Slashdot Mirror


Donald Trump Wins US Presidency (nytimes.com)

It's official: Donald Trump has won the 2016 presidential election. Slashdot reader Xenographic writes: Google's map of results is now calling the race for Donald J. Trump. This is something that Nate Silver jokingly predicted back on May 10th when he wrote "Reminder: Cubs will win the World Series and, in exchange, President Trump will be elected 8 days later." The House and Senate are also under Republican control. In other news, the Canadian immigration site has crashed under heavy load.This is how The New York Times, America's top newspaper reported the news:The surprise outcome, defying late polls that showed Hillary Clinton with a modest but persistent edge, threatened convulsions throughout the country and the world, where skeptics had watched with alarm as Mr. Trump's unvarnished overtures to disillusioned voters took hold. The triumph for Mr. Trump, 70, a real estate developer-turned-reality television star with no government experience, was a powerful rejection of the establishment forces that had assembled against him, from the world of business to government, and the consensus they had forged on everything from trade to immigration. The results amounted to a repudiation, not only of Mrs. Clinton, but of President Obama, whose legacy is suddenly imperiled. And it was a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters who felt that the promise of the United States had slipped their grasp amid decades of globalization and multiculturalism. Update: The New Yorker's Editor-in-Chief David Remnick, described the Election outcome as "an American tragedy." The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said, "Trump will bring global recession." BBC has an article on how the media worldwide has described Trump's victory. The Guardian captured the thoughts of world leaders on the matter. Hillary Clinton addressed the nation this morning and told her supporters that they all should keep an open mind and give Trump the chance to lead.

Editor's note: this story has been updated with more details, and also moved to the top of the front page because of its importance.

274 of 2,837 comments (clear)

  1. One party rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Didn't see this coming but it looks like the republicans will control all branches. It will be interesting to see what they do with that power in the upcoming years.

    1. Re:One party rule by Dracos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They won't have it for long. Brexit remorse will set in quickly and a D wave will flow into Congress in 2018. I have a suspicion that Trump will be a pariah in DC, constantly at odds with everyone except the sycophants in his Cabinet.

    2. Re:One party rule by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most of the senate seats up in 2018 are Democrats, not to mention how many supreme court justices he's replaced by then. We'll be dealing with the fallout from this for a long time.

      And don't think for a minute that the Republican congress won't exploit Trump to get legislation passed. Narcissists are easy to manipulate; put their ego on the line and they can be goaded into anything.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:One party rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trump's every election promise violates against the constitution in a form or the other. He does nothing he promised during the campaign. He probably only wants to show off his wife at diplomatic events and make "deals". This is how the populists operate in Europe as well.

    4. Re:One party rule by ichthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, it's this kind of loony shit that just lost you the election.

      --
      sig: sauer
    5. Re:One party rule by CaptainLard · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It will be interesting to see what they do with that power in the upcoming years.

      My guess is gloat then fuck everybody.

    6. Re:One party rule by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was predicted in the primaries. Hillary Clinton was the weakest possible candidate against Trump. If the party had rallied around Bernie Sanders, Trump would have lost. So many of the Trump votes were anti-Hillary protest votes. A vote for Hillary in the primaries was a vote for Trump.

    7. Re:One party rule by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Literally no excuse. So when Bob the redneck keeps whining It's Obama's fault he doesn't have a job you can gleefully tell him to GTFO.

    8. Re:One party rule by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And don't think for a minute that the Republican congress won't exploit Trump to get legislation passed. Narcissists are easy to manipulate; put their ego on the line and they can be goaded into anything.

      Oh, yes, the Republican establishment has had such roaring success in making Donald dance to their tune so far.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    9. Re:One party rule by hardburlyboogerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope folks are ready for sheer hell to break loose because it will..Folks like me can look forward to dying as our Medicare and Social Security are ripped away from us.
      America has collectively gone Insane

      --
      Geek Hillbilly
    10. Re:One party rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This. The poll numbers never changed, Bernie had 20+ points over Trump, and every single Trump voter I know was a Bernie supporter. Democrats literally bit the poison pill, and lost all around. And now we all have to suffer for it.

    11. Re:One party rule by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's gonna be Not Very Fun At All to be a minority in the US for the next couple of years.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    12. Re:One party rule by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope Emperor Trump takes a victory tour all over the US, starting in Dallas.

      In an open top limo.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    13. Re:One party rule by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 5, Funny

      The world economy is already reacting bigly.

      I mean badly.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    14. Re:One party rule by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First Trump came and messed up the Primaries for the Republicans and collected a lot of enemies, and now he bashed Clinton and probably gained more enemies.

      This will be fun.

      But I think that Trump will have a tough time with the congress - and it will be a sour awakening for both parties that now there's a president that none of the sides likes and they have to revisit what they have to do to control him - and gain support in the long run.

      In many political issues Trump is leaning to the center but the news has bashed him for his sometimes outrageous claims of building a wall and so on.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    15. Re:One party rule by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Cutting back on environmental law. Causing higher global warming.
      Killing Obama care. Causing many people to uninsured or under insured.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    16. Re:One party rule by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Elizabeth Warren decided not to run against Hillary.
      Joe Biden stepped aside for Hillary.

      Biden vs Trump, what an election that would be. Maybe that could still be 2020.
      Tim Kaine isn't looking too bad, though I don't think he's president-material, not yet.

    17. Re:One party rule by AaronW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obamacare is literally keeping my sister alive. The medication she needs to survive costs $5000/month and is not covered by her employer's insurance (she's a teacher at a private school). Thanks to Obamacare she was able to get into an exchange and buy insurance that does cover her medication for only $500/month. Being on a teacher's salary, my parents who are retired help her out. With her pre-existing conditions, there's no way any insurance company would take her and she'd quickly hit the limits with the medical issues she's had since every couple of years something major comes up. Her medication is so expensive because it is derived from human blood because her immune system has shut down and isn't making antibodies. And Trump's plan with tax deductions won't come close to paying for the medication, especially on a teachers salary where she doesn't pay much if any federal taxes.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    18. Re:One party rule by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was predicted in the primaries. Hillary Clinton was the weakest possible candidate against Trump. If the party had rallied around Bernie Sanders, Trump would have lost. So many of the Trump votes were anti-Hillary protest votes. A vote for Hillary in the primaries was a vote for Trump.

      Voting for Trump out of protest is like shooting your self in the foot to cure foot fungus.

    19. Re:One party rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      See this attitude is part of the problem. It's the "everybody who doesn't agree with me is Hitler" attitude. It causes people like you and many others - especially the talking heads in the media, on Twitter or wherever, to paint broad sections of the population as racist, sexist, homophobes. It's just not true. Trump was only 6 ticks behind with female graduates, for example. Ask yourself why.

    20. Re:One party rule by Shane_Optima · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except a gaff is not a policy position. His "racism" boils down to anti-immigration from Mexico and anti-immigration from Muslim Nations.

      Now, we can't have a religious test for entry (obviously) but it is horrible, horrible leftist masochism to continue to imply that the floodgates should be opened for all countries equally. Stockholm had become the rape capital of Europe even before the Syrian refugee crisis ballooned, largely on the backs of the massive numbers of third world and largely Muslim (and yes that does matter, because Islam correlates to misogyny even more than Christianity does) people they had invited in. Trump is a either a psychopath or a moron (I tend to think the latter) about this, but the left didn't give us a good, strong, loud alternative.

      His other anti-racism thing is strongly "supporting" the police. A pretty obnoxious thing to do, given the need for reform in this country. But still... not really the same as proposing racist legislation. Not really the same, when you think about it. If you're honest with yourself.

      Keep the caricatures in check. Keep it positive. Reform the left. Help forge an alt-left. Stop pretending the main problem stems from gaffes. Stop pretending the main problem is that women from decades ago are suddenly making accusations (didn't everyone get sick of this like, 15-20 years ago? On the left in particular??)

      And stop pretending that the biggest issue right now is that the fascists are taking over. The large majority of my extended family voted Trump, even though most of them voted Obama not once, but twice. And most of them live in a swing state.

    21. Re:One party rule by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget that the DNC actively encouraged people to vote in the Republican primaries for Trump, because that's who they wanted to run against instead of a more moderate, experienced, and level headed candidate.

      They got who they wanted, and they rigged their own primary to nominate their candidate; then they fucked the dog and lost the election through smugness and not paying attention to what the voters were actually telling since the early primaries.

      They lost an election. The whole country will lose far more than that. Thanks, DNC. And I say this as a registered Republican, who did not vote for Trump.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    22. Re:One party rule by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was a Sanders supporter in the primaries pretty much for this reason. My political positions were a little closer to Hillary's.

      I don't think NAFTA has been good for the country in the long term, but I don't think simply withdrawing will roll back the clock to 1994. We've lost the capacity to operate the way we used to. Invisible stuff to most people, like the tool and die makers who've retired and not been replaced by new journeymen. It's not possible to ramp up manufacturing employment instantaneously. So I actually think Hillary's trade policies were better for the country than Bernie's.

      But this was an anti-establishment year. So Bernie was a better candidate. But Hillary would have been a highly competent president. In Trump we have the worst of both worlds. The idea that the's anti-establishment is ridiculous. He's for whatever benefits people like him, he's just too incompetent to work for the establishment.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    23. Re:One party rule by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It did the same immediately after Brexit, and then climbed back over where it was after the realization that the Sky-Is-Falling crowd was wrong yet again. Brexit 2: The Brexening.

    24. Re:One party rule by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Elizabeth Warren decided not to run against Hillary.
      Joe Biden stepped aside for Hillary.

      Biden vs Trump, what an election that would be. Maybe that could still be 2020.
      Tim Kaine isn't looking too bad, though I don't think he's president-material, not yet.

      Oooo how cute! You think there's going to be an election in 2020!

      --
      ~X~
    25. Re:One party rule by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fix isn't ObamaCare.

      Your sisters premiums are likely to continue going up btw. At some point she won't be able to afford them either and will be in the same boat.

      The problem is the fact that we allow drug companies to gouge the shit out of the folks who need the medicines to begin with.
      Once the medical and pharmaceutical industries becomes regulated, all these problems about needing insurance to afford health care will cease to exist.

      There is absolutely ZERO reason a cancer treatment should cost over $100,000 a year. None. Nada. Zip.
      One of my family members watched their entire retirement savings vanish because of this bullshit.
      ( and they STILL died of Cancer )

      Look past the short term solutions and work towards the long term goal. Healthcare is one of those things that really should be regulated.

    26. Re:One party rule by tsqr · · Score: 4, Informative

      At 9:50am EST, S&P 500 is roughly even; Dow is up 0.3%; NASDAQ is about even.

    27. Re:One party rule by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 2

      That's the problem with the two party system. You can't really vote third party and make a difference. People wanted change, and Hillary was business as usual. Trump was the only candidate that had a chance of winning over Hillary.

      In other words it's better to vote for the candidate who wants to burn the house down to fix the leaking roof, rather than the one who at least offers you a bucket.

    28. Re:One party rule by avandesande · · Score: 2

      It is less than 500$ a month in Europe
      http://forums.phoenixrising.me...

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    29. Re:One party rule by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      Elizabeth Warren decided not to run against Hillary.

      Now that has got to be some DEEP fucking regret, right there.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    30. Re:One party rule by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      No, I think you have to wait until like year 6 for that. It was "Bush's war and the economy I inherited" from the Obama admin until at least that point.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  2. Hmmm well by Diac · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hay we survived bush Jr we can survive trump.

    An old Chinese saying is may you live in interesting times....wait that was a curse wasn't it :/

    Interesting times.

    1. Re:Hmmm well by tezbobobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It should be pointed out that hawkish behaviour under the Bush regime meant a LOT of people didn't survive the Bush regime (literally bombed and shot to death). While American's have been concerned with talk of Mexican Walls and grabbing women inappropriately, the rest of the world has been gravely worried about the potential dismantling of major world alliances and free trade deals, and the potential for nuclear proliferation.

      People in the US need to realise that US guns in US hands kill a LOT of people around the world.

    2. Re:Hmmm well by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I expect the first priority for the Republicans now will be reversing everything done under Obama. Even the thing they agree with, they can't allow a Democrat to claim the success. I expect a health care reform repeal act to pass at some point in 2017.

      Trump himself doesn't really have any policies, just powerful rhetoric, so I would expect him to just reflect the party positions on most issues. The country will march on, there will be a brief battle (which republicans will win) over at least one supreme court nominee when the Republicans insist on appointing someone who has pledged to overturn Roe given half a chance, and Trump will say something embarassing every couple of months that will need a bit of diplomatic skill from his underlings to downplay. America may become a bit of a laughing stock for a time, but it'll still carry on running. Food will be on the table, television will keep on running, and the people will grumble as usual.

    3. Re:Hmmm well by tsotha · · Score: 2

      Do you really believe the stuff you type? Who was in office when Al-Qaeda attacked the WTC the first time?

    4. Re:Hmmm well by Misagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bush Jr held back the fight against climate change for eight years.

      First this year, Obama finally ratified a global treaty, sorry: "agreement", on the climate -- one that does not really commit to anything, and if countries even followed it would be too little and too late.

      And now the US elected a president that "does not believe in global warming" that wants to tear that up.

      And you still say that we can survive?
      If Gore had been elected back in 2000, there might have been a chance.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    5. Re:Hmmm well by CaptainLard · · Score: 2

      Hay we survived bush Jr we can survive trump.

      True, but I have kids.

    6. Re:Hmmm well by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The parallels with the rise of Nazism in the 1930s are quite disturbing. Trump wants to deport 11 million people, persecute Muslims, force other countries to respect and build walls for America, and all on the back of a populist campaign of lies and blame.

