by popular vote, any forecast that said Hillary would win by a very slight margin was technically correct. Nearly all polls deal simply in public opinion or popular vote and their number of observations are usually slightly >1000 people. Seriously thinking about probability and margin of error, a successful poll for President this time around would have had to poll all 50 states individually with enough people to create a very high statistical significance in each state. Then, it would have to account for margin of error in every state when accounting for possible results from the Electoral college. Therefore, the stated result for each state would have to be very, very high(>99%) to create a chart solid enough even capable of taking into account the Electoral College and worthy of putting a name behind it. Without a significant amount of money to create a poll that large, it just isn't possible. So all veritable polls putting the candidates within margin of error of each other should be taken with more than just a grain of salt.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 1, 2016)

Dienekes said:


> I haven't checked in awhile, but last time I saw, Hillary win the popular vote, and since most polls go by popular vote, any forecast that said Hillary would win by a very slight margin was technically correct. Nearly all polls deal simply in public opinion or popular vote and their number of observations are usually slightly >1000 people. Seriously thinking about probability and margin of error, a successful poll for President this time around would have had to poll all 50 states individually with enough people to create a very high statistical significance in each state. Then, it would have to account for margin of error in every state when accounting for possible results from the Electoral college. Therefore, the stated result for each state would have to be very, very high(>99%) to create a chart solid enough even capable of taking into account the Electoral College and worthy of putting a name behind it. Without a significant amount of money to create a poll that large, it just isn't possible. So all veritable polls putting the candidates within margin of error of each other should be taken with more than just a grain of salt.



You don't need a lot of people for statistical significance, if the model (or poll) is statistically sound.  That's how polls, any polls, can be accurate and predictive with a small 'n'. 

This whole thing of the popular vote is really statistical sleight of hand.  IF one wants to follow the logic of a validity of the popular vote, HRC won the states with the highest population; or at least the cities with the highest population in many states.  So of course she would be ahead vote-for-vote.  Also, with only about 60% of registered voters actually voting, HRC et al., assumes that if every registered voter voted, the proportion of her being ahead vote-for-vote would hold true; unfortunately, that's false logic.  The reality is the actual popular vote is meaningless.


----------



## AWP (Dec 1, 2016)

@Deathy McDeath has the best avatar of anyone on the Net.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 1, 2016)

I'm a hardened veteran of the Facebook wars


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 1, 2016)

The model is obviously not statistically sound.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 1, 2016)

Semper Fi, BITCHES!!!

Trump has chosen retired Marine Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense

Thread on the topic here:
General Mattis is our new SECDEF

ETA above link to specific thread


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 1, 2016)

Will be interesting to see if Congress is willing to do the necessary for Mattis' appointment to go through.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 1, 2016)

Nothing yet............


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 1, 2016)

@SpongeBob*24  that's due to our quality border patrol.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 1, 2016)

Holy shit, that's my Wet Dream Border right there. 

Rifle, casual uniform, elk/moose thing. Hat.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 6, 2016)

It looks like we have our first faithless elector.  He's out of Texas and won't be casting a vote for PE Trump

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/o...-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=0

I'm not sure what to think of this.  We've had only a handful of faithless electors in the last 20 years (2, according to Wikipedia), so it's not like it's without precedent.  But it still signals a deep division in the country that is going to be increasingly difficult to heal.  It should be noted, also, that 21 states do not require their electors to cast their vote in accordance with the state popular vote.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 6, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I'm not sure what to think of this.



I am.  He is a Republican who was essentially awarded a ceremonial position to cast his vote based on the majority of that particular state, so shut the fuck up and cast your vote for P.E. Trump.  The same way people did when they were pissed Obama won, or would have done had Hilary won.

So tired of these fame-whores trying to get their 15 minutes of internet fame.


----------



## CDG (Dec 6, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It looks like we have our first faithless elector.  He's out of Texas and won't be casting a vote for PE Trump
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/o...-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=0
> 
> I'm not sure what to think of this.  We've had only a handful of faithless electors in the last 20 years (2, according to Wikipedia), so it's not like it's without precedent.  But it still signals a deep division in the country that is going to be increasingly difficult to heal.  It should be noted, also, that 21 states do not require their electors to cast their vote in accordance with the state popular vote.



I think the author weakened his own points by being overly dramatic.  "I'm taking my kids to Star Wars to celebrate light triumphing over evil" (paraphrased)  Dude, fuck off.  What does that have to do with anything?  And his closing line about swearing an oath... Do first responders swear that oath?  He seems overly self-righteous and emotional.  I agree with @Ooh-Rah about him just trying to get his 15 minutes.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 6, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> ...21 states do not require their electors to cast their vote in accordance with the state popular vote.



That is one of my biggest issues with the EC. The electors should have to vote according to the will of their voters. It's sad that they can vote according to their own desires.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 6, 2016)

Agoge said:


> That is one of my biggest issues with the EC. The electors should have to vote according to the will of their voters. It's sad that they can vote according to their own desires.



This to me seems like the heart of the problems with the electoral college.  If the purpose of the EC is for these representative individuals to make the choice - ensuring the democratic masses can't fuck over the republic, as Hamilton and the founders wanted, then more electors should take this view.  If that's not the right way to go - that they need to just reflect the will of the voters then why have them in the first place? 

I agree PE Trump won the election and the world will have to live with it - you don't get to change the rules retroactively.  But I would think this result would cause us to seriously question the purpose of why we still use the EC going forward.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 6, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> This to me seems like the heart of the problems with the electoral college.  If the purpose of the EC is for these representative individuals to make the choice - ensuring the democratic masses can't fuck over the republic, as Hamilton and the founders wanted, then more electors should take this view.  If that's not the right way to go - that they need to just reflect the will of the voters then why have them in the first place?
> 
> I agree PE Trump won the election and the world will have to live with it - you don't get to change the rules retroactively.  But I would think this result would cause us to seriously question the purpose of why we still use the EC going forward.



Part of the reason for the EC is also to ensure that big states didn't run roughshod over smaller states.

I'm curious though why you seem to want to change the EC only after your candidate didn't win.  We've been friends a long time and I don't remember you bringing this up previously.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 6, 2016)

Yeah, I can't say it's something I've ever been very passionate about and just considered it a part of the system.

I don't think of it now as a massive flaw in the system on the scale of campaign finance, voter suppression, and gerrymandering - all of which I do think are institutional problems that are a serious danger to the republic.  But, I do think it should change because two presidential elections in 16 years have gone to someone who lost the popular vote. 

I think that's a bad thing.  2000 was so close I would have chalked it up to a fluke but given the distance between the candidates on the popular vote this time around - and coming inside the span of 20 years - that seems like a bad thing to me.  Still, I take your point.  Would I think of it as a flaw vs a necessary corrective if my preferred candidate had won (both times)?  I'd like to think I would but I think that's one of those questions of inherent bias that's really hard to answer accurately. 

I mean, I'm the only unbiased person around it's everybody else that's got the agenda and flawed logic.  Just like when I'm the only one in step marching in formation - terrible of the 1SG to be calling it wrong for all those other jokers...


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 6, 2016)

I retract my earlier statement, in retrospect it was kind of dick-ish.  It often takes a big event to get people to start thinking about issues that they otherwise probably wouldn't dwell on, simply because there's so much going on in the world.  I didn't really think much about Islamic extremism until 9/11. And I suspect most people didn't think much about the EC until this election.  The only reason I did was because I had to teach American Politics for a semester last year.

One of the reasons I like the EC is because it forces presidential candidates... and their parties... to give a shit about the smaller states.  If it wasn't set up this way, it would allow the handful of biggest states in the Union to be all "f-you, I do what I want!" which could lead to disgruntlement, civil unrest, and ultimately, civil war. Our political system is all about compromise, and if you remove the incentive to compromise, it will be detrimental to the long term health of our Republic.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 6, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I retract my earlier statement, in retrospect it was kind of dick-ish.  It often takes a big event to get people to start thinking about issues that they otherwise probably wouldn't dwell on, simply because there's so much going on in the world.  I didn't really think much about Islamic extremism until 9/11. And I suspect most people didn't think much about the EC until this election.  The only reason I did was because I had to teach American Politics for a semester last year.
> 
> One of the reasons I like the EC is because it forces presidential candidates... and their parties... to give a shit about the smaller states.  If it wasn't set up this way, it would allow the handful of biggest states in the Union to be all "f-you, I do what I want!" which could lead to disgruntlement, civil unrest, and ultimately, civil war. Our political system is all about compromise, and if you remove the incentive to compromise, it will be detrimental to the long term health of our Republic.



Yeah, I think that's fair.  That's the same reason I can't summon much passion for the EC changes.  I think the EC is one of the main ways rural America gets a voice and the 2nd and 3rd order effects of taking that away are hard to judge (at least from my foxhole).

I think interestingly it kind of mirrors the 'superdelegate' debacle in the Democratic primaries.  Superdelegates were added by the DNC in an effort to increase grassroots engagement for people who were not party insiders.  Considering how that turned out - at least from a narrative standpoint - in the Democratic primaries it's kind of crazy.  Maybe it gets back to the silicon valley truism - ideas are cheap, execution is valuable.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 6, 2016)

Roger.  The EC is one of the only reasons people care (from an election standpoint) about the kinds of states you and I are from.  As we've seen over the last few years, if you ignore the real and imagined grievances of important social demographics, it can cause reactions that we didn't expect and don't want.

One of my aggravations about this election (in which I voted for... no one) is this whole "OMG our candidate didn't win!! CHANGE ALL THE THINGS!" attitude, especially from people who probably don't have the slightest understanding about how  our political system works and why it's set up the way it is.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 6, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> Yeah, I think that's fair.  That's the same reason I can't summon much passion for the EC changes.  I think the EC is one of the main ways rural America gets a voice and the 2nd and 3rd order effects of taking that away are hard to judge (at least from my foxhole).
> 
> I think interestingly it kind of mirrors the 'superdelegate' debacle in the Democratic primaries.  Superdelegates were added by the DNC in an effort to increase grassroots engagement for people who were not party insiders.  Considering how that turned out - at least from a narrative standpoint - in the Democratic primaries it's kind of crazy.  Maybe it gets back to the silicon valley truism - ideas are cheap, execution is valuable.



