Official Election results thread

[Dr Grump]

Case in point.

Your hate and judgment is noted. It is also reveals more about yourself than it does others.

yeah because talking about women's pussies isn't misogynistic. Talking about Kelly having her period isn't misogynistic. Saying a judge shouldn't have to rule on a Trump Uni because he has a latino surname isn't racist. Saying that the Muslim mother of a fallen soldier isn't allowed to speak because of who she is, isn't racist.

The only person spouting hate in this election was your hero. Oh, ad his followers....

 

[owebo]

Case in point.

Your hate and judgment is noted. It is also reveals more about yourself than it does others.

yeah because talking about women's pussies isn't misogynistic. Talking about Kelly having her period isn't misogynistic. Saying a judge shouldn't have to rule on a Trump Uni because he has a latino surname isn't racist. Saying that the Muslim mother of a fallen soldier isn't allowed to speak because of who she is, isn't racist.

The only person spouting hate in this election was your hero. Oh, ad his followers....

Awww.....you sad you lost big league snowflake?

 

[Divine Wind]

Except there is no such EO

They know so much that isn't so....

Executive Order 13489 -- Presidential Records

Good Lord. That's like the Geico commercial about reading one's auto insurance where it says "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah"! Fucking lawyers, man.

I had to look elsewhere to figure out what the heck it meant. This is one link: President Obama Revokes Bush Presidential Records Executive Order (updated Jan. 26) – National Coalition For History
On January 21, in one of his first official acts, President Barack Obama revoked the Bush administration’s Executive Order 13233 that severely limited access by the public to presidential records. Click here to see a copy of President Obama’s new Executive Order 13489.

Not quite as nefarious as some think.

 

[Divine Wind]

No, I don't want to change the constitution. The states determine how electoral votes are allocated. It would be a simple matter to have those votes determined proportionally. Of course, in recent history, only Democrats have had their elections stolen twice (Gore and Clinton) . After it effects the right it will be changed. Until then, we have a faulty election process.
Comey's two unprecedented statements , even after he was advised that it would be improper to make them, gave the false impression of guilt. Voters were left to believe there was actual guilt. The Hatch Act is officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, and specifically forbids the use of offices in the executive branch to intentionally effect elections. No one can deny that his unprecedented, and unnecessary statements directly effected the voters decisions.

While I agree about proportionally the problem is akin to term limits for Congressman; what happens when only a few states do it? Aren't they hampered compared to other states?

Disagreed on your accusations of Comey....and both the President and Congress agrees that Comey didn't commit "Pernicious Political Activities". Isn't Comey in the Judicial Branch?

Dude, if you want to blame Comey for formerly Democratic blue collar workers turning Blue States Red, go for it, but I think you will be proven wrong in the months to come.

 

[Flash]

[

Yes he is our president now either we like it or not. We just have to see the results of his promises.
1. Force deportation of illegals
2. Mexico will pay for the wall
3. Bring back jobs from overseas.
4. Trade & tariffs
5. Get rid of NAFTA & TPP
6. Scrap Iran deal
7. Ban muslims
8. Repeal Obamacare.
9. Jobs for black inner cities
10. Unite our country.

It will be a no brainer for Trump to get the economy back on track. After Obama's failures that will be child's play. Just lower taxes and reduce some of the stupid regulations and the economy will be off and running.

Trump is going to have to prioritize his battles because he has a lot of Obama's damage to undo.

Hopefully he will pull it off and if he does the American people will see how toxic the Democrats have been for this country.

I will be very happy to see his success and accomplishments. So will see.
BTW........ you start blaming already?

The Moon Bats are still blaming GW Bush for Obama's failures so turnaround is fair play, isn't it?

However, I doubt Trump will be like the filthy Democrats that never take responsibility for anything. He will fix what is broke and get on with life.

 

[Divine Wind]

True but not the whole picture. Trump had almost double the "earned media" coverage that Hillary had. Trump was a master at manipulating the media to get attention on himself without having to whore himself at Goldman Sachs.

How do you use the media to win? Just ask Donald Trump
From July 2015 to the end of October, Trump received $5.6 billion worth of earned media, including stories, TV and radio news segments, blog posts, podcasts and social media mentions, according to media tracking firm Mediaquant. In October alone, he had $58 million of coverage.

Despite being the first female nominee of a major political party, Hillary Clinton paled in comparison, generating only $3.5 billion worth of earned media during the 15-month period. Trump's closest rival during the Republican primary, Ted Cruz, received $447 million of total earned media during the period, Mediaquant says.

 

[BULLDOG]

You forgot to include all the millions of dollars of free advertising that all the networks gave him.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, I don't want to change the constitution. The states determine how electoral votes are allocated. It would be a simple matter to have those votes determined proportionally. Of course, in recent history, only Democrats have had their elections stolen twice (Gore and Clinton) . After it effects the right it will be changed. Until then, we have a faulty election process.
Comey's two unprecedented statements , even after he was advised that it would be improper to make them, gave the false impression of guilt. Voters were left to believe there was actual guilt. The Hatch Act is officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, and specifically forbids the use of offices in the executive branch to intentionally effect elections. No one can deny that his unprecedented, and unnecessary statements directly effected the voters decisions.

