2016 Presidential Election Thread

Where did I assume that? You're too obsessed with thinking everything is about you.

Mind you, your intellect level is appropriate.....

Donald Trump campaigned on appointing Supreme Court Justices that would strip away Rights, such as overturning Roe v Wade. He campaigned on banning Muslims from entering the United States (even Citizens who leave). He campaigned on muzzling the Press. He campaigned having a nationwide Deportation Force to round up 10 Million Illegal Mexican Immigrants divide up the daily Deportation of 10 Million people over a 4 year, or even an 8 year period, that is absolutely Draconian. He campaigned on Trade Wars. He campaigned on stripping Insurance away from Millions of people who will no longer be able to qualify for it, let along afford it. And that doesn't even address his lack of a Filter, inability to be humble or admit to being wrong, all of which can be catastrophic on the World Stage, nor does even address the acceptability he brought to Bigotry and bullying. We have no reason to believe he won't live up to (or at least attempt to) his Campaign Promises, a whole lot of people are in for a living Hell.

Yeah, that totally wasn't a response to me, even though you'd directly quoted me.

LA Times politics

Our final map has Clinton winning with 352 electoral votes. Compare your picks with ours.



Can the mods add a button so I can just repost that with one click, because that's never going to get old.

And it gets worse, because almost half the country thinks these are good things.

Deporting illegals is good if one cares about law and order. Preventing terrorism is a great thing and, yes, fewer muslims means leas terrorism. Fact.

You can cry about those facts all you want but they are still facts.

Haven't most, if not all, of the terrorist attacks carried out on US soil by Muslims been carried out by US citizens that are Muslims?

Depends if you go by attempts or casualties.

No, none of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens, the guy and his wife in L. A. were one immigrant with citizenship and his mail order bride without citizenship neither of whom should have ever been allowed in to begin with. The precautionary principle is how you deal with high risk groups, you just say no unless you are absolutely positive.

Oh yeah. I forgot about that one.

I thought this thread was interesting.



(Sorry, native Twitter mangles her replies to herself. A phone app is probably the best way to read.)

Sorry, but the alt-right was the least likely to hide their support for Trump. It was the Trump supporters who were surrounded by vicious, condescending, judgmental, narrow minded Hillary voters who hid their support.

or maybe people voted for him because they just hate the fuck out of Democrats and liberals. Or because they think it's wrong to elect a known criminal and generally untrustworthy person over an unknown (if admittedly unpolished) upstart.

And over half the country wanted to elect a known criminal/shyster - what's your point? BTW how is your health insurance? Does it cover your obviously MASSIVE butt-hurt city boy?
Seems you might have drank plenty of that "fear flavored" kool-aid. You blue wall folks love that shit!

None of those around here. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Trump Pence sign.

If you've got dead cats then you've certainly got at least some Hillary supporters in the area.

I know this is about politics and is a serious business and that I'm a terrible, terrible person, but she's hot!

So sorry.

If people elect such a person simply because they hate the opposition then that says more about them than it does the opposition.

Dutch health insurance is pretty good...

Extremists Celebrate Historic Trump Victory

No, not those extremists.

I mean yeah, those extremists too, but I'm talking about different extremists.

Oh my, generalize hyperbolic much? When was the trial? You know that's kind of a requirement for determining whether somebody is a criminal, right? Actually, you probably don't. As for butt hurt, I'll be okay. I'm a white male with good income in a blue state, my life isn't directly impacted by most of the bullshit Trump has said he would do. That doesn't make him a good choice for the country, though, just because I'm secure as an individual. On health care, yeah, my insurance is solid, so Trump won't be able to take that away (blue state, remember). You should probably check in to the VA regarding your obvious head trauma, though.

Actually, that's a lie, gul. State color red/blue has nothing to do with anything.

You have great health coverage because you're in the professional class. I remember. In government work before I joined the private sector suits, there was a checklist of plans with deductibles/premiums/items covered details, and you check a box, and once I joined private sector it was all paid by the employer as part of my compensation. The problem in US has always been that health insurance is linked to employment, and it's not portable (can't take it from one job, through period of unemployment, to next job). [and of course we recall it was government imposed WWII salary price controls that led to the linkage in the first place, unintended bummer.]

Besides, as email-gate revealed, O-care was (from inception) planned to fail as a misdirection sneak to a single payer government plan.

Can you elaborate? I'm sure it's been talked about before, but I don't remember. Why exactly is our health care tied to employment? It does seem quite arbitrary and is a huge pain in the ass when you switch jobs.

You and your peeps are in my mind whenever I consider the other side of the ACA equation - it's nice to have a personal face for some of its beneficiaries and I know that I've sounded cold and hard hearted in my dismissal of its positive effects. : (

Anyway, all our manpower in US was fighting the war overseas, so the women and remaining men were more expensive to hire. To "fix" rising wage rates the fedgov set wage controls. But competition for labor - can't pay more - resulted in health insurance benefits being offered to compensate in place of more cash. After five years it became commonplace through most industries, and we never really looked back, maybe because of our mentality from the nature of our fedgov (only supposed to have the powers specifically granted - the rest is up to the states). But whatever the reason, national policy never broke the linkage and tried to rationalize state-by-state legislation as it did with things like securities or occupational safety etc.

No worries. With the current state of affairs, you're a giver by force. I am too, though to a lesser degree because I don't employ others. But I get it. Like I said before, it's just too personal for me to be objective. My sister is walking around with holes in her bones from the cancer and I just want her to live more than I care about anyone else or their money. I see people gaming the system to get on disability for the most random bullshit and I look at her being denied and having to work full time in all that pain and it just kills me. Our system is so, so broken.

Anyway...

Interesting - thanks.

Was she tried and convicted? Remember, we live in a country that supposedly embraces the concept of innocence until proven guilt. Despite what the court of public opinion and the court of political opposition have stated, Hillary Clinton has not been proven guilty.

She's a known criminal. She admits she committed acts that are clear felonies that would put any of the other 330,000,000 Americans in federal prison. But Obama wouldn't let anyone in the justice system touch her because she is above the law.

On this aspect, you're as delusional as the anti-Trump protesters refusing to accept he won.

Did she or did she not move classified information from a secure government system to an insecure private system, whether by accident or intent?

If yes, she committed a felony punishable by ten years in federal prison - per offense.

But I'm sure A FEMALE PRESIDENT would not have upset Muslim nations at all.....nope, not one bit.