I like the idea of giving partial EC votes. When you win a state by less than 5 thousand votes but get let's say 18EC votes, it doesn't seem representative at all. It may be better if one candidate got 8 and the other 10. It would work out both ways, even California has counties or districts that vote red. 

I think it is funny though that before the election many here, and from the GOP in general were talking about how the EC was part of a "rigged" system(especially when Hillary seemed prime to win the EC and lose the popular vote). Now the system isn't rigged and the "losers" just need to suck it up and deal with it.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 6, 2016)

When were people thinking SEC Clinton was going to lose the popular vote?  I'll admit I wasn't following the election closely (because I thought she was going to win), but all the "rigging" I was tracking was from people worried about voting in general.

Personally, I never said, or thought, that the general election was rigged (although the Democratic primary seems pretty suspect) and yes, I do think the side that lost needs to deal.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 6, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> When were people thinking SEC Clinton was going to lose the popular vote?  I'll admit I wasn't following the election closely (because I thought she was going to win), but all the "rigging" I was tracking was from people worried about voting in general.
> 
> Personally, I never said, or thought, that the general election was rigged (although the Democratic primary seems pretty suspect) and yes, I do think the side that lost needs to deal.



Well I only have anecdotal evidence. People did say it though.  I am 100% sure I can easily find posts on here where it is inferred that the EC was rigged for Clinton.

I want inferring you said anything.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well I only have anecdotal evidence. People did say it though.  I am 100% sure I can easily find posts on here where it is inferred that the EC was rigged for Clinton.
> 
> I want inferring you said anything.



That's the main reason that I wish all states had a mandate to place their electoral votes where the people voted and not allow for the electors to vote their personal desires. 

Hopefully, that would end a lot of those accusations. At least until people found something else to fuss about.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 6, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> When were people thinking SEC Clinton was going to lose the popular vote?  I'll admit I wasn't following the election closely (because I thought she was going to win), but all the "rigging" I was tracking was from people worried about voting in general.
> 
> Personally, I never said, or thought, that the general election was rigged (although the Democratic primary seems pretty suspect) and yes, I do think the side that lost needs to deal.



Here are people in this thread talking about the EC being rigged: 




Ranger Psych said:


> Yes, by the electoral college.





SpongeBob*24 said:


> It's still not over, I'm not celebrating with my victory copenhagen just yet.  I have them tied in PA and NH aka Florida 2000 style.
> 
> She has MN and ME.
> 
> ...





DA SWO said:


> I still think Trump was the only Republican with enough backbone to take her on.
> Cruz annoys people and "Little Marco" isn't experienced enough to take her on.
> 
> 
> Yes, via the media and the electoral college all or nothing format.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 6, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Roger.  The EC is one of the only reasons people care (from an election standpoint) about the kinds of states you and I are from.  As we've seen over the last few years, if you ignore the real and imagined grievances of important social demographics, it can cause reactions that we didn't expect and don't want.
> 
> One of my aggravations about this election (in which I voted for... no one) is this whole "OMG our candidate didn't win!! CHANGE ALL THE THINGS!" attitude, especially from people who probably don't have the slightest understanding about how  our political system works and why it's set up the way it is.



Yeah, I'm finding that pretty messed up as well.  I find the most meaningful reform and convincing people can do is on their own side and I feel like the Democratic side(s) of this election cycle are still by-and-large in the denial/anger/bargaining stages of grief.  I think a reasonable assessment of causation and a workable reform plan is a ways away - if ever.

One of the things I think that exacerbates the problem is how close this election was.  That means almost any answer can be 'right' in the sense it might of turned out differently.  I think that gives people more incentive NOT to change than to change - which from my partisan viewpoint is a bad thing.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Here are people in this thread talking about the EC being rigged:


I still dislike the all or nothing format.
I wish the EC was tied to House Districts, that way you'd eliminate the all or nothing system.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 7, 2016)

The all or nothing system is dependent on the state.  Granted 48 states go all or nothing.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 7, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I still dislike the all or nothing format.
> I wish the EC was tied to House Districts, that way you'd eliminate the all or nothing system.



I could live with that system. In fact, I would like it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 7, 2016)

Huh. An interesting comparison on how both Obama and Trump have a habit of not just dismissing those who disagree with their world views, but both tend to do so in a rather condescending way. 

_One is subtle and smooth, the other coarse and blunt -- but the smug contempt for all who disagree is identical._

One disagreeable thing Obama and Trump have in common


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 7, 2016)

Humble...meet pie.
.
.
.
Smug dinks.

It could be said that 44 seconds into this clip is when Trump said, "fuck it...and you'.

The final clip is yet another reason why I just cannot stand what Social Media has done to what should be a respected office.  I don't want a "Hip, with it and now" president...and that bullshit all began in 1991, as I sat in my room in Okinawa watching Arsenio Hall, and there arrived William Jefferson Clinton, playing the sax on T.V.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 8, 2016)

Looks, there's a snowflake....


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 10, 2016)

<shhhhh - this is a "secret report", don't tell anyone>

In a secret assessment shared with key senators, CIA briefers said it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, the Washington Post reported, citing officials.

CIA concludes Russia intervened in election to help Trump, officials say


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 10, 2016)

But letting that creepy Nazi sympathizer George Soros interfere is alright.  And yes I know the source is from the Russian's. 

Soros-fronted orgs among groups calling for anti-Trump protests (VIDEO)


----------



## AWP (Dec 10, 2016)

This election is an STD the country can't shake.


----------



## AWP (Dec 11, 2016)

I ran across these two stories as mentioned in an earlier post. I found the timing of the stories odd to say the least.

The announcement that the president asked the intelligence community to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention in the 2016 election. The story was filed Friday Dec. 9 at 3:59 PM EST. Okay cool.

Obama orders review of 2016 election cyber attacks

And here's the one announcing/ leaking the findings of the intelligence community. The story was filed Sat. Dec. 10 at 3:00 PM EST.

Russia intervened to help Trump win election: intelligence officials

Less than 24 hours? Maybe nothing, but damn...."perception's reality."

The best part to me is from the second link:


> U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said *on Friday*.



The conclusion came the same day the president announced the request? WTH? Did they make the announcement because they knew the story  was about to be leaked or what? Again, maybe there's nothing here but great job providing fodder for the masses. Perception is reality.


----------



## Etype (Dec 11, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Russia intervened to help Trump win election: intelligence officials


I love how many times the article says "intelligence analysts" or "intelligence agencies" without actually citing something specific.  The only time they cite a specific organization is to say that a CIA spokeswoman said the Russians have denied the claim.

Fake news is the flavor of the week, this article seems to be right on time.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 11, 2016)

It's smoke without the gun. But even the faintest wisps of smoke give the grieving Left something to latch onto to explain this horrible anomaly of injustice...and to deny the shocking reality that there are still a lot of people in this country who refuse to drink from the fountain of progressive globalization, world-without-borders, Euro-socialism and all the other emasculating bullshit that comes with it.

Ps. I like Russians.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 11, 2016)

So what's not getting investigated is not the alleged malfeasance at the heart of the leaks, but that the leaks happened?  That's interesting.  Also-



> A second official familiar with the report said the intelligence analysts' conclusion about Russia's motives does not mean the intelligence community believes that Moscow's efforts altered or significantly affected the outcome of the election.



No effect on the election?  Russia: worst. meddlers. ever.

Do we think that Russia... and China... and Iran... and, well, everyone who can, DOESN'T try to meddle in US elections?  We're the most powerful and influential country in the world, and every powerful nation "meddles in" and attempts to influence everyone else's politics.  If we really want to look at whose influence most shaped the outcome of the election, a good place to start might be the Democratic Party.


----------



## Etype (Dec 11, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> So what's not getting investigated is not the alleged malfeasance at the heart of the leaks, but that the leaks happened?  That's interesting.  Also-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your first point requires the assumption that it is some sort of legitimate leak. But I agree, if we take it at face value, there is another problem in play.

On the second point- I think if Russia were to meddle with the elections, there goal may be to simply undermine the legitimacy of the process. If they were involved, then they have succeeded in this goal.

My blind assumptions on the matter-
I'm sure there were plenty of election related questions on the Russian collectors PIR lists, just as I'm sure we were equally interested in past Russian elections. I would assume that we knew the Russians were interested and this may have become misconstrued as meddling. Again, this is just me snowballing.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 11, 2016)

Etype said:


> Your first point requires the assumption that it is some sort of legitimate leak. But I agree, if we take it at face value, there is another problem in play.
> 
> On the second point- I think if Russia were to meddle with the elections, there goal may be to simply undermine the legitimacy of the process. If they were involved, then they have succeeded in this goal.
> 
> ...



I don't know what you mean by "legitimate leak."  I think leak by nature are illegitimate, and if this one was legit, why would it be under investigation?

If the goal of interfering with the election was to call legitimacy of the process into question, I think we did that quite well enough without any outside interference.  We had PE Trump claiming the process was "rigged" before voting began, and afterwards, SEC Clinton's supporters wanted to toss out the Electoral College.  I don't think we needed Russia's help for that.

I also want to make it clear that I totally believe that Russia tried to shape the US election in their favor, because that's what all great powers do.  And I'm not happy about it.  But I question their ability to change the outcome in the slightest.  I think they, like the rest of the world, predicted a Clinton win and their ability to generate mistrust with the system would have been far better served with a Clinton victory (i.e. supporting fires for "the election was rigged).


----------



## Etype (Dec 11, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't know what you mean by "legitimate leak."  I think leak by nature are illegitimate, and if this one was legit, why would it be under investigation?
> 
> If the goal of interfering with the election was to call legitimacy of the process into question, I think we did that quite well enough without any outside interference.  We had PE Trump claiming the process was "rigged" before voting began, and afterwards, SEC Clinton's supporters wanted to toss out the Electoral College.  I don't think we needed Russia's help for that.
> 
> I also want to make it clear that I totally believe that Russia tried to shape the US election in their favor, because that's what all great powers do.  And I'm not happy about it.  But I question their ability to change the outcome in the slightest.  I think they, like the rest of the world, predicted a Clinton win and their ability to generate mistrust with the system would have been far better served with a Clinton victory (i.e. supporting fires for "the election was rigged).