      The Republicans control both houses, the presidency and will get to appoint an ultra conservative to the Supreme Court. Trump won by appealing particularly to white males, a group that thinks it is repressed and under attack when in fact it has all the power and is now persecuting everyone else. The President has admitted sexually assaulting women, and is being sued for the Trump University scam, used cheap immigrant labour to build his empire and wants to put his political rival in jail.

      The world is turning to shit again. I honestly thought this couldn't happen, that we had learned from the 1930s and would never allow the same mistakes to be made, but it has happened.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Hmmm well by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, first priority will be packing up the statue of liberty and shipping it back to France with a rude note and a poop emoji.

    8. Re: Hmmm well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Presidents do not ratify treaties, Congress does. So no, he didn't.

    9. Re: Hmmm well by cyber-vandal · · Score: 4, Funny

      You certainly can't spell perjury.

    10. Re:Hmmm well by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The parallels with the rise of Nazism in the 1930s are quite disturbing. Trump wants to deport 11 million people, persecute Muslims, force other countries to respect and build walls for America, and all on the back of a populist campaign of lies and blame.

      The Republicans control both houses, the presidency and will get to appoint an ultra conservative to the Supreme Court. Trump won by appealing particularly to white males, a group that thinks it is repressed and under attack when in fact it has all the power and is now persecuting everyone else. The President has admitted sexually assaulting women, and is being sued for the Trump University scam, used cheap immigrant labour to build his empire and wants to put his political rival in jail.

      The world is turning to shit again. I honestly thought this couldn't happen, that we had learned from the 1930s and would never allow the same mistakes to be made, but it has happened.

      And that above, people, is how you lose an election.

      No one likes smug assholes, and they like them even less when the doom-and-gloom fails to materialise.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    11. Re:Hmmm well by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

      Who is going to take advantage of Trump and Congress at each other's throats resulting in the weakest Presidency since the revolution?

      Republicans actually won both Senate and the House tonight. Paul Ryan seems to be coming around to working with President Trump. We will see what happens, but "at each others' throats" I think is a bit premature to call at this point.

      At any rate the CNN/NY Times/MSNBC prediction that Trump would drag down congressional Republicans and cause them to lose control turned out to be.... completely wrong.

    12. Re:Hmmm well by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Those who remember history are doomed to repeatedly fail at teaching people a goddamn thing.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    13. Re:Hmmm well by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The parallels with the rise of Nazism in the 1930s are quite disturbing. Trump wants to deport 11 million people, persecute Muslims, force other countries to respect and build walls for America, and all on the back of a populist campaign of lies and blame.

      Sure are! Media was in the tank for a single candidate. Told the world and the american people if they didn't vote one way, the world was going to end. That those people were racists/bigots/sexists/misogynists/delplorables/etc. That "white people are the problem" and they were "all poor and uneducated." And the people said Fuck and You. In that order. Trump wants to deport 11 million illegals AKA people breaking the law. And enforce the laws that are on the books, unlike the current "we'll just turn a blind eye." And if you're an ICE agent, you'd better let that illegal go--or we'll can your ass. He wants to restrict muslim immigration, especially from countries where fundamentalist islam and repression of women is the norm, and the murder of gays is not only great--it's a past time. How's that unrestricted importation working out for you in Europe? Trojan horse scandal, Rotherham, 700% increase in rapes, sexual assaults, and robberies? Just to start with. And wants to actually enforce the borders that exist, instead of having them as an unrestricted flow of people who want to enter the US illegally to gain citizenship to boot. While said illegals piss all over people who waited in line, followed the rules, and became citizens.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    14. Re:Hmmm well by Kokuyo · · Score: 2

      You mean white rich males. The rest of us are, at worst, just parrotting the same crap as the rich ones and often getting slapped down for it.

      The only thing that makes people get away with things is money.

      This whole third wave feminism crap is just another method by which they divide and conquer us.

    15. Re:Hmmm well by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      After Brexit, racist and xenophobic attacks went up dramatically. I've had them myself, after more than a decade of nothing. The US will be the same, with animosity towards immigrants, Muslims and anyone else Trump doesn't like. People will be expecting them to be deported or locked up, and will treat them as the sub-human animals that Trump portrays them as.

      There is going to be a lot of social upheaval, and that's before they get around to trying to cancel gay people's marriages and take the vote away from even more black people. Democracy has failed, the checks and balances (the two houses, the supreme court) are all controlled by the Republicans with a madman in charge.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Hmmm well by codeButcher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, first priority will be packing up the statue of liberty and shipping it back to France with a rude note and a poop emoji.

      It was hollow from the start in any case. The symbolism is quite appropriate.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    17. Re:Hmmm well by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless you get sick, and can no longer get health insurance...

      Considering people are already hitting the point where they can't afford the health insurance in the first place. Hell my buddy in Alaska saw his premium go from $400/mo w/2200 deductible to $1100/mo w/$9000 delectable. Can you afford that? My neighbor in Central Florida? Well he's lucky, his 28 year old daughter and her husband? Nope. $250/mo pre-obamcare to $4800/mo with w/14k deductible? A lot of people are now worse off then they were before.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    18. Re: Hmmm well by Xenographic · · Score: 3, Informative

      > what part of 'Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit' do you not understand ?

      That's not even half the story...

      On November 13, 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal. Robert S. Bennett, Clinton's attorney, still maintained that Jones's claim was baseless and that Clinton only settled so he could end the lawsuit and move on with his life.[9] In March 1999, Judge Wright ruled that Jones would only get $200,000 from the settlement and that the rest of the money would pay for her legal expenses.[13]

      Before the end of the entire litigation, her marriage broke apart. She also appeared in the news media to show the results of a makeover [14] and of a Rhinoplasty paid for by a donor.[15]

      In April 1999, Judge Wright found Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay $1,202 to the court and an additional $90,000 to Jones's lawyers for expenses incurred,[16][17][18] far less than the $496,000 that the lawyers originally requested.[18]

      Wright then referred Clinton's conduct to the Arkansas Bar Association for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before Clinton left the office of president, he entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton was stripped of his license to practice law in Arkansas for a period of five years.[19][20] His fine was paid from a fund raised for his legal expenses.

      Source

    19. Re:Hmmm well by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trump doesn't give a shit about the law or about the people he claims to represent. He has been screwing ordinary, hard working Americans his entire life. Using cheap immigrant labour to build his business empire, setting up scams like Trump University. He's a billionaire who was given a huge loan by his parents, not a man of the people.

      You know nothing about Europe. The child abuse in Rotherham was by people of Asian descent, mostly from Pakistan. They and their parents mostly came here in the 60s and 70s, before we even joined the EU, from our old Commonwealth empire. I happen to be half Asian, so FUCK YOU for even playing the race card.

      Deporting people isn't going to make America great again, unless you think working for pennies on the Dollar is great.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:Hmmm well by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bill Clinton greatly enlarged the principle that corruption and lying were acceptable in high office and in the public at large.

      You can't start a post with "Bill Clinton greatly enlarged" without ending with some sexy fan-fiction.

    21. Re:Hmmm well by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I knew it wouldn't be long before someone would Godwin this thread. The slight difference is that Trump doesn't want to exterminate the entire race of Hispanic people, and isn't intent on conquering some Lebensraum for his master race to spread out into Canada. Don't forget, we've had men of questionable morals in the White House before, and we certainly will again. Probably women too, in the future. Trump is an arrogant ass, but seriously comparing him to one of the most evil mass-murderers in modern history demonstrates a lack of perspective, or at least a severe lack of faith in the people of the US, to think anyone would go along with such schemes.

      I'd hope that you can now understand the angst of conservative voters when President Obama won the last two elections. Or perhaps I can at least empathize with you a bit because of that, if you're not feeling very empathetic yourself yet. Many conservatives predicted the end of America as we know it, and they were just as wrong. I believe America is still a strong country, generally made up of good people who just want to get along with their neighbors and live their lives in peace. Maybe you think that's naive or optimistic, but so be it.

      If nothing else, just keep reminding yourself that you'll have another chance to vote him out in four years.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    22. Re:Hmmm well by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trump doesn't give a shit about the law or about the people he claims to represent. He has been screwing ordinary, hard working Americans his entire life. Using cheap immigrant labour to build his business empire, setting up scams like Trump University. He's a billionaire who was given a huge loan by his parents, not a man of the people.

      Oh good, now we've got your bullshit out of the way. Remember that part where Hillary wanted to enforce no-fly-zones against Russia in Syira, and operated multiple pay-for-play scandals?

      You know nothing about Europe. The child abuse in Rotherham was by people of Asian descent, mostly from Pakistan. They and their parents mostly came here in the 60s and 70s, before we even joined the EU, from our old Commonwealth empire. I happen to be half Asian, so FUCK YOU for even playing the race card.

      Oh so which is it? They're asian or pakistani? They came here in the 60's and 70's? Or multiple people who were arrested were "new immigrants" and were in their 20's and 30's. According to the court records. I also happen to be half-asian(actual half-asian, not the lovely code-word that UK and EU media likes to use for people from the middle east). So fuck you for trying to be a weaseling little shit, and trying to crawl out of it.

      Deporting people isn't going to make America great again, unless you think working for pennies on the Dollar is great.

      Gotcha. Ensuring that companies actually employ americans = bad. Stopping the flow of illegals that cause crimes = bad. Bet you're right there cheering on H1B's replacing Americans and them being forced to train their replacement too.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    23. Re:Hmmm well by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Asian = people from Asia, i.e. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. We tend to refer to what American's call Asian as East Asian or just by country of origin (Chinese/Japanese). We never call people from the middle east Asian, they are Arabs and various other races. Well, except for racist retards who don't know the difference between types of dark skinned people.

      Most of those convicted were born in the UK. They were not immigrants, they were the children of immigrants who arrived in the 60s and 70s. I'm not sure why you think it has to be one or the other, the division of time into decades is arbitrary and doesn't constrain people's ability to immigrate.

      As for employing only American citizens, that's fine as long as you don't mind giving up cheap products and services. Let's see what happens when manufacturing comes back from China and costs 5x as much, or maybe Trump will get rid of the minimum wage to compensate. If your immigration policy wasn't so fucked up in the first place you wouldn't have this problem with undocumented people, and in any case they are not to blame for your problems.

      And what the fuck does that have to do with legal, above board immigration like H1-B? Do you really think Trump, a billionaire who made his money by employing immigrants over Americans, will stop that lucrative source of cheap labour?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Hmmm well by smallfries · · Score: 4, Funny

      and isn't intent on conquering some Lebensraum for his master race to spread out into Canada.

      Although lets face it - that is a policy pledge that could have won the election for either side.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    25. Re:Hmmm well by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      You're arguing with Mashiki. There is no winning in the traditional sense because he'll keep flinging invented facts and bizarre comspiracies at the thread until you give up. If pushed he might also support his point with links to weird blog posts each with hundreds of links none of which seem to actually support his points.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    26. Re:Hmmm well by Dominic · · Score: 2

      Oh so which is it? They're asian or pakistani?

      In Britain we would call someone from Pakistan 'Asian'. Perhaps you should know this sort of thing before trying to argue with someone who knows what they are talking about?

      I also happen to be half-asian(actual half-asian, not the lovely code-word that UK and EU media likes to use for people from the middle east).

      Well as someone who lives in the UK/EU I've never once heard anyone in person or the media ever call anyone from the Middle East 'half-asian'.

  3. Wet paper bag by The+Rizz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear DNC and superdelegates: Thanks so much for giving us the most unpopular Democratic nominee in living memory. What should have been a landslide win has become a complete fucking nightmare. Good job.

    1. Re:Wet paper bag by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the problem is that the DNC has it's own bubble, and the professional political establishment considers what makes a professional also makes a winner.

      Hillary also kept pitching for the "I'm a woman" and LGBTQ and minorities. Everyone KNEW the Dems were supporting this so WHY always bring it up? They spent ZERO air time saying; "we want to get jobs to coal workers and bring opportunities to rural communities." Instead; "Coal is going out of style."

      While I'm THINK that Bernie Sanders could have won -- I voted for him after all. It's mostly because he didn't EXCLUDE white males. He didn't have a message of who he was or wasn't -- just universal messages of what he planned to do for people. I hope the DNC learns this -- or dies. I'm not a fan of political parties in the first place.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    2. Re:Wet paper bag by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There were many people who didn't like Trump, but who despised Hillary. They either stayed home, or grudgingly voted for Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination, many who despised Trump would have had little issue voting for Sanders, knowing the Congress will keep him in line. Sanders could have gained many votes that refused Hillary.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Wet paper bag by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dear DNC and superdelegates: Thanks so much for giving us the most unpopular Democratic nominee in living memory. What should have been a landslide win has become a complete fucking nightmare. Good job.

      Dear Media: Thank you so much for turning a relatively banal email screwup that had zero actual consequence into the biggest campaign scandal in decades and turning an otherwise likeable candidate into a pariah.

      Dear Director of the FBI: Thank you for possibly breaking the law by dropping an election bombshell and tanking Clinton's poll numbers over absolutely nothing.

      Dear GOP: Thank you for you massive voter suppression efforts and the SCOTUS for enabling them. Together you were able to obstruct the ability of minorities to vote.

      Dear Wikileaks: Way to go! You just handed a global superpower to a comically corrupt bozo who is so non-transparent he didn't even release his taxes!!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Wet paper bag by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd love to blame this on the DNC establishment, but Clinton always had the popular vote amongst Democrats. Sanders was simply never going to win the primary, and to be honest, it's highly questionable he'd have won against Trump despite the opinion polls supposedly making that claim.

      Neither should have been the party's nominee, not an unpopular neo-con who had been the target of smear campaigns for 25 years, and not a populist with left wing views similar to an ideology that has been the target of a smear campaign in the US for over a century.

      Biden would have wiped the floor with Trump. I'd like to think Warren would have done too. Sanders? Hell no. Once the sheen had faded and Sanders had started to see what a real negative campaign looks like, Trump wouldn't have looked back.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Wet paper bag by Xenographic · · Score: 3, Informative

      > Dear Media: Thank you so much for turning a relatively banal email screwup that had zero actual consequence into the biggest campaign scandal in decades and turning an otherwise likeable candidate into a pariah.

