2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Flagg]

I'm deeply skeptical of anything out of Wikileaks, but if its true that members of the DNC and the Clinton campaign deliberately promoted far Right candidates because they thought it would make the Republicans easier to beat, then they are both morally bankrupt and staggeringly incompetent.

And no one involved should ever hold any position in politics, elected or appointed, ever again.

Why? It's not in any way illegal and it's been SOP forever.

[cosmicalstorm]

Those emails better be doctored. The ones where they talk about "Comet Pizza with no hair on it" or whatever are fucking chilling.

Here is Trump talking to journos about Syria, I think he makes some good sense. Why is the US sending TOWs to IS per courier?
Look at those journos kissing his ass at the end, wow!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e8e_1478834527

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm deeply skeptical of anything out of Wikileaks, but if its true that members of the DNC and the Clinton campaign deliberately promoted far Right candidates because they thought it would make the Republicans easier to beat, then they are both morally bankrupt and staggeringly incompetent.

And no one involved should ever hold any position in politics, elected or appointed, ever again.

Why? It's not in any way illegal and it's been SOP forever.

Because it would show that they not only enabled the rise of a raging bigot to the office of the Presidency, but that their plan spectacularly backfired.

I don't know, seems to me that's reason enough to fire someone.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm deeply skeptical of anything out of Wikileaks, but if its true that members of the DNC and the Clinton campaign deliberately promoted far Right candidates because they thought it would make the Republicans easier to beat, then they are both morally bankrupt and staggeringly incompetent.

And no one involved should ever hold any position in politics, elected or appointed, ever again.

Speaking of which, you know that the RNC was doing similar for Sanders, right? Ignoring him to focus on Hillary? And that both parties help out the Greens/Libertarians some in the hopes of spoiler effect?

Trying to get the other side to have a messy primary is actually a fairly normal tactic. You don't want the other side's worst to actually win, but you focus on the one you expect to have to actually face and not the kookoo you don't because that's *good* tactics... normally. The bad primary really did hurt Romney in 2012.


And keep in mind during the primary, many were terrified of a Cruz victory.

1. As someone else already noted, Cruz was one of the fuckers they were promoting.

2. Its one thing to promote a weak opposing candidate. It is another to promote an opposing candidate who is arguably a threat to the American Republic.

3. Whatever their intentions, we can all agree, I think, that it now goes down as one of history's epic failures.

[FireNexus]

I'm deeply skeptical of anything out of Wikileaks, but if its true that members of the DNC and the Clinton campaign deliberately promoted far Right candidates because they thought it would make the Republicans easier to beat, then they are both morally bankrupt and staggeringly incompetent.

And no one involved should ever hold any position in politics, elected or appointed, ever again.

Speaking of which, you know that the RNC was doing similar for Sanders, right? Ignoring him to focus on Hillary? And that both parties help out the Greens/Libertarians some in the hopes of spoiler effect?

Trying to get the other side to have a messy primary is actually a fairly normal tactic. You don't want the other side's worst to actually win, but you focus on the one you expect to have to actually face and not the kookoo you don't because that's *good* tactics... normally. The bad primary really did hurt Romney in 2012.


And keep in mind during the primary, many were terrified of a Cruz victory.

1. As someone else already noted, Cruz was one of the fuckers they were promoting.

2. Its one thing to promote a weak opposing candidate. It is another to promote an opposing candidate who is arguably a threat to the American Republic.

3. Whatever their intentions, we can all agree, I think, that it now goes down as one of history's epic failures.

Do you honestly think the GOP didn't consider Sanders a threat to the American Republic? They just thought (probably correctly) that the American people would never choose him. More, they likely assumed he had no chance in the primary and could be used to damage Clinton at no cost to them.

[cosmicalstorm]

Do you guys believe this Soros guy is actually paying for rioters? Whats that supposed to benefit anyone right now, they'll hardly dethrone Trump with some broken windows. Stopping cars in California... its almost as if Trump himself arranged the riots for his teams benefit.

[The Romulan Republic]

Speaking of which, you know that the RNC was doing similar for Sanders, right? Ignoring him to focus on Hillary? And that both parties help out the Greens/Libertarians some in the hopes of spoiler effect?

Trying to get the other side to have a messy primary is actually a fairly normal tactic. You don't want the other side's worst to actually win, but you focus on the one you expect to have to actually face and not the kookoo you don't because that's *good* tactics... normally. The bad primary really did hurt Romney in 2012.


And keep in mind during the primary, many were terrified of a Cruz victory.

1. As someone else already noted, Cruz was one of the fuckers they were promoting.

2. Its one thing to promote a weak opposing candidate. It is another to promote an opposing candidate who is arguably a threat to the American Republic.