By legitimate leak, I meant that there actually was a leak. The article doesn't convince me that anything was actually leaked- it's vague and doesn't reveal specifics or contain anything that strikes me as credible.

Jill Stein "assured" us that there was Russian involvement in our election. Well, Soviet agents of influence planted the seeds of communism that morphed into her green party- so I guess they did.

I think your second and third paragraphs make great points.


----------



## benroliver (Dec 11, 2016)

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence


----------



## AWP (Dec 11, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence



 What is your take on this? We frown upon guys dropping a link without any thoughts because then we become a news aggregation site.


----------



## benroliver (Dec 11, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> What is your take on this? We frown upon guys dropping a link without any thoughts because then we become a news aggregation site.



Yea sorry about that, I clicked post reply and it was hanging up. I was actually worried it was going to post  a dozen times but it seems it ended up just being a link. My grandparents satellite internet is trash.

Anyways, I think it is still pretty unclear what exactly happened with all of the leaks.  The media, as usual, is being irresponsible and partisan hacks from all sides are just chomping at the bit to grasp on to anything. Journalism as a whole is in quite a sad state these days.  

The question for me is, should the public ever be privy to the results of the investigations on this?


----------



## Etype (Dec 12, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence


I enjoyed how the article said we should be skeptical of unconfirmed reporting, then outlined the intelligence community as liars. They were careful not to raise the possibility that the journalists may be lying outright.

Point number 5, accusing the Dems of being "McCarthyite," was also pretty appealing to me. It was an ironic and fitting comparison for what they were doing, all the while trying to bring us deeper in socialism.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 12, 2016)

So I just did the math.  Voter turnout was higher than in 2008 by 5,424,968 based upon available numbers.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 12, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So I just did the math.  Voter turnout was higher than in 2008 by 5,424,968 based upon available numbers.


This is interesting.  How did you arrive at this figure?  I only ask because turnout in 2008 was really high and I'm not sure that the final vote tallies are in for this election yet.


----------



## DC (Dec 12, 2016)

More lib spoiled tantrums of skullduggery and faggottry. Death throes if you ask me. They have lost period.


----------



## DC (Dec 12, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence



Hey BO I see your a "student". I bet you don't say much in class. Maybe read more and learn a lot might give you an idea about the audience here. I for one think fake news are rumors...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 12, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This is interesting.  How did you arrive at this figure?  I only ask because turnout in 2008 was really high and I'm not sure that the final vote tallies are in for this election yet.



The 2008 figures come from here: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/federalelections2008.pdf

The 2016 figures come from David Leip: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 12, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> The 2008 figures come from here: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/federalelections2008.pdf
> 
> The 2016 figures come from David Leip: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections


Gotcha.  It looks like third party voting made up a lot of the extra voting this year.  Although, it should be noted that even though this year saw a higher number of total votes, the (preliminary) turnout rate was about 4% lower than 2008.  Of course we won't know the exact totals and turnout rate until the vote is certified, but I doubt that it will exceed 2008's rate.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 12, 2016)

Did our voting age population increase that much in 8 years for 5 million+ votes not to at least tick up the turnout rate?


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 12, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Did our voting age population increase that much in 8 years for 5 million+ votes not to at least tick up the turnout rate?


I imagine that the population estimates changed between 2008 and 2016 because of the 2010 census.

ETA: The voting age population estimate for 2008 was 225,499,000 (according to the FEC's official doc)
It'll be interesting to see that the voting age pop. estimate will be for 2016.  We'll have a slightly more recent census than the 2008 election.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 12, 2016)

Etype said:


> I enjoyed how the article said we should be skeptical of unconfirmed reporting, then outlined the intelligence community as liars. They were careful not to raise the possibility that the journalists may be lying outright.



Gone are the days of independent, 2-source verification.  Now everything is "leaked by an anonymous (or unnamed) source," or "source asked not to be named."

But I think they should 'go there' with the media, call them out as liars.  Make them back up or refute their claims.


----------



## benroliver (Dec 12, 2016)

DC said:


> Hey BO I see your a "student". I bet you don't say much in class. Maybe read more and learn a lot might give you an idea about the audience here. I for one think fake news are rumors...



Why are you attacking me? "I bet you don't say much in class". What exactly are you implying?  As for being a student, i consider myself a life long student. There is always something new to learn is there not?


----------



## benroliver (Dec 12, 2016)

Etype said:


> I enjoyed how the article said we should be skeptical of unconfirmed reporting, then outlined the intelligence community as liars. They were careful not to raise the possibility that the journalists may be lying outright.



Well they did provide some evidence against the CIA and they do not really have any evidence as of now that shows that the NYT fabricated the whole thing.  That particular writer has accused journalists of lying outright many times before though.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 12, 2016)

Do we have 17 Intelligence AGENCIES?
I can think of three off the top of my head: DIA,NSA,CIA.


----------



## Etype (Dec 12, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Well they did provide some evidence against the CIA...


I didn't see a thing I would call evidence. I may have missed it, bit just them saying, "CIA," doesn't indicate evidence to me.


----------



## benroliver (Dec 12, 2016)

Etype said:


> I didn't see a thing I would call evidence. I may have missed it, bit just them saying, "CIA," doesn't indicate evidence to me.


 
Are you on a phone or tablet? I know with mine I cant click the links sometimes.  They highlighted the text so it links to another article. I hate the way they do that, its kind of lazy.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 12, 2016)

DC said:


> Hey BO I see your a "student". I bet you don't say much in class. Maybe read more and learn a lot might give you an idea about the audience here. I for one think fake news are rumors...


Dude, stow the backseat moderation.  FF already addressed the issue and @benroliver is contributing just fine.

And for the record, I am a student - without the scare quotes.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 12, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Do we have 17 Intelligence AGENCIES?
> I can think of three off the top of my head: DIA,NSA,CIA.



Think it is 16 agencies.

Edited: added info


Air Force Intelligence
Army Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
Coast Guard Intelligence

Defense Intelligence Agency
Department of Energy
Department of Homeland Security
Department of State

Department of the Treasury
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Marine Corps Intelligence

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
National Security Agency
Navy Intelligence


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 12, 2016)

16 agencies plus the Director of National Intelligence, or Office of the DNI if you want to be specific.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 12, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Think it is 16 agencies.
> 
> Edited: added info
> 
> ...


Then it is a misleading quote as many of those "agencies" are just sections within another entity who provide raw data and some analysis to higher level organizations.


----------



## Etype (Dec 12, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Are you on a phone or tablet? I know with mine I cant click the links sometimes.  They highlighted the text so it links to another article. I hate the way they do that, its kind of lazy.


I see the article you are talking about it, I'm just not convinced it was an actual leak and not fake news.


----------



## AWP (Dec 12, 2016)

Etype said:


> I'm just not convinced it was an actual leak and not fake news.



Any more that's almost every single story.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 12, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Then it is a misleading quote as many of those "agencies" are just sections within another entity who provide raw data and some analysis to higher level organizations.



Agreed.....but it is the way the USIC is currently structured.

*Seventeen separate organizations unite to form the Intelligence Community (IC). *
The overall efforts of the IC are administered by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). ODNI's role is to organize and coordinate the efforts of the other 16 IC agencies. Those agencies are divided into three groups:

*Program Managers*, who advise and assist the ODNI in identifying requirements, developing budgets, managing finances and evaluating the IC's performance
*Departmentals*, which are IC components within government departments outside of the DoD that focus on serving their parent department's intelligence needs
*Services*, which encompass intelligence personnel in the armed forces, and which primarily support their own service branch's needs


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 12, 2016)

The Intel Community has proved in the past it is ready to go to work to help tell a false story.  4 Years ago one of those 16 listed Intel Agencies told Hillary and President Obama that the attacks in Benghazi were the result of an Internet Video?:-":wall:


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 13, 2016)

Putin responds to CIA accusations....


----------



## AWP (Dec 13, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> The Intel Community has proved in the past it is ready to go to work to help tell a false story.



Tell me about it.
Warm Regards,
Colin Powell


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 13, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> 16 agencies plus the Director of National Intelligence, or Office of the DNI if you want to be specific.



Yep; and I made the students in my intel class memorize all of them.


----------



## AWP (Dec 13, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Yep; and I made the students in my intel class memorize all of them.



Meanie.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 14, 2016)

She's always "Russian" around....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 14, 2016)

I just can't believe some of the garbage being published these days: U.S. officials say Putin helped direct the use of hacked materials

Who would say that's good to hit the press?


----------



## Blizzard (Dec 15, 2016)

Denzel is spot on in his assessment of the media's approach to stories (I almost called it a "recent approach" or "as of late" but it's not):


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 15, 2016)

I saw on CNN that more democrat EC voters have signed a petition to get an intel briefing about the Russian hacking thing, and HRC's camp is supporting that.  I made a comment that they are not .gov employees and do not have a 'need to know,' and thus think they do not need access.  I was yelled at "of course they are government employees and deserve to know." 

When people do not understand the role of the EC voters and their relationship to _actual_ government AND the need for clearance for certain information, it is such an uphill battle it's nearly impossible.  People are going to believe what they want to believe.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 15, 2016)

With regards to news outlets and false or misleading information,  that has been happening since the first story tellers of the tribe, since Romans read messages in town squares from wax tablets, and is ingrained into American history from the beginning of the colonial days leading up to the American Revolution and every since.

The primary difference is the speed in which the information is available and the ability of it to influence masses at faster and faster speed.

Something as simple as an officer involved shooting, news report with whatever idological leanings, mass dump via, TV, radio, internet, and by evening time people are rioting in the streets or hold memorials, or both, etc. Nothing really different than the past, just a lot faster.

