16

Say it with me: President. Trump.

Posted by $ Your_Name_Goes_Here 3 years, 11 months ago to Politics
76 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

It appears that Mr. Trump gets a promotion based on the all-but-final results (pending are MI and PA which he is leading in with most of the votes counted).

Do you think Hillary will concede tonight?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 15
    Posted by $ Abaco 3 years, 11 months ago
    Well, I lost some bets. I honestly thought that the mob boss with the trail of bodies behind her could not- would not ever be defeated.

    Look at how the media kept telling us she had it in the bag. My favorite part about last night was when the news kept showing those long-faced fascists at her headquarters all staring up at the screen with tears rolling out of their puppy-dog eyes. I still can't believe what I was seeing...

    Hillary is pure evil, guys.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Temlakos 3 years, 11 months ago
      The media were the de facto Department of Information--and I do not mean "Information" as in "Technology." In fact the media behaved exactly as Rand portrayed them in Atlas Shrugged.

      Brother and sister, you asked for it!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by desimarie23 3 years, 11 months ago
      I also thought all of the sheep would flock to vote for HC...and I was pleasantly surprised to be wrong. The best coverage I saw was around 10:30 EST when the news anchor turned to a panel of democrats to ask them how they felt the election was going and they all looked like someone had shot their dog. Not one person on the panel could form a complete sentence in response.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 3 years, 11 months ago
    at least he's a question mark on a variety of important issues...that more than HC would have been.

    I'm willing to give him a clean slate until he proves me wrong.

    I want to see HC prosecuted.
    I want to see a wall
    I want to see government spending dramatically reduced without taxes being raised.

    I suspect none of these will actually come to pass. Even so, its his to prove that he's more than a "personality."

    At least O is out. H isn't in. And there's a chance both the worthless shits will be held accountable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by edweaver 3 years, 11 months ago
      Yes, O is fired! None too soon.

      And I'm giving Trump a clean slate as well.

      I don't agree with a wall. Too much money and I think they will still find a way around it. If people who come here illegally are prosecuted and sent home we don't need to spend money on a wall. I agree with the rest though. :)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 3 years, 11 months ago
        Living in the hot zone, illegals will, like central air, follow the path of least resistance. No offense to my countrymen in other border states but I'd like to see our burden severely lessened if not entirely gone. My family, those I know, have paid enough. I want a wall. I don't care if there is a big beautiful gate either.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 3 years, 11 months ago
        A wall can take many forms, including a technological barrier that is backed-up by the wherewithal to address the issue of illegal immigration (as I write it, I recognize that even the most "harsh" term for people breaking our immigration laws sounds so sanitized!). I believe that we can and do have a real opportunity at borders that will be enforced.

        After almost eight years of darkness, I now see light.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 3 years, 11 months ago
    Well, we dodged that bullet. We escaped certain
    death (for the time being), and played
    Russian roulette.--

    What now remains is to keep strict guard on
    Trump (who is not really a free-enterprise man), and to clamp down on him if he tries to
    bring in statist measures (as he almost certain-
    ly will). And to push him on repealing Obama-
    care, and not to let the Congress (including, es-
    pecially, Republicans) get away with dragging
    their feet on it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ohiocrossroads 3 years, 11 months ago
      Absolutely correct! I heard some scary things in his "gracious" victory speech. He thanked Shrillary for her service, yet only a few weeks before, he said in a debate that she should be in jail. What are going to get from Prez Trump?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BostonTEA 3 years, 11 months ago
    Hillary was able to make the 3 am call to concede (I'm sure someone had to wake her up). BUT she was not able to receive the 3 am call to save the men at Benghazi...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by WaltInBoston 3 years, 11 months ago
      Absolutely, BostonTEA. Also worth observing that the Hildebeast didn't have the character to speak to her loyal acolytes to tell 'em to go home, but she was awake enough to call and concede.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 3 years, 11 months ago
      in every other election, it is customary for the loser to publicly concede right away. With Hillary, she just made a lame phone call. Typical of the arrogant person that she is
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 3 years, 11 months ago
    Hillary conceded:
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/politic...