3. Whatever their intentions, we can all agree, I think, that it now goes down as one of history's epic failures.

Do you honestly think the GOP didn't consider Sanders a threat to the American Republic? They just thought (probably correctly) that the American people would never choose him. More, they likely assumed he had no chance in the primary and could be used to damage Clinton at no cost to them.

Oh, they probably did think that, because the Republicans are deeply mired in the Red Scare mentality when it comes to socialism.

However, just because the Republicans do the same shit doesn't make it any more defensible (I think we can agree that the Republican Party is not a good role model).

And I would not consider the two situations comparable in any case, because whatever your personal opinion of Bernie Sanders, he never campaigned on promoting bigotry, incited violence from his supporters, or advocated undermining basic democratic institutions.

[Patroklos]

Oh, they probably did think that, because the Republicans are deeply mired in the Red Scare mentality when it comes to socialism.

I want you to read the above line. Really think about your posting from the last month. Then tell us if you understand why we are all either eye rolling (even if agreeing with you) or laughing at you.

[Elheru Aran]

Do you guys believe this Soros guy is actually paying for rioters? Whats that supposed to benefit anyone right now, they'll hardly dethrone Trump with some broken windows. Stopping cars in California... its almost as if Trump himself arranged the riots for his teams benefit.

The right-wing conspiracist underground really loves to blame liberal rich people for stuff like this. George Soros is a popular target of such. Warren Buffett is another, but he's American, so.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, they probably did think that, because the Republicans are deeply mired in the Red Scare mentality when it comes to socialism.

I want you to read the above line. Really think about your posting from the last month. Then tell us if you understand why we are all either eye rolling (even if agreeing with you) or laughing at you.

Their is nothing ridiculous about what I said- the fact that much of the American Right treats socialism of any kind as a boogey man is no secret.

If your point is that its hypocritical in light of my own fears about Trump and fascism, well, I would consider that a false equivalency. Socialism does not necessarily advocate violence or dictatorial policies. Both Trump and fascism did.

[FireNexus]

Oh, they probably did think that, because the Republicans are deeply mired in the Red Scare mentality when it comes to socialism.

I want you to read the above line. Really think about your posting from the last month. Then tell us if you understand why we are all either eye rolling (even if agreeing with you) or laughing at you.

Patroklos, I find you odious and despicable. But damn it if you weren't reading my motherfucking mind right here.

[Crown]

Do you guys believe this Soros guy is actually paying for rioters? Whats that supposed to benefit anyone right now, they'll hardly dethrone Trump with some broken windows. Stopping cars in California... its almost as if Trump himself arranged the riots for his teams benefit.

The right-wing conspiracist underground really loves to blame liberal rich people for stuff like this. George Soros is a popular target of such. Warren Buffett is another, but he's American, so.

Conspiracy theories are looking a lot less conspiracy post Podesta emails Wikileaks.

Anyway, MoveOn.org (owned by Soros) is almost certainly financing and organising the Trump protests via the local groups it already supports*, but I can't get from there to him personally directing rioting and destruction of property.



*When motherfuckers are having an 'organic' and 'grassroots' movement with professionally made signs within a day of the election, that tends to be a clue.

[Crazedwraith]

This happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djx3T9IEc1

Out of all the mainstream news outlets, CBS is the only one that has any coverage on it.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/11/10/ ... -attacked/
If you think this is acceptable in any way, you're just as bad as a KKK shitbag.

Did anyone here on the board in any way say or imply they might think this was acceptable?

Tilting at Windmills.

Also there's a possibility that that attack wasn't about politics at all. Snopes has it that it was argument about a traffic violation not politics.

Not that excuses the violence of course.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, they probably did think that, because the Republicans are deeply mired in the Red Scare mentality when it comes to socialism.

I want you to read the above line. Really think about your posting from the last month. Then tell us if you understand why we are all either eye rolling (even if agreeing with you) or laughing at you.

Patroklos, I find you odious and despicable. But damn it if you weren't reading my motherfucking mind right here.

Is it really necessary to go out of your way to give a pat on the back to every board member who ever insults or criticizes me, even if you disagree with them?

Or, you know, actually discuss the topic rather than trying to turn every discussion I am involved in into an attack on me personally?

[Elheru Aran]

This happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djx3T9IEc1

Out of all the mainstream news outlets, CBS is the only one that has any coverage on it.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/11/10/ ... -attacked/
If you think this is acceptable in any way, you're just as bad as a KKK shitbag.

Did anyone here on the board in any way say or imply they might think this was acceptable?

Tilting at Windmills.

Also there's a possibility that that attack wasn't about politics at all. Snopes has it that it was argument about a traffic violation not politics.

Not that excuses the violence of course.

There have been a couple of other incidents which are totally unconnected videos but still get posted as "pro Hillary crowd beats up Trump supporter" or whatever. Those have been floating around Facebook too.

I'm seeing the protests in general being described as 'rioting'... is that accurate in any way?

