2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Simon_Jester]

I'm not sure we can one-time stimulate the economy that way a second time, ArmorPierce.

Plus, it's been several years since the last recession, and the fundamentals may well take a cyclic downturn on Trump anyway. His tools for fighting that are pretty limited, especially with Republicans in Congress.

...

Hm. This may be stupid, but...

Trump might actually have been better off if the Democrats held Congress. Because he doesn't really have much partisan loyalty himself.

Republicans will rubberstamp his actions as long as he toes the party line, but that limits the range of things he can actually do. If Paul Ryan suddenly turns around and stops being a deficit hawk because that's what Trump wants, the congressional Republican caucus will turn into an eight-car pileup.

If Democrats were in Congress, he could make win-win arrangements with them that he would be able to pitch to the general public as "I'm a big decisive swaggering badass, I do what works and I don't give a shit about partisanship." Sort of the same card Chris Christie played that made him a party golden boy for a while. He might actually win more respect from independent voters and certain types of Democrats than he'd lose from the far right that way.

I know this sounds totally weird, and maybe I'm wrong, but it occurs to me that if Trump isn't actually a total moron (or so narcissistic he might as well be), then he's positioned himself to make a pivot to the center more effectively than any Republican presidential candidate in as long as I can remember. Except that by dragging the Republicans into strong Congressional majorities with the coattail effect, he's in a poor position to actually make that shift, even if it were advantageous for him to do so.

[Dominus Atheos]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opini ... .html?_r=0

Senator Clinton, in Pander Mode

DEC. 7, 2005

Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag.

The punishment? One year in prison and/or a $100,000 fine. No loss of citizenship though, so there's that.

I apologize for all the times I called Hillary Clinton the 2nd worst candidate to be nominated for the presidency in recent memory. As it turns out, she was actually the 1st worst.

[bilateralrope]

About Trump considering Petraeus for secretary of state:

Petraeus will have to notify his probation officer if Trump taps him as secretary of state

Washington (CNN)If President-elect Donald Trump taps former Gen. David Petraeus to be his secretary of state, Petraeus has three days to notify his parole officer about his new job. He also needs to tell the probation officer before he leaves North Carolina -- and his work travel would have to be approved by his parole officer, too.

Petraeus, once a widely celebrated military leader who oversaw operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, was sentenced on April 23, 2015, to serve two years of probation and pay a $100,000 fine for sharing classified information with his biographer and lover, Paula Broadwell.
"The defendant shall notify the probation officer within 72 hours of any change in residence or employment," read a court judgment, which was reported first by USA Today.
David Petraeus shared classified info. Now can he be secretary of state?
"The defendant shall not leave the Western District of North Carolina without the permission of the Court or probation officer. Travel allowed for work as approved by U.S. probation office," the document also said.
Additionally, if Petraeus were to become secretary of state, he would be subject to warrantless searches by his probation officer -- including the possibility of searching a work device such as a laptop or a phone.
"The defendant shall submit his person, residence, office, vehicle and/or any computer system including computer data storage media, or any electronic device capable of storing, retrieving, and/or accessing data to which they have access or control, to a search, from time to time, conducted by any US Probation Officer and such other law enforcement personnel as the probation officer may deem advisable, without a warrant," the document read.
Trump met with Petraeus to talk about the position on Monday, tweeting about the meeting immediately afterward, saying he "was very impressed" with the retired general.
Other names being floated for the position include 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

Petraeus was convicted of giving an unauthorised person access to classified materials. His probation officer isn't likely to be authorised. But his probation officer is able to perform warrantless searches on any devices under Petraeus' control.

So, if Petraeus becomes secretary of state, the fact that he was convicted of giving an unauthorised person access to classified materials means that he could be forced to give another unauthorised person access to classified materials.

Well, unless Trump decides to show the world that he doesn't really care about unauthorised people accessing classified documents by pardoning Petraeus.
Unless Trump pardons Petraeus.

[The Romulan Republic]

But of course, Clinton's email scandal showed that she was absolutely unfit to be President and should be put in jail, because she exposed classified materials. So we got Trump... who will expose classified materials.

Edit: Beyond the inanity of it, I now scarcely care. The government is permitted to spy on all our computers, so why should it get to have any secrets? Let everything be published to everyone, and at least it'll be a level playing field.

Of course, Trump will play favourites.

[Ace Pace]

Edit: Beyond the inanity of it, I now scarcely care. The government is permitted to spy on all our computers, so why should it get to have any secrets? Let everything be published to everyone, and at least it'll be a level playing field.

Are you talking about the recent rule changes regarding "lawful hacking"?

[aerius]

Man, when will people realize that Trump is trolling the shit out of his targets both for fun and to prove his points?

[Tsyroc]

Man, when will people realize that Trump is trolling the shit out of his targets both for fun and to prove his points?

