Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[Bang]

39 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

Well if the butthurters throw the election to Trump out of some petulant reflex, they'll soon long for the comfy days when Mom HAD a basement for 'em.

At this point they are right up there with the Jill Stein moonbats

Who needs a basement when the GOP has been itching on sending them off to visit Iran?

~Bomb

[DogofWar1]

21 minutes ago, brandymac27 said:

I like his position on healthcare. I'm not butthurt that he lost, I'm just a little upset. I'll still be voting for Hillary regardless because there's no possible way I can vote for Trump (or a 3rd party knowing it's a vote for Trump).

Right, I, like Hersh was talking about the people planning on writing in Bernie, not voting at all, or voting for Gary or Evan (Stein sorta also but less so bc at least her policies align sorta close enough that I could kind of see a policy vote for her, maybe).

This is at the people in the article, by the way, but I'm not sure how they expect Bernie to magically win.

I mean, first, he'd have to win a state, and be in the top 3 electoral vote getters while no one else hits 270.

No one hitting 270 is unlikely.  Him winning a state is unlikely.  Heck, he could still miss top 3 EV getters if McMullin wins Utah and he won, say, Vermont.

Then he magically has to have the House pick him?  The House that will likely be GOP?

I could see Clinton managing to snag it with some Never Trumpers switching over or even McMullin if Trump doesn't get it, but Bernie?  No way the House ever throws it to him.

Such a weird view for the people in that article to take.

[Bang]

I wouldn't sweat the write in threats.

Unless you can do it on a phone.

~Bang

[PF Chang]

16 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Especially when the Republicans have more states (ie more votes)  McMullin is the only one with a shot in that scenario.

I think their plan (if you can call it a plan) is to ensure Sanders is in the top 3, then the House would have to choose from Clinton/Trump/Sanders if McMullin were 4th instead. Why they think that the House would actually choose Sanders in that scenario is a mystery. 

I supported Sanders during the primary, particularly before I realized how far left he is. His honesty was refreshing and I think he's right about several major problems (Citizens United etc). But many of his supporters basically come off as children in their views and actions.  

[LD0506]

8 minutes ago, Bang said:

I wouldn't sweat the write in threats.

Unless you can do it on a phone.

~Bang

<insert derisive snort here>

[nonniey]

4 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

I think their plan (if you can call it a plan) is to ensure Sanders is in the top 3, then the House would have to choose from Clinton/Trump/Sanders if McMullin were 4th instead. Why they think that the House would actually choose Sanders in that scenario is a mystery. 

I supported Sanders during the primary, particularly before I realized how far left he is. His honesty was refreshing and I think he's right about several major problems (Citizens United etc). But many of his supporters basically come off as children in their views and actions.  

Agree - no what I meant is there is only one way either Clinton or Trump would not become the President Elect and that would be if McMullin won Utah and denied the other two a 270 majority. Sanders can't do that because he couldn't win the follow-up vote from Congress (neither would Clinton). McMullin could get Republican congressional backing (heck and maybe even dem backing if it was to deny Trump).  Pipe dream though. Clinton will win and win in a walk imo.

[nonniey]

45 minutes ago, brandymac27 said:

I like his position on healthcare. I'm not butthurt that he lost, I'm just a little upset. I'll still be voting for Hillary regardless because there's no possible way I can vote for Trump (or a 3rd party knowing it's a vote for Trump).

Doesn't it depend on what state you live in whether it would be considered throwing the vote to Trump? Heck if you live in a non-battle ground state you can vote your hearts content.  I actually do vote in a battle ground state and did a write in - I absolutely can't stomach either of the major candidates.

[The Sisko]

27 minutes ago, Bang said:

Who needs a basement when the GOP has been itching on sending them off to visit Iran?

~Bomb

 

See, so it all works out. Everybody WINS!!

[Burgold]

Melania just gave a speech. It was a pretty good speech. What does she think is the problem America needs to take on? 

#Melania Trump takes on #CyberBullying. As with many problems, the cure must start at home.

(Could this be a passive aggressive way of her saying, "don't vote for my husband"

[thebluefood]

2 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

See, so it all works out. Everybody WINS!!

"Buck up, Johnny. A little imperialism never hurt anyone! It builds character."

[Hersh]

36 minutes ago, brandymac27 said:

I'm not sure what we did, but you're welcome 

Probably being thanked for being awesome

[Mr. Sinister]

Voted today after my job interview. Glad to finally get this all over with. Actually had a nightmare last night about all of this.

Despite the jokes and stuff, when it comes right down to it, I am truly, truly afraid of what it would mean for me personally, and for the US as a whole, considering where we've come from and how hard people fought and died to get us here, if we elect that man president. Would be one the toughest pills I've ever had to swallow.

