2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Simon_Jester]

A lot of people want their person to win more than they want to be 'sure' that the process was honest.

Some people are capable of saying "I want my person to win but that doesn't matter, I want all surety that the process was honest." However, this is rare.

[Crossroads Inc.]

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.

I think this just might be the most disturbing thing to take place since the Election of Rump himself...

Studies have shown again and again, that "Voter Fraud" is a virtually insignificantly TINY % of votes nation wide.
Of the millions upon millions of votes cast in past Presidential election, verifiable "fraud" cases are often able to be counted in double digits.
Again out of Million of voters "Verifiable" cases of fraud are often less than 100 nation wide.

Yet Trump on a daily basis has touted this claim of "Millions" of illegal voters being cast.
and it is disturbing, because it is being believed.
In right wing websites across the web, the lie is swallowed hook line and sinker. I over heard a co-worker today at lunch going on about hoe "Could Prove" how almost TWO MILLION votes for Hillary were done by Dead people and Illegal Immigrants,

poisoning of the faith in the election to this extant, all but guarantees the right in America will NEVER again except any election result that does not favor them.,

[Ralin]

All of which is why any liberal with an ounce of sense should respond with some variation of "My God Mister Trump, that's terrible! Let's recount the ballots immediately to make sure everything is kosher and make sure the evidence is ready for when you go after the people responsible!"

This does not seem to be the default response for some reason. That strikes me as a bad sign for multiple reasons.

[bilateralrope]

Trump’s election suddenly created an awful lot of international Trump-branded targets for terrorists (Washington Post)

By Philip Bump November 28 at 1:37 PM

At some point early in the morning on Nov. 9, it became obvious that authorities would need to build a fort in the center of Manhattan.

Well, the fort was already there — Trump Tower, at the intersection of 57th Street and Fifth Avenue. It just needed to be bolstered substantially, with the addition of sand-filled dump trucks at times (an effort to prevent vehicular attacks) and a permanent police cordon. CNN estimates that the effort to guard the president-elect's home costs the city $1 million a day. Pricey fort.

But there's another security consideration that may have dawned on folks along with the need to protect Trump's Gold House in Midtown: What about all of those Trump-owned and Trump-branded properties across the globe? Thanks to a hundred thousand voters in the Midwest, anything with the word “Trump” emblazoned across its front just became a huge possible target for international terrorists. What to do about those? Protecting Trump Tower is relatively easy. Protecting a Trump-branded resort in Indonesia is something else entirely, and raises a slew of questions. How? Who?

“Just from a pure protection perspective, it's going to be darn near impossible to try to carry out any sort of attack on Trump the president-elect or the White House or any high-value target,” Fred Burton of the security firm Stratfor told me when I spoke to him by phone Monday. “However, you certainly have a tremendous number of other branded properties around the globe that pretty much become then pushed into the soft-target arena.” Burton knows what he's talking about, having served as deputy chief of counterterrorism for the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service.

That sentiment was echoed by Chris Hagon, managing partner of Incident Management Group. Hagon formerly worked in the protective detail for the British Royal Family, as well as for the London police and in the private sector in the United States. Part of the problem for Trump, Hagon said, is that his long-standing marketing efforts conflict with the need to keep Trump-branded properties secure. “If you raise your visibility,” he said, “you can attract not only people who you want to see [it], but people who you don't want to see [it]. And some of those people may be inclined to act on it.”

Burton seized on Trump-branded hotels and resorts as particularly difficult to protect. Citing the attack at a hotel in Mumbai in 2008, he pointed out that hotels are in the business of making it easier for people to see how they operate. “Hotels are in many ways embassies of the future,” he said. “The perfect kind of soft-target set.”

“Anybody can rent a room as long as you have the money, and you can conduct a base of operations from your room,” Burton continued. “It presents a unique challenge from an insider threat perspective in that your customer has the opportunity to look at your target set online, can go in, rent a room, can walk the establishment and conduct a fairly comprehensive pre-operation surveillance package by just renting a night or two in the room.” What's more, hotels see huge amounts of other vulnerabilities. “You're dealing with outsourced guard contracts. You're dealing with a large number of deliveries every day. Trucks. You've got international foreign guests,” he said. “If I was saddled to write the threat assessment here, [hotels] would be first and foremost at the top of my list.”

For properties in the middle of cities, like the Trump Tower being constructed in the Philippines, the process is slightly different. Hagon suggests that most of these properties likely already have existing risk assessments looking at how vulnerable they might be to some sort of attack (a process that often begins before construction takes place). Protections for an office building could include measures such as additional mail screenings or enhanced surveillance technology — although Burton notes that this can add substantial cost.

External protections such as those at Manhattan's Trump Tower, though, may not be feasible everywhere. For example, one can establish perimeters around buildings requiring the screening of cars passing by. But that adds a huge inconvenience to local residents to offset a possible risk.