      They didn't even cover half of what was found and discussed on /r/wikileaks, just a few banal items like the VP list (which was silly, because she actually promised it to Kaine a long time ago so that DWS would control the DNC), or how Donna Brazille got booted from CNN for leaking all the debate questions (several other people, however, were also complicit and didn't go anywhere...).

      > Dear Director of the FBI: Thank you for possibly breaking the law by dropping an election bombshell and tanking Clinton's poll numbers over absolutely nothing.

      Hillary was under investigation long before that (still is, allegedly, but that might just be a rumor). And frankly, I don't think this did it. If anything dumped her numbers, I'd say it's the creepy as hell #spiritcooking that the media never touched, but which went viral.

      > Dear GOP: Thank you for you massive voter suppression efforts and the SCOTUS for enabling them. Together you were able to obstruct the ability of minorities to vote.

      Too many stories to know which things you're talking about specifically. I did hear about a few things that I'm not happy with, though.

      > Dear Wikileaks: Way to go! You just handed a global superpower to a comically corrupt bozo who is so non-transparent he didn't even release his taxes!!

      Send them some leaks next time? Though I think you could more easily just leak that sort of thing to CNN/ABC/etc. In fact, I seem to recall that someone did exactly that for some older tax documents. Here's their response to that, incidentally:

      http://europe.newsweek.com/jul...

    6. Re:Wet paper bag by phayes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks so much for giving us the most unpopular Democratic nominee in living memory. What should have been a landslide win has become a complete fucking nightmare. Good job.

      Here I'm with you 100% except that you need to widen the net.

      Dear Media: Thank you so much for turning a relatively banal email screwup that had zero actual consequence into the biggest campaign scandal in decades and turning an otherwise likeable candidate into a pariah.

      Eh, WHAT? Hillary Clinton likable? My personal theme this year was that Trump was the only power on earth strong enough to make me vote for Hillary. 8 years ago part of what got Obama elected was that he wasn't Hillary. The Hillary supporters have always thought that she's just misunderstood, everybody will come around eventually. The email server was her faullt. Covering it up and pretending that no secret Emails were sent/recieved on the server was also her fault. Hillary has been viscerally disliked for who she is for decades by many and her attempting to skate by pretending that the rules for everyone else don't apply to her now mean that we're all going to have to suffer through 4 years of Trump.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    7. Re:Wet paper bag by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just one thing:

      Dear Media: Thank you so much for turning a relatively banal email screwup ....

      Sending and receiving classified documents on unsecured computers is not a "screwup", it is an illegal act. The Secretary of State cannot use the excuse of "I didn't know it was classified", in the same manner that a police officer cannot use the excuse "I didn't know stealing was a crime".

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  4. dear Canada and Mexico.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're sorry.

    Sincerely,

    a shitload of americans. (just not a big enough shitload, apparently).

    1. Re:dear Canada and Mexico.... by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well you should be sorry. All those whiny regressive liberals are threatening to come to Canada. We've got enough of those up here already trying to destroy the country and make sure you can't even afford electricity.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  5. Go ahead let it out.... by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please consolidate all the comments about how sexist/racist/xenophobic America is because they didn't coronate Hillary under this comment for organizational purposes. Please provide reasons for why a bunch of people who were "good" when they voted for Obama deserve to be shipped off to your concentration camps today for failing to do as they were told.

    Also, you can post your real estate listings here since you ARE actually going to man up (ooh wait.. too cisgendered a term there) and move to Canada right?

    Interesting microcosm of why Hillary ACTUALLY lost that can't be boiled down to a prejudiced throw-away "ism" hurled at groups of people you don't like: Tonight she flat out refused to go out and face her own supporters at her lavish "victory" party. Not even to thank them for their hard work. No class whatsoever where it actually counts.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Go ahead let it out.... by Khyber · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Tonight she flat out refused to go out and face her own supporters at her lavish "victory" party. Not even to thank them for their hard work. No class whatsoever where it actually counts."

      Truth be told, Hillary's still running; she's just not running for President. That's why she couldn't face her supporters tonight, and not even a concession speech. Bet she's gonna lose a few thousand calories, though! ;)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Go ahead let it out.... by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      She was SUPPOSED to win in a runaway landslide.
      Against Donald Trump... you know, the guy who has been mocked and demonized by the media for over a year? The guy who was supposed to be a joke of a candidate?

      Even with the corpses of three endangered white rhinos dumped onto her side of the scale she LOST.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    3. Re:Go ahead let it out.... by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      She lost by a couple percent. There are a lot of things she could have done differently that would have swayed things in her direction

      Yeah, like not be involved in a corrupt charity, not be extremely careless with classified information, not give dozens of $250k speeches to Wall St, not get in bed with foreign dictators, not lie over and over again, not oppose gay marriage for many years, and not run a campaign based on bigotry and racism. And that's just for starters. But she had to do those things because that's who she is. And that's why she lost, even to a buffoon like Trump.

  6. 16 Celebrities who said they would leave the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. Barbra Streisand 2. Bryan Cranston 3. Miley Cyrus 4. Lena Dunham 5. Amy Schumer 6. Jon Stewart 7. Cher 8. Chelsea Handler 9. Samuel L. Jackson 10. Whoopi Goldberg 11. Neve Campbell 12. Keegan-Michael Key 13. George Lopez 14. Ne-Yo 15. Rev. Al Sharpton 16. Raven-Symoné

    Don't let the door hit your rears on the way out you babies!

  7. The real losers are his supporters by aberglas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At the end of the day Trump is too incompetent to start a major war. Or do anything else too drastic. He is vain and intellectually lazy, so the lobbyists will keep him under control.

    But the big thing he WILL do is roll back Obamacare. The thing that poor whites rely on if they get ill. He'll cut taxes to the rich and services to the poor like nobody else.

    He'll make noises about Mexicans but do nothing. He will make noises about China but is unlikely to do anything.

    But if you rely on government services too bad, so sad.

    In a democracy the people get the government that they deserve.

    1. Re:The real losers are his supporters by AaronW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least you can get insurance.

      My sister has a major pre-existing condition and requires gamma globulin that costs $5000/month in order to stay alive. She works as a teacher and the insurance where she works (at a private school) does not cover it so she has to go to the exchange for another plan that does cover it. Without the ACA, no outside insurance company would touch her due to her pre-existing conditions. With the insurance she only pays $500/month for her medicine (not counting the other medications and doctor co-pays, etc.) If the ACA is repealed with Trump's plan she'd be out of pocket $5000/month to stay alive, which is far more than she makes. Tax deductions under Trump's plan won't help when she pays little to no federal income tax anyway at her salary.

      If the ACA is repealed my family will have to figure out how to come up with at least $60K/year to keep her alive. My parents are retired and it's far more than I can afford. While healthcare in this country is fucked up and way overpriced, the alternative for many people of repealing the ACA is far far worse.

      I know people who are alive because it prevented insurance companies from imposing lifetime caps on care, my sister being one of them. I also know people who lost everything before the ACA due to something like cancer or a stroke when insurance companies refused to pay due to caps or other reasons.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  8. I kid you not... by Pollux · · Score: 5, Funny

    I went to bed at 11:00 PM thinking too many states were too close to call until the morning. It's 1:52 AM right now. I just got woken up by my two-year-old yelling. He couldn't tell me what was wrong. I gave him some water and changed him, even though he wasn't wet, and I put him back to bed.

    I thought, what the hell, I gotta know. I power on the computer, log in, and this is what I see.

    Methinks young padawan senses a disturbance in the force.

  9. And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Incidentally, for those looking for someone to blame here, look no further than the DNC:

    Operationalizing the Strategy Pied Piper Candidates

    There are two ways to approach the strategies mentioned above. The first is to use the field as a whole to inflict damage on itself similar to what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012. The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:

                Ted Cruz
                Donald Trump
                Ben Carson

    Read the PDF attachment on this email for the source.

    1. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was one of the Democrats who voted for Trump during the primary to sabotage the GOP. Screw game theory. Elections are too important to not vote your conscience.

    2. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by tsotha · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm old enough to remember when they wanted to face Reagan. I guess you need to be careful what you wish for.

    3. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With all sincerity, next time, yes, vote your conscious. I, a white male small-el libertarian, voted for Jill Stein, and will get shit for it. Already have gotten shit for it. My wife is a liberal non-white female who voted for Hillary, hoping to see a female President. She's disappointed, I'm glad Hillary didn't win, but we both know we voted for us, for our own reasons. Voting against your conscious isn't worth the mental issues later.

      In fact, the next election, when someone tells you to vote to disrupt "the other guys", smack them as hard as you can. :^)

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by CaptainLard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah Reagan presided over an economic boom. Dump is inheriting a tepid one. If I was a historian the results would be fascinating. However, I will be living it.

    5. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Trump is coming into office in the midst of yet another bubble from the Fed. That bubble's going to burst sooner or later, and they can make it happen tomorrow if they want, simply by stopping inflation. The correction that follows is necessary, but you can bet that the left will try to blame it on the Republicans.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is it sexist when anybody votes for Trump but voting for Hillary for the purposes of having a non-functional set of gonads being president is OK?

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    7. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by yuriklastalov · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sorry, but what part of "It's Her Turn" don't you understand? You sexists are all alike.

    8. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by jandersen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Incidentally, for those looking for someone to blame here, look no further than the DNC:

      - and the GOP, who have been tearing themselves apart and letting the people down. And the God Mongers, who have always been part of the establishment; and the media, whose only interest has ever been to line their own pockets and wouldn't let facts get in the way. And so on.

      What can anyone say at this point? As somebody who has lived long enough to see what the reality is like in politics, I think you guys made a mistake - there is a hell of a lot of difference between "sorting out the world" over a few pints in your usual bar, and tackling real politics in the real world. Clinton knows her way around the political system - she would have been able to make things continue more or less the way they have always gone; admittedly not the best campaign slogan, but we knew what we were getting and she never promised more than she could deliver. Trump, on the other hand - what can he actually do, now that he has to do it for real? Build a wall? Start a major trade war with China? Deport all the illegal immigrants? Make America great again? How would behaving like an idiot make America great? On the other hand, if he doesn't deliver on his promises, because he comes to his senses, what will all the angry people, whose anger he has stoked with his talk, how will they react? Are they going to take it stoically? Well, we will see, but I think we are in for a bumpy ride, and we will feel it no matter where we are.

    9. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm old enough to remember when they wanted to face Reagan. I guess you need to be careful what you wish for.

      Oh how I wish Trump were a Reagan. Not that I think Reagan's policies were all great, but he did do an excellent job of being presidential -- and that is important. It brings people together and gives them confidence in their leader and themselves. Trump... is less qualified than Reagan was at doing the day-in, day-out job of governing, and being presidential is completely beyond him.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem isn't your vote. It's the political system that makes any votes other than for the two major candidates useless.
      US should look at the political system of pretty much any other democratic country and copy it.
      There are plenty to choose from and pretty much all will be better than the two party system.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    11. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I've said here on Slashdot that the Greens and Libertarians should form a coalition. They might not win, but they should get enough support to get a spot on the stage in the debates. If they pushed real hard, they could even get a few electoral votes in some states.

      Imagine what they could have done in this election season. Their joint venture would have been newsworthy, get out the vote efforts could have flourished for them, and people who hated both main party candidates could have had an actual option.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    12. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd say that double standard, or at least the perception of it, is a big part of what got Trump elected. That, and the fact that Hillary comes across so generally unlikable. She's a typical Washington-insider-back-dealing politician, but without the charming personality her husband had. Think about it... Wall Street is freaking out over Trump's impending presidency. They knew *exactly* what to expect with Hillary, which was "business as usual". No one has a fucking clue what Trump is going to do.

      My going theory is that if either side had put up a remotely likeable candidate, it would have been a landslide. Instead, the Democrats put forth the "next-in-line" insider despite her baggage, and the Republican elite alienated their base so badly that the rank-and-file instead insisted on the "anti-candidate" which NO Republican beltway insider wanted.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    13. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My wife is a liberal non-white female who voted for Hillary, hoping to see a female President.

      Voting for someone on the basis of their sex is just as stupid as voting for someone on the basis of their race/skin-colour. You should be voting on the basis of their policies — far more complex than some genetic attribute.

    14. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ut wait! Hes going to fix all that right? Our growth sucks we need 10% GDP growth per year which he will deliver! He said it during a presidential debate! America, land of 4.9% unemployment

      FYI: If you're counting the actual unemployment rate it's probably closer to 15% in the US. Keeping in mind that the U6 is just shy of 10%, and after a few years even those people permanently drop off the system. You can massage the fuck out of anything to make you look better, hell the Liberals(Trudeau) here in Canada managed to "massage away" a $6B surplus, then blow another $27B and another $6B rainy day fund, and claim that there was no surplus in the first place. The current state of the US is much closer to that of the 1980 then anyone would like to admit. The only thing that's kept it at the same state is repeated pumping of money(AKA QE) directly into the stock markets. The bubble popping and shit hitting the fan? That 10% GDP isn't only possible, it's down right likely.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    15. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      It depends what state you voted in. If it was not a close state, your vote did not effect the outcome of the election. I am also a small "el" libertarian. I voted for Johnson in California. I am really worried that Trump will start WW3, but this was a carefully thought out vote that was contingent on the fact that California was not a swing state. I did my best to help democrats in congress in the event of a Trump presidency, and I even advocated for 3rd party supporters in swing states to vote for Clinton.

    16. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      vote your conscious

      No, do it when you're asleep. Looks like they already tried that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's a Republican. It's a job requirement.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    18. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      You should look at those political systems before spouting an opinion on them.
      You only need to form coalitions with enough parties to form some treshold (exact % varies between countries) of majority, you don't need 100%.

