2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm "insulated" because I don't fantasize about how great it would be if we could kill... how many votes did Trump get?

Ah, about 60 million, looks like.

Just a little shy of the entire death toll of WWII

So blow me yourself. I will not be polite to people who fantasize about great it would be if we could commit mass murder on a scale that would make Hitler jealous.

Edit: Especially since, while you may call it a pipe dream, if enough people say "wouldn't it be great if...", eventually, someone's going to upgrade that to "Maybe we should..."

We have enough domestic terrorism, thanks.

Fuckhead, I said I would laugh at the sort of scumfucks who would LITERALLY TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTEST A RECOUNT THAT DIDN'T GO IN THEIR FAVOR being killed by the police and military. You're 'insulated' because you are exactly the sort of privileged liberal who is well off enough to go on about how we have to respect the process and not stoop to the GOP's level and all that shit because you personally don't have a damned reason to expect that you'll be physically threatened by Trump's administration.

And now I've actually used the word 'privilege' non-ironically, so fuck you for that too.

Actually, while I am admittedly not at the top of the list of people most likely to be hurt by Trump, I consider a Trump administration a threat, directly or indirectly, to the economic and physical security of every single person on this planet.

And if your argument is "You don't agree with me that we should be as bad as the worst of the Republicans, therefore you are privileged, therefore you are wrong"... I call that an ad hominem.

Moreover, you used the following words: "No, fantasizing about the deaths of the racist, transphobic born-again shits who voted for Trump so they won't have the chance to cause more harm in the future is not 'low'..."

Emphasis mine.

Nothing in their about only wishing for an excuse to kill the ones who would actually use violence.

If you did not state what you actually meant, surely that's on you, asshole.

[Ralin]

Actually, while I am admittedly not at the top of the list of people most likely to be hurt by Trump, I consider a Trump administration a threat, directly or indirectly, to the economic and physical security of every single person on this planet.

You're not disabled. You haven't been homeless. You aren't gay or a transgender woman. Outside of the chicken little bullshit people keep mocking you for you are not in danger of being physically harmed by a Trump presidency. The fact that you're so short on real problems that you feel the need to indulge in said chicken little bullshit makes that goddamn clear to everyone who reads your posts.

And if your argument is "You don't agree with me that we should be as bad as the worst of the Republicans, therefore you are privileged, therefore you are wrong"... I call that an ad hominem.

Learn to read, stupid.

Nothing in their about only wishing for an excuse to kill the ones who would actually use violence.

If you did not state what you actually meant, surely that's on you, asshole.

The Donnie Douchebag crowd would likely take up arms. I'm not even kidding.

At this point I'd be pretty thrilled if they did. Anything to reduce that demographic in future elections.

Yeah I know that's a tough guy fantasy, but a man can dream.

Learn to read, stupid.

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually, while I am admittedly not at the top of the list of people most likely to be hurt by Trump, I consider a Trump administration a threat, directly or indirectly, to the economic and physical security of every single person on this planet.

You're not disabled. You haven't been homeless. You aren't gay or a transgender woman. Outside of the chicken little bullshit people keep mocking you for you are not in danger of being physically harmed by a Trump presidency. The fact that you're so short on real problems that you feel the need to indulge in said chicken little bullshit makes that goddamn clear to everyone who reads your posts.

Oh joy, another asshat who thinks they can chant "chicken little" like its a fucking talisman that automatically discredits anything I say without the need for an actual argument.

Also, I have never, to my recollection, discussed my sexual orientation, or weather or not I have ever been disabled or homeless, on this forum (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). So it looks like you are making some pretty massive assumptions about me, in the furtherance of "you're privileged, therefore your argument is automatically wrong" argument- which again, for the record, I consider an ad hominem fallacy, since you are attacking the personality of your opponent rather than their argument.

And yes, even barring the worst case scenarios like nuclear war (which, smug complacency aside, is a possibility as long as nuclear weapons exist, and one that is likely increased when an incompetent sociopath is in control of the US), Trump will undoubtably wreak severe economic harm that will affect the security and standard of living of people all over the globe. He will also likely increase the degree of conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, which will increase the number of terror attacks. And hey, I'm just as mortal to a car bomb if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time as anyone else.

Like I said. I am not the worst off. But I am not immune.

I don't "need to indulge" in fear of what Trump could bring. I get no pleasure from it. I'd be manifestly happier were he not in the Oval Office.

I simply don't rest secure in the smug complacency that nothing really bad can ever happy.

Plus, you know, I do actually give a shit about all the people who are not as well off as me. Who would undoubtably be targets in the armed uprising scenario you're wanking over.

Learn to read, stupid.