I often wonder how much email, texting, cell phones and the like, have effected decision processing, response and outcomes vs what they may have been if people were forced to take time and think over several hours or days before getting the information and or responding.

Although great to know what is what now, sometimes our response should be slower and given time for reflection.  I see the news in the same light.

$.02


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 15, 2016)

Meanwhile in NC:

North Carolina Republicans Try to Curtail the Democratic Governor's Power Before He Can Use It

My take: this is straight garbage. For all the talk from the right about accepting the loss and it being a mandate,at the federal level, at the state level they are trying to do all kinds of wacky shit.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Meanwhile in NC:
> 
> North Carolina Republicans Try to Curtail the Democratic Governor's Power Before He Can Use It
> 
> My take: this is straight garbage. For all the talk from the right about accepting the loss and it being a mandate,at the federal level, at the state level they are trying to do all kinds of wacky shit.



I read the changes.  Some are real head scratchers, some are pretty good, some are just plain bad.  I hate the timing of all of this.  Talking about being a poor loser.  But a lot of the changes don't have anything to do with "D" or "R" and just restructuring existing entities.

I think the headline is misleading, though.  If Cooper gets a democrat majority in the legislature some of those panels and entities will favor his administration.

I will say, they could have just left well enough alone and let Cooper and the legislature muddle through it.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 15, 2016)

Now the CIA feels so adamantly secure in their assessment that they decide to not brief Congress:

Rep. King: Canceled intel briefing on alleged Russian interference in US election is 'disgraceful'

This whole thing just doesn't smell right.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 15, 2016)

We -- as a nation -- need to move forward and show the world that we are still the top nation in the world. We don't need to be seen as a nation of cowards or whiners. This election used the same voting system that we have for decades. There is always a winner and a loser. That is a fact. Losers need to lose with dignity -- face it, your person didn't win. Regardless of that matter, the nation has a President-Elect. 

Other countries are watching us and taking note of the issues we are facing. They are forming opinions of us as a nation based on people's reactions to the outcome of our Presidential election.  Let's not be making arguments based on emotions, but on logic and facts.

Rant off....


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 15, 2016)

Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but I don't remember the French press doing this shit when I lived there for 7 months.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 15, 2016)

Should have used a TSA lock, noone can hack those...


----------



## Jay_Pew (Dec 15, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Should have used a TSA lock, noone can hack those...
> 
> View attachment 17453


Sums it up well, the Democrats blaming everything but their flawed cannidate and their corrupt organization. The people were tired of it and they spoke at the polls.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 16, 2016)

benroliver said:


> My grandparents satellite internet is trash.



Your grandparents have been compromised. Run.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 16, 2016)

...and now Loretta Lynch says the Russians did not influence the election:

Loretta Lynch: We Didn't See Any "Technical Interference" From Russia In The Election

The spin on this story has been....astounding.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 16, 2016)

These idiots just can't go away:Hillary Clinton says Putin grudge led Russia to hack: 'He has a personal beef against me' - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 16, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> ...and now Loretta Lynch says the Russians did not influence the election:
> 
> Loretta Lynch: We Didn't See Any "Technical Interference" From Russia In The Election
> 
> The spin on this story has been....astounding.





ThunderHorse said:


> These idiots just can't go away:Hillary Clinton says Putin grudge led Russia to hack: 'He has a personal beef against me' - CNNPolitics.com



Another James Comey wild card just got dropped on the 2016 election

We should just wait and see what actually comes of this.


----------



## benroliver (Dec 17, 2016)

Jay_Pew said:


> Sums it up well, the Democrats blaming everything but their flawed cannidate and their corrupt organization. The people were tired of it and they spoke at the polls.



Yea they spoke up with 2.8 million less votes :-"  Can we please stop pretending Trump is some non-flawed anti-establishment world savior.  The White House is about to be the new Trump tower, its humiliating.


----------



## Etype (Dec 17, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Yea they spoke up with 2.8 million less votes :-"  Can we please stop pretending Trump is some non-flawed anti-establishment world savior.  The White House is about to be the new Trump tower, its humiliating.


Humiliating for you, and the droves of entitled children crying on YouTube. Thank God for the electoral college, a system that has saved us from absolute democratic mob rule.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 17, 2016)

Etype said:


> Humiliating for you, and the droves of entitled children crying on YouTube. Thank God for the electoral college, a system that has saved us from absolute democratic mob rule.



But it's rigged.


----------



## Etype (Dec 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> But it's rigged.


Since it's inception.


----------



## benroliver (Dec 17, 2016)

Etype said:


> Humiliating for you, and the droves of entitled children crying on YouTube. Thank God for the electoral college, a system that has saved us from absolute democratic mob rule.



Yes, because they are so different than Tea Party folks crying and screaming in town halls about their Muslim Kenyan Communist Hawaiian president.  The charge of entitlement is rich coming from a voting base chanting "we want our country back", as though they owned it and it was stolen from them. Voting a populist demagogue in IS humiliating.



TLDR20 said:


> But it's rigged.



Lol exactly.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> But it's rigged.



Well, if you believe the CIA, et al., it _is_ rigged.  But for or against whom is the questions, and it appears the answers aren't what people thought 6 weeks ago.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 17, 2016)

I haven't read anything credible that says the CIA believes Russia rigged the election.  I did read several reports that said Russia tried to influence the election by revealing damaging information--TRUE information-- related to the Democratic Party.  The organization that released the information, Wikileaks, claims Russia wasn't involved, and the info came from a Clinton insider.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 17, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Well, if you believe the CIA, et al., it _is_ rigged.  But for or against whom is the questions, and it appears the answers aren't what people thought 6 weeks ago.



I think there's a lot of evidence piling up (and was present before the election) that the Russian government tried to influence the election in Donald Trump's favor.  However, I don't think many credible sources are making the claim Russian interference won the PE the election.  In fact, I think most credible sources would say that charge would be impossible to prove.  In fact, I don't think the democratic process really has a 'take-back' procedure other than the next election.  If people were fooled, tricked, or just stupid when they cast their ballots they still cast them - and have to live with the results until they vote again or the candidate violates the law and is impeached.

I'm a liberal, and a Democrat.  This election did not go the way I wanted.  Almost every decision the PE has made since the election I think is a bad one.  I think much of the campaign and his platform is a travesty to the values I hold most important.  But, he won a largely free and fair election.  He is the PE and will be the POTUS.  Any attempt to change the rules or manipulate the process to prevent him taking office goes against what I hope are bedrock principles of being a liberal and being a Democrat.  If that ends up being the case then I am no longer either.


----------



## Etype (Dec 17, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Yes, because they are so different than Tea Party folks crying and screaming in town halls about their Muslim Kenyan Communist Hawaiian president.  The charge of entitlement is rich coming from a voting base chanting "we want our country back", as though they owned it and it was stolen from them. Voting a populist demagogue in IS humiliating.


Do you need a safe space to discuss your grievances? How many people started fires or were arrested after President Obama's elections?

Luckily, the "rigged" system keeps any single person from having too much power. Don't kick and scream too much, just try again in 2020.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Another James Comey wild card just got dropped on the 2016 election
> 
> We should just wait and see what actually comes of this.


He really doesn't like being on the same sheet of music as Loretta, does he?



benroliver said:


> Yes, because they are so different than Tea Party folks crying and screaming in town halls about their Muslim Kenyan Communist Hawaiian president.  The charge of entitlement is rich coming from a voting base chanting "we want our country back", as though they owned it and it was stolen from them. Voting a populist demagogue in IS humiliating.


Pretty sure you don't understand what they mean by "we want our country back."  Flys over your head.  If Trump is a demagogue, so was his opponent and saying and believing anything different just makes the person less intelligent and creates a false narrative.



Etype said:


> Do you need a safe space to discuss your grievances? How many people started fires or were arrested after President Obama's elections?
> 
> Luckily, the "rigged" system keeps any single person from having too much power. Don't kick and scream too much, just try again in 2020.


I mean, a lot...but those were "victory celebrations" sort of similar to when the Lakers won their last championship.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 17, 2016)

LINK - SWING STATES
Raw Data - Whoever voted for "OTHERS" are 100% responsible for Hillary's loss.

Edit to add - The Swing states are the fist place Hillary should look, not the Kremlin, at her loss....

"Democrats Lost America's Trust but Hope to Regroup for 2020 Race" doesn't sell papers nor does it cause more anger in America like:

Why Angry White America Fell for Putin

:wall::blkeye:

#whendoIgetmyrussianbride


----------



## Totentanz (Dec 17, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Raw Data - Whoever voted for "OTHERS" are 100% responsible for Hillary's loss.



If there had only been two candidates on the ticket, how many of those "others" voters would have voted for Hillary and how many would have voted for Trump... and how many would just have stayed home?  Seems like a large assumption that the Libertarian Party voters (who outnumber Greens 3:1) would have all thrown their votes for a Dem candidate, much less an establishment one.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 17, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I think there's a lot of evidence piling up (and was present before the election) that the Russian government tried to influence the election in Donald Trump's favor.  However, I don't think many credible sources are making the claim Russian interference won the PE the election.  In fact, I think most credible sources would say that charge would be impossible to prove.  In fact, I don't think the democratic process really has a 'take-back' procedure other than the next election.  If people were fooled, tricked, or just stupid when they cast their ballots they still cast them - and have to live with the results until they vote again or the candidate violates the law and is impeached.
> 
> I'm a liberal, and a Democrat.  This election did not go the way I wanted.  Almost every decision the PE has made since the election I think is a bad one.  I think much of the campaign and his platform is a travesty to the values I hold most important.  But, he won a largely free and fair election.  He is the PE and will be the POTUS.  Any attempt to change the rules or manipulate the process to prevent him taking office goes against what I hope are bedrock principles of being a liberal and being a Democrat.  If that ends up being the case then I am no longer either.



I agree with you.  I said what I said because there are people on both sides pointing fingers and looking to the other candidate's camp with regard to having had Russian influence, and everyday a bomb drops that is exposing something new, which is challenging what people believed before the election. 