[Crazedwraith]

I'm no authority but I've seen reports of protests violent on the BBC which I consider pretty reliable. I couldn't speak to how wide spread any violence is or whether they're setting out intentionally the riot or peaceful protests escalating or what.

[Elheru Aran]

I'm no authority but I've seen reports of protests violent on the BBC which I consider pretty reliable. I couldn't speak to how wide spread any violence is or whether they're setting out intentionally the riot or peaceful protests escalating or what.

Yeah, that's the question. Are these a few unrelated incidents of protests getting out of hand across the country, or are they actually uniformly rioting as a body? Because I really don't think that's happening.

[Crown]

Also there's a possibility that that attack wasn't about politics at all. Snopes has it that it was argument about a traffic violation not politics.

Not that excuses the violence of course.

There have been a couple of other incidents which are totally unconnected videos but still get posted as "pro Hillary crowd beats up Trump supporter" or whatever. Those have been floating around Facebook too.

I'm seeing the protests in general being described as 'rioting'... is that accurate in any way?

Here's the victim's interview with the Chicago Tribune; YouTube.

[Crazedwraith]

Also there's a possibility that that attack wasn't about politics at all. Snopes has it that it was argument about a traffic violation not politics.

Not that excuses the violence of course.

There have been a couple of other incidents which are totally unconnected videos but still get posted as "pro Hillary crowd beats up Trump supporter" or whatever. Those have been floating around Facebook too.

I'm seeing the protests in general being described as 'rioting'... is that accurate in any way?

Here's the victim's interview with the Chicago Tribune; YouTube.

Ugh. Looking at that video. And then again at Snopes page which doesn't seem to be citing any checkable sources for the police report. Not outside the realm of possibility the guy is lying or embellishing the Trump side of things but it does appear more likely to be true than not.

[The Romulan Republic]

Their has been both rioting and peaceful protest. Of course some will attempt to paint all anti-Trump protesters as rioters for political reasons.

[FireNexus]

I want you to read the above line. Really think about your posting from the last month. Then tell us if you understand why we are all either eye rolling (even if agreeing with you) or laughing at you.

Patroklos, I find you odious and despicable. But damn it if you weren't reading my motherfucking mind right here.

Is it really necessary to go out of your way to give a pat on the back to every board member who ever insults or criticizes me, even if you disagree with them?

Or, you know, actually discuss the topic rather than trying to turn every discussion I am involved in into an attack on me personally?

Not necessary, but enjoyable. Also, the point is that you're hypocritically applying a separate standard to others because they disagree with you. The things you consider dangerous to democracy go without saying. That others might have a similar opinion of something you like gets dismissed. Essentially, their argument is invalid if it's made by someone who disagrees with you, but valid from you.

Then you point to a red scare mentality as evidence of this. Like, you. Of all people. Blaming a red scare mentality for your opponents behavior.

Political parties attempt to weaken the opposing parties with rhetoric. The people in the other side think that your ideology is as harmful as you think theirs is. Dismissing their point of view and declaring by fiat that yours is superior is fallacious. And frankly, it wouldn't have mattered if I'd gone directly to you and discussed the topic, because you'd have cried and shit your pants over someone challenging your position as a Serious Person.

[Q99]

1. As someone else already noted, Cruz was one of the fuckers they were promoting.

2. Its one thing to promote a weak opposing candidate. It is another to promote an opposing candidate who is arguably a threat to the American Republic.

3. Whatever their intentions, we can all agree, I think, that it now goes down as one of history's epic failures.

Keep in mind that a lot of Trump's most anti-democratic stuff came out during the general or later in the primary, early on we just knew he was anti-hispanic, which seemed like a good way to nail the whole party on being anti-hispanic- and really, everyone, *everyone* thought he'd be hilariously weaker than he ended up being.

It was a fairly standard move (and probably not one that had that much effect), that had incredibly non-standard results.

[mr friendly guy]

Well Clinton is blaming FBI director James Comey for her loss

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-13/h ... ss/8021082

[Q99]

And she is not wrong- I mean, 6 point drop in the last week, following his announcement. 1 point would've put her over.

We have not see a more blatant interference in a US election in our lifetimes.


Other stuff could've let her win despite that, but that is one of the big factor, very easy to argue the *biggest* factor.

[Flagg]

Well Clinton is blaming FBI director James Comey for her loss

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-13/h ... ss/8021082

She's right. It was a blatant move by Trump supporters within the FBI to bring up a settled matter that was rightly closed because there was no "there" there as if it was some kind of new bombshell evidence of wrongdoing when it was nothing of the sort, and they knew it.

That's why I said Obama needed (through the Attorney General) to clean house at the FBI starting with getting Comey's head on a spike (figuratively) before the election. Even then, I doubt a quadruple enema of the aptly named J. Edgar Hiter Hoover building likely wouldn't have made much of a difference.

But, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.