[The Sisko]

8 minutes ago, thebluefood said:

"Buck up, Johnny. A little imperialism never hurt anyone! It builds character."

Hey kids, it's imperialist pig GI Joe!! With baby crushing action arm and pull string voice with 12 cool battle cries! (Little Billy demonstrates pull string battle cry)....GI Joe says "CANNON FODDERRRRRR! ...COLLATERAL DAMAGE RULES! ....THAT'S U.S. OIL NOW MOHAMMED, WOOHAA!! ....SQUAD, FIRE TO THE LEFT, YOU MISSED SOME WOMEN AND CHILDREN!! Make sure you're first in line to get yours kids!

[The Evil Genius]

↑

Figures that it would be made in China... and they'd get "hooah" wrong.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

This is at the people in the article, by the way, but I'm not sure how they expect Bernie to magically win.

I don't think it's about winning, or magically winning.

I think it's about:

I'm voting for the person I think is best suited for the job/country, and if the majority of the country is unable to consider the candidate that I think is the best, and I absolutely believe he/she is the best, then it's not my fault they refuse to recognize that and I'm certainly not bending to their demands on who to support when I think they're wrong.

I'm not saying they're right for that.

I just think there's more than one way of looking at voting than the idea that the candidate for one of the major parties is so terrible you have to support this candidate for the other major party (even though you think they are also terrible)

If people weren't so locked into D and R being the only option, third parties would have a better chance. Or at least the two major parties wouldn't be able to cater to the extremes (like one is right now)

In some ways the mindset that will allow Trump to capture ~40% of the population (the other guy is so bad you better vote for our (also bad) guy), is the same mindset you're pushing. It is, in its own way, politics of fear. You guys are trying to bully other people into supporting a candidate they don't like by making them scared of Trump.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Well said @tshile.  I've been thinking the same thing.  I'm in FL and will most likely do a write in.  I won't vote lesser of two evils.  I will vote who I think is best.  and it will be the only way I can go vote and not feel like I need a shower afterwards.  for all the left does of criticizing the right, they sure do like to play their own game of fear politics.

[Renegade7]

38 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Voted today after my job interview. Glad to finally get this all over with. Actually had a nightmare last night about all of this.

Despite the jokes and stuff, when it comes right down to it, I am truly, truly afraid of what it would mean for me personally, and for the US as a whole, considering where we've come from and how hard people fought and died to get us here, if we elect that man president. Would be one the toughest pills I've ever had to swallow.

Everythang gonna be alright.

[Hersh]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

I don't think it's about winning, or magically winning.

I think it's about:

I'm voting for the person I think is best suited for the job/country, and if the majority of the country is unable to consider the candidate that I think is the best, and I absolutely believe he/she is the best, then it's not my fault they refuse to recognize that and I'm certainly not bending to their demands on who to support when I think they're wrong.

I'm not saying they're right for that.

I just think there's more than one way of looking at voting than the idea that the candidate for one of the major parties is so terrible you have to support this candidate for the other major party (even though you think they are also terrible)

If people weren't so locked into D and R being the only option, third parties would have a better chance. Or at least the two major parties wouldn't be able to cater to the extremes (like one is right now)

In some ways the mindset that will allow Trump to capture ~40% of the population (the other guy is so bad you better vote for our (also bad) guy), is the same mindset you're pushing. It is, in its own way, politics of fear. You guys are trying to bully other people into supporting a candidate they don't like by making them scared of Trump.

 

I don't think it's even the writing in another candidate that people are finding laughable. I think it's the idea that they have any chance or hope of holding Clinton or Trump under 270 and magically get Bernie elected. If they were doing a write in vote as a protest vote alone, that would be different. It's the added part that is being ridiculed. 

[The Evil Genius]

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

I don't think it's about winning, or magically winning.

I think it's about:

I'm voting for the person I think is best suited for the job/country, and if the majority of the country is unable to consider the candidate that I think is the best, and I absolutely believe he/she is the best, then it's not my fault they refuse to recognize that and I'm certainly not bending to their demands on who to support when I think they're wrong.

I'm not saying they're right for that.

I just think there's more than one way of looking at voting than the idea that the candidate for one of the major parties is so terrible you have to support this candidate for the other major party (even though you think they are also terrible)

If people weren't so locked into D and R being the only option, third parties would have a better chance. Or at least the two major parties wouldn't be able to cater to the extremes (like one is right now)

In some ways the mindset that will allow Trump to capture ~40% of the population (the other guy is so bad you better vote for our (also bad) guy), is the same mindset you're pushing. It is, in its own way, politics of fear. You guys are trying to bully other people into supporting a candidate they don't like by making them scared of Trump.