I read it. I also read, and quoted, your subsequent elaboration on it.

Learn to read, stupid.

Learn not to wish for bloodbaths to advance your political agenda.

I don't see much point in continuing this, since its pretty much just you hurling insults, assumptions, nitpicking, and fallacies because I objected to something absolutely repugnant that you said. But I'm not going to apologize for thinking that you're acting like a piece of shit.

[Ralin]

Also, I have never, to my recollection, discussed my sexual orientation, or weather or not I have ever been disabled or homeless, on this forum (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

No, but it's a pretty safe bet that you aren't given your need to invent chicken little shit to scream about.

Plus, you know, I do actually give a shit about all the people who are not as well off as me.

Learn not to wish for bloodbaths to advance your political agenda.

No, you don't. If you did you wouldn't be tripping over yourself to condemn someone fantasizing over some of the scum who back Trump being killed through their own stupidity.

Who would undoubtably be targets in the armed uprising scenario you're wanking over.

Dear idiot: that is already happening. Were you actually in danger due to a Trump presidency you would realize this. See above about being privileged and not having any skin in the game personally.

I don't see much point in continuing this, since its pretty much just you hurling insults, assumptions, nitpicking, and fallacies because I objected to something absolutely repugnant that you said. But I'm not going to apologize for thinking that you're acting like a piece of shit.

This is just hilarious coming from someone who just took it upon himself to police the horror of someone of fantasizing about bad things happening to bad people because of their own stupidity and hypothetical crimes.

[Terralthra]

I will fly you to Canada if you two will just make out in private instead of continuing the public foreplay.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not all hostility is sexual tension.

Sometimes its just plain old contempt.

[jwl]

Ralin, just stop, calm down, have a cup of tea, and have a think about the things you are advocating here. When the fog has cleared, I think you'll find you didn't actually mean it.

[Broomstick]

Actually, while I am admittedly not at the top of the list of people most likely to be hurt by Trump, I consider a Trump administration a threat, directly or indirectly, to the economic and physical security of every single person on this planet.

You're not disabled. You haven't been homeless. You aren't gay or a transgender woman. Outside of the chicken little bullshit people keep mocking you for you are not in danger of being physically harmed by a Trump presidency. The fact that you're so short on real problems that you feel the need to indulge in said chicken little bullshit makes that goddamn clear to everyone who reads your posts.

Excuse me? Since when do you have to be a member of an oppressed minority to have empathy for an oppressed minority? Since when do you have to be a member of an oppressed minority to advocate for an oppressed minority?

Don't attack your allies! How fucking stupid are you? Or is it some bizarre fog of emotion? You're calling someone to task because he is concerned about other people? WTF?

Yeah, TRR goes a bit overboard - you know, I wish I had the time, energy, and luxury to indulge in worrying about other people to the extent he does. I don't. I'm too fucking busy struggling to survive and keep me and my disabled spouse from being among the homeless. So, Ralin, speaking as someone who really MIGHT be adversely affected by the incoming administration stop shitting on people who actually give a damn about the "oppressed minorities". Or at least stop shitting on them for caring - you want to criticize how he acts (or doesn't) in response to that caring have at it, but fuck off if you're going to act like caring about others is something negative.

[Ralin]

Ralin, just stop, calm down, have a cup of tea, and have a think about the things you are advocating here. When the fog has cleared, I think you'll find you didn't actually mean it.

I haven't advocated anything. Did you even read the post that started this?

Yeah, TRR goes a bit overboard - you know, I wish I had the time, energy, and luxury to indulge in worrying about other people to the extent he does. I don't. I'm too fucking busy struggling to survive and keep me and my disabled spouse from being among the homeless. So, Ralin, speaking as someone who really MIGHT be adversely affected by the incoming administration stop shitting on people who actually give a damn about the "oppressed minorities". Or at least stop shitting on them for caring - you want to criticize how he acts (or doesn't) in response to that caring have at it, but fuck off if you're going to act like caring about others is something negative.

The point is that the fact that he feels the need to get on his high horse and condemn someone for what I outright said was a pipe dream about hardcore Trump supporters getting smacked down for hypothetically taking up arms against the government says a lot about how much he actually cares about or is affected by any of this, as opposed to latching onto it as a pretext to posture and engage in histrionics.

[Simon_Jester]

Given that TRR has been repeatedly chewed out for talking about political violence in the US as if it is a possibility, I for one can't see it making sense to condemn him when he opposes such violence and views it with alarm.

At that point, we're yelling at him because of who he is, not because of what his opinions are.

[jwl]

I haven't advocated anything. Did you even read the post that started this?