      If you have, say 100 seats in your house of whatever-you-want-to-call-it, then having one fringe wingnut (which would represent 1% of population that you must not ignore in a democracy) won't make any difference on any decission, unless the decission is very close, in which case you DO want their opinion.

      Don't you think your political opponent deserve "No taxation without representation" too?

      In the current situation, about 52% of US citizens is not represented by their own government.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    19. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speaking as a Republican, FUCK YOU.

      Your party just won the White House, against all the mainstream beliefs that it was impossible. Why are you so angry?

      It shouldn't be the party, or be about the party. It should be about the candidate. George Washington warned of the perils of political parties, but no one took his advice. Washington said, and this is a direct quote "Fuck the Democratic Party and Republican Party because someday they're going to push a cheetoh-colored monkey and a corrupt harpy for President, and somehow the harpy will win, and you'll just have to like it." I'm pretty sure he said that because he grew weed, but it was prophetic.

    20. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Rakarra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, if he doesn't deliver on his promises, because he comes to his senses, what will all the angry people, whose anger he has stoked with his talk, how will they react? Are they going to take it stoically? Well, we will see, but I think we are in for a bumpy ride, and we will feel it no matter where we are.

      Having seen this sort of thing over and over again... no, there's not going to be a reckoning. Because, like Trump did all throughout the primaries and general election, you can always blame someone else when you're wrong, and a sizable number of idiots will say you were right and it was someone else's fault.

      So when Trump's policies fail, it will be the work of those shameful Democrats somehow.

    21. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Incidentally, for those looking for someone to blame here, look no further than the DNC:

      - and the GOP, who have been tearing themselves apart and letting the people down. And the God Mongers, who have always been part of the establishment; and the media, whose only interest has ever been to line their own pockets and wouldn't let facts get in the way. And so on.

      Why not just blame people who voted for him? We talk about failure of the institutions, failure of the intellectual elites, failure of the politicians...

      F*@! that! I'm calling this the failure of the masses!

      And if you think it's snobbish to say so, you are wrong - I'm the one acknowledging their agency, that their decisions matter! Now they voted for a guy who wants to use the nuclear bomb. There's no excuses for that. That's not just 'locker room talk', that's not 'complicated economic policy', that's not 'showing the top 1% the finger' - that's just pure evil!

      And the worst part is that this is happening all over the world. The Phillipinos voted for a loud mouthed buffoon as well. And the Polish have got a right wing isolationist president as well, ironically all the while the British isolationists claim they need to leave the EU because the Poles are getting all the gravy to the detriment of UK! All over europe extreme right is on the rise! There are elections comming in France and Germany next year and FN and AFD are hoping for a surprise as well!

      W.T.F. people!

    22. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by lucm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but what part of "It's Her Turn" don't you understand? You sexists are all alike.

      This kind of patronizing attitude is the most pervasive form of sexism. Women don't need "their turn" they're perfectly capable of competing for top jobs.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    23. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by swillden · · Score: 2

      So when Trump's policies fail, it will be the work of those shameful Democrats somehow.

      He may be stuck blaming it on the Republicans, since they'll have control of both houses. I'm sure he can manage that, though.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Gussington · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FYI: If you're counting the actual unemployment rate it's probably closer to 15% in the US.

      It may very well be 15%, but the quoted 4.9% is published using known methods that we can independently validate. Can you do the same? Or is this the new Trump era where just saying so is good enough?

    25. Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have historian friends who tell me something along the lines of: "We're overdue. Civilizations forget the past, and believe themselves better than their ancestors. They believe the nations that spawned Plato, Confucious and Beethoven were primitive compared to now. They think what has happened before so many times is now behind us. Thus they do not listen to the warnings. They dont believe it can happen to the most modern and advanced culture the world has ever seen. Still, it happens. They are shocked when it does. They ask 'How could it happen here, in these modern times? Surely we are more sophisticated than those brutes we heard about from history?' They all believed that. The Romans, the Byzantine, the Chinese dynasties and the Victorians. They all believed that, and they were wrong."

    26. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maine voters just enacted ranked choice voting (= instant runoff voting) for every office except president. It was a ballot initiative; Question 5. I'm not sure why they didn't do it for president. Since they manage the scope of the vote counting for president by district to assign electors, they could just run the ranking algorithm within each district's group of votes.

    27. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They knew *exactly* what to expect with Hillary, which was "business as usual".

      And that is exactly why I blame the Democrats for Trump.

      It has been clear for a long time that people are fed up with business as usual and want change. Hillary represents business as usual, while Trump and Bernie represent change.

      By making Hillary the Democrat candidate, they ensured that Trump would get the votes from everybody wanting change.

    28. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by TimothyHollins · · Score: 2

      I don't care about who caused the bubble.

      I care about what happened the last time a maniacal demagogue held power over a disillusioned populace during a harsh recession. I'd rather not see that happen again.

    29. Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by chill · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did you just make a subtle "period" joke about women? :-) Impressive. Most impressive.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    30. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Drethon · · Score: 2

      Trump is coming into office in the midst of yet another bubble from the Fed. That bubble's going to burst sooner or later, and they can make it happen tomorrow if they want, simply by stopping inflation. The correction that follows is necessary, but you can bet that the left will try to blame it on the Republicans.

      -jcr

      Stop inflation? I has barely been measurable since 2011 and that was a brief blip in the low inflation since 2008.

    31. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by wheelbarrio · · Score: 2

      Yes, this was republished today from wikileaks twitter account, trying desperately not to look like bad guys now that they've played a hand in getting Trump in. But it's barely news, let alone scandalous. It's a perfectly legitimate strategy that I'm 100% certain the Republicans followed too (If you want amateur examples from this very forum, look back at all the faux-love Bernie got from Trumpeters like Okian Warrior et al, once it became clear that Hilary was DNC choice - a pure divide-and-conquer play). If you want real hard-core sanctimonious apologia from wikileaks though you should check out Assange's piece here. To summarize: "I only publishes whats I gets and my Russian handlers didn't give me anything damaging on Trump, so... I no publish anything". If you think that Russian handlers thing is a stretch, read what Nadya Tolokno has to say about it.

    32. Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by chill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Using the number of Americans"not in the work force" is inaccurate and dishonest. That 95 million number includes both my parents, who are retired and living in a nursing home; my 18 month old grand daughter and my 8-year old son in elementary school; and my wife who is a traditional home maker and not interested in outside work.

      None of the people in those categories should be considered in "unemployment" statistics, which is what you're doing by citing the 95 million non-working Americans.

      U-6 from BLS is much more representative and is currently at 9.3â.... It includes people who want to work but have given up on despair, as well as people who want to work full time but can't get anything other than a few hours on a part-time gig.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    33. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They knew *exactly* what to expect with Hillary, which was "business as usual".

      And that is exactly why I blame the Democrats for Trump.

      And yet, all the people voting for Donald Trump, in order to "shake things up," also voted, overwhelmingly to put the same old congresscritters back in office.

      Drain the swamp, but leave my alligator alone!

    34. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clinton knows her way around the political system - she would have been able to make things continue more or less the way they have always gone; admittedly not the best campaign slogan, but we knew what we were getting and she never promised more than she could deliver.

      We didn't want the status quo, and the DNC offered nothing better.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, I've said here on Slashdot that the Greens and Libertarians should form a coalition.

      That can not and will not ever happen because they are fundamentally opposed entities. The Libertarian party's core tenet is fuck you, I'm eating, and the Green party's core tenet is wait, I live here. Ne'er the twain shall meet. If we had a less-insane Libertarian party which cared about the environment, then you wouldn't need a Green party.

      I propose we take a page from Red Mars and consider ecology economically. If you spend it, you have to pay back into it. But as long as the Libertarian party is ignoring physics by suggesting that we should all be able to do whatever we want with whatever piece of land we take by force, or which we buy from someone who took it by force, it will be fundamentally incompatible with both science and the Green party.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A lot of people forget that there isn't a lot Trump can do without the Congress playing along. And while his nonsense might play in the House, he's still down a few votes for cloture motions in the Senate. There are ways to work around that in the budgetary process through reconciliation, but it has a whole new set of rules around that.

      The Congress is going to put the brakes on a lot of shit he wants to do, and even thinks he can do. The White House Counsel's office is going to have a busy four years.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    37. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by houghi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you seriouisly thinkling that the Americans will be able to change the political system? I see it here and elsewhere time and time again how people who lived 200+ years ago get quoted as to why things NOW should be a certain way.
      Americans are hesitant to change to the Metric system. They are even hesitant to adapt a fully functioning verification system with credit and debit cards (Swipe+Pin) and you think they are going to look at other countries for their political system?

      I can imagine that proposing a change would be seen as so un-American it will need a new word, because terrorist or communist will not cover the hate for you.

      So no, there will be no change. What will be needed is a revolution (that can happen peaceful) and that will only happen if enough people know that they have nothing to say. That will happen when people will get fed up how companies determine what happens. That will happen when enough people go hungry or homeless or in other ways miserable.

      Perhaps then people will not believe the words of people who are dead 200+ years and start their own change of government, just like those dead people 200+ years did.

      And the real hunger will come when the US is hollowed out from the inside. Things will get worse before they get better.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    38. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by SharpFang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trump's sexism is mostly harmless. Stupid remarks, some prejudices, business as usual, offensive, annoying, but in the long run with no impact.

      Clinton, on the other hand, is a sexist with an agenda. She'd be "bringing gender balance to the government" by replacing men with women on key positions - even with a shortage of adequately competent female candidates. Skill be damned, gender matters - she'd actively discriminate against male candidates, with disregard for actual qualification levels. She'd allow female supremacists to push their laws through, and obstruct their opponents.

      We had recently a somewhat similar situation in Poland, though more regarding political integrity than gender issues. We've voted a quite competent party out, and voted stupid bozos into their place. Simply, because the competent party was very actively using their competence to rob the country blind, using their immense political talents and brainpower for things that benefitted them, at heavy cost to the society. Well, the bozos are incompetent. Even if they go full evil, they won't be capable of causing so much harm, because they simply don't know how.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    39. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You could say people who voted for him are victims, like most of the people who voted for Hitler. They were tricked. Look at how many think that straight white males are being repressed, even though they just proved that actually they have the majority of the power. So much power that they can vote to deport millions of the minorities who they think are oppressing them.

      They voted for the guy who promised to protect their jobs from cheaper immigrant and foreign labour, when he himself makes use of that labour instead of employing Americans.

      He used the standard Nazi tactic, as outlined by Hermann Goering at his Nuremberg trial. Tell people they are being attacked. Make them think you are the only one who can save them.

      Having said that, a lot of them are just racist scum. But not all of them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed.

      Had the Democrats fielded almost anyone *except* HRC, it would have been a D landslide victory. They probably could have fielded a dog and a used ball of aluminum foil and won. But, no, they chose to anoint one of the most hated women in politics - and I say that as a life long Democrat. She's simply toxic in a way that the party core is simply blind to.

      I feel like we just had the Superbowl, and the 49ers and Browns ended up as the NFC and AFC representatives.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    41. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah Reagan presided over an economic boom.

      Reagan inherited a decade of stagflation. He created the economic boom.

    42. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You need to look more carefully. There has been substantial inflation over the past few years:

      1. Bond prices
      2. Stock prices
      3. Housing prices
      4. Food prices (look at the price per unit quantity)
      5. College tuition
      6. Medical care/medical insurance (Depending on where you live in the U.S., how do you like that 33% increase in insurance premia for the coming year?)

      The only place you don't see inflation are energy and wages (wage inflation is what the Federal Reserve does *not* want to see because it is "bad" inflation).

    43. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by msauve · · Score: 3, Informative
      " Libertarian party which cared about the environment"

      You should do your homework first, to avoid making false claims. Libertarians (large or small "L") aren't philosophically against protecting the environment, they just believe there's a better way to do it.

      2.2 Environment

      Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.

      - LP Platform

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    44. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Clinton, on the other hand, is a sexist with an agenda. She'd be "bringing gender balance to the government" by replacing men with women on key positions - even with a shortage of adequately competent female candidates. Skill be damned, gender matters - she'd actively discriminate against male candidates, with disregard for actual qualification levels. She'd allow female supremacists to push their laws through, and obstruct their opponents.

      As a classic liberal, that's what really scares me about the new SJW left. I was on the left when they supported true equality and civil rights (and I still support those things). But the modern SJW's are just racists and sexists themselves. They villianize white males the same way that Klan members used to villianize blacks. The only thing that separates them from Dixiecrats is which race/sex they want to disenfranchise and discriminate against. It's sickening that they've been able to take over the left like a cancer and turn a party that used to stand up for equality and freedom into a party of black nationalism, misandry, and opposition to free speech.

      So congrats snowflakes, you actually got this old-school liberal to vote for Donald Trump. And the more "hate speech" laws you advocate for and the more you push an agenda of open hatred and discrimination against white males, the stronger the backlash against you will grow. Even many women are starting to think about what kind of world their sons will have to grow up in if your ideology wins the day.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    45. Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really ? So you think he's not going to try and force Muslims to register on a special database and carry special ID ? He promissed to do that many times. You think being okay with a president who wants laws like that does not make you complicit in the atrocity such a law would represent ?
      Normally we would say - the supreme court would chuck that out so fast his head would spin since it would clearly violate both the first and fourth ammendments, but Trump gets to fill Scalia's seat now, with a republican congress - so he can give that seat to any bigotted jerk he wants to, and suddenly that particular defence is a lot weaker.
      You think he couldn't get enough votes in congress or the senate to pass such a law ? Republicans have pandered to that same sentiment all year, and they have majorities in both houses. You think any of them would risk the ire of the voters by taking a principled stand against it ? Maybe a few like John McCain might, especially having just won re-election and thus being safe for 4 years, but are you CERTAIN there's enough of those ?
      How is being willing to take that risk not making you complicit in the bigotry that lead to it ?