Right now it's like watching the Keystone Cops, the Thee Stooges, and Abbott and Costello all rolled into one.  Lynch and Comey are not on the same page, FBI and CIA aren't on the same page, and even Putin has dared Obama to put his cards on the table.

Edited, I use "rig" and "influence" synonymously.


----------



## CDG (Dec 17, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Yea they spoke up with 2.8 million less votes :-"  Can we please stop pretending Trump is some non-flawed anti-establishment world savior.  The White House is about to be the new Trump tower, its humiliating.



Who is pretending that Trump is a non-flawed world savior?  The people that are happy he won the election?  Is that now synonymous with your ridiculous assertion?  Here's what I've noticed as your trend in these political threads.  You are overly emotional, and lack the ability to coherently argue the points.  So, you resort to unfounded accusations, left-wing rhetoric, and pointless snark.  I don't agree with most of what some of the other liberal members here say.  However, they are fastidious in their adherence to arguing facts, numbers, data, etc, as opposed to the eye roll inducing crap that you post.

Edited to fix a syntax error.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 17, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Yea they spoke up with 2.8 million less votes :-"  Can we please stop pretending Trump is some non-flawed anti-establishment world savior.  The White House is about to be the new Trump tower, its humiliating.



The Left has characterized all who voted for Trump as white racists. The Vanity Fair article posted by @SpongeBob*24 pretty much adheres to that same line. I think, in large part, it's a blanket mischaracterization based on the flawed logic that got Trump elected in the first place. Far from thinking Donald Trump is any kind of savior, a lot of people voted for him because they hate the Clintons, didn't want another Clinton in the White House, didn't want Bill leering around the corners at everything with boobs...didn't need the whole Clinton package. I'm one of them. My wife who has her masters and my three sons who are either college graduates or college students also voted for Trump.

There were other reasons. I tend to resist government intrusion in my life. I don't like gas cans with government-mandated safety spouts. I don't like the fact that bugs just laugh at pesticides now because all the good ingredients have been banned by the government. I don't like to see Presidents apologizing for America when our country has contributed so much good to the world..._too_ much good to the world, in my opinion. There are many, many reasons that have nothing to do with racism that caused people to vote for Trump and to not vote for Clinton.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 17, 2016)

I agree with @CDG, @benroliver i may agree in general with your views, but you need to tighten up your arguments shot group.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 17, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> The Left has characterized all who voted for Trump as white racists. The Vanity Fair article posted by @SpongeBob*24 pretty much adheres to that same line. I think, in large part, it's a blanket mischaracterization based on the flawed logic that got Trump elected in the first place. Far from thinking Donald Trump is any kind of savior, a lot of people voted for him because they hate the Clintons, didn't want another Clinton in the White House, didn't want Bill leering around the corners at everything with boobs...didn't need the whole Clinton package. I'm one of them. My wife who has her masters and my three sons who are either college graduates or college students also voted for Trump.
> 
> There were other reasons. I tend to resist government intrusion in my life. I don't like gas cans with government-mandated safety spouts. I don't like the fact that bugs just laugh at pesticides now because all the good ingredients have been banned by the government. I don't like to see Presidents apologizing for America when our country has contributed so much good to the world..._too_ much good to the world, in my opinion. There are many, many reasons that have nothing to do with racism that caused people to vote for Trump and to not vote for Clinton.



I thought this opinion piece posted in Bloomberg (I saw it referenced in the Brookings Institution daily mailer - which is great on Saturdays) does a good job of laying down the problems with categorizing voting groups in that manner: Stereotypes Are Poisoning American Politics

When I read it I thought of the point @k4dge made in response to one of my demographic posts.  I think it gets after the same point he was making well and really made the political scientist in me re-think some assumptions.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 18, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I thought this opinion piece posted in Bloomberg (I saw it referenced in the Brookings Institution daily mailer - which is great on Saturdays) does a good job of laying down the problems with categorizing voting groups in that manner: Stereotypes Are Poisoning American Politics
> 
> When I read it I thought of the point @k4dge made in response to one of my demographic posts.  I think it gets after the same point he was making well and really made the political scientist in me re-think some assumptions.



I have always despised stereotypes, political ones are no exception.  Back in the day the democrats in NC were of the Blue Dog variety, akin to Jim Webb.  I acknowledge no all democrats are baby-killing, wealth-grabbing, communism-bent whacknuts the right wants people to believe.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 18, 2016)

Well, I guess we're all guilty of it at one time or another; maybe it's just human nature to oversimplify and stereotype. And in most cases the extremists of each group set the template for everybody remotely in their race or social class or economic tier or religion etc.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 19, 2016)

Official - PE Donald Trump secures the Electoral Vote

Donald Trump Secures Electoral College Win, With Few Surprises

Still not official until January 6th and the president of the senate makes the announcement.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 19, 2016)

I had to google who Faith Spotted Eagle was......


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 19, 2016)

Centermass said:


> I had to google who Faith Spotted Eagle was......



So did I and was disappointed.  I was hoping it was random made up name.


----------



## benroliver (Dec 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I agree with @CDG, @benroliver i may agree in general with your views, but you need to tighten up your arguments shot group.



It really doesn't matter what I say, we have both made similar points and I will still get down voted.  I am okay with that, I don't spend time in echo chambers so I can obtain confirmation bias at will. The fact is I get accused of being snarky and emotional while others get away with the "crybaby liberal social justice warrior" assertions constantly. I can think of of a few posters who mention Hillary in nearly every thread whether she is relevant to the discussion or not.  

I am not a "Liberal" anyway. I don't view the world through an ideological lens even if others categorize me as a Liberal.  I am just as critical of Obama, Liberals,  and the Democrats as anyone.  The fact is it isn't Conservatives and Republicans being attacked here constantly.  There is a clear conservative bias going on here with talking point generalizations flung around without consequence.


----------



## benroliver (Dec 19, 2016)

Anyway, I will make this my last post in an effort not derail this any further.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 19, 2016)

benroliver said:


> It really doesn't matter what I say, we have both made similar points and I will still get down voted. I am okay with that, I don't spend time in echo chambers so I can obtain confirmation bias at will. The fact is I get accused of being snarky and emotional while others get away with the "crybaby liberal social justice warrior" assertions constantly. I can think of of a few posters who mention Hillary in nearly every thread whether she is relevant to the discussion or not.



Dude...you should consider editing this whole paragraph and start over.  While likely not your intent, my perception of this post is that you are not getting people to see things your way, and are pissed off about it.  



benroliver said:


> I can think of of a few posters who mention Hillary in nearly every thread whether she is relevant to the discussion or not.



Such as whom?  We're all big boys and girls here.



benroliver said:


> I am not a "Liberal" anyway. I don't view the world through an ideological lens even if others categorize me as a Liberal. I am just as critical of Obama, Liberals, and the Democrats as anyone. The fact is it isn't Conservatives and Republicans being attacked here constantly. There is a clear conservative bias going on here with talking point generalizations flung around without consequence.



I think I know what you are trying to say...scratch that.  No I don't.



benroliver said:


> Anyway, I will make this my last post in an effort not derail this any further.



:wall:

Come on man, own what you mean. There are 37 pages of some really good back-of-forth...along with a few pages of shit.  Either way, don't pull yourself out of the dialog like this.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 19, 2016)

FREEKING  Trump, he's already changed the locks!


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 19, 2016)

benroliver said:


> It really doesn't matter what I say, we have both made similar points and I will still get down voted.  I am okay with that, I don't spend time in echo chambers so I can obtain confirmation bias at will. The fact is I get accused of being snarky and emotional while others get away with the "crybaby liberal social justice warrior" assertions constantly. I can think of of a few posters who mention Hillary in nearly every thread whether she is relevant to the discussion or not.
> 
> I am not a "Liberal" anyway. I don't view the world through an ideological lens even if others categorize me as a Liberal.  I am just as critical of Obama, Liberals,  and the Democrats as anyone.  The fact is it isn't Conservatives and Republicans being attacked here constantly.  There is a clear conservative bias going on here with talking point generalizations flung around without consequence.



Not going to let this go unchallenged. You will see if you look around, I am probably either the most liberal, or second most liberal member of the board. If I don't think your argument is strong, bro, your argument is weak tits. 

This isn't a challenge, other than to think about the argument from the other side, and form a better more coherent argument.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 19, 2016)

benroliver said:


> It really doesn't matter what I say, we have both made similar points and I will still get down voted.  I am okay with that, I don't spend time in echo chambers so I can obtain confirmation bias at will. The fact is I get accused of being snarky and emotional while others get away with the "crybaby liberal social justice warrior" assertions constantly. I can think of of a few posters who mention Hillary in nearly every thread whether she is relevant to the discussion or not.
> 
> I am not a "Liberal" anyway. I don't view the world through an ideological lens even if others categorize me as a Liberal.  I am just as critical of Obama, Liberals,  and the Democrats as anyone.  The fact is it isn't Conservatives and Republicans being attacked here constantly.  There is a clear conservative bias going on here with talking point generalizations flung around without consequence.



If you don't like how we run things here, you're welcome to show yourself out.  

There are PLENTY of left-leaning members of this site, who manage to express their points of view professionally and logically, without getting overly emotional or acting like crybabies when they get called out... especially when it's by OTHER LIBERAL-LEANING SITE MEMBERS.  

Contrary to your accusation, conservative members of the site get called to account often.  In fact, one of them just got banned.  Your assertion that we are some kind of conservative, anti-liberal echo chamber rings hollow in light of the actual facts. I guess you didn't learn that yet, with your extensive posting history and whopping four months on the site.  

Again, if you don't like the way ShadowSpear operates, no one is making you stay.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 19, 2016)

@benroliver I don't think you should leave, I think you should take this as a challenge to think critically about your viewpoint and make a cogent argument.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 20, 2016)

@benroliver I often feel the same way.  I get frustrated when I see the 'liberal crybaby' posts and I often feel there is a consistent double-standard based on philosophy.

The thing is - I have a double-standard based on philosophy too - I think most of us do.  This site leans white, male, and conservative - so do most of the places I've worked in the Army.  Human beings have biases, so do groups of human beings in whatever way they congregate.  I think it's a good thing to listen to people who don't see things the same as you.  If not you're liable to fall victim to the same echo-chamber thinking you criticize. 