What it sounded like you were saying was that you were hoping trump supporters would get riled into an armed revolution so that a large percentage of them would get killed. If you're backtracking from that then excellent, it would be nice if you were more explicit about it though.

[Ralin]

What it sounded like you were saying was that you were hoping trump supporters would get riled into an armed revolution so that a large percentage of them would get killed. If you're backtracking from that then excellent, it would be nice if you were more explicit about it though.

Hoping for it implies I think it's likely. I'd damned well celebrate their deaths if it happened, and I make no apologies for that.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll admit I was probably harsher than I needed to be in my response, so I'll apologize for that.

But I am so God damned tired of people talking about how great it would be if more Americans were killing each other in the streets. Political violence, and especially civil war (political violence taken to its ultimate conclusion) are nightmares that no sane person would wish for, are antithetical to democracy (any situation where they would be justified would be one were, among other factors, the democratic process had already utterly broken down), and having spent over eight years condemning and hating it from the Right, I'm not going to be okay with it because its "my side" doing it.

Even if, hypothetically, we reached a point where large scale violent conflict had broken out, or was necessary (and we are, mercifully, a long way from that now), I would view it as a grim necessity, not something to celebrate.

[Napoleon the Clown]

The notion that enough of Trump's followers would engage in armed rebellion to impact futures elections is, frankly, moronic. There just aren't that many who have the level of devotion and bravery (however wrong-headed the bravery is) required to take up arms over the election. Many more would whine and do what they can to obstruct, and there would likely be backlash against the Democrats.

Desiring to see people take up arms over this so that they could be purged is fucked up, because all it would accomplish is sow seeds of ill-will and get people killed. It would be senseless violence that would have no chance of achieving any goals beyond death.

[Ralin]

The notion that enough of Trump's followers would engage in armed rebellion to impact futures elections is, frankly, moronic. There just aren't that many who have the level of devotion and bravery (however wrong-headed the bravery is) required to take up arms over the election. Many more would whine and do what they can to obstruct, and there would likely be backlash against the Democrats.

Desiring to see people take up arms over this so that they could be purged is fucked up, because all it would accomplish is sow seeds of ill-will and get people killed. It would be senseless violence that would have no chance of achieving any goals beyond death.

I really don't know how many times I have to reiterate that this is a pipe dream that I know won't happen for numerous reasons. In terms of venting people have done here about major political shit they don't like over the years I think a variation on wanting to see Trumpists engage in a large-scale Darwin award is pretty mild, comparatively speaking.

[Block]

The notion that enough of Trump's followers would engage in armed rebellion to impact futures elections is, frankly, moronic. There just aren't that many who have the level of devotion and bravery (however wrong-headed the bravery is) required to take up arms over the election. Many more would whine and do what they can to obstruct, and there would likely be backlash against the Democrats.

Desiring to see people take up arms over this so that they could be purged is fucked up, because all it would accomplish is sow seeds of ill-will and get people killed. It would be senseless violence that would have no chance of achieving any goals beyond death.

I really don't know how many times I have to reiterate that this is a pipe dream that I know won't happen for numerous reasons. In terms of venting people have done here about major political shit they don't like over the years I think a variation on wanting to see Trumpists engage in a large-scale Darwin award is pretty mild, comparatively speaking.

Replace Trumpists with liberals in your statement. Think how you'd feel about the person making such a statement.

[jwl]

Or indeed, for that note, Muslims.

[bilateralrope]

Trump's calling the recount a scam.

If a single state flips, his breakdown should be entertaining. If all three flip, even better.

There has not been any hacking. The suggestions of irregularities have been statisticians saying "it's unlikely but why not check?" I hope I'm wrong, but this is just likely to be late denialism. If there was actual hacking, we'd have heard all about it on the 9th.

How exactly would people have noticed hacking on the 9th ?


Techdirt discussed this. Including some information about one of the people who is suggesting that a recount should happen:

But, of course, everything is upside down this year. Trump won... and now suddenly some Clinton supporters are arguing that e-voting machines may have been hacked. Now, to be clear, I wouldn't even bring up this story at all under most circumstances. Even as I don't trust e-voting machines, stories of actual hacked elections tend to be the kind of thing that conspiracy theory kooks pass around, rather than anything substantiated in any real way. What's giving some people pause this time around, is that one of the people claiming that the votes in some states may have been hacked is J. Alex Halderman.

Halderman is legit. He's basically the guy who studies how hackable e-voting machines are. We've been writing about Halderman since he was just a Princeton student, and hacking DRM systems. But he's been hacking e-voting machines for almost as long. And he's really, really good at it. Remember the story of the e-voting machine that was reprogrammed to play Pac-Man? That was Alex Halderman.

Why do you trust the voting machines to be accurate ?