While I agree about proportionally the problem is akin to term limits for Congressman; what happens when only a few states do it? Aren't they hampered compared to other states?

Disagreed on your accusations of Comey....and both the President and Congress agrees that Comey didn't commit "Pernicious Political Activities". Isn't Comey in the Judicial Branch?

Dude, if you want to blame Comey for formerly Democratic blue collar workers turning Blue States Red, go for it, but I think you will be proven wrong in the months to come.

Proportional vote assignment wouldn't disadvantage any state. It would just make the selection more fair for whoever received the most votes.
I believe states that institute term limits would be at a disadvantage. The longer a member is in congress, the more effective he can be. That's why states will never do it on their own. The federal government doesn't' have the authority to do it. That's just another example of the crazy things Trump promised that is not possible to be done. He doesn't even know how our government works.
The president and congress have no decision on what Comey did was legal. That is purely a law enforcement matter, but I expect nothing will come of it.
Hillary received more votes, so what anybody in any particularly colored state did shouldn't matter.

 

[Divine Wind]

Proportional vote assignment wouldn't disadvantage any state. It would just make the selection more fair for whoever received the most votes.
I believe states that institute term limits would be at a disadvantage. The longer a member is in congress, the more effective he can be. That's why states will never do it on their own. The federal government doesn't' have the authority to do it. That's just another example of the crazy things Trump promised that is not possible to be done. He doesn't even know how our government works.
The president and congress have no decision on what Comey did was legal. That is purely a law enforcement matter, but I expect nothing will come of it.
Hillary received more votes, so what anybody in any particularly colored state did shouldn't matter.

Disagreed. Do the math.

Consider California, Texas and Florida with 55, 38 and 29 electoral votes respectively. In 2016, California's 55 votes went to Clinton and Texas and Florida's combined 67 votes went to Trump; Trump wins. If Texas and Florida had their electoral votes divided proportionally and California did not, Texas' votes would have been divided 20.14/16.34 Trump/Clinton and Florida 14.24/13.86 while Clinton would have reaped all of California's vote giving her the win with 55+16.34+13.86=85.2 versus Trump's 16.34+14.24=34.38, nearly 3 to 1.

If California's votes were proportional, it would be 18.32 Trump, 33.83 Clinton yielding 52.7 total for Trump and 64.03 Clinton, resulting in a much more even split. Factor in other states with may or may not proportion and it will equally distort the vote. While you seem concerned about being "fair" to your candidate, I think it's more important to be fair to voters: We, the People. Either proportionment should be nationwide or not at all.

 

[BULLDOG]

Proportional vote assignment wouldn't disadvantage any state. It would just make the selection more fair for whoever received the most votes.
I believe states that institute term limits would be at a disadvantage. The longer a member is in congress, the more effective he can be. That's why states will never do it on their own. The federal government doesn't' have the authority to do it. That's just another example of the crazy things Trump promised that is not possible to be done. He doesn't even know how our government works.
The president and congress have no decision on what Comey did was legal. That is purely a law enforcement matter, but I expect nothing will come of it.
Hillary received more votes, so what anybody in any particularly colored state did shouldn't matter.

Disagreed. Do the math.

Consider California, Texas and Florida with 55, 38 and 29 electoral votes respectively. In 2016, California's 55 votes went to Clinton and Texas and Florida's combined 67 votes went to Trump; Trump wins. If Texas and Florida had their electoral votes divided proportionally and California did not, Texas' votes would have been divided 20.14/16.34 Trump/Clinton and Florida 14.24/13.86 while Clinton would have reaped all of California's vote giving her the win with 55+16.34+13.86=85.2 versus Trump's 16.34+14.24=34.38, nearly 3 to 1.

If California's votes were proportional, it would be 18.32 Trump, 33.83 Clinton yielding 52.7 total for Trump and 64.03 Clinton, resulting in a much more even split. Factor in other states with may or may not proportion and it will equally distort the vote. While you seem concerned about being "fair" to your candidate, I think it's more important to be fair to voters: We, the People. Either proportionment should be nationwide or not at all.

Non proportional vote allotment is inherently unfair. It has hurt Democrats in the past, but it is just as likely to hurt Republicans in the future. The purpose of a vote is to give an accurate representation of all the voters. Not to give an advantage to either side.

 

[blackhawk]

I saw they finally called Arizona for Trump better late than never I guess.

 

[bripat9643]

Proportional vote assignment wouldn't disadvantage any state. It would just make the selection more fair for whoever received the most votes.
I believe states that institute term limits would be at a disadvantage. The longer a member is in congress, the more effective he can be. That's why states will never do it on their own. The federal government doesn't' have the authority to do it. That's just another example of the crazy things Trump promised that is not possible to be done. He doesn't even know how our government works.
The president and congress have no decision on what Comey did was legal. That is purely a law enforcement matter, but I expect nothing will come of it.
Hillary received more votes, so what anybody in any particularly colored state did shouldn't matter.

Disagreed. Do the math.