    Gary Johnson may have helped propel Donald Trump to victory Tuesday. Gary’s vote totals in numerous “swing states” were significantly greater than the difference separating Trump and Clinton. Many polls had consistently shown Trump gaining 1% to 2% against Clinton when Johnson was included as a choice. Several network news commentators pointed out that Gary Johnson drew a significant number of millennials and others who would have otherwise made up an important part of Hillary’s base.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by hattrup 3 years, 11 months ago
      From everything I have read (and we now know, once again, how accurate these polls and surveys are...) Johnson pulled votes from Hillary - but also pulled votes from Trump. In many places the pull
      from likely otherwise Hillary voters were higher than Trump. I have seen no "analysis" (or detailed second guessing) that shows how the vote might have split without Johnson in the mix.

      I suspect it will be hard to make a clear case that the Lib. ticket affected any specific electoral result. (Subject to change ! since many were within 1%).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years, 11 months ago
      I read about the concession about 15 minutes after Shrillary made the call.

      Regarding Gary Johnson, it would be interesting to see the analytics behind which voters he drew. I would have guessed he drew Republicans, but perhaps not. I'm sure someone is out there parsing the data as we speak.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 11 months ago
    I woke up today, and looked around for a large rabbit looking at his watch. Couldn't be happier when I found I was not in Wonderland.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 3 years, 11 months ago
    I also want to admit that I was wrong. I really was wrong in saying Trump had zero chance at winning the election. We were this > < close to going over the cliff. Here's hoping we can turn this thing around to prevent going over in the near future...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rjim 3 years, 11 months ago
    I think we all need to look at who to vote for as a positive vote - History of the Negative Voting Myth
    In 1968, Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden led the progressives protest of the Vietnam War. Their protests involved supporting third-party candidates.
    They promoted the Negative Voting Myth to get their third-party votes.
    They did not realize the Negative Voting Myth does not win elections. It pulls votes from the “lesser evil” and helps elect the “greater evil.”
    Unless they wake up, these Myth Keepers may to the same thing the progressives did to Al Gore. If they refuse to vote for Donald Trump, they may be responsible for electing Hillary Clinton.
    Aristotle’s Positive Voting Principle
    Aristotle proposed the Positive Voting Principle to replace the Negative Voting Myth. Yes, the Negative Voting Myth existed in the days of Aristotle.
    Aristotle (320 BC) wrote:
    In the case of evil, the reverse is the case, since the lesser evil is counted as a good in comparison with the greater evil; the lesser evil is more worthy of choice than the greater, what is worthy of choice is a good, and what is more worthy of choice is a greater good.
    In modern terms, Aristotle’s Positive Voting Principle is:
    Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win, and eliminates mandatory conditions.
    Stated simply, the Positive Voting Principle is:
    Always vote and act to achieve the greatest possible good.
    All major Christian Religions support the Positive Voting Principle
    Historically, all moral philosophers and all major Christian religions support the Positive Voting Principle.
    Aquinas wrote our moral duty is to achieve as much good as possible from every situation, including our vote. He says we cannot achieve good by acting on something that is impossible, like voting for a third-party candidate
    Church Summary on Positive Voting Principle
    A Methodist minister quoted Apostle Paul wrote, “Don’t be defeated by evil, but defeat evil with good. All major Christian churches tell us to vote and to use the Positive Voting Principle:
    Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win, and eliminates mandatory conditions.
    Only some far-right Evangelicals and Mormons support the Negative Voting Myth.
    The Positive Voting Principle forbids Mandatory Conditions.
    Mandatory conditions are immoral because they can eliminate from consideration the candidate who may be the greater good
    Some pastors proudly tell their flock a candidate must meet certain “mandatory” conditions to get their vote. Their mandatory conditions reveal they do not understand morality, logic, or the teachings of all major Christian religions and philosophers.
    Don’t be a Myth Keeper
    Let’s explain the Negative Voting Myth this way:
    Suppose you get to vote for Candidate A, whose abortion policies will kill 10 million babies, or Candidate B, whose policies will kill 1 million babies. Who will you vote for?
    All normal Christians will vote for Candidate B so they can save 9 million babies.
    Myth Keepers won’t vote for either candidate because they don’t care about saving 9 million babies. They care about their “conscience” and “principles. Some promote the Negative Voting Myth. Their myth would kill 9 million babies.
    Reject the Negative Voting Myth and reject all groups that promote it.
    How to vote right
    Before we can make a good decision, we must define the key question.
    The Key Question of the 2016 presidential election is:
    Will Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton better serve America as President?
    A subset of the Key Question is:
    Will Donald Trump’s 3 to 5 Supreme Court justices better serve America than Hillary Clinton’s choice of Supreme Court justices?
    The Key Question is NOT:
    • Is Donald Trump perfect enough for me?
    • Will I violate my principles if I vote for Donald Trump?
    • Do I like Donald Trump?
    When we choose a President, we should not be concerned about “likes.” We should be concerned only about who will do the best job for America.
    Conclusion
    First, define and answer the key question:
    Will Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton better serve America as President?
    Second, follow the Positive Voting Principle:
    Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win, and eliminates mandatory conditions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by unitedlc 3 years, 11 months ago
      I agree with much of what you are saying, but you lost me on the whole "religion and moral" parts. Don't care about those personally, but the idea of the Positive Voting Principal somewhat reconciles with Objectivism simply due to creating results that can benefit an objectivist. In this election, voting 3rd party creates no results that can help an objectivist. Yes, I know if Johnson got 5% of the vote it would help spread libertarianism through federal funding, but I felt that was an unrealistic number for him to achieve, so I voted Trump. It wasn't my most excited moment, but Gary Johnson had no chance and quite truthfully isn't really a libertarian anyway. My rationale for voting for Trump extended to the basic premise that Hillary can actually do harm to me. She can raise my taxes, worsen my healthcare while skyrocketing my costs, take away certain gun rights, and on and on. Trump, on the other hand, has no plans to take anything from any American citizen, other than possibly lower subsidies, which are not property nor rights. The only thing people have to worry about Trump is whether he will hurt their feelings. This was a no brainer.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 3 years, 11 months ago
      Our moral duty is nothing of the sort.