      What if Trump resurrects DOMA ? With his new conservative court - the current legal status of gay marriage may very well end, the most we could hope for is a sanity clause to allow existing marriages to remain valid. What about all those insane laws that outlaw abortion by proxy (in Texas they've managed to get it down to a single abortion clinic for the entire state) - you think a Trump supreme court will shoot those down ? You just have to pray we don't get another roe-vs-wade style case or it ends entirely.

      Now it's quite likely none of these things affect you personally - they don't affect most of Trumps voters and the most hardcore ones actively WANT these things. But it makes them all bigots, it makes them all to blame for every single one that happens - because they chose somebody who would do those things, it doesn't matter why they chose him. It doesn't matter if they voted for his tax policy or his trade policy - they were willing to subject other people to a bigotted government to get those things - and that makes them bigots themselves. It makes them responsible for his actions.

      The only Trump actions ALL of his voters don't bear EQUAL responsibility and guilt in - are whatever he ends up doing that was NOT in his campaign. The things he said in speeches he will do - if even one of them comes to pass, all the horrors it causes is blood on the hands of everybody who voted for him. And coincidentally voted for Pence too - a man who signed a law demanding that gay couples be jailed just for WANTING to get married and has publicly stated that he believes women should be charged with murder if they have a miscarriage.

      Yeah, I'm upset, even traumatized. I'm fucking scared for the world my little girl is now going to grow up in. I'm legitimately worried that another world war is looming and I don't know if we'll live through it. Vast numbers of people didn't make it the last two times - and those didn't have large nuclear arsenals. You bet I'm fucking traumatised... but at least I have a clean conscience.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    46. Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by hackwrench · · Score: 2

      I've been saying that Trump drains the swamp ignites the swamp gas, and can't put it out because he now has no water and he's annoyef the wildlife.

    47. Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is BOTH candidates have displayed a great deal of racism, sexism, and bigotry.

      You need only look at many of the positions Hillary held while she ran for senate. How she stood up in front of large crowds and told us all about remorseless super predators, her friendships with clansmen like Byrd that she never disavowed, how many of her former staff claim to have been treated by her and say she even used racial slurs, how the campaign e-mails show she cynically divided people and sought to do so along racial and gender lines. The woman was no saint she just set herself up as the anti-bigot and a complaint media went along with it. They never bothered to ask how can Trump be so sexist when he gives some of the most important positions in his campaign and companies to women? Remember too Bill ultimately settled out of court with at least some of his accusers, because he knew they would prevail if it went to trial therfore we can assume she knew as well. Standing by your man and giving him the benefit of the doubt is a perfectly reasonable thing for a wife to do, but when you really don't have doubt it is it really right to try and destroy those women publicly the way she did?

      I did not put that last thing in to apologize for Trump I merely put it in to suggest that you and I have been feed a very biased portal of both of these people. Both of these candidates decided to make this election about name calling because neither was long on substance. Clinton was simply not really a good advocate for women she just put on the mantle thinking it would be politically useful. The only way to spin things for H being any less sexist and bigoted than Trump is to suggest she treated everyone more equally badly. Oh boy that sure is a win.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    48. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could say people who voted for him are victims, like most of the people who voted for Hitler.

      I don't buy it.

      You know what life was like in the Weimar Republic? The currency was worthless (the mark depreciated by a factor of 10^12 in five years), unemployment was by 25%, streets were not safe (the reason why the government residen in Weimar rather than Berlin) and when the government defaulted on war reparations due to the terrible state of the economy, the belgian and the french force moved into and occupied Ruhr, the most industrially advanced part of the country... The situation comparable to today's Venezuela.

      In other words, the people there really *were* victims regardles of Hitler. He did not quite manufacture that situation just took advantage of it. Still, he got only 33% of the votes in the last free elections.

      There is no way you can compare that situation to what's going on in the US now. There were starving people roaming the streets begging for food; here the lowest classes are a generation of morbidly obese... I can see how people overlooked the warmongering and hate speech when Hitler also promised order and food. On the other hand the americans are overlooking the use torture and atomic weapons for the promise of getting rid of the immigrants.

      Sorry, I'm not sympathizing with that!

    49. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Xyrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My wife is a liberal non-white female who voted for Hillary, hoping to see a female President.

      Voting for someone on the basis of their sex is just as stupid as voting for someone on the basis of their race/skin-colour. You should be voting on the basis of their policies — far more complex than some genetic attribute.

      I think this election has demonstrated that policies are irrelevant.

      --
      ~X~
    50. Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really, really wish Sanders had been the democratic nominee - Trump was the anti-politician ? The left should have answered with a populist anti-politician, the difference would be, they'd be electing a sane one.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    51. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      You should do your homework first, to avoid making false claims. Libertarians (large or small "L") aren't philosophically against protecting the environment, they just believe there's a better way to do it.

      You should take your head out of your ass, to avoid talking stupid shit. Libertarians are against any meaningful environmental regulation; they want injured parties to have to sue through the courts and suffer years of ongoing damages to the environment which cannot be repaired before the case is settled and someone is asked to pay a handslap fine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All democratic political systems require coalitions between disparate groups in order to govern. In the US you get to see the completed coalition before voting, as they are represented by the Republican and Democratic parties. In other countries you vote for one of many parties, and then leave it up to the elites in those parties to form coalitions without further public input.

      There are pros and cons to both ways of running a democracy, and claiming a two party system is fundamentally different than a 3+ party system is deeply ignorant. The only significant difference is the lack of control a 3+ party system gives the electorate.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    53. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This would be one of the biggest reasons I didn't vote for her. "It's Her turn." The sense of entitlement that Hillary had for the Whitehouse, like it was her destiny to ascend to the throne or something. To put it bluntly, she needed to be put in her place.

      Before all you women get your panties in a wad, i'm not against a woman president. I do believe its time for a woman president, just not that one. I would have voted for Condlisa Rice in a heart beat.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    54. Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you kidding? As a classical liberal I hate SJW's even more than the right. SJW's have co-opted my Democratic party and turned a party of inclusiveness, reason, and freedom into a party of white-male hatred, "safe spaces," and exclusion. For that, I despise them way more than any Republican ever will.

      But you just keep digging your heals in and embracing a more-and-more radical fringe SJW ideology, and see what happens in the next election when even more states turn red in backlash.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    55. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      I disagree. A large percentage of people - enough to swing the vote in Trump's favor, did not decide who they were voting for until the past couple of weeks. If they were voting to elect a woman, or against misogyny (or toupees), they would have decided a long time ago. Both the democrats and republicans have their brain dead supporters who will only vote for "R" or "D," but the swing voters who actually decide the election do not. I say this as someone who votes third party - the choice this year was a bunch of new, anti-establishment policies (even if some of them are ridiculous) vs. more-of-the-same. The "hope and change" that Obama brought did not help middle class America... salaries have stagnated for most of the past two presidencies - median incomes are stuck at 1999 levels. When you ask if you are better off now than when Obama entered office, the vast majority of people answer "no." Despite stagnant incomes, health care costs (for example) have skyrocketed for those middle class Americans who already had insurance....higher premiums, higher deductibles. Stagnant wages - through both republican and democrat "rule." People wanted anti-establishment. It's just that simple. They didn't vote for a toupee.... but much of the opposition is melting down and cannot accept that it wasn't a vote for xenophobia or misogyny - those things are just the baggage that comes along with the real hope of change.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    56. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by rholtzjr · · Score: 2

      Wait a minute, I thought it was Jeb's turn. Or so he said.

    57. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2, Informative

      That, and the fact that Hillary comes across so generally unlikable.

      I think that and the FBI statements 12 days ago might have had something to do with it. There should be some head-rolling going on in the FBI. No reason for a lame-duck president or congress. Obvious Hatch Act violations occurred. At the very least take down the assholes that illegally influenced the election. They should be able to accomplish that in the next 60 days, but I doubt that will happen.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    58. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Jack9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > overwhelmingly to put the same old congresscritters back in office.

      To be fair, that's because many of our choices were the same critters from the major parties. I had no other options (write-ins for congress havent worked).

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    59. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by swillden · · Score: 2

      Nothing you said contradicts anything I said. Yes, Reagan's policies were often very bad. I expect Trump's to be worse. But Reagan was able to pull people together, and nothing Trump has shown us so far indicates that he can.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    60. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope you aren't "getting shit" for voting for Jill Stein due to accusations that you "cost Hillary Clinton the election". Looking at the numbers, I don't see one instance in any state race where the outcome would have been any different had the independents not run. That is, even if all the people who voted for Jill Stein voted for Hillary Clinton, it still wouldn't have given her enough votes to win in the states where she lost to Trump (and similarly, none of the states where Trump lost might have been won had he gotten support from Gary Johnson voters). So if somebody is accusing you of costing Hillary Clinton they have absolutely no standing besides sour grapes.

      Similarly, I despise people who accuse anyone of voting Independent as having "thrown their vote away". Elections are not a popularity contest and just because "your guy" doesn't win does not make your vote wasted. Voting is how citizens say, "this is the direction I want the country to go". If enough people vote for a third-party candidate, it can cost the major parties their victory, and in future elections the major parties will be forced to change to win back those third-party supporters. Unfortunately, voters have become extremely short-sighted, and cannot see beyond the immediate election (largely due to indoctrination by the major parties, who would prefer to minimalize third parties so they don't have to change). Catchy campaign slogans aside, voting third party really is the only way to force the major parties to alter their ways.

      Personally, I find this one of the most disappointing things about the election, because - Trump's rhetoric aside - this was less a victory for the average citizen and more just a sign that things will continue to be the same (Trump is not going to "drain the swamp; he just filled it with Republicans who now control the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and most of the governors; they have no reason to significantly change tactics). I was really hoping that the independent candidates could make a decent showing this year - 4% of the vote would have been nice - to threaten both the Democrats and Republicans party enough to induce change. Unfortunately, the status quo has been maintained.

      Of course, the most terrifying thing is that the Republicans have such a strong grip on the country. I say this not because I necessarily disagree (or for that matter, agree) with their policies; I just am extremely wary of any one power-block having, well, so much power. I would have felt the same had Hillary Clinton won and the Democrats gained control of Congress too. Ideally I would like the Congress controlled by one party (well, the House by one party and the Senate deadlocked), and the Presidency by the other party under the principle that the government that governs least governs best. I do not generally subscribe to the Libertarian philosophy of tiny government, but I do believe that any time one power block has such a sure grip on things, they fast track their policies and swift action like that is never good for the nation. Deadlocked government forces change to a crawl and requires compromise to get anything done, which is the ideal.

      So, the short of it is, good for you for voting for a third party if you believe that the major party candidates did not adequately represent you. Don't let anyone tell you that you were wrong to do so.

    61. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by harperska · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are lucky. Far too many states that shouldn't have been swing states suddenly became so. I live in Minnesota, which was supposed to be a part of the "blue wall", and has the dubious honor of being the only state in the union to vote democrat in the 1984 election, still hasn't been called. I have family in Wisconsin and Michigan, also supposedly part of the blue wall, both of which unexpectedly swung for Trump. In all 3 of those states, the vote counts for Johnson alone are greater than the difference between Trump and Clinton, so peoples' choice to vote 3rd party definitely had an effect on the outcome.

    62. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by kimvette · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Newsflash:
      Lawsuits don't clean water once it's been contaminated, and lawsuits do not reverse global warming. Lawsuits don't subdue increased ferocity of tropical storms. They just punish with a laughably small punitive financial charge that is chalked up as the cost of doing business, and then depending on the nature of the judgement, might be written off as losses when taxes are filed.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    63. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by MooseMiester · · Score: 2

      By U.S. election standards, Trump did win in a landslide. Greatest Republican Victory since 1926.

      Remember the midterms, when the GOP achieved the greatest victory it had since the 20's? The liberal media denied that too.

      The winner is the people. The losers are all the people who bought the left wing media talking points. You know, Hillary is way ahead in the polls, has an 80% or greater chance of winning, Trump is a stupid xenophobic racist pig (the same arguments the DNC has used against opponents for DECADES)...

      And you're still buying it. Wake up. The new Republican Party is the TEA party the liberals declared was dead. It's now the majority. The new Republican Party is the Democratic Party of old. The Democratic Party is now the establishment party of rich old white men and women -- most of whom think they are oh so superior to the rest of us. The new Democratic Party is the party of street violence, lying, dirty tricks, collusion --- everything the Republican Party once was.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    64. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Add myself to the list of people who refused to vote for Hillary. She didn't lose my vote because she's a woman, she lost it because she's Hillary Clinton. I would have voted for Elizabeth Warren (or Sanders) without any hesitation, but the DNC was so hell-bent on making sure that Hillary was the nominee that they forgot to nominate someone who was capable of beating the most disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. Hopefully by this point it will be blatantly obvious that voters do not want Hillary Clinton, and hopefully she will retire from politics and public life. She's earned it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    65. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Just because you don't understand / disagree with certain policies doesn't make them irrelevant. Like Brexit, Trump's political policy positions appealed to lower income people whose jobs and economic situation had been made worse the past two decades by globalization. This is a traditional, if much-ignored, core Democrat group (blue collar workers). When they fled the Democratic ticket to vote for Trump, they won him the election. Contrary to the pundits who were trying to paint Trump as a racist, Trump won a higher share of the Black and Latino vote than Romney did in 2012. Because to these voters, his policy of protectionism mattered more to them than whether he was a racist.

      I also suspect the polls showing Clinton comfortably ahead may have backfired. There was strong anti-establishment sentiment in both parties this election. Some people fed up with the establishment but who thought Trump was an idiot may have ended up voting for him as a protest vote, because the polls said Clinton was going to win anyway. If there's evidence this could have happened, we need to seriously consider banning polls for a week or two before an election. These things can influence elections. Back when professional wrestler Jesse Ventura was running for governor of Minnesota, a friend of mine said he was about to fill in the box next to his name as a protest vote. Then he thought to himself, "what if this guy actually wins?" and changed his vote.