I find having to hear and examine things that frustrate me is a good way to codify what I believe and why.  I like this site because it's easy for me to check myself and be empathetic in a way most places aren't - because no matter how frustrated I get with something someone says I know they're affiliated with service to the nation that I'm committed to also. 

If you decide you want to leave that's cool.  There are definitely groups of people and conversations I've had to bounce from.  But, if you stay understand you've got to talk to people where they are and live with conversations settling in a way you might think is unfair.  I think that's pretty good practice for being in the service as well.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 20, 2016)

We like our liberals here. They are badass liberals. And they help the rest of us neanderthals keep things in perspective.


----------



## Etype (Dec 20, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Yea they spoke up with 2.8 million less votes :-"  Can we please stop pretending Trump is some non-flawed anti-establishment world savior.  The White House is about to be the new Trump tower, its humiliating.





benroliver said:


> Yes, because they are so different than Tea Party folks crying and screaming in town halls about their Muslim Kenyan Communist Hawaiian president.  The charge of entitlement is rich coming from a voting base chanting "we want our country back", as though they owned it and it was stolen from them. Voting a populist demagogue in IS humiliating.





Il Duce said:


> @benroliver ...I get frustrated when I see the 'liberal crybaby' posts...


So what constitutes a 'liberal crybaby' post?  Maybe throw in the last page and a half of special attention as an enhancer...


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 20, 2016)

Etype said:


> So what constitutes a 'liberal crybaby' post?  Maybe throw in the last page and a half of special attention as an enhancer...



Maybe stuff like this:




Etype said:


> Humiliating for *you, and the droves of entitled children crying on* YouTube. Thank God for the electoral college, a system that has saved us from absolute democratic mob rule.





Etype said:


> *Do you need a safe space* to discuss your grievances? How many people started fires or were arrested after President Obama's elections?
> 
> Luckily, the "rigged" system keeps any single person from having too much power. Don't kick and scream too much, just try again in 2020.



That is just from you in the last page.


----------



## Etype (Dec 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Maybe stuff like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see what you tried to do; but that's gloating, not crying.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 20, 2016)

Etype said:


> I see what you tried to do; but that's gloating, not crying.



It is implying liberals are all crybabies. That is what he and Ilduce were saying.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 20, 2016)

Personally, I hate titles. That's why I don't use them or allow them to attach themselves to me.

I am many things at many times. I am liberal in some, conservative in others, and yet right smack in the middle of both in other issues.

We can be adults here!

Get with the program Mr. @benroliver  and drive on.....


----------



## Etype (Dec 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> It is implying liberals are all crybabies. That is what he and Ilduce were saying.


I wasn't, and it's a stretch to construe it that way. I was stating that there are liberal crybabies, and that the person in question may well be one of them.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 20, 2016)

Etype said:


> I wasn't, and it's a stretch to construe it that way. I was stating that there are liberal crybabies, and that the person in question may well be one of them.



This is just what we were talking about earlier on this thread. Stereotypes. We tend to focus on stereotypes--like liberal crybabies or angry white racist Trump supporters--because they're the ones who get the media attention. As @Etype writes, there _are _crybabies among liberals just as there are some racist Trump supporters...and benrollover's post did come off to some of us as whining.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 20, 2016)

I agree with a lot of what has been said on both sides of the discussion.  Maybe we can shift the discussion off of site members and return it to the original intent of the thread?


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 20, 2016)

I am curious what everyone thinks of PE Trumps nominations this far. Outside of Mattis there isn't a single one that I think is a good pick. Most of his "outsiders" have just been other billionaires

Donald Trump nominations list – New White House administration


----------



## Gunz (Dec 20, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I agree with a lot of what has been said on both sides of the discussion.  Maybe we can shift the discussion off of site members and return it to the original intent of the thread?



I'll drink to that, sir.

All these articles we've seen in _Vanity Fair_ and _Esquire_ and _The New Yorker..._they're grasping at straws to try and explain what happened on November 8th. _And they're all wrong_. They're missing the point entirely and they're compounding the misconceptions that led to this upheaval in the first place. I wish I could grab every fucking Democrat by the back of the neck and knock foreheads and enlighten them as to why Donald Trump is going to be our President.

Certainly at the core of his support there are probably some uneducated racist xenophobes, but they did not elect him. He got elected because a whole lot of people just _can't stand Hillary_. Period. The magazine writers, the TV news talking heads, they just don't get it. Bernie Sanders, any other Democrat, might've had a better chance at beating Trump. She is hated _that much_. Trump is the President-elect by default. If Daffy Duck had run against Hillary Daffy Duck would be the President-elect.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Back to the Killians.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I am curious what everyone thinks of PE Trumps nominations this far. Outside of Mattis there isn't a single one that I think is a good pick. Most of his "outsiders" have just been other billionaires
> 
> Donald Trump nominations list – New White House administration



I am still trying to process it.  Some of them I am like 'meh,' some I think are pretty good picks.  I think Trump has done a decent job for some of them explaining why he chose them, but certainly not all.

One thing that is driving me insane is all of the chatter about them not having been in academia and having advanced degrees.  It reminds me of one of my wife's favorite quotes:  "a man with experience trumps (no pun intended) a man with an opinion."

I would love to get myself nominated for Ambassador to St. Lucia or one of the other Caribbean islands...


----------



## Dienekes (Dec 20, 2016)

General Kelly for Homeland Security seems like a good pick since most of our Homeland Security issues stem from drugs and immigration so the former commander of USSouthCom ought to be a qualified choice.

Sessions for Attorney General seems like a solid choice though Ivreally would have like Trey Gowdy

And Mulvaney for Management and Budget seems like a solid choice given his stances on the defense budget.

Viola for Army Secretary seems like a good pick and received a lot of praise from Major General Scales. Former Ranger and successful CEO who built his fortune on innovation in an established institution (Wall Street).

I don't know enough about the other Caninet positions like Commerce et al but his chief strategist Brannon seems like a poor choice and his UN ambassador Haley seems unqualified for that particular position.


----------



## nobodythank you (Dec 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I am curious what everyone thinks of PE Trumps nominations this far. Outside of Mattis there isn't a single one that I think is a good pick. Most of his "outsiders" have just been other billionaires
> 
> Donald Trump nominations list – New White House administration


Here is the way I see it/rationalize it. I will grant you from the start, my view is an optimistic one, given the state of the last 8 years of appointments I like to think we have hit bottom and are going upwards. Whether that is the case or not remains to be seen. At first glance it does appear that a bunch of rich cronies are getting appointments. However, another way to view it is that many of these billionaires have experience running large organizations with the goal of producing profitable gains (meaning forward progress). Many of these business oriented appointees are capable of managing corporations with thousands or tens of thousands of employees with even more customers. In a sense, these secretaries will have millions of customers to service and need someone who can organize them efficiently. Do I want to see some academic, theorist, or low end manager take the top slot? No. 

Again, I realize this view is a bit of a rosy one. However, as I said from the start, I am anxious to see what can be done here. PE Trump did promise to find the best people for the job, so I am willing to trust his judgement for the moment. Time will tell.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 20, 2016)

Vinnie Viola for SECARMY has been an interesting choice as well.  I think he's going to do a great job and I'm glad he has been nominated.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 20, 2016)

The rush is on to commute, and pardon as many as he can. The number today is 1,324 with the proclamation that this is the country of second chances. For today alone, 231 were granted clemency.

He still has over 50 to get out of Gitmo so he can close that down.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 20, 2016)

You can look at a comprehensive list of the pardons that he's made: President Obama Grants Commutations and Pardons
A lot of them are for guys who were put in jail for dealing crack during the 90's.  The prevailing wisdom is that a lot of those guys received sentences disproportionate to their crimes simply because people were panicking about crack at the time.  Congress even passed a law in 2010 to rectify this practice: Fair Sentencing Act - Wikipedia


----------



## CDG (Dec 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I am curious what everyone thinks of PE Trumps nominations this far. Outside of Mattis there isn't a single one that I think is a good pick. Most of his "outsiders" have just been other billionaires
> 
> Donald Trump nominations list – New White House administration



I think only time will tell.  I don't know enough about all the candidates to feel that I can offer cogent opinions on each one.  It does appear that he is mostly sticking to nominating people who are not part of "The Machine", which was to be expected.  I am hopeful that as controversial as some of the picks are, and as divided as the country is right now, this step away from the status quo will be a tangible turning point in the righting of the American ship.

Edited to correct a spelling error.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I am curious what everyone thinks of PE Trumps nominations this far. Outside of Mattis there isn't a single one that I think is a good pick. Most of his "outsiders" have just been other billionaires
> 
> Donald Trump nominations list – New White House administration


I think that he's draining the swamp and doing what many Presidents of old did, sought Captains of Industry to help lead the government rather than a lifelong congress criminal or bureaucrat.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 21, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> *The rush is on to commute, and pardon as many as he can.* The *number today is 1,324 *with the proclamation that this is the country of second chances. For today alone, 231 were granted clemency.
> 
> He still has over 50 to get out of Gitmo so he can close that down.




You have no idea. Read this. 



> CHARLOTTE, NC--(Marketwired - Dec 15, 2016) - An official request to the White House from Exodus Foundation.org has been made, asking President Obama to adopt the Exodus Coalition Plan before he leaves office in order to systematically commute the sentences of all non-violent and overcharged federal inmates. Developed by Rev. Dr. Madeline McClenney-Sadler, President, and founder of Exodus Foundation.org, the Exodus Coalition Plan establishes a new and fairer set of criteria for clemency. The press is invited to join Exodus Foundation.org in front of the White House on December 19th at 3 p.m. for a press conference during its ongoing vigil until President Obama's term ends.
> 
> The official request states, "We applaud the work of the White House Office of Pardons and the Clemency Project 2014; yet, under the current guidelines, only 10% of commutation applications are actually approved. We would be remiss to ignore the harsh sentences of the *80,000 federal inmates* left behind classified as nonviolent and likely thousands more who have been overcharged." The Exodus Coalition Plan was designed to assist President Obama and to strengthen his hand to do justice.