 

 

I doubt that is lost on anyone. However, the caveat is that you are not voting for someone who is probably lining up with 80+% of your platform and run the risk of seeing someone who supports less than 50% of your platform get elected. As long as you go into your vote accepting that outcome, then I guess more power to you.

I just think more people should be pragmatic and choose the less flawed candidate and/or the one that best represents their platform (from the two parties). To me, it's a pipe dream to think of 3rd parties and american politics. Nor do I want it as I continually see (or at least think of) what a cluster**** it is in Europe and other places. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well said @tshile.  I've been thinking the same thing.  I'm in FL and will most likely do a write in.  I won't vote lesser of two evils.  I will vote who I think is best.  and it will be the only way I can go vote and not feel like I need a shower afterwards.  for all the left does of criticizing the right, they sure do like to play their own game of fear politics.

I hate voting lesser of two evils too. I hate that we're stuck with two parties because so many people easily go into the lesser of two evils category.

I understand why they/we think it, I just don't agree with it being the over-ruling mindset every single time there's an election (and it feels like that's what it always boils down to...)

To be fair, the write-in/third-party-voters are being afforded the luxury of taking the stand without real consequence. If you believe the polls that don't have a stake in election night ratings, and subsequently haven't wildly swung from an electoral college blowout to a close race, you can comfortably vote third party/write-in without fear of Trump winning.

As much as I hate the less of two evils crap, it's not completely without merit. If Trump comfortably held many traditionally GOP states, and Clinton was struggling a little in a few traditionally blue states, and the traditional set of battleground states were truly such (and it was a small set), we might be in a different situation.

[Hersh]

52 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Melania just gave a speech. It was a pretty good speech. What does she think is the problem America needs to take on? 

#Melania Trump takes on #CyberBullying. As with many problems, the cure must start at home.

(Could this be a passive aggressive way of her saying, "don't vote for my husband"

She either lacks all self-awareness or is this getting back at Trump for grabbing *****? She must know he really does that. That is interesting. 

[The Evil Genius]

55 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Melania just gave a speech. It was a pretty good speech. What does she think is the problem America needs to take on? 

#Melania Trump takes on #CyberBullying. As with many problems, the cure must start at home.

(Could this be a passive aggressive way of her saying, "don't vote for my husband"

 

2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

She either lacks all self-awareness or is this getting back at Trump for grabbing *****? She must know he really does that. That is interesting. 

 

Well, the Trump kids (male ones) prior to Melania all have looked like the 80's movie asshole villain. So maybe it's her way of fighting back or saying she's not responsible for those sociopaths?

[Larry]

15 minutes ago, tshile said:

I don't think it's about winning, or magically winning.

I think it's about:

I'm voting for the person I think is best suited for the job/country, and if the majority of the country is unable to consider the candidate that I think is the best, and I absolutely believe he/she is the best, then it's not my fault they refuse to recognize that and I'm certainly not bending to their demands on who to support when I think they're wrong.

 

But that's not who the article is about.  (Nor, as I read it, who the poster was directing his contempt at.) 

The article isn't about people voting for Bernie because they know he can't win, but they'd rather vote for the best candidate, and lose, than vote for somebody they don't like, and win. 

It's about people voting for Bernie because they think a vote for Bernie is a winning lottery ticket. 

[brandymac27]

From ‘reset’ to ‘pause’: The real story behind Hillary Clinton’s feud with Vladimir Putin

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/from-reset-to-pause-the-real-story-behind-hillary-clintons-feud-with-vladimir-putin/2016/11/03/f575f9fa-a116-11e6-8832-23a007c77bb4_story.html

In one of her last acts as secretary of state in early 2013, Hillary Clinton wrote a confidential memo to the White House on how to handle Vladimir Putin, Russia’s newly installed and increasingly aggressive fourth president. Her bluntly worded advice: Snub him.

“Don’t appear too eager to work together,” Clinton urged President Obama, according to her recollection of the note in her 2014 memoir. “Don’t flatter Putin with high-level attention. Decline his invitation for a presidential summit.”

It was harsh advice coming from the administration’s top diplomat, and Obama would ignore key parts of it. But the memo succinctly captured a personal view about Putin on the part of the future Democratic presidential nominee: a deep skepticism, informed by bitter experience, that would be likely to define U.S.-Russian relations if Clinton is elected. Her lasting conclusion, as she would acknowledge, was that “strength and resolve were the only language Putin would understand.”

More at link....

A little long, but interesting IMO

[TheGreatBuzz]

Well my comment was directed at people criticizing people voting for someone other than the 2 major people in genral.  I cant speak for tshile.  the article was dumb.