    66. Re: And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Really ? So you think he's not going to try and force Muslims to register on a special database and carry special ID ? He promissed to do that many times. You think being okay with a president who wants laws like that does not make you complicit in the atrocity such a law would represent ?

      I'm not too worried about that. After all, that's the sort of thing that the courts can fix (for the most part).

      I'm far more worried about a guy who asked why we shouldn't use nuclear weapons getting his hands on the nuclear football. I pray that our military leaders will have the courage to refuse any illegal orders that would put our entire world in jeopardy, because I don't trust Trump not to give those sorts of orders. If he does, and if they follow them, there's no going back. The world ends. Everyone dies.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    67. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Don't lets forget. Trump, and all the other elected officials, got elected with the current system.

      Why would anyone want to reform how elections occur if they won using that system. The only candidates who stand for electoral reform are those that the system squeezed out.

      I do agree though, that the nature of our country and how it favours a two party system tends to create politicians who are at the crazy-end of each side. It's difficult to be moderate and win your party nomination. You have to appeal to the base, not the middle.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    68. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't that the truth. The DNC brought this on themselves. If they had fielded any other candidate they would have wiped the floor with Trump last night. Bernie Sanders comes to mind. If they hadn't been so keen on sinking his campaign they might be celebrating instead of crying today.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    69. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think even Libertarians believe the nonsense they repeat about protecting the environment. Bringing a lawsuit is a large burden, and most forms pollution are small but cumulative and difficult to trace to their sources. Who the fuck am I supposed to sue when the sky is brown day after day? When there's mercury in my well water? When the river is full of E coli from people shitting in it?

    70. Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... by cusco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder if the DNC will get the message that voters want to make a choice, not be told who the candidate will be after their discussions in the legendary "smoke filled room". It's not likely, considering the inside-the-beltway articles that I'm already seeing that tRump won because of this or that. He won because the DNC insisted on running a candidate that was universally loathed by the opposition and whose only real asset was "I'm not Donald Trump."

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  10. We Cut Off Our Nose To Spite Our Face! by slacka · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Four years we get to listen to his pedantic bullshit.
    And in four years, we have to sit through another goddamn election season where he's a candidate.
    I fully expect him to appoint every conservative wingnut he can find to positions of power.
    We're going to try trickle down economics one more fucking time.
    We're going to boot 20 million people off of their health care, and institute health savings plans instead (great if you live well enough above your means that you can afford to set money aside).
    We're going to ignore the Paris Climate Accords. The EPA will be left in tatters.
    We're going to waste half a trillion dollars building a fucking wall, to address an immigration problem that is nowhere near our top concern.
    We're going to defund the Department of Education.
    And on and on and fucking on.
    And I fully expect the Trump administration to be rife with scandals. There's a reason he didn't want to get into financial disclosures. He will use the office to further his investments.
    President Trump, the greatest shitshow on earth!

    1. Re:We Cut Off Our Nose To Spite Our Face! by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not happy about the result but I'm going to make 2 predictions right now:

      * The wall never gets built, I can't see congress aggreeing to fund it
      * Trump comes around on climate change. I think he's smart enough to know that it's a real thing and he has young kids to think of.

      Maybe I'm just a glass half full kind of guy.

    2. Re:We Cut Off Our Nose To Spite Our Face! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      * The wall never gets built, I can't see congress aggreeing to fund it

      I think the wall would never be built because Trump didn't believe what he was talking in the first place

      * Trump comes around on climate change. I think he's smart enough to know that it's a real thing and he has young kids to think of.

      I am pessimistic on this one, because Trump does not look that smart

    3. Re:We Cut Off Our Nose To Spite Our Face! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, shit, I had forgotten about the environment with all the other bad news. America may just have broken the planet.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:We Cut Off Our Nose To Spite Our Face! by swillden · · Score: 3

      I fully expect him to appoint every conservative wingnut he can find to positions of power.

      Why would you expect that? That would imply that he'd appoint people with different beliefs than his own. Donald Trump is not, has never been, and didn't campaign as, a conservative.

      We're going to try trickle down economics one more fucking time.

      If you believe his victory speech, we're going back to the New Deal. The very first thing he said was that he's going to put millions to work rebuilding national infrastructure. Will he call it the CCC again, too?

      We're going to boot 20 million people off of their health care, and institute health savings plans instead (great if you live well enough above your means that you can afford to set money aside).

      Could be.

      We're going to ignore the Paris Climate Accords. The EPA will be left in tatters.

      You're right about that one.

      We're going to waste half a trillion dollars building a fucking wall, to address an immigration problem that is nowhere near our top concern.

      I doubt it. I expect him to start walking that one back on day one... or at least mutating it into a "virtual' wall. Which, actually, would be more effective.

      We're going to defund the Department of Education.

      Meh. That seems like something that ought to be a state-level concern anyway.

      And I fully expect the Trump administration to be rife with scandals. There's a reason he didn't want to get into financial disclosures. He will use the office to further his investments. President Trump, the greatest shitshow on earth!

      Yeah, starting with the fact that the Trump University lawsuit is going to be in high gear as he begins his presidency. Or we could have had Clinton being prosecuted for mishandling classified emails. Swindling people out of their savings or scheming to keep emails hidden from potential subpoenas and FOIA requests... which is worse? The latter is despicable and morally bankrupt (though not treasonous, no matter what conservative blowhards say), but the former is just petty nasty thieving. And being elected president clearly isn't going to convince him that now he has to start playing by the rules (nor would it convince her).

      Sigh. Faced with two thoroughly rotten options, America picked the greater evil.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:We Cut Off Our Nose To Spite Our Face! by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      * Violence and hate crime against minorities will rise sharply over the next ~6 months.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    6. Re:We Cut Off Our Nose To Spite Our Face! by lucm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's all rhetoric but the fact is that walls work. Always have.

      Remember how it was a daily thing to have bus bombs or market bombs in Israel? Then they built a wall and that stopped, the terrorists had to go hide with civilians in Lebanon to shoot rockets.

      Same thing earlier in 20th century when the Italians had problems in Libya because weapons and fighters were coming in from neighboring countries. They built walls (well fences) and the problem went away.

      There's also the wall of China that worked pretty well.

      Sometimes you don't need complex socio-economic theories to solve a problem, you just need a wall.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    7. Re:We Cut Off Our Nose To Spite Our Face! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      It's all rhetoric but the fact is that walls work. Always have.

      Walls work when it's feasible to build and defend them. It works on the Palestinians only because the wall can be so very short. This would be a very long wall. In fact, only a glorified fence has ever really been proposed, not really a wall at all. And it won't work. I believe Penn & Teller already showed that :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:We Cut Off Our Nose To Spite Our Face! by avandesande · · Score: 2

      EPA should be concerned with poor towns get lead-tainted water, not regulating CO2.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    9. Re:We Cut Off Our Nose To Spite Our Face! by MooseMiester · · Score: 2

      The wall the DNC erected around it's convention - you know - to promote "free speech" (e.g. keep everyone who disagreed far, far away) worked just great.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  11. Very true by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Informative

    For anyone who doubts the parent post, read the PDF attached to this email and look at the list of names of "Pied Piper Candidates" the DNC hoped to face.

    Maybe they should dump the superdelegates and let the people choose their own candidate next time?

    1. Re:Very true by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You realize Hillary and trump both won their party's nomination

      Yes, of course.

      fair and square, right?

      You're joking, right?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Very true by CaptainLard · · Score: 4, Informative

      The time for misinformation is over. Hillary beat Sanders by ~2 Million popular votes and was leading throughout the primaries. Anyway you slice it Hillary was rightfully the Dem nominee. Its moot now anyway because here we go...

    3. Re:Very true by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Early in the primaries, Sanders was really close to Clinton in elected delegate count - within about 10%-15%.. But all the media reported the delegate count including the DNC-selected superdelgates, making it appear as if Clinton had an insurmountable 40%-60% lead. That had the effect of discouraging potential Sanders voters from bothering to vote because the primary race was "already over", as well as swaying undecideds to not seriously consider Sanders because "he didn't have a realistic chance of winning."

      One party deliberately manipulated their primary process to select the candidate the party bosses wanted, instead of the candidate the voters wanted. The other party grudgingly accepted the voters' choice of nominee even though the party bosses thought it was crazy stupid. The first party lost the Presidency. The latter party won it. Turns out listening to the voters' choice instead of the party bosses' opinions pays off in a democracy. Who'd've thunk it.

    4. Re:Very true by Bueller_007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mod parent down for being completely wrong. How the hell did this get modded up in the first place?

      You need 2382 votes to clinch. Hillary won 2,205 pledged delegates; Bernie won 1,846. There were 712 superdelegate votes. 1846 + 712 is 2558.

      News flash:
      2558 is greater than 2382. Bernie could have won based on superdelegates.

      Had the DNC not rigged the contest against Bernie from the start, and had superdelegates actually paid attention to the polls and realized that Bernie is far more electable than Hillary, then Trump would have lost last night.

  12. In other news by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    Britain slips down to number 2 in the stupidest country rankings.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:In other news by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Basically... yes.

      You guys just had to be the centre of attention, right?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  13. Disappointed but not surprised by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since term limits began we've been in a cycle of 8 years one party, 8 years the other. Bush (the first) was the only exception, because Reagan was ridiculously popular and Dukakis wasn't.

    More accurately, Republicans have a base of ~40% that turns out no matter what; Democrats don't, which is why all the true landslides of the past 50 years have gone to Republicans. The party cycle is pretty much all because of Democrats; after two elections they become complacent and idealistic and stop turning out, then it takes a couple terms of Republicans to build up the fire in their belly again. It would be funny, except for how many people suffer in the meantime.

    And if you were one of those idealists who would only vote for Bernie, remember that idealism is an extremism as dangerous as any other, because it ends in letting the world burn because you won't settle for second best.

    Anyway, all hail Grand Nagus Trump and see you in 2018.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Disappointed but not surprised by fnj · · Score: 2

      Bush (the first) was the only exception

      Flat-out wrong. In addition to Bush I, Carter was 4 years between two R's.

  14. Re:May the Lord have mercy on us all by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Blah blah blah. Clinton -- with all the same information that your favorite pal George W. Bush had -- voted for the Iraq war. The fact that she later decided that war was bad when it was politically convenient to do so and was never questioned once by the toadies in the press about here hypocrisy doesn't change the facts.

    As secretary of state she personally instigated the disastrous destabilization of multiple secular governments in the middle east to appease the jihadi Muslim Brotherhood.

    There was one proven war monger on that stage, and it wasn't Turmp.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  15. Re:May the Lord have mercy on us all by Khyber · · Score: 2

    You assume they've been maintained enough, and properly at that, in order to maintain aim/trajectory/flight capability/distance capability.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  16. Well... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, at least we (the UK) are no longer the biggest clowns in the west.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  17. Im confused how Republicans could win so much by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

    The demographics keep moving towards the Democrats. There have never been more offended Latinos, women and immigrants from the Middle East. Heck, even the Mormons were having misgivings.

    I don't know where the extra Republican votes came from.

    This is Slashdot -- anyone here think that hacking voting machines is a strange thought with Russia's help?

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    1. Re:Im confused how Republicans could win so much by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Extra Republican votes? He got several million fewer votes than any R or D candidate since 2000. Like I said in another post, Republicans have a minimum guaranteed turnout, Democrats don't. Trump got the minimum, Hillary got less.

      Hillary is an expert politician and would have made an excellent president, but she didn't have the charisma to break Democrats out of 8 years of complacency and idealism.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Im confused how Republicans could win so much by aberglas · · Score: 2

      You do not need Russian help to hack the machines.

      Just go to the "Adjust Votes" screen and correct any errors that the electorate might have made.

    3. Re:Im confused how Republicans could win so much by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know where the extra Republican votes came from.

      There never have been more old people. There you have it.
      Same shit here in Germany, only worse - we basically have a gerontocracy.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re:Im confused how Republicans could win so much by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know where the extra Republican votes came from.

      From people sick to death of a corrupt, lying Clinton and the totally transparent corruption of the DNC and all of the media machinery that was trying to shove her down everyone's throats. If you still think this was about "Russian hacking" or any other sort of external influence, you're exactly the sort of out-of-touch person that probably thought Clinton was entitled to more of the sort of power she's been so eager to abuse and enrich herself with over the years.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Im confused how Republicans could win so much by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      The term is the Silent majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      The rest was just wishful thinking by leftist media, their owners and political supporters.
      Vast numbers of illegal migrants around the US would have had to have been allowed to vote to make any real difference.
      The rest was just an echo chamber of neocons, contractors, dems and big media all pushing a wish for dems.
      They did not make up or understand the rest of the USA. The lack of jobs, education not going to merit, ever more wars, the call for even more wars, bad global trade deals, more debt is not a winning policy.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Im confused how Republicans could win so much by niaxilin · · Score: 2

      ...and the totally transparent corruption of the DNC...

      You nailed it. The DNC's corruption was transparent. While the GOP hid theirs better.

      Why didn't WikiLeaks release hacked Trump campaign or GOP emails? We'd expect leaks and hacks to target both parties. Did this come down to who's emails were more hackable? Or does the Left not have the hacking chops that the Right does? Or were they less motivated?

    7. Re:Im confused how Republicans could win so much by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know where the extra Republican votes came from.

      It's called the Bradley effect people are always reluctant to admit to pollsters that they are willing to vote for a corrupt and openly racist candidate.

      From people sick to death of a corrupt, lying Clinton and the totally transparent corruption of the DNC and all of the media machinery that was trying to shove her down everyone's throats. If you still think this was about "Russian hacking" or any other sort of external influence, you're exactly the sort of out-of-touch person that probably thought Clinton was entitled to more of the sort of power she's been so eager to abuse and enrich herself with over the years.