If it were to happen that the presidency gets swapped, would Hillary even accept the presidency, or would she just reactivate another election? I'm not sure if she would want to set a precedent like this.

If the state flips, that means that the original vote count was inaccurate. Why would a precedent of rejecting an inaccurate count in favour of an accurate count be a bad one to set ?

Mistakes happen when counting votes. Don't some states have laws that state that a recount is automatic if the election is close enough ?

[bilateralrope]

Sorry for the delay in my response. I work 12 hour shifts on a 4 days on, 4 days off schedule. So there are days when I don't have time to respond.

Why do people in rural areas deserve to have their votes count for more than people in urban areas ?

We are talking about electing a single person for a single position. There is no way to get someone who represents everyone.

They shouldn't count for more but urban votes shouldn't be able to automatically win any vote as they would in most popular votes because of their higher numbers.

We are talking about electing a single person to a single position. You either have the presidency going to whoever gets the most votes, or you have some voters counting more than others. The only other option is to remove the position of the President.

Why should people in a few physical areas be able to tell the rest of the country, a majority of the physical country, what to do (unless they are the government)? To decide what happens for people in completely different areas with different interests and aims? To completely disregard alot of states and people because they have less people? Because thats how it would be with a majority only vote.

The "tyranny of the majority" argument. Making some people have their votes count more than others doesn't fix that, it just risks replacing majority with a minority made up of whoever has their votes count more.

So rural hicks and rednecks and whatever other semi-slurs people call them need a voice too. So they are going to have a disproportionate voice to make themselves heard.

There is no other way that I can think of (admittedly not the sharpest sword in the toolbox) to get something close to fairness, to allow urban and rural locations to have equal standing.

Instead of giving all the power to a single person, give it to a group of people. That way different people/parties can represent different groups. Some represent urban areas, some rural.

In other words, leave representing the low population areas to the Senate/Congress. Checks and balances. Stop thinking of the presidency as the only position that matters.

They shouldn't have equal standing you moron. 1 person 1 vote. If the flyover states get a sad, oh well.

So... if California decides it wants the water in the Great Lakes and can convince New York that's a good idea you're OK with draining them dry, right? The East Coast needs oil - well, let's just frack the hell out of Oklahoma - what's that, Oklahoma, you no longer have water fit to drink, and you're annoyed by all those earthquakes caused by shifting shit around underground? Suck it up, buttercup, we outnumber you so we can come fuck your shit up.

Is that how you want things to run?

Effective checks and balances are necessary. But I don't see how making some peoples votes worth more than other people when selecting the president can provide any effective checks or balances, because it doesn't change how much power the president has. It only changes who the president cares about when making campaign promises.

Effective checks come from:
- Limiting what laws the Federal government can pass.
- Representatives of smaller states preventing laws they don't want getting through the Senate/Congress.
Maybe some other methods.

[bilateralrope]

Trump is still complaining about illegal votes.

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

So on one side we have people saying that the vote might have been hacked. Thus they want a recount to make sure.

On the other side we have Trump. Who is certain that the vote was rigged, but doesn't want a recount.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, we all know that "millions of people who voted illegally" is basically just code for "don't let minorities vote".

[Kingmaker]

If it were to happen that the presidency gets swapped, would Hillary even accept the presidency, or would she just reactivate another election? I'm not sure if she would want to set a precedent like this.

Why would it trigger another election? The electoral college can still elect Hillary in December. Hell, they can elect Bernie Sanders or Mitt Romney, or any other natural born US citizen over the age of 35. In the event that PA, MI, and WI popular votes flip and those states send democratic electors instead, and Hillary/Kaine wins the EC, but Hillary decides to refuse (for whatever reason), then Kaine becomes President on inauguration day.

[Napoleon the Clown]

The most likely result I can see, if any of the counts are wrong, would be one state. I don't see there being enough states that would flip from a recount for it to result in Hillary getting to 270. Best we can realistically hope for, and it's a long shot, would be for Trump to fall under the 270 mark and Congress picking someone who's more stable.

Honestly, I see faithless electors as being more likely than recounts changing who won what.

[bilateralrope]

If it's an accidental miscount, I agree that a recount is unlikely to flip all three for Clinton.

If it's an intentionally wrong count, say because the voting machines were hacked, that's a different story. Why do people trust voting machines to resist hackers ?

If they weren't hacked, a recount proves that their result was accurate. Also a good thing.

[Gandalf]

If it's an intentionally wrong count, say because the voting machines were hacked, that's a different story. Why do people trust voting machines to resist hackers ?

As I understand it, there's a big fear that the Demmycrats will keep finding/fabricating lost paper ballots until such time as their guy gets across the line.