Burton notes, though, that there's an incentive for foreign governments to step up protection. “The last thing the Filipino police are going to want to have happen is something against a building in Manila,” he said. “They may take it upon themselves to enhance patrol coverage and fixed-post coverage and things like that” to defend Trump properties under their jurisdiction. It's also the case that the United States has been actively training foreign law enforcement agencies on terror prevention since 9/11. “Now is the time that you call in those chits,” he said.

It's probably not the case that the United States will deploy resources specifically to protect Trump-branded assets (unless Trump himself is visiting the asset or the country). But behind the scenes, the State Department has an existing process in place to take information gathered by our intelligence agencies and disseminate it to international business interests.

“The term is 'protective intelligence,' " Burton said. “In order to stay current on all threats against your president, you're going to be aggressively looking for global threats. Therefore, once those are collected, the process of dissemination and response is pretty darn good in our post-9/11 world.” The escalated threat is “not lost upon the intelligence community,” he added. Information about possible threats would be “very rapidly pushed out through liaison channels through the Secret Service intelligence division to Trump's corporate security empire.”

But, once again, we get into another sort of question: Where does deploying government resources to protect Trump the president end and protecting Trump the brand begin?

“Some of this stuff is bordering on a conflict,” IMG's Hagon said. “I think that's yet to be resolved in that situation. I'm not sure how that would be resolved.”

“It's unusual,” he added. “Or unprecedented, maybe.”

Even if nothing else is certain, that is.

Another potential conflict of interest for Trump.

On the up side, this might mean less civilian deaths from terrorist attacks if terrorist groups decide to go for whatever will hurt Trump more over maximising civilian deaths. On the down side, this means more chance of Trump reacting before thinking.

[The Romulan Republic]

All of which is why any liberal with an ounce of sense should respond with some variation of "My God Mister Trump, that's terrible! Let's recount the ballots immediately to make sure everything is kosher and make sure the evidence is ready for when you go after the people responsible!"

This does not seem to be the default response for some reason. That strikes me as a bad sign for multiple reasons.

Probably because its so ridiculous and liberals don't want to be seen as validating it for the sake of calling his bluff.

Especially when "millions of illegal voters" is pretty much just code for "don't let them brown people vote".

[Simon_Jester]

All of which is why any liberal with an ounce of sense should respond with some variation of "My God Mister Trump, that's terrible! Let's recount the ballots immediately to make sure everything is kosher and make sure the evidence is ready for when you go after the people responsible!"

This does not seem to be the default response for some reason. That strikes me as a bad sign for multiple reasons.

Probably because its so ridiculous and liberals don't want to be seen as validating it for the sake of calling his bluff.

Especially when "millions of illegal voters" is pretty much just code for "don't let them brown people vote".

Wouldn't it be lovely if our candidates had excellent, extensively documented grounds to just say "this guy is lying about this, this, and this" every damn day? That's the kind of thing that you can spin into an election-winning advantage if you are even vaguely trying.

All of which is why any liberal with an ounce of sense should respond with some variation of "My God Mister Trump, that's terrible! Let's recount the ballots immediately to make sure everything is kosher and make sure the evidence is ready for when you go after the people responsible!"

This does not seem to be the default response for some reason. That strikes me as a bad sign for multiple reasons.

It reflects a profound, staggering lack of collective cunning on the part of American liberals. Which is a very sad thing.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not saying they're right. Just that I can understand why they might be so wrong.

[Broomstick]

On the up side, this might mean less civilian deaths from terrorist attacks if terrorist groups decide to go for whatever will hurt Trump more over maximising civilian deaths. On the down side, this means more chance of Trump reacting before thinking.

I don't think some of the terrorist groups in the world today are interested in minimizing civilian deaths. If anything, they want to maximize civilian deaths.

[cosmicalstorm]

He won the state of Michigan now? I didn't know there were states left to count.

[FireNexus]

He won the state of Michigan now? I didn't know there were states left to count.

It wasn't really in dispute, but it was considered too close to call due to the margin, demographics, and the number of outstanding provisional ballots.

[Simon_Jester]

On the up side, this might mean less civilian deaths from terrorist attacks if terrorist groups decide to go for whatever will hurt Trump more over maximising civilian deaths. On the down side, this means more chance of Trump reacting before thinking.

I don't think some of the terrorist groups in the world today are interested in minimizing civilian deaths. If anything, they want to maximize civilian deaths.

That seems to be pretty much what he said.

Also, yeah, this does present a major conflict of interest, among other things because it gives the State Department an incentive to protect Trump businesses more than they'd protect other businesses. And it's not like Trump's going to quietly withdraw his name from things to reduce the risk to them.

[Gandalf]

On the up side, this might mean less civilian deaths from terrorist attacks if terrorist groups decide to go for whatever will hurt Trump more over maximising civilian deaths. On the down side, this means more chance of Trump reacting before thinking.

I don't think some of the terrorist groups in the world today are interested in minimizing civilian deaths. If anything, they want to maximize civilian deaths.