      “If they refuse to vote for Donald Trump, they may be responsible for electing Hillary Clinton.” Excuse me, but I am not in any way responsible for the actions of others.

      “Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win . . . “ That would have eliminated voting for your candidate Trump, since the polls were saying he could not possibly win.

      “Always vote and act to achieve the greatest possible good.” This argument sounds more Utilitarian than Objectivist. And no two people agree on what the “greatest possible good” is.

      “All major Christian Religions support the Positive Voting Principle. Historically, all moral philosophers and all major Christian religions support the Positive Voting Principle.” An argument from authority, and in this case religious authority that has no credibility at all as far as Objectivism is concerned.

      “Aquinas wrote our moral duty is to achieve as much good as possible from every situation, including our vote. He says we cannot achieve good by acting on something that is impossible, like voting for a third-party candidate.” The only “moral duty” recognized by Objectivism is to refrain from initiating force. And there are other reasons than winning to vote for a third-party candidate, in this case crossing the 5% vote threshold to become a recognized political party and not having to spend so much on achieving ballot access.

      “Suppose you get to vote for Candidate A, whose abortion policies will kill 10 million babies, or candidate B, whose policies will kill 1 million babies. Who will you vote for? All normal Christians will vote for Candidate B so they can save 9 million babies.” So faced with a choice of Hitler who promises to kill 6 million Jews and Stalin who promises to kill only 5.9 million Jews, a “normal Christian” will vote for Stalin? Even when given the additional choice of voting for “none of the above”?

      I don’t see where your citing of religious authorities and appeals to “moral duty” have much in common with Objectivism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ richrobinson 3 years, 11 months ago
    President Trump. A lot of nervous people out there today.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rex_Little 3 years, 11 months ago
      Nervous? One of my best friends was so sick from the idea that Trump could win, that she literally threw up. And that was before it was officially over.

      If you're a Trump supporter and want to taste the panic and drink the tears of the Left, visit http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/11/09...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Riftsrunner 3 years, 11 months ago
        Yeah, Scalzi and his fellow SJW's are still using identity politics, especially now that they lost. I guess in their minds every Non-Clinton voter is a sexist, racist, homophobe, transphobe who wants to dictate their lives. Never once do they look at their own behaviour to see they are already the groups they fear their opponents will become. To prevent racism, they are racist blaming white privledge for the ills of minorities. To prevent sexism, they are sexist blaming a phantom patriarchy for the choices women make. To prevent homophobia and transphobia, they have become thought police, claiming words are harmful and kill people. And push for legislation to make a difference of opinion a crime to be prosecuted. They see a Trump presidency as an impediment to the forward implementation to their agendas and fear they may lose some ground before the next willing stooge comes along.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 3 years, 11 months ago
        I have no sympathy, and I'm not ashamed to say it. Perhaps they now know how many of us felt eight years ago, and again four years ago.

