Thats funny. Maybe Syria, she seems to have a soft spot in her black heart for Syrians. By winning the election, Trump already drained the swamp of the Clintons.

Very well said, Herb. Bravo!

Ironically, research immigration to Mexico. They do not stand for anything remotely close to what they expect us to accept...

President Trump, a non-lawyer, businessman billionaire, creator of beautiful buildings , unlike anyone who ever ran for the most powerful office in the world, has defeated the formidable Clinton Machine. His opponent was practically declared the winner a month before the election by the media pundits and the misbegotten pollsters. Yet, he prevailed. So -- he doesn't look like a movie star or speak like a great orator, but he knows what the Democrat and Republican elite never understood. That is, that the world is carried on the shoulders of the people who work and create, and they have been hurting for quite a while. So he promised to lend a hand to the Atlases who had been struggling for the last couple of decades to keep the motor running.

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.

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..

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.

We don't need to waste money prosecuting her. I vote for exile. How about to Libya? Problem solved.

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.

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.

I wonder if he took votes from Hillary or Trump. He did get more votes than I would have thought

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

Watch the netflix documentaries on immigation and visitation to Canada and Australia. They are tough on even visitation. A DUI will keep you out of Canada even for a tourist visit.

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.

I think prosecution has to wait until obama is OUT, so he cant pardon her.

I say the "wall" is a symbolic thing. I think Trump will tighten up the border to eliminate illegal immigration.

I dont know about government spending at all.

And so are her supporters. They are not nice people at all.

+1 Dino.

As would all accept, there are no perfect candidates, and those who cloak themselves to be such are people who do not deserve the votes they are asking us for.

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.

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.

Me dino felt good about the election so I thought of that "I feel good" song.
Did feel even better (why it's in first place) about the video with Godzilla sending a three-headed monstrosity off in total defeat.
I first saw that silly Godzilla movie as a (drafted) Marine at an air base called Cherry Point, NC, with a guy named Thacker (also drafted).
When Godzilla did that dance, Thacker screamed with laughter and all but slid out of his theater seat.

Don't we all owe Al Gore a round of thanks for inventing the Internet? :-)

Jefferson" We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead so long as reason is left free to combat it..."

Liked the Godzilla dance better, the more primal feel describes the stand against big govt....

Aw, those poor little pudding heads.

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.