I wouldn't be surprised if the people he does appoint get fired in a year or two. He seems to be picking a lot of people who were butting heads with him during the primaries. A few of them are already in positions of power. If they sell out to him and leave those and then he shitcanns them then he's stuck it to them again. Either way he wins. They kiss his ass for 4 years in their new job, or he gets to fire them.

For example, last I saw he was suggesting the Governor of South Carolina to be the ambassador to the UN. She never endorsed Trump, but the Lieutenant Governor was a big Trump supporter. So, if she takes the job then a Trump guy is in charge of South Carolina. On one hand I find it kind of amusing because she has absolutely no international experience so why would she even want this gig? On the other hand all the paranoid conspiracy theorists suggesting a Trump dictatorship is in the works make me think that him hooking his supporter up with a governorship would help that along a bit.

[Lost Soal]

I knew he would do this.
MICHIGAN: Trump Forces Postponement Of Recount By Filing Complaint With State Bureau Of Elections

President-elect Donald Trump filed an objection with the Michigan Bureau of Elections on Thursday, regarding the vote recount initiated by Green Party candidate Jill Stein. According to a statement from Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, recount activities will be postponed pending a decision on the objection by the Board of State Canvassers.

The Board is scheduled to consider Trump’s objection on Friday, and will have five days to make a decision. The recount was supposed to begin in two counties on Friday, and in other counties over the weekend.

Trump’s objection states that Stein is not an “aggrieved” party because she came in fourth place in the election, and “is therefore not entitled to a recount.” Trump also argues that a recount would not be finished in time for the Electoral College to place their votes.

Should the Board of State Canvassers side with Trump, the recount will end. If they rule against Trump, the recount will continue on the second business day following their decision.

And if this goes against him he'll go to court to stop the count

[Gandalf]

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.

He's also Jewish. Given the reactions that female and black candidates garnered among some corners of the population, how bad would "Jewish Communist" be among the angry Christian electorate?

[Darmalus]

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.

He's also Jewish. Given the reactions that female and black candidates garnered among some corners of the population, how bad would "Jewish Communist" be among the angry Christian electorate?

Everything I can gather from the election results indicates that, in spite of all the "You MUST vote for X because of your race/sex/whatever" drum being hammered, no one actually was swayed from their respective parties. Clinton lost because 20 million democrats from previous elections were too uninspired to bother showing up to vote.

So I'm going to go with he couldn't do worse, even as a Jewish commie.

[Dragon Angel]

Handwringing about "Jewish Socialist OMG" is weird when you consider someone who bathes in conspiracy theories every morning, is a waaay more than once crashed businessman, and espoused near-Hitlerian policies during his campaign was elected.

[Iroscato]

Also wasn't, like...Jesus a socialist Jew?

[Terralthra]

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.

He's also Jewish. Given the reactions that female and black candidates garnered among some corners of the population, how bad would "Jewish Communist" be among the angry Christian electorate?

Everything I can gather from the election results indicates that, in spite of all the "You MUST vote for X because of your race/sex/whatever" drum being hammered, no one actually was swayed from their respective parties. Clinton lost because 20 million democrats from previous elections were too uninspired to bother showing up to vote.

So I'm going to go with he couldn't do worse, even as a Jewish commie.

Sec. Clinton's voters this year exceeded President Obama's from 2012. Rethink your assumptions.

[Dragon Angel]

Also wasn't, like...Jesus a socialist Jew?

Joe Walsh obviously doesn't think so. :v

[Iroscato]

Well, he seems unbiased.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also wasn't, like...Jesus a socialist Jew?

Bernie is the Second Coming!

Which I guess means the Donald is the Anti-Christ.

I'm joking, because if I don't say it someone will probably take me seriously.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sec. Clinton's voters this year exceeded President Obama's from 2012. Rethink your assumptions.

Do you not understand how basic math works?

Voter turnout overall was at a 20-year low this election. The Democrats had 26.5% turnout, versus 30.6% in 2012 (and 33.7% in 2008). Literally every single source I can find with a cursory Google search indicates that Hillary had lower turnout than Obama did four years ago in every major demographic. Clinton had 65,149,785 total votes. Obama had 65,915,795.

Where are you getting this idea that Clinton's voters exceed Obama's? This flies in direct contradiction to facts the rest of the world has known for almost a month.

[Flagg]

Also wasn't, like...Jesus a socialist Jew?

Joe Walsh obviously doesn't think so. :v

He stops reading the Bible when the genocide stops, apparently.

[Flagg]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opini ... .html?_r=0

Senator Clinton, in Pander Mode

DEC. 7, 2005

Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag.

The punishment? One year in prison and/or a $100,000 fine. No loss of citizenship though, so there's that.

I apologize for all the times I called Hillary Clinton the 2nd worst candidate to be nominated for the presidency in recent memory. As it turns out, she was actually the 1st worst.

Please.

Just because the chucklefucks in this stupid country managed to win an election doesn't mean Clinton was the worst candidate. It's not like football, where only the score matters.

[Dominus Atheos]

When it comes to running for president (not as human beings), Trump was clearly better than Hillary.

[The Romulan Republic]

Eh, he'd probably have lost if he hadn't had criminal conspirators in the FBI aiding him.

[TimothyC]

President-elect Donald Trump will nominate retired Marine Gen. James Mattis as his secretary of defense, he announced Thursday in Cincinnati at the beginning of his post-election tour.
"We are going to appoint 'Mad Dog' Mattis as our secretary of defense. But we're not announcing it until Monday so don't tell anybody," Trump said at his rally, adding later, "They say he's the closest thing to Gen. George Patton that we have and it's about time."
Mattis, 66, would join a Trump national security team that already includes retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as national security adviser and Rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA director.

The retired four-star general, known as "Mad Dog," was lauded for his leadership of Marines in the 2004 Battle of Falluja in Iraq -- one of the bloodiest of the war.
But he attracted controversy in 2005 when he said "it's fun to shoot some people" while addressing service members in San Diego.
Mattis' selection could put him in position to temper both Flynn and Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and an appointee of President Barack Obama -- whose generals Trump has said he distrusts.
Mattis has already proven to have the President-elect's ear. After meeting at Trump's New Jersey golf club last month, Trump said Mattis gave him a new perspective on waterboarding, a torture tool he has pledged to reinstate.
"General Mattis is a strong, highly dignified man. I met with him at length and I asked him that question. I said, 'What do you think of waterboarding?'" Trump told The New York Times. "He said -- I was surprised -- he said, 'I've never found it to be useful.' He said,
'I've always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.'"
"I'm not saying it changed my mind. Look, we have people that are chopping off heads and drowning people in steel cages and we're not allowed to waterboard," Trump said. But I'll tell you what, I was impressed by that answer."
Mattis would also need a waiver from Congress in order to be confirmed. A decades-old legal statute bars service members from quickly entering civilian positions, which would otherwise prevent Mattis from being eligible for the job.
Rep. Adam Schiff, a ranking member of the House Intelligence Commmittee, told CNN's Jim Sciutto Wednesday, however, that the regulation would pose as more of an inconvenience for Mattis's confirmation, rather than barring him from the job.
"It will certainly be an issue. I don't ultimately think it will be a bar because I think he is so well thought of that he can overcome peoples' reservations of that," Schiff said. "My guess is because his reputation is so strong and, frankly, because there's enough concern among Democrats about some of the President-elect's other choices, they'll be a desire to amend the statute if that's what' necessary and I believe it would be necessary.
In Mattis, Trump has a nominee who was held in high regard throughout the ranks of the Marine Corps during his 44 years of service. A seasoned combat commander, he led a task force into southern Afghanistan in 2001 and a Marine division at the time of the Iraq invasion in 2003. He was later promoted to run US Central Command in 2010 -- a post that gave him command responsibility for all US forces in the Middle East. He also was an outspoken critic of the Iran nuclear deal. He also has served as a commander of a major NATO strategic command, Allied Command Transformation, in Norfolk, Virginia.
Mattis butted heads with the Obama administration as head of US Central Command from 2010 to 2013 over the need to prepare for potential conflict with Iran.
He was a critic of the Iran nuclear deal and said at the Aspen Security Forum in 2013, when asked about his top concerns as head of US Central Command, "Iran, Iran, Iran."

Mattis will need a waver on 10 USC § 113 (a), as he hasn't been out of active service for 7 years.

Senator Gillibrand of New York has already stated she opposes the waiver.

[Patroklos]

It's a losing move to oppose Mattis. He is extremely popular with the activeduty and veterans community as well as universally respected within the national security community. I personally enjoy watching the left poison themselves with their sour grapes, but this is particularly stupid.

I am glad to be working for him.

[ArmorPierce]

He's also Jewish. Given the reactions that female and black candidates garnered among some corners of the population, how bad would "Jewish Communist" be among the angry Christian electorate?

Everything I can gather from the election results indicates that, in spite of all the "You MUST vote for X because of your race/sex/whatever" drum being hammered, no one actually was swayed from their respective parties. Clinton lost because 20 million democrats from previous elections were too uninspired to bother showing up to vote.

So I'm going to go with he couldn't do worse, even as a Jewish commie.

Sec. Clinton's voters this year exceeded President Obama's from 2012. Rethink your assumptions.

According to wikipedia 2012 Obama is still edging out 2016 Clinton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... tion,_2016

[Flagg]

When it comes to running for president (not as human beings), Trump was clearly better than Hillary.

That doesn't make him a better candidate. Trump is a Racist Pedophile Rapist Egomaniacal Psychopath. Clinton is a politician. Tell me which is worse.

You say Trump was a better candidate? Why? Because he won? If winning makes you a good candidate to be President of this rotting empire then Genocidal Maniac President Jackson was a better candidate than a non genocidal maniac. Does not compute.

If you want to be pissy pants mad at someone, be mad at everyone that didn't vote Clinton and was against Trump. And more at the apathetic shitheels who don't vote.