        We are now living almost the eight years of damage that this regime has inflicted to the systems we believed could not be corrupted. And it isn't going well.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 3 years, 11 months ago
    I will not rejoice in a Trump win, but I certainly will rejoice in the defeat of Shrillary. Ding dong, the wicked witch is (politically) dead.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by cjferraris 3 years, 11 months ago
    Actually, I think that Trump is going to sit down with Hillary and put it to her this way, either you get out of politics and behave and I'll pardon you for the good of the country, or we can publicly humiliate you with a trial. I don't think he wants to waste anymore of the taxpayers money, and it is time to move on from this. Personally, it'll keep HRCs minions at bay and eventually, it'll go away. I don't see her or Bill having 8 more years in them.. They both look like they're ready to be cast in an episode of The Walking Dead..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 4evermybest 3 years, 11 months ago
    And this is the way the original founders of this land thought our choice for a leader should be completed? Lesser of two, three, or ? evils?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years, 11 months ago
      The system worked yesterday as our Founders intended. Show me the perfect candidate. Neither was, and none has ever been. But I saw an evil candidate in Hillary Clinton. She put her position and our country up for sale in order to better herself, lied to cover it up, and ultimately plucked the strings of justice to ensure that she would suffer no consequences.

      Yesterday was much better than the alternative described by Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", and in my opinion we were quickly heading to that point.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ohiocrossroads 3 years, 11 months ago
    Well that didn't take long. The votes aren't even all counted, and Trump is already talking to Nazi Pelousy about a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill. Why is the classic lyric from "Won't Get Fooled Again" running through my head? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

    Now is not the time to rest. Now is the time to act. We need to ride our elected representatives and president like they are low-grade beasts of burden. Remind them that we sent them there cut spending in Washington and to dismantle liberal pork-barrel programs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 3 years, 11 months ago
    I got reamed, too. I set up my portfolio for a Clinton victory. Now, I'm waiting on the sidelines for my sells to settle. What a dumbass...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -5
    Posted by TomSwift 3 years, 11 months ago
    Good job, America. You are really in a world of shit now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 years, 11 months ago
      You're right - we're in a world of shite given we've made our borders transparent and doubled our national debt in less than the eight years of Our Dear Leader, The One, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm...).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -5
        Posted by TomSwift 3 years, 11 months ago
        Those damn dirty foreigners. Where would America be if you had let in millions of people leaving their old country for a chance of a new life in the USA? Good thing that never happened.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -4
          Posted by TomSwift 3 years, 11 months ago
          Just to add, I do agree that the US is in a fiscal mess, but is this really the guy you want to have control over the money? A lousy businessman who has filed for bankruptcy numerous times, refuses to honour contracts, pathologically lies about everything and refuses to tell anyone just how much money he has? Christ, he lost money owning a casino! How is that even possible?

          Doesn't matter though. Americans knew all this before they elected Trump and were in complete denial. Ayn Rand would be contemplating moving back to Russia, since you elected Wesley Mouch. Good luck.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Riftsrunner 3 years, 11 months ago
            Well, considering the President doesn't hold the purse strings, I don't much care about Trump financially (I would be afraid if there were 269 'Trumps' in Congress (51 in Senate, 218 in House)). I wish people would realize that the US isn't a Banana Republic with all the government power in the hands of the executive. There are two other co-equal branches to the government who have checks on the others.

            And if Trump was Wesley Mouch. Clinton is Mouch on super steroids. She would have continued the policies of Obama (which have doubled our national debt in 8 years) and try to add free college education and debt forgiveness for current students to the list. She would have put a progressive Justice on the Supreme Court to destroy the Constitution like all progressives have been trying now for over a century. So while Trump is a bad candidate, Hillary is orders of magnitude worse.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Abaco 3 years, 11 months ago
            Hillary was going to bring real pain. I didn't vote for Trump. But I was sure she was going to win and remain sure that she was going to bring severe pain in several different forms. Tom...our choices weren't very good...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo