patrick.net

Blurtman says

Not really that different.

Hillary 59,923,081 votes (47.7%)

The Donald 59,693,040 votes (47.5%)

And still counting...

And if the shoe had been on the other foot...

Rashomon says

And if the shoe had been on the other foot...

Trump would have manned up and conceded, instead of sending someone Podesta out to tell everyone to go home while sobbing privately:
/Hillary+Could+not+Stop+Crying%2C+Told+Friend+She+Blames+Comey+and+Obama+For+Loss

zzyzzx is deplorable says

Trump would have manned up and conceded, instead of sending someone Podesta out to tell everyone to go home while sobbing privately:

/Hillary+Could+not+Stop+Crying%2C+Told+Friend+She+Blames+Comey+and+Obama+For+Loss

Based on what exactly? Everything he said during the run up? What about his supporters seeing as that's what you're posting about?

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

FUCK! THE! VOTES! OF! TRAITORS!

ALL! OF! THEM! WILL! BE! VANQUISHED!

THE! WEAK! AND! TRAITOROUS! WERE! BORN! TO! DIE!

Is this the definition of a Radical Anarchist?
Where do I sign up? lol

SUPERDELEGATES are FINE! They're there to make sure an ELECTABLE Nominee Wins the Primary because BERNIE SUCKS!!!

WAAAAH!!! ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!! NOT FAAAAIIIIIRRRRrrrrrrrrr!!!!

C'mon, it's been on the books for 200+ years. And .2% is not a massive majority, either.

They just don't like it when it doesn't work for them. Then, it's all about the popular vote. It's so self serving.

There was a genius behind the electoral college. It's evident when you look at a map and see it's dripping with red. Without the electoral college, the only voices that would have mattered are those little smatterings of blue you see coming out of the major population centers. Pink/powder blue would get ignored, altogether, and we would forever have our futures determined by CA and New England.

It is because of the electoral college that a country as large as ours has remained the United States. Without it, we would fractionalize into ideological regions. The blue would consolidate; the red would consolidate... and then what? The only choice that would be left for the red consolidated states would be secession if they were to ever have a voice in elections. And then, we're Europe.

It was actually pretty brilliant that they thought of that 200 years ago. It forces big states to consider the needs of smaller states and to work with the other states. As opposed to just bulldozing their way through elections. Sure LA and NYC would be very well represented. But there's more to this country than Hollywood and Wall Street; the needs being very different.

turtledove says

They just don't like it when it doesn't work for them. Then, it's all about the popular vote. It's so self serving

Exactly like states rights for conservatives. When the states exercises those rights to make pot legal, all of the sudden the right wants a big, nanny federal government that crushes state rights. Both conservative camps, the left and the right, are hypocrites.

turtledove says

Without the electoral college, the only voices that would have mattered are those little smatterings of blue you see coming out of the major population centers.

What's important is the voice of the people, not where the people happen to live. Your geography should be irrelevant to the size of your voice. All voices should be equal. That's why the electoral college is bullshit.

There are many problems with the way America runs elections, but fundamentally they all come down to gerrymandering. The electoral college is just a gerrymandering mechanism.

Your geography should be irrelevant to the size of your voice.
================

I'm sorry, but that is bullshit! The needs of people living in cities are different than those living on farms.... or manufacturing centers.... or places with abundant types of natural resources... or those with a lack of natural resources. What you suggest is a path to fracture.

www.youtube.com/embed/3v-LQgRj81A

AS HILLARY CLINTON LOSES THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, HILLARY VOTERS LOSE CONTROL -- CRYING, SCREAMING, HOWLING WITH SORROW! HILLARY CLINTON WAS THEIR 'DEAR LEADER,' THEIR DICTATOR, THEIR KIM JONG-IL.

turtledove says

They just don't like it when it doesn't work for them. Then, it's all about the popular vote. It's so self serving.

That's laughable given the things Trump and many of his supporters were saying before the votes were even cast.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

FUCK! THE! VOTES! OF! TRAITORS!

ALL! OF! THEM! WILL! BE! VANQUISHED!

THE! WEAK! AND! TRAITOROUS! WERE! BORN! TO! DIE!