Consider California, Texas and Florida with 55, 38 and 29 electoral votes respectively. In 2016, California's 55 votes went to Clinton and Texas and Florida's combined 67 votes went to Trump; Trump wins. If Texas and Florida had their electoral votes divided proportionally and California did not, Texas' votes would have been divided 20.14/16.34 Trump/Clinton and Florida 14.24/13.86 while Clinton would have reaped all of California's vote giving her the win with 55+16.34+13.86=85.2 versus Trump's 16.34+14.24=34.38, nearly 3 to 1.

If California's votes were proportional, it would be 18.32 Trump, 33.83 Clinton yielding 52.7 total for Trump and 64.03 Clinton, resulting in a much more even split. Factor in other states with may or may not proportion and it will equally distort the vote. While you seem concerned about being "fair" to your candidate, I think it's more important to be fair to voters: We, the People. Either proportionment should be nationwide or not at all.

Non proportional vote allotment is inherently unfair. It has hurt Democrats in the past, but it is just as likely to hurt Republicans in the future. The purpose of a vote is to give an accurate representation of all the voters. Not to give an advantage to either side.

Your mistake is in assuming that the founding fathers thought there was some inherent goodness in democracy.

 

[Ame®icano]

I posted this one some 5 months ago... and it's still valid.

 

[Ame®icano]

And Trump just won Arizona.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, I don't want to change the constitution. The states determine how electoral votes are allocated. It would be a simple matter to have those votes determined proportionally. Of course, in recent history, only Democrats have had their elections stolen twice (Gore and Clinton) . After it effects the right it will be changed. Until then, we have a faulty election process.
Comey's two unprecedented statements , even after he was advised that it would be improper to make them, gave the false impression of guilt. Voters were left to believe there was actual guilt. The Hatch Act is officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, and specifically forbids the use of offices in the executive branch to intentionally effect elections. No one can deny that his unprecedented, and unnecessary statements directly effected the voters decisions.

While I agree about proportionally the problem is akin to term limits for Congressman; what happens when only a few states do it? Aren't they hampered compared to other states?

Disagreed on your accusations of Comey....and both the President and Congress agrees that Comey didn't commit "Pernicious Political Activities". Isn't Comey in the Judicial Branch?

Dude, if you want to blame Comey for formerly Democratic blue collar workers turning Blue States Red, go for it, but I think you will be proven wrong in the months to come.

No, the FBI is part of the executive branch. They are an enforcement branch - not a court.

 

[FA_Q2]

Proportional vote assignment wouldn't disadvantage any state. It would just make the selection more fair for whoever received the most votes.
I believe states that institute term limits would be at a disadvantage. The longer a member is in congress, the more effective he can be. That's why states will never do it on their own. The federal government doesn't' have the authority to do it. That's just another example of the crazy things Trump promised that is not possible to be done. He doesn't even know how our government works.
The president and congress have no decision on what Comey did was legal. That is purely a law enforcement matter, but I expect nothing will come of it.
Hillary received more votes, so what anybody in any particularly colored state did shouldn't matter.

Disagreed. Do the math.

Consider California, Texas and Florida with 55, 38 and 29 electoral votes respectively. In 2016, California's 55 votes went to Clinton and Texas and Florida's combined 67 votes went to Trump; Trump wins. If Texas and Florida had their electoral votes divided proportionally and California did not, Texas' votes would have been divided 20.14/16.34 Trump/Clinton and Florida 14.24/13.86 while Clinton would have reaped all of California's vote giving her the win with 55+16.34+13.86=85.2 versus Trump's 16.34+14.24=34.38, nearly 3 to 1.

If California's votes were proportional, it would be 18.32 Trump, 33.83 Clinton yielding 52.7 total for Trump and 64.03 Clinton, resulting in a much more even split. Factor in other states with may or may not proportion and it will equally distort the vote. While you seem concerned about being "fair" to your candidate, I think it's more important to be fair to voters: We, the People. Either proportionment should be nationwide or not at all.

That is why proportional voting cannot be done by a single state. They have to do so as a group and go to national popular vote rather than proportional in the individual state itself. The simplest way to institute it would be for enough states to come together representing 270+ electoral votes and then agree as a group to give their EC votes to the presidential candidate that garners the popular vote. I believe as few as 13 states could do this and ensure that the candidate with the popular vote wins the election.

 

[easyt65]

This just in....ANOTHER state officially rejects Hillary for President...again.

 

[Divine Wind]

No, the FBI is part of the executive branch. They are an enforcement branch - not a court.

It's mixed. For investigations, it's DOJ.

Leadership & Structure — FBI
Mission & Priorities
The FBI today is considered one of the world’s premier security and crime-fighting forces. Reporting to both the attorney general and director of national intelligence, the Bureau has dual responsibilities as a law enforcement and intelligence agency. Learn about our vision, mission, priorities, core values, budget, and more.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You forgot to include all the millions of dollars of free advertising that all the networks gave him.

Were the networks paying Trump for their ratings boosts? Wasn't free.

 

[BULLDOG]

You forgot to include all the millions of dollars of free advertising that all the networks gave him.

Were the networks paying Trump for their ratings boosts? Wasn't free.

It was free for him.