Sure. Let's wait til the last minute and spring this. So, who's going to review each of the 80,000 cases? Just take our word for it because you're our buddy and let's set them all free........

Link


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 21, 2016)

Centermass said:


> You have no idea. Read this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Exodus Foundation, good Christ, and here I thought that justice had already been served.

It's really hard to see a positive side to this flood of prisoners hitting our streets before they have finished their networking and their graduate studies incomplete. One could say that this will reduce the amount of tax dollars we will need to spent on our correctional institutes. It might even have one looking forward to a reduction in taxes. NOT!

When you put criminals and drug dealers on the streets, what do drug dealers and criminals do? When the POW's are released from Gitmo, what are the POW's going to do?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 21, 2016)

Well, at least he's finally diversifying his cabinet choices.

After surprise meeting, Kanye West nominated as Secretary for Housing and Urban Development.

IKIS


----------



## CDG (Dec 21, 2016)

Makes sense.  In the context of IKIS, I think he'll actually do a pretty good job.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 21, 2016)

Meanwhile at the North Pole.....


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 24, 2016)

Meanwhile, Israel is counting the days until the Obama administration comes to an end. If anybody had motivation to "hack" the election, it was Israel, before Russia. 

Israel Accuses Obama of Anti-Israeli 'Shameful Move' at UN


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 29, 2016)

...maybe it is just me, but between Israel, the new National Monuments, and now the Russians, Mr. Obama appears to be using a scorched earth policy as he leaves office...

Two New National Monuments Created in Utah and Nevada

US to announce response to Russia's election hacking | Daily Mail Online


Russians get bonus points for creative Twitter use...

Russian Embassy, UK on Twitter


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 29, 2016)

Even though political, is the DNC not a private corporation?  How is it OK for Obama to use tax dollars and diplomatic pressure to defend a private corporation?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 29, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Even though political, is the DNC not a private corporation?  How is it OK for Obama to use tax dollars and diplomatic pressure to defend a private corporation?



He will say that it does not matter what entity was hacked, but instead that the hack happened with the intent of swaying the US election.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 30, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Even though political, is the DNC not a private corporation?  How is it OK for Obama to use tax dollars and diplomatic pressure to defend a private corporation?



It's done for lots of US corporations as it is anyway. Lots of corps get briefings from government and advice on how to protect themselves from both human and electronic...interference and compromise.


----------



## Queeg (Dec 30, 2016)

Oh sure, blame the Podesta hack on Putin instead of that DNC doofus who fell for a phishing email.  Or that other DNC staffer who disseminated new passwords...via email.


----------



## Centermass (Dec 30, 2016)

Russian response: 



> “Although we have the right to retaliate, we will not resort to irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy, but will plan our further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration”


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 30, 2016)

All this fun back-and-forth aside, I do not trust the Russians one bit. And while I preferred Trump over Hillary, he is the fool that Putin likely deems him to be if he falls for the KGB flattery being heaped upon him. 

I am still bitter about the praise Obama got and the grief Romney took over this exchange:


----------



## Centermass (Dec 30, 2016)

Don't assume with that post I made that I trust Putin anymore than I ever have. I don't. Do a search of my posts. 

Once KGB, always KGB.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 30, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> It's done for lots of US corporations as it is anyway. Lots of corps get briefings from government and advice on how to protect themselves from both human and electronic...interference and compromise.



Briefings are one thing, expelling consular staff and families is totally different.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 30, 2016)

Back to Voter ID...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 30, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Don't assume with that post I made that I trust Putin anymore than I ever have. I don't. Do a search of my posts.
> 
> Once KGB, always KGB.



Was in no way directed at any particular poster, just my "I don't trust him and never have" speech in general.


----------



## alibi (Dec 30, 2016)

Queeg said:


> Oh sure, blame the Podesta hack on Putin instead of that DNC doofus who fell for a phishing email.  Or that other DNC staffer who disseminated new passwords...via email.



Even professionals will fall for phishing emails.  

It does sound like Podesta was particularly ill-served by DNC IT staff, though.


----------



## AWP (Dec 31, 2016)

alibi said:


> Even professionals will fall for phishing emails.



Very true, but it also shows how little they pay attention. A phishing email is so "Security 101" even CNN or Fox will discuss it. There is NO reason for any corporate/ government user to not understand what a phishing email looks like. None.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 31, 2016)

Please tell me they are going to take his Twitter account away after the inauguration.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 31, 2016)

Times are tough....


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 31, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Once KGB, always KGB.



Which, if our govt would remember that, they might be able to predict him.   He plays chess, our govt plays checkers.


----------



## nobodythank you (Dec 31, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Please tell me they are going to take his Twitter account away after the inauguration.
> 
> View attachment 17558


Nahhh stir up that pot some more. Bout time some assholes got their medicine.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 31, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Please tell me they are going to take his Twitter account away after the inauguration.
> 
> View attachment 17558


LOL on this one, lighten up.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 31, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> LOL on this one, lighten up.



I'm trying to "lighten up", I really am. 

But sometimes he's so far from what I'd expect as "normal" presidential behavior, It <some word I cannot come up with> me just a bit.  This is going to be an interesting 4 years.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 31, 2016)

There was a thing back in the news here talking about how what a President says or writes can be pretty much considered policy so there's supposedly some already nervous staff members over that twitter account...


----------



## amlove21 (Dec 31, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> There was a thing back in the news here talking about how what a President says or writes can be pretty much considered policy so there's supposedly some already nervous staff members over that twitter account...


There are some nervous citizens about that twitter account.


----------



## Dienekes (Dec 31, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> It <some word I cannot come up with> me just a bit.


 Irk?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 1, 2017)

When you arm Taiwan with weapons, train her officers, there is no such thing as a One China Policy.  Don't act like China thinks there's a One China Policy.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 1, 2017)

Well, it looks like President Obama isn't ready to ride off into the political sunset just yet.

In shrewd political move, Obama nominates himself to the Supreme Court

Elections have consequences, folks.  IKIS.  Enjoy.



> "Elections have consequences," the President told assembled reporters at the Rose Garden earlier this morning. "And in this case, the election in 2012, which I won in spite of what you may have heard on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or read about on some sketchy Facebook page, it means that the people want a leader willing to take risks. Thus it is with the deepest humility and respect for the office that I nominate myself for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 1, 2017)

Marauder06 said:


> Well, it looks like President Obama isn't ready to ride off into the political sunset just yet.
> 
> In shrewd political move, Obama nominates himself to the Supreme Court
> 
> Elections have consequences, folks.  IKIS.  Enjoy.



If he reads this, he might just try to do it.


----------



## amlove21 (Jan 4, 2017)

*6 Months Ago*

People: "Uhhhhhh, why would you vote for Trump, he's got no experience in politics..."
Other People: "Cause he's so smart! He's gonna surround himself with the best and take their advice! He said so himself- he has GREAT people, really great people. Hillary would never listen to anyone! Trump will know when to listen and leverage his picks for the cabinet!!!"


*Today*

P: "Dude, he doesn't even get a daily brief- he either sends VP Mike Pence in his stead, or gets briefings when he feels he needs them, not every day..."
OP: "Well, I will bet that briefing is SOOOOOOO repetitive. He has a handle on it, it's not like he's coming out and slamming anyone trying to help him out! He just doesn't like the briefs."
P: "He publicly shit all over the intel community. Via Twitter. Lots of times."
OP: "Whatever, he's just being skeptical. It's not like he's siding with some criminal, he has more knowledge than the rest of us! Inside info about this whole thing. He was even going to tell us, but those idiot intel people weren't ready cause they probably had to get their stories straight!! Plus, that Assange dude seems pretty legit, it's not like PE Trump ever said there should be a death penalty for Wikileaks or something, quit over reacting you lost the election get over it time to move on! Your feelings are hurt!!!"
P: "Bro."


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 5, 2017)

All of the Reagan conservatives in America must feel like they're in a Twilight Zone episode.


----------



## CDG (Jan 5, 2017)

If I should have just started a new thread, apologies.  I felt this went here because of it being a reaction to the election.  Hell, we might need an "Election Reaction" thread.

4 African-Americans tied up, and tortured a mentally disabled white man.  To add a little extra pizzazz to it, they streamed it live on Facebook.  They forced the victim to say "Fuck Donald Trump" and "Fuck white people".

4 in custody after mentally disabled man tied up, tortured on Facebook Live


----------



## AWP (Jan 5, 2017)

Does anyone have any issues with locking this thread and starting a Post election/ First 100 days thread? I figure after that we can move on to individual topics rather than an "All things Trump" thread.


----------



## Etype (Jan 5, 2017)

CDG said:


> If I should have just started a new thread, apologies.  I felt this went here because of it being a reaction to the election.  Hell, we might need an "Election Reaction" thread.
> 
> 4 African-Americans tied up, and tortured a mentally disabled white man.  To add a little extra pizzazz to it, they streamed it live on Facebook.  They forced the victim to say "Fuck Donald Trump" and "Fuck white people".
> 
> 4 in custody after mentally disabled man tied up, tortured on Facebook Live


I thought this kind of behavior was reserved for third-sixth savages.

Trying to incite fear with a clear political and racial twist? Sounds like terrorism to me.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 5, 2017)

amlove21 said:


> *6 Months Ago*
> 
> People: "Uhhhhhh, why would you vote for Trump, he's got no experience in politics..."
> Other People: "Cause he's so smart! He's gonna surround himself with the best and take their advice! He said so himself- he has GREAT people, really great people. Hillary would never listen to anyone! Trump will know when to listen and leverage his picks for the cabinet!!!"
> ...


Soooo, I guess those "intelligence" agencies have perfected ESP and remote viewing? *The FBI Never Asked For Access To Hacked Computer Servers *mind you, this is from BuzzFeed. How exactly do you investigate a crime without accessing the scene or the evidence? The man hasn't even taken office yet. Probably a good idea to wait till it is official before we lambaste him. 