Exactly whom did you vote for? (if you didn't vote, say so as well). I still have no fucking idea.

Rashomon says

That's laughable given the things Trump and many of his supporters were saying before the votes were even cast.

Remember when the Hillbullies told the Bernie Bros to STFU and sit down, she won with superdelegates who are there for a reason?

The Hillbullies are in full denial mode, they won't hear anything except "Blame Gaslighted White Women trapped by Evil Males into Barefoot Married Pregnancy"

That's a bit laughable given the things Trump was saying before the votes were even cast.
===========================

Only when you remove the context. The comment he made was right after emails and videos showed DNC operatives joking about committing electorate fraud for years.

The biggest mistake your side makes in all this (now just hear me out for a second and let the thought sink in before having a knee-jerk response)... You took Trump literally, but not seriously. For us, it was the other way around. You can say that words matter, and I do agree with you to a point. But there's more to meaning than a literal interpretation of the chosen words.

Trump's a talker... I hope he develops a better filter. I think that will be important in order for him to be effective on all fronts. But I do believe that he wants to be a good President. We can only have one President at a time. And for the good of the country, we need to stand behind him. Just like most of us on the right gave Obama a chance.

I want you to know, if some of the things he may have suggested (according to some interpretations) are LITERALLY done, you're going to have a lot of us fighting right alongside you.

Thunderlips Licks Shill Tears says

The Hillbullies are in full denial mode

The DNC swamp must be drained.

It would have been difficult to walk it back...

Rashomon says

And if the shoe had been on the other foot...

Off topic: Listening to Obama talk about meeting with Trump... What's with the dot-matrix sounding printers in the background?

Many friends and relatives who were pro-Hillary were country club liberals, or just die hard Bay Area liberals. And they didn't really like her, and you could feel their anger increasing with increasing Wikileak e-mails. They all detested Trump and what they were told he stood for. I suspect many were repressing their racist feelings and tendencies, and instead of getting it out in the open, Trump becomes what they hate inside themselves.

I don't think Trump is really as bad as he was demonized to be. I have encountered men colleagues and friends who engaged in similar locker room talk, most of it brag and bullshit. Do Americans really think a president has saint-like piety? I know liberals who say that Reagan made Americans feel good about their country again.

zzyzzx is deplorable says

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

FUCK! THE! VOTES! OF! TRAITORS!

ALL! OF! THEM! WILL! BE! VANQUISHED!

THE! WEAK! AND! TRAITOROUS! WERE! BORN! TO! DIE!

Exactly whom did you vote for? (if you didn't vote, say so as well). I still have no fucking idea.

What makes you think AF lives stateside?

Either an east coaster, or keeps odder hours than even me

turtledove says

What's with the dot-matrix sounding printers in the background

Nano air gun injectors firing. They're not wasting any time getting Trump on the program. Watch as his policies become more conventional, same ole.

Watch as his policies become more conventional, same ole.
===================

Or, he just found out what's really going on... and thought, "oh shit... that's why things are like this..."

The good thing about Trump is that when his term(s) is/are done, you know we'll get a tell-all book. We might finally get the answer to why all presidents, no matter their campaign positions, end up being the same.

Maybe the dot-matrix sounding printers in the background are for effect... To give the impression that the President is constantly getting new data... He's connected!

The only problem with that is who would believe he still uses a dot-matrix printer?

I give up. Didn't mean to hijack your thread with my stream of consciousness writing.

turtledove says

Only when you remove the context. The comment he made was right after emails and videos showed DNC operatives joking about committing electorate fraud for years.

Come off it, he was saying it in the last debate among other times. He made little sideways remarks about people taking up arms. He was spouting completely inappropriate nonsense, especially given his position, and so were plenty of his followers, including on here. It's utterly hypocritical for you and others to be pointing fingers at Democrats being upset about the result when plenty of you would have been the same and potentially worse.

turtledove says

The biggest mistake your side makes in all this (now just hear me out for a second and let the thought sink in before having a knee-jerk response)... You took Trump literally, but not seriously. For us, it was the other way around. You can say that words matter, and I do agree with you to a point. But there's more to meaning than a literal interpretation of the chosen words.

Unfiltered stream of conscience is for children, not leaders of the free world.

WAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

fuck you liberals, we won.

Rashomon says

Come off it, he was saying it in the last debate among other times. He made little sideways remarks about people taking up arms. He was spouting completely inappropriate nonsense, especially given his position, and so were plenty of his followers, including on here. It's utterly hypocritical for you and others to be pointing fingers at Democrats being upset about the result when plenty of you would have been the same and potentially worse.

Yep, he said he wouldn't automatically accept the election night totals if close, like Al Gore did in an 'unprecedented' fashion.

Now the MSM being very sympathetic is really what are a bunch of college feminists scaremongering over Abortion.

"My Body, My Choice, Your Bill. Freedom without Responsibility Now, shitlords!"

The Original Bankster says

WAHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

fuck you liberals, we won.

Won what exactly? Perhaps you'd like to wait and see what benefits a thin-skinned real estate (supposed) billionaire will bring to the average Joe before you get too excited.

Thunderlips Licks Shill Tears says

Yep, he said he wouldn't automatically accept the election night totals if close, like Al Gore did in an 'unprecedented' fashion.

He didn't make mention of anything about it needing to be close on a number of occasions. Mind, he did spend plenty of time claiming that voter fraud is “a big, big problem in this country” when it patently isn't.

turtledove says

I want you to know, if some of the things he may have suggested (according to some interpretations) are LITERALLY done, you're going to have a lot of us fighting right alongside you.

Such as? From this forum, most seem to have lapped up everything he's said.

Looks like DJIA is up more than a whole point today.

It's utterly hypocritical for you and others to be pointing fingers at Democrats being upset about the result when plenty of you would have been the same and potentially worse.
=============================

Really. When? How? It's your regressive left (on the DNC payroll, I might add) that laughed about starting fights at Trump rallies to make it look like Trump/Bernie supporters are violent. When did we DO anything like that? In your case, it was an institutional effort. Not just a one-off crazy person, but an institutional attempt to destroy the fabric of our election process. When we lost in 2008 and 2012, where were the SJWs of the right threatening lives -- actual war -- in a supposed "peaceful" demonstration? Go check some of the videos on last night's little get-togethers. Had it been the other way around, I have no doubt, it would have been big news.

Just days ago Democrats were boasting that Trump could win the popular vote but never the electoral vote because of Hillary's "structural advantages."

Crows will be extinct.

Anybody remember when Rally Attendance and Signage Comparisons were bullshit indicators of Trump Support and Enthusiasm?

The Media literally did everything it could to ignore warning signs.

PS Where was Hillary's vaunted "Ground Game"? And Trump's total lack thereof?

Dan8267 says

When the states exercises those rights to make pot legal, all of the sudden the right wants a big, nanny federal government that crushes state rights. Both conservative camps, the left and the right, are hypocrites.

That is true. "States rights" under the tenth amendment were designed to be politically neutral giving the states the right to control things not enumerated as belonging to the Feds under the constitution or prohibited by the constitution. So if a state wants to change the drug laws it should be able to under the tenth amendment BUT the Fed have already overstepped their constitutional grounds and created Federal drug laws. State rights have become less important as the Federal government has taken more power than enemuerated to it by a liberal interpretation of the "general welfare clause"

Dan8267 says

The electoral college is just a gerrymandering mechanism.

The electoral college is not a gerrymandering mechanism and not designed to disenfranchise voters, but rather to enfranchise them. Its the same concept behind giving each state 2 senators no matter its population. It is an anti-mobocracy provision.
It is a form of representative democracy of a republic rather than a pure democracy which is tyrannical by its nature as it would permanently force a minority to the will of the majority

Such as? From this forum, most seem to have lapped up everything he's said.
========================

Okay, I don't have all day for this... So, here are my very quick summaries:

The media decided that Trump was going to round up immigrants and refuse them entry into this country (though I don't know how they twisted his words into that). Nevertheless, we don't believe that to be what he meant. We believe he meant illegal immigrants. Now, if he were to start rounding up immigrants of all kinds, I assure you, most of us are not in support of that.