That seems to be pretty much what he said.

Also, yeah, this does present a major conflict of interest, among other things because it gives the State Department an incentive to protect Trump businesses more than they'd protect other businesses. And it's not like Trump's going to quietly withdraw his name from things to reduce the risk to them.

It makes me wonder if we'll see increased foreign investment in various Trump businesses from people who want PoTUS's time and attention. It's like the accusations about the Clinton Foundation, but without any of that silly charity business. All profits, all the time under Grand Nagus Trump!

[Patroklos]

On the up side, this might mean less civilian deaths from terrorist attacks if terrorist groups decide to go for whatever will hurt Trump more over maximising civilian deaths. On the down side, this means more chance of Trump reacting before thinking.

You do understand Trump primarily owns hotels rather than say, things not full of hundreds to thousands of random civilians, right?

[Simon_Jester]

Bombing a hotel may kill fewer random civilians than bombing some other place or event. But it would be a pretty narrow matter of degree.

[bilateralrope]

On the up side, this might mean less civilian deaths from terrorist attacks if terrorist groups decide to go for whatever will hurt Trump more over maximising civilian deaths. On the down side, this means more chance of Trump reacting before thinking.

I don't think some of the terrorist groups in the world today are interested in minimizing civilian deaths. If anything, they want to maximize civilian deaths.

But now they are going to have a choice:
- Maximise civilian deaths
- Attack assets that are linked to the President of the United States.

They might think that the second option will hurt the US more.

Then there is this thought process:
- The President is likely to visit this country at some point
- His ego means that he will demand to stay in a Trump hotel.
- Thus we should start infiltrating the hotel now, before the trip is even planned.

Bombing a hotel may kill fewer random civilians than bombing some other place or event. But it would be a pretty narrow matter of degree.

True.

[Darmalus]

If you want a one-term Trump presidency, hope for a boring, violence free 4 years where there's no distraction from Trump shooting his mouth off and the Democrats manage to pull their heads out of their asses by 2020. If you want a solid red government and Trump to get re-elected, pray for terrorist attacks.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sadly, I cannot imagine that we get through four years without a single major terrorist attack, especially with President Moron the Muslim Basher as President.

[Simon_Jester]

Darmalus is right, but sadly, TRR is right too.

I'm also worried about right-wing domestic terrorism. Not so much directed against the government (since the neo-Nazis and the KKK and the Bundy-Teaist types now have their man in the White House), but against minorities and political opposition (for the same reason). How the government responds to that, and how the mainstream political climate responds, is one of the big X-factors of the next four years in my opinion.

[ArmorPierce]

If you want a one-term Trump presidency, hope for a boring, violence free 4 years where there's no distraction from Trump shooting his mouth off and the Democrats manage to pull their heads out of their asses by 2020. If you want a solid red government and Trump to get re-elected, pray for terrorist attacks.

I don't think Donald Trump is going to run for a second term regardless.

I don't think he actually wants to continue the work required to be president. I project him bowing out saying that he accomplished all that he needed to and endorsing someone else.

[Ralin]

I don't think Donald Trump is going to run for a second term regardless.

Did you think he was going to get a first term?

[ArmorPierce]

I don't think Donald Trump is going to run for a second term regardless.

Did you think he was going to get a first term?

Yes actually, I thought that it was a very real possibility once Hillary secured the nomination and the democratic party brushed off appealing to young people, and actually did everything they could to restrain a populism candidate (Bernie Sanders) just making people apathetic.

Hillary Clinton had 0 energy despite attempting to connect her campaign to feminism and running news segments on how her mother had a humble upbringing.

[Ralin]

Yes actually, I thought that it was a very real possibility once Hillary secured the nomination and the democratic party brushed off appealing to young people, and actually did everything they could to restrain a populism candidate (Bernie Sanders) just making people apathetic.

Hillary Clinton had 0 energy despite attempting to connect her campaign to feminism and running news segments on how her mother had a humble upbringing.

Fair enough then.

My confidence in my judgment about these things is at a low point, personally.

[SCRawl]

I really didn't see a Trump presidency coming -- he's a joke, IMHO, but I guess enough people got it to get him elected. I too thought that Sanders was a better bet, though I was concerned about the hay the right would make with his being a self-styled socialist.

I also don't see a second Trump term coming, even if he wants one, which I doubt. Either he will govern like he campaigned, and will therefore be so awful that only his most rabid core of supporters will vote for him, or he won't govern like he campaigned, in which case that constituency will stay home. And I can't see a way to cut the baby in half here.

[Patroklos]

Can we unsticky some of these election threads now? N&P is pretty cluttered.

[ArmorPierce]

Another projection.

The trump administration is going to heat up the economy with the injection of one-time stimulus through deregulation (at the expense of long-term productivity) and infrastructure projects resulting to enough people doing well enough financially that most will temporarily forget about the underlying fundamental problems such as growing wealth disparity. It will be the go go 90s all over gain.