It is funny that peoples titties are so twisted over Trump and the idea that the DNC was hacked, versus the information that was revealed which showed corruption and collusion in the DNC and the party at large. With I might add, the intent to influence the election in the first place.

The RNC and Repubs are no better, but they did not get caught, yet.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 5, 2017)

It's not buzzfeed making the accusation - it's the intelligence community as a whole, with DNI Clapper chief amongst them.  But, if you think Julian Assange is a better source (like the president elect does) you're welcome to your opinion.

Interesting to hear president elects shouldn't be criticized before they take office.  Wonder if a search of December 2007 posts here shows that consideration of president elect Obama.

I really don't understand this contention by conservatives that hacking, disinformation, and propaganda by a foreign power in our country's election is no big deal as long as it happened to someone you disagree with politically.  I guess it's a part of business-savvy cost saving.  Maybe the RNC won't have to spend as much money next cycle - they can just delegate the campaign to the PRC, DPRK, ISIS or whoever.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 5, 2017)

The IT guys I listen to don't call spearphishing:hacking.



CDG said:


> If I should have just started a new thread, apologies.  I felt this went here because of it being a reaction to the election.  Hell, we might need an "Election Reaction" thread.
> 
> 4 African-Americans tied up, and tortured a mentally disabled white man.  To add a little extra pizzazz to it, they streamed it live on Facebook.  They forced the victim to say "Fuck Donald Trump" and "Fuck white people".
> 
> 4 in custody after mentally disabled man tied up, tortured on Facebook Live



I just love how these woke talking heads, mostly black Democrats don't want to call this a hate crime, but immediately label every white on black gun crimes as motivated by hate.

You kidnap a guy on the street, you notice he's definitely not normal and think: this is even better rather than we're going to go to jail for even longer if we do this tells me everything.  I'm not saying kidnapping a normal person and doing the same thing to him is a go.  But as my sister is special needs, I would go to great lengths to let justice be done.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 5, 2017)

BuzzFeed is reporting that the FBI did not request access before issuing its report. I said nothing or implied that BuzzFeed was making the accusation. For the record, it was Assange that revealed the NSA was spying on American citizens (and its allies), the DNC was corrupt and colluding to influence the election, and a host of other things that the better source of the intelligence community failed to report or catch. So yeah, I am highly skeptical of anything that is coming out of this "most transparent administration". DNI Clapper has provided no evidence whatsoever. DNI Chief Clapper Takes Swipe at Trump, Assange as He Defends Russia Hack Intel. Another thought, if the evidence and associated whatnot is classified, why are we getting news reports and public briefings on acts that could be considered acts of war? 

You are free and clear to search for any posts from 2007 or whatnot. I made no such comments (that I can recall), and yes it is interesting isn't it? Interesting that the focus is on the information being stolen, instead of the content of such information. I am by no means a fan of Snowden or Assange, but one cannot deny the importance of the information released (read: whistle-blown).

What disinformation? What propaganda? Did or did not HRC and the DNC conspire and collude to influence the election? Yes. Did the released information show that the Democratic party ate its own in order to push their chosen candidate? Yes. Liberals can keep crying over spilled milk, or consolidate, regroup, and move forward with getting their agendas on track.

Where is the evidence that a foreign power has interfered with out election? You mean the fake news story that had Russian hacking into the US power grid via a Vermont utility? Oh, but wait! WaPo and the electric company itself confirmed that there was no penetration of the US grid, and that only a laptop was infected and isolated. Conservatives, and the public at large, have a right to see evidence supporting claims that a foreign power was attempting to influence their election. It has nothing to do with who they agree or disagree with. Granted, some conservatives (and liberals) would keep quiet to save their candidate, however, most of us are trying to move past this nonsense and get on with our lives.

ETA: In all seriousness, I recognize you are a part of the intel community, and anyone talking bad about it would be troubling. I get that, I feel the same way about law enforcement and we both probably feel the same way about the military at large. However, we both (I hope) admit that our chosen fields have their flaws, and at times become corrupted at the highest levels. It is difficult to defend the larger community when those in political positions smear the good work of those of us at the middle and bottom tiers. I believe (from the outside looking in), that the intel community has gotten corrupted or damaged <there may be a better descriptor> over the last 8 years and needs a fresh start. Much like law enforcement needs to take a look at their leaders if they want the support of the community.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 5, 2017)

Officially charged with hate crimes as of 14 minutes ago:
Chicago Facebook Live beating suspects charged with hate crimes


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 5, 2017)

You and Glenn Greenwald can call Assange and Snowden whistle-blowers all day long - doesn't make it true.  The IC and NSA have outstanding oversight and there's not a single illegal item either of those shitheads reported.  For all the talk about the biased media you've swallowed a heaping helping of propaganda - and from the LEFT - if you think Snowden, Manning, Assange, and Greenwald have shown illegal behavior by the IC or made America in any way safer.

There has been ample evidence of fake news stories - most of them anti-HRC and pro-Trump throughout the election cycle.  If you choose to ignore that evidence have at it - but it in no way means it doesn't exist.  I don't think any credible source - as I've posted before - has said that 'decided the election' - that would be impossible to prove, plus it's not something even covered in the democratic process.  If you were misinformed or an idiot in your voting that's your choice.  If you fear admitting to the facts of Russian attempts to influence this election in PE Trump's favor means his election is illegitimate I think that's a baseless fear.  That's not my position - but it in no way obscures the fact (or at least strongly evidence-based theory, which is the best you can do in intelligence - and science for that matter) of Russian maskirova efforts in this election cycle.

Move on to whatever you want.  PE Trump won the election, Republicans have control of both houses of congress, and soon will the supreme court.  Republicans control something like 38 of 50 governerships and/or statehouses.  You fucking won, you got everything you wanted - but OWN that shit.  It turns out the PE is acting just as irresponsibly and fact-free as he did when running for office - with the consequences that come with it.  I think it's more than fair to point that out - and to keep doing so.  In fact, I'd hope those of you who were enthusiastic supporters of the PE might be the most interested in whether your predictions came true, and continue to come true.  I know the future of the Democratic party is on my mind for those same reasons - because if what I thought was going to happen didn't happen (which it didn't) - that means the data I used to formulate those conclusions must be flawed (or the thought processes themselves).


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 5, 2017)

Yeah, uh huh. You are wrong on all counts, but ok. If you believe there is not a single illegal thing in the droves of information released then you might be swallowing your own propaganda. So tell me, at what point do we begin trading our morality for our safety? I never said or intimated that what they did made us safer. If we want to be "safe" then lets just give the intelligence and law enforcement communities carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to make us safe. Cause, you know, history isn't replete with examples throughout recorded history of giving too much power away from the citizenry.  

They cannot OWN anything if they haven't started yet, now can they? As for the PE, well, he seems to be getting more done before taking office, and interacting with the public more, than any previous PEOTUS or POTUS. Maybe it is a sham? I don't know. However, I am finally glad to see real hope and change, instead of the lie that was sold to us for 8 years. 

I have made my points, back them with credible sources, and a search of my post history will show that I absolutely do not swallow propaganda. Left, right, or otherwise. If you disagree, then ok have fun in your liberal echo chamber. Which btw is why liberals and democrats were so shocked to lose.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 5, 2017)

I believe there's not a single illegal thing in the droves of information released because no investigation found illegal activity, no one was charged with any crime.  I work in this field and conducting this type of activity everyday so the allegations these folks have made that we are a bunch of criminals hits home with me - it is bullshit.

Believe whatever you like about PE Trump.  I agree changes are certainly in the works.  But I've found you to be someone on here - despite having almost polar opposite views than me on policy, philosophy, and outlook on a number of things - who I have really respected as having a strong sense of bucking the crowd, being willing to see things based on your assessment using logic - not wishful thinking.  The reaction on this Russia shit and Trump's continued behavior on twitter has really surprised me from a lot of folks who support him - because I would have thought it's the opposite of what you thought/said he would do once he won.  In hindsight I wish I had not taken such a strident tone in my initial post.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 5, 2017)

Il Duce said:


> Believe whatever you like about PE Trump.  I agree changes are certainly in the works.  But I've found you to be someone on here - despite having almost polar opposite views than me on policy, philosophy, and outlook on a number of things - who I have really respected as having a strong sense of bucking the crowd, being willing to see things based on your assessment using logic - not wishful thinking.  The reaction on this Russia shit and Trump's continued behavior on twitter has really surprised me from a lot of folks who support him - because I would have thought it's the opposite of what you thought/said he would do once he won.  In hindsight I wish I had not taken such a strident tone in my initial post.


I appreciate the compliment. No harm no foul. We get passionate about or discussions and that's ok. I probably could have toned down my response as well as my natural inclination is to attack. Nonetheless, thanks for the olive branch. I sometimes need the reminder to vent plasma before going to warp speed lol. 

As for Trump, I kinda like his brashness when dealing with people. I feel like the CinC has gotten a little too out of touch with the common citizen. I am still hopeful that positive changes will come from all of this. I realize everyone doesn't share that belief, but for better or worse it is till death or impeachment do us part.


----------



## Il Duce (Jan 5, 2017)

ke4gde said:


> I appreciate the compliment. No harm no foul. We get passionate about or discussions and that's ok. I probably could have toned down my response as well as my natural inclination is to attack. Nonetheless, thanks for the olive branch. I sometimes need the reminder to vent plasma before going to warp speed lol.
> 
> As for Trump, I kinda like his brashness when dealing with people. I feel like the CinC has gotten a little too out of touch with the common citizen. I am still hopeful that positive changes will come from all of this. I realize everyone doesn't share that belief, but for better or worse it is till death or impeachment do us part.



I think that's very fair.  Looking back, though I agree with @amlove21's post and feel exactly the same way I don't think any post in the vein of 'Don't you see how wrong you were you fucking hypocrites!' is a way to convince anyone of anything.  It certainly wouldn't convince me - even on the things I've been a fucking hypocrite on :).


----------



## AWP (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm locking this thread and we'll pick up the post-election and first 100 days in a new thread. Not trying to kill discussion, just some general housekeeping.


----------