The media decided that Trump's concern over refugees from terror-prone countries means that he's going to ban Muslims. We believe he wants to strengthen the vetting process. But, I promise, if he starts banning religions in this country, most of us won't be in support of that. Even those of us who aren't religious because we recognize that each person has the right to choose and exercise his/her beliefs as long as those beliefs aren't contrary to our laws.

The media decided that Trump's locker room talk means that he's going to pussy grab women as they walk by. If he starts doing that, we wouldn't support it. Right after we stop laughing in incredulity, we'd fight right alongside you to stop gratuitous pussy grabbing.

Repealing Obamacare. Well yes, we support that one. But most of us recognize that he cannot just jerk the rug out from under it. ACA took years to implement, just hitting the "delete" button would cause tremendous pain. So we agree that ACA was a bad bill... But we recognize that he must have something to replace it with and a well thought out transition plan for achieving that. If he jerks the rug out suddenly from ACA, most of us would not support that and would fight with you for something better.

Cancelling trade agreements. We think we got shafted. Like Obamacare, he cannot just throw the agreements in the shredder and call it a day without causing a tremendous backlash in our economy. Most of us recognize that it would be better to re-negotiate the trade agreements... and that it will take time unless we want to shock the system (hardly ever turns out well). Should he just shred the agreements and launch our economy into some serious turmoil, many of us would be pretty pissed off right there with you.

Thunderlips Licks Shill Tears says

Looks like DJIA is up more than a whole point today.

Who knows....might be a record high too.

turtledove says

The media decided that Trump was going to round up immigrants and refuse them entry into this country (though I don't know how they twisted his words into that). Nevertheless, we don't believe that to be what he meant. We believe he meant illegal immigrants. Now, if he were to start rounding up immigrants of all kinds, I assure you, most of us are not in support of that.

The media decided that Trump's concern over refugees from terror-prone countries means that he's going to ban Muslims. We believe he wants to strengthen the vetting process. But, I promise, if he starts banning religions in this country, most of us won't be in support of that. Even those of us who aren't religious because we recognize that each person has the right to choose and exercise his/her beliefs as long as those beliefs aren't contrary to our laws.

The media decided that Trump's locker room talk means that he's going to pussy grab women as they walk by. If he starts doing that, w...

Well said.

Rashomon says

And if the shoe had been on the other foot...

We have a Constitution and it shouldn't be changed for any except the most compelling and urgent reasons, certainly not because some special snowflakes feel butt hurt.

turtledove says

I'm sorry, but that is bullshit! The needs of people living in cities are different than those living on farms.... or manufacturing centers.... or places with abundant types of natural resources... or those with a lack of natural resources.

Yes, the needs of rural life are different from those of city life. That does not imply that on the national level that one side should have more representation than the other. And if you are arguing that rural people, being less numerous need more representation than other groups than they same should apply to all minorities. The votes of blacks should count five times as much as the votes of whites by that reasoning. And the votes of atheists ten times that of Christians. Funny how that rule is very selectively applied.

Furthermore, the values and needs of one person can and are vastly different from those of his next door neighbor. So to group all people into two categories and only consider the common desires of each category is also wrong.

The purpose of democracies and republics is to most greatly satisfied the population as a whole, not to cater to one arbitrary minority.

turtledove says

What you suggest is a path to fracture.

You say that as if it were a bad thing. If it's better for the U.S. to be split into two two nations, one agricultural and one industrialize, then so be it. There is no holy law that says our territory must be united under a single king. I'm all for people choosing to leave and join countries as their values and needs fluctuate. If the lives and values of the two Americas are so incompatible, then by all means, let them peacefully part ways and become trading partners instead of being a bickering old married couple that hates their lives!

I don't think that would actually happen. For one thing, the kinds of issues that are truly local are already handled on the local level like time zones, zoning, and cultural bullshit. The great divide in our country are on national things that have nothing to do with locality like money in politics, abortion, war, and globalization.

Trump broke through a glass ceiling.

He won the presidency while being outspent by his opponent (by an order of magnitude). When was the last time the top spender didn't win the election?