      If you think that anybody can become a realestate tycoon in New York and meddle in the casino business without being corrupt perhaps you'd be interested in this bridge I have for sale. Voting for Donald Trump because you think he's less corrupt than Hillary Clinton is about the best joke I've heard in a long time.

    8. Re:Im confused how Republicans could win so much by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 2

      You lost.. You can stop the hate and lies now

      Actually we didn't, Hillary looks set to win the popular vote which means that democracy lost. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  18. Re:god help us all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Coward" is an Islamic surname? Who knew?!

    But seriously. If I enter any other non-Western country with a Christian surname and am treated as a second class citizen, it is expected. I am the guest, I am expected to abide by the rules, the customs, the laws, the norms. I cannot own land in Japan, If I am a woman I cannot vote in Saudi Arabia. Yet everyone expects that the West change their ways to accommodate them when they enter. And when there is pushback against this expectation, the response is accusations of racism and xenophobia.

    If the West is so great that everyone wants to enter, why does everyone want to change it so radically?

  19. Wow, not even eight minutes later, and... by Pollux · · Score: 3, Informative

    1) Markets are tanking.
    2) News about how to immigrate to Canada floated from #5 to #3 on the Google "Top News" list.

    At this rate, I'm glad I woke up. I'll go get my passport, pack my bags, get in line early to withdraw all my savings from the bank, and drive north.

    1. Re:Wow, not even eight minutes later, and... by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      1) Markets are tanking.

      Yes: with Hillary out of the picture, they are worried that they can't buy influence for $250k a pop from a corrupt crony capitalist anymore.

      2) News about how to immigrate to Canada [slashdot.org] floated from #5 to #3 on the Google "Top News" list.

      I always encourage people to vote with their feet. Freedom of movement is probably the most basic freedom.

  20. Re:May the Lord have mercy on us all by Lotana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every country has some weird traditions. USA's is electing a clown as president.

    I am sure it will not be as bad as most people think. After all president is constrained by the budget set by congress. Neither can a president declare war without their approval. I am sure that if he really starts to act out then impeachment is on the table.

    Still, you have to wonder about the voter disillusionment to get such a result.

  21. Re:god help us all by RobRyland · · Score: 2

    well... if you are a US citizen, then you are a citizen with no second class caveat.
    Since you would be visiting, you aren't a citizen at all, so no caveat needed.

    There is nothing inherently wrong about being picky about who you let immigrate (or visit).

  22. Re:god help us all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The West is "so great" primarily because we DON'T do those things. The minute we start is the minute we AREN'T "so great". How does that concept escape you?

  23. We're all enrolled in Trump University now by DRMShill · · Score: 2

    I don't blame Trump for this. I don't even blame the people really. I blame the DNC.

    We've survived 8 years of Bush. We can do this. At the very least it should be an entertaining 4 years or however long it takes him to get impeached for war crimes.

  24. Don't move to Canada, liberals. by neiras · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pick a swing state and colonize it if you actually care about your country.

    If you look at the state maps, wherever population is densest, people tend to vote left. The reason is simple: people who live in close quarters have learned that it's important to get along.

    All those folks out in the sparse spaces haven't figured out that rugged individualism is basically childishness. We look out from the cities and see drooling yokels - they look at us and see preening fops making useless rules.

    World's getting smaller though. Eventually the children will have to grow up. We have to take care of each other and share limited resources.

  25. Re:Nice work jackasses. by MattskEE · · Score: 2

    The only small consolation is that Clinton is forecast to win a scant victory in the popular vote once all ballots are counted: http://www.nytimes.com/electio... as of slightly after midnight election day she is forecast about 1.3% lead. Unfortunately it's not the popular vote that matters.

  26. I doubt it'll happen by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the 1% are fine with Trump. Lots of tax cuts, regulation cuts, Union busting, etc. That leaves the loons, and the left just aren't up to assassinations. We've shied away from violence this entire campaign. Trumps fine. The rest of us? Not so much.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. We're afraid of our right wing by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    they're large, have a lot of money, and if they stay home we lose the election anyway. That's why we let her run. We also underestimated how unpersonable she would be and how effective the character assassination campaign against her was.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  28. Most perceptive comment of the night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the Washington Post:

    I’m no fan of Peter Thiel, the billionaire who put Gawker out of business by bankrolling a lawsuit by Hulk Hogan, the professional wrestler. In fact, I find him appalling.

    But when he spoke recently at the National Press Club, he said something that struck me as quite perceptive about Donald Trump.

    “The media is always taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally,” Thiel said. Journalists wanted to know exactly how he would deport that many undocumented immigrants, or exactly how Trump would rid the world of ISIS. We wanted details.

    But a lot of voters think the opposite way: They take Trump seriously but not literally.

    They realize, Thiel said, that Trump doesn’t really plan to build a wall. “What they hear is, ‘We’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.’ ”

    Trump, quite apparently, captured the anger that Americans were feeling about issues such as trade and immigration.

    Also, as someone who is not a Trump supporter, I thought at least that his acceptance speech was quite good.

    1. Re:Most perceptive comment of the night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He thanked his parents, siblings, and children. Praised Hillary's service to the country without making any crass remarks about her. Stated he'll represent all Americans, even the ones who didn't vote for him, and to make put unemployed Americans to work building the country to make it great again. That last part sounded bit like the FDR's new deal.

      Keep in mind when Trump was first exploring running for the presidency before Obama, it was as a Democrat. I don't think Trump cares about political parties and will reach out to the Democrats to get the things "he want" done when Republican support aren't enough. What I think will happen is that he'll be disgusted by the pettiness and bullshit of being a politician and fail to get any of plans implemented the way he wants it.

    2. Re:Most perceptive comment of the night by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      So in short, people will reinterpret Shit Trump Says to make it palatable and turn it into what they want, hence making Trump appear like their ideal candidate. That's some serious psychological condition right there.

    3. Re:Most perceptive comment of the night by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Surprising insight and honesty from a Trump supporter.

      They take Trump seriously but not literally.

      Post-factual politics. Don't have a plan, because them people can criticise it. Don't even pretend to tell the truth, because everyone knows that politicians are all liars and you should never believe anything they say. Just tell them what they want to hear, promise them it will all be Great Again.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  29. Re:Nice work jackasses. by yuriklastalov · · Score: 2

    LOL, the Brexit result practically foreshadowed the US election. The media reliance on increasingly inaccurate polls meant they couldn't see it coming. You're a fool if you couldn't see the exact same Silent Majority just waiting in the wings in America after Brexit. Sure, the Limeys may talk funny and spell words the wrong way, but really they're all still Americans at heart.

  30. This is what the Dems get by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    for ignoring the Middle Class. They focused on the very rich and the very poor. Those two groups got taken care of. The rich got tax breaks, cheap labor and cheap money (super low interest rates, etc) and the poor got the Medicare expansion, extended unemployment and a bit of stimulus. The middle class got fuck all.

    Joe Biden talked about this (I wish he'd run, he'da crushed Trump). Sure, Trump isn't going to do anything either, but he said he would, which is more than I heard from Hilary...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  31. If like bush w, nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is probable I was not paying attention back then in early 2000s, but when republicans had control of congress and whitehouse they did not start undoing all the "bad laws" enacted by the democrats.

    At any rate, I hope trump is a better leader than campaigner.

    Besides once trump is sworn in, the men in black will tell him the world is really run by aliens and trump will backpedal, just like all others who have served in that office.

  32. Re:How long will he last? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 2

    Except the part where Pence is actually a pretty solid candidate. While Trump was floundering with his non-stop train of blunders, Pence was actually stating coherent talking points.

    But even so, grassy knoll approach is flat out stupid. Trump is a businessman first and foremost. All stances are negotiable. He's probably easier to sway with a briefcase full of cash than anyone else. Clinton already collected her payola so any newcomer trying to buy policy would have had to outdo the pre-existing arrangements she has. To put it bluntly: you can pay Trump $20 to hold up a Dr. Pepper can during a speech. You'd have to pay Hillary first the $20 she is already getting from Coke, and then another $20 for her to hold up your beverage of choice.

  33. Re:Nice work jackasses. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    LOL, the Brexit result practically foreshadowed the US election.

    Indeed yes. The candidates prepared to tell the nastiest, most egregious lies won in both cases.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  34. Re:Nice work jackasses. by swillden · · Score: 5, Funny

    The best summary I've seen was in a tweet (sorry, don't have the link):

    BRITAIN: Brexit is the stupidest, most self-destructive act a country could undertake.

    USA: Hold my beer.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  35. Not quite, but some points to consider: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Obama had VASTLY more power - he had super majorities in both the House and Senate, which let him do ANYTHING he wanted in his 1st almost 2 years in office without a single Republican vote in congress and with the Republicans not even able to mount a fillibuster in the Senate (incidentally, while the Dems used that power for that nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill and the auto take-over and bank bailouts and Obamacare, they did NOT use it for amnesty or or fixing the inner cities or anything else that would then deprive them of future election arguments to their ethic voter groups). Trump has the congress only marginally - many in Republicans congress are RINOS and "never trumpers" - there WERE no "never Obamas" among the Democrats in congress.

    2. I repeatedly warned liberals on this site that all that cheering they did as Obama did tons of crap "with a pen and his phone" was setting precedents that any future Republican president could use. No Trump has license to run just as rough-shod over every stinking liberal thing he chooses using those very same precedents they and Obama established. THAT was why "ends justify the means" ethics was always a bad idea. If Trump uses that power now to trash every damn thing you like, you have nobody but yourselves to blame. As a right-winger, I personally hope that conservatives in his circles will urge Trump to show more restraint in this regard and not be the dirtbag Obama has been. I do not want my president doing that crap whether he's a Republican OR a Democrat.

    3. This may be the one chance in our lifetimes to see a non-government person go into Washington and upend all the corruption and bureaucracy. A business guy will be able to bring a real-world perspective to things government has been doing and look at lots of stuff and ask the unthinkable questions: "should government be doing THAT?" and "Is that the smartest and most-efficient way to do THAT?" and "Are you an actual expert, or were were you just the one who contributed the most money to some politician?"

    I am very cautiously optimistic that DC and the media will be so far in shock that the inertia of big corrupt government, and NYC media, and talking-head experts and campaign consultants will all have to do a little introspection. The elites need to get out of their bubbles and visit and get to know the rest of America.

    Big loser of the night: Goldman Sachs (followed by the rest of the Wall Street bankers and globalist multinational corps).

  36. Re:How long will he last? by CaptainLard · · Score: 3

    Not knowing him personally and only seeing him never being able to complete a fucking sentence I'd be even more gravely concerned that the hard work hasn't even started yet and all of the fun stuff like making up bullshit and retracting it for no good reason is over. Dump is the next president of the united states. NOW WHAT?!?!?!

  37. The silver linings. by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) Both the Bush and Clinton crime families are finished. They will never hold any power in either side of the Ruling Party again.
    2) Trump is ego driven. He has no actual policy agenda.
    3) Trey Gowdy might actually have enough integrity to prosecute criminals from both sides of the Ruling Party. Obama gave Bush's minions a walk as a professional courtesy.
    4) This defeat is an opportunity for the Democrats to clean house, big time. (Not that I really expect them to do so, but still.)

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  38. Re:May the Lord have mercy on us all by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 2

    And she lost, why are you dwelling on it.

    Note to the young: Sperging about your lost candidate on the night of an election doesn't constitute "dwelling"... You need to wait a few days before using that word.

  39. I couldn't stomach another Hillary speech... by werld · · Score: 2

    Regardless of how you voted for (Bernie Sanders for me because he seemed like a real person and not just a cosmetic masterpiece), Trumps speech felt genuine and was cool to give others credit instead of just saying "ME ME ME". Asshole or not, he seemed like an actual person and not just a robot with a perfectly strategic agenda. My stomach seriously started to cramp up when I thought Hillary was going to win and I'd have to hear her speak for the next 4 years trying to convince the world she cares. Does she even like movies? listen to music or have a soul? Seems like shes been in politics her whole life and it robbed her of a personality and character which are very important to me over a 'platform' The fact that he has no experience, no one thought he would win and still overcame to win has to go for something. Only time will tell but lets at least give him a year before calling for his impeachment because if he overcame all those odds, maybe he is more "qualified" than we give him credit for.

  40. As an Italian I can say: by m.alessandrini · · Score: 5, Funny

    That serves you right for having been making fun of us on Berlusconi all those years!

  41. Moving to Canada by Orgasmatron · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you promised to move to Canada if Trump won, please post contact information and an army of volunteers will reach out to you shortly to schedule a date to help you pack.

    If you promised to move to Mexico to protest Trump's plan to halt illegal immigration, please... Just kidding, we know none of you are willing to live in Mexico.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  42. I was shocked by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Funny

    To find out Canadian immigration website runs IIS.

  43. Here's hoping by retrotails · · Score: 2

    Here's hoping checks and balances will save us... and I can't even be too sure of that because of the republican influence in the house and senate.

  44. Re:Fucki voting your conscience by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Vote for the damn issues, AND, whatever or whoever serves their ACTUALLY HAPPENING, however incrementally.

    This means NO THIRD PARTY shit,

    What if I think voting third party is the best way to accomplish the issues I care about?

    NO PROTEST VOTES,

    I agree with that, as my reply above said.

    PARTICIPATING IN PRIMARIES,

    Yes, but they aren't the be-all-end-all some think they are, as this year showed.

    and VOTING FOR ONE OF THE TWO.

    Sorry, now I have to tell you to fuck off. I vote for who I want, from whichever party, for my own reason. If that happens to be NOT one of the two main parties, so be it. It is my choice, my vote, not yours. So, again, kindly fuck off.

    FUCK.

    Not tonight, my wife is too depressed.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  45. Re:Congratulations by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    Enjoy the decline of American power folks.

    I'd take Gazprom over PG&E any day.

  46. Re:Fucki voting your conscience by Rakarra · · Score: 2

    PARTICIPATING IN PRIMARIES,

    Yes, but they aren't the be-all-end-all some think they are, as this year showed.

    I disagree, if the voters had done their jobs in the primaries, we wouldn't have had the choice of the two worst candidates not only in this election, but in my lifetime.

  47. Four years of I've Told You Sos by Shane_Optima · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Jesus fucking Christ. I didn't want this (as my posting record will certainly show), but there is that smug desire to wag fingers and say I told you, isn't there?

    The moment Brexit happened, I strongly suspected Trump was headed for the White House. Two completely unrelated things, you say? Not at all. The point is this: Project Fear has run its course. If you tell people "Oh No, if you don't vote for the status quo, warts and all, things will get so so bad!", they will be inclined to tell you to go fuck yourself up an ass with a cactus. And if the Brits were willing to do that, for fuck's sake, Americans surely were as well.

    Should I say it? Does it need to be said? Bernie could have won, easily. Probably a dozen others could've done the same. I personally think Biden could've easily won because the man is not a phony. Elizabeth Warren might have easily won too; I'm not sure. For millennia, people haven been bitching thatpoliticians are phony and yet it's somehow impossible to elect someone who isn't phony. Guess what? It's not impossible. Now, in this case I'm pretty sure people settled on a rank phony-ness of a much different sort, a non-standard phonyness over the standard one, but...

    But Jesus fucking Christ, all of this dumb shit about racism and sexism... all of these red herrings that NO ONE on the fence gave a crap about after the man gave you a mountain of potent ammunition to use against him. Scream and scream and scream hysterically at us if we don't agree he's "orange Hitler". No, no he's not Hitler or a racist, obviously fucking not. He's an airhead who barely pays attention to what he's even saying, a sycophant, a man who was a registered Democrat not that long ago, someone who was able to broach a few important topics that no one else was willing to broach, even if he make a complete mess if it every time he tried to talk sense. Just broaching the topic was enough.

    Instead of a curse, I'll try to end with a blessing:

    May the old guard of the Republicans finally disintegrate entirely, may the evangelicals slowly grow quiet and chasten with the realization that genitalia-centered regulation and shaming is no longer going to be a priority in this country, may the alt-right toss out its more vile elements and turn into something that's actually worth listening to now and then, and may the left in this country grow the fuck up and realize that merely being less anti-intellectual and more "moderate" (especially compared to the left in other Western democracies) is not enough.

    This wasn't the way to do it; definitely wasn't the smart way to do it, and I risk spraining my neck from shaking my head but at the same time... alone in the kitchen, coming in for a quick snack but then finding myself pacing absentmindedly and staring at the ceiling... I have to admit cracking a smile or three. Moronic and foot-shooting as this whole thing has been, it does give me a little bit of hope. If reasonableness fails against cynicism, I guess stupidity and bombast can sometimes carry the day, for whatever Pyrrhic victory that's worth.

    Now let's just hope we can all survive the next four years.

  48. I am proud of this country by Trachman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I really am.

    To survive such a powerful stream of filth from massmedia, and to win in landslide.... He is the man, he rocks! True Mr. ImPerfect....

    Also... sort of... shame on that arrogant MINORITY who treat MAJORITY of the country as deplorables, sexists, misogynists, racists, xenophobes.

    1. Re:I am proud of this country by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Also... sort of... shame on that arrogant MINORITY who treat MAJORITY of the country as deplorables, sexists, misogynists, racists, xenophobes.

      Look around. Deplorable is a judgement call, but the majority of people are sexist, misogynist, racist xenophobes. Nobody wants to believe that they could be any of those things, so they don't look inside and actually figure out which of those beliefs are based on some bullshit programming from early in their formative years. If you don't think you were programmed with any sexist, misogynist, or racist data when you were developing, you're not thinking. These ideas have been pervasive in our nation since before day one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:I am proud of this country by ooloorie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Deplorable is a judgement call, but the majority of people are sexist, misogynist, racist xenophobes. Nobody wants to believe that they could be any of those things, so they don't look inside and actually figure out which of those beliefs are based on some bullshit programming from early in their formative years

      I think the problem with progressives is pretty much analogous to the problem with Christian conservatives. Christian conservatives believe that deep down, they are promiscuous, wanton homosexuals, and they need the state to protect them from themselves. And progressives believe they are "sexist, misogynist, racist xenophobes" and need the state to protect them from themselves. And the sad thing is: you are both right. Where you are wrong is assuming that everybody else is like you.

    3. Re:I am proud of this country by lgw · · Score: 2

      Look around. Deplorable is a judgement call, but the majority of people are sexist, misogynist, racist xenophobes. Nobody wants to believe that they could be any of those things, so they don't look inside and actually figure out which of those beliefs are based on some bullshit programming from early in their formative years. If you don't think you were programmed with any sexist, misogynist, or racist data when you were developing, you're not thinking. These ideas have been pervasive in our nation since before day one.

      Talk like that is why Trump won. Just so you know. It's you're fault.

      This was a protest by ordinary Americans who are fed up with being told such nonsense. Told it even by the GOP. The American people grew tired of being treated like shit, in a very personal way, by their government. Now the pendulum is just starting to swing the other way. You ain't seen nothing yet.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  49. You're forgetting Mike Pence by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    he has a very real agenda and it was made clear early on that he'd be running the show behind the scenes, not Trump.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You're forgetting Mike Pence by clonehappy · · Score: 2

      You know you won't be paid for Correcting The Record(tm) any longer, right?

  50. Why Trump won by LichtSpektren · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't be daft and lie to yourself that Trump won because America is overwhelmingly populated by misogynists, homophobes, racists, and xenophobes.

    He won because he spoke up on behalf of the workers who lost their jobs to outsourcing, due to free trade deals and H1-B1 programs and illegal immigration that favor big business at the expense of the middle class. Clinton pretty much openly pledged her allegiance to Wall Street, so those desperate for work already made up their minds.

    That's definitely the biggest issue. There's also the fact that the Democrats are still supporting Planned Parenthood even though they've been caught multiple times illegally selling baby carcases to maximize their profits and not reporting ongoing sexual abuse, and the fact that Clinton's the war hawkiest war hawk in recent memory and people don't much like having America bombing every country it can get its grubby hands on. But hey, keep telling yourself that it's because everybody else is so uneducated and votes out of fear. I'm sure Trump won't win his reelection off of your same mistakes.

  51. "it was her turn" by perpenso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The DNC's failure started long before that, they should not have attempted a coronation.

    This year's Democrat primary was truly weird, no Presidential incumbent but only a single prominent Democrat running? How the hell did that happen? It should have been a crowded field like 2008. Somehow the party machine convinced other prominent Democrats to stay out of the race, "it was her turn". There was one token opponent who mostly said he largely agreed with her and that she would be a good President. And there was the Independent running as a Democrat, a party outsider, Bernie.

    It should have been a crowded Democratic primary field like 2008 and a more viable candidate emerging like in 2008. But that didn't work out for the party machine's preferred candidate last time did it, so they worked to avoid that same mistake and essentially ran here "unopposed" in the primary. The shock of Bernie doing so well should have told them something, but no, "it was her turn".

    [sarcasm] DNC, thank you for Trump. You found the one candidate he could beat [/sarcasm].

    1. Re: "it was her turn" by JeffOwl · · Score: 2

      Since I don't have any mod points at the moment, and as much as I hate to use it, I will say "what he said!"

    2. Re: "it was her turn" by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is notable that most analysis showed Sanders being stronger against Trump than Clinton. If they had really wanted the best chance of having someone at least nominally a Democrat in office, they shouldn't have pushed the coronation.

      Those few points advantage Sanders was projected to have over Clinton would have likely turned the election. Not to mention they would have avoided the defections that hurt them in the House and Senate.

  52. Re: Trump 2016!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bu-bu-but... Hillary had a 99 percent chance of winning!

    But... Google owner donated $50 million!

    But... But... Nazi xenophobic Hitler racist words words words!

    Best fucking day of my life.

  53. Re:16 Celebrities who said they would leave the U. by lucm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This election was just like the Arab spring. Take the information monopoly out of the hands of the biased elites and use social media to reach everyone with the real message.

    They did their best to sabotage him but Twitter and Facebook are the main reasons for the Trump victory.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  54. Re:god help us all by dwillden · · Score: 3

    Baloney. Trump only called for a halt on immigration of Muslims until we have better vetting. He did not call to ban or deport or even mistreat all Muslims. Try reading the actual statement not the deliberate mis-interpretation by the left wing media.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  55. Now we get to find out the specifics of policy by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    Such as, how much do Trump's people know about the energy situation. Trump himself has said some good things, like finally opening the Shoreham nuclear plant, but during the campaign he promoted coal, everyone's least favorite energy source, and ducked a question about opening Yucca Mountain. At least we'll get the Dakota Access Pipeline finished now, and probably as part of a specific push for energy independence.

  56. Re:May the Lord have mercy on us all by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Neither can a president declare war without their approval.

    The US congress has declared war 11 times the last one in 1942.

    You went to fucking Vietnam without congressional approval. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. There's no need for congressional approval for the president to deploy military force, and since this precedent has long since been established I don't think for a second Trump will even try to get congressional approval if he wants to play war-games in the mdddile-east or wherever.

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  57. Lizards, lizards everywhere by Shane_Optima · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yup. Bernie could have won against Trump. Biden could have won against Trump (although I understand the issue there is he didn't really want to run.) I even think Elizabeth Warren could have won against Trump.

    Virtualy any serious (or indeed unserious) person willing to project a a sensible anti-establishment persona, and not say the kind stupid horseshirt Trump has said, and also not be trailing decades of sordid little establishment-class skeletons like Hillary... I tend to believe any of those people could have beaten Trump. We wanted a person in charge for a change; the democratic establishment instead gave us a lizard. One of the more reptilian lizards to saunter by in a while, really.

    And so people voted for the blabbering airhead instead of the lizard. People of or for the left: please learn your lesson. Reform politics. Create an "alt-left"... or just continue down your current path, keep making your token snide remarks and behold as the right destroys everything.

    1. Re:Lizards, lizards everywhere by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And so people voted for the blabbering airhead instead of the lizard. People of or for the left: please learn your lesson. Reform politics. Create an "alt-left"... or just continue down your current path, keep making your token snide remarks and behold as the right destroys everything.

      The lesson here is that the democratic party is not left-wing. The Green party is our only real left-wing party, and it is a whisper of a murmur of passage in the night compared to the other parties. The Democratic party is a centrist, status-quo-maintaining party, and this is a time when people are demanding change. Remember how Obama ran on the Hope (you don't get drone striked or indefinitely detained) and Change (prior administration's policies very little) platform? Problem is, he failed to meet people's hopes and he delivered very little change. Racism is clearly still as rampant as ever so having a black president clearly didn't accomplish anything, and nothing has really changed. The world is still at the brink of war, the same number of people are still seeking employment because the unemployment rate is still a lie (just as it was under republican presidents in the past, this is a bi-partisan effort to fuck us) and he's going to let Standing Rock "play out for a few weeks" after promising that the natives there would not stand alone. So provably, clearly, undeniably, the Democrats could not run on the platform of Change when even their color-changed candidate couldn't provide any. They ran on the basis of maintaining the status quo at a time when people are clearly done doing that.

      At best, the DNC is a bunch of incompetent raving lunatics. At worst, they threw the election.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Lizards, lizards everywhere by Shane_Optima · · Score: 2
      I don't disagree that the Democrats aren't really leftists, especially not with an eye for the global view, but:

      The Green party is our only real left-wing party,

      The Greens are nutters, though. I tentatively support them to the extent that I support any third party, in the hopes that it will eventually bring about electoral reform... but I don't particularly want to see us elect a president who argues that wifi should be restricted or banned because it hurts our brains.

    3. Re:Lizards, lizards everywhere by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3

      Obama doesn't get enough credit. Sure, he failed to fix a lot of stuff, but he did reduce the US's involvement in a lot of wars, and he got Obamacare passed, and at least helped with same-sex marriage. Obamacare in particular is an incredible achievement in the US, although it will probably get torn up now.

      As Presidents of the US go he didn't do too bad. I mean, he didn't fuck things up as badly as some of them did, or as badly as Trump will. It's a low bar for sure, but compared to what Trump wants... mass deportations, repeal basic human rights, roll back decades of social progress...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Lizards, lizards everywhere by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Obamacare in particular is an incredible achievement in the US, although it will probably get torn up now.

      Not an achievement at all then. An incredible achievement would have changed the national expectations around provision of health care irrespective of personal wealth, in a way that led a subsequent president would focus on tweaks and improvements not tearing it up.

      If it's that easy to dismantle, it's pretty shit.

  58. Re:Peter Thiel for SCOTUS. Shut down the FED and I by Kiuas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hoping against hope that this will happen. Shut down the Fed, IRS, FHA, EPA, departments of energy, small business, education, get rid of all departments that are unconstitutional. Get libertarians, objectivists, ancaps into positions in SCOTUS and other powerful positions. Shut down everything public, get rid of SS, Medicare, labour laws and regulations, income and wealth taxes. This planet needs individual freedoms on that level at least in one country.

    So, what you're essentially saying is that you want the US to turn into a full-on plutocracy in which one will simply die without a job/income? And this at a time where menial jobs are fast disappearing because automation and machines are fast becoming more effective than human workers? And at the same time you want to make sure getting education becomes more difficult if not altogether impossible for people who cannot afford to take massive debt.

    Do you understand what life under such a system would actually be like? It would essentially destroy any social mobility that you guys have left and mean that anyone born into a poor/uneducated family would permanently stay that way.

    If this is the direction you guys want to be heading to, I'm doubly glad I'm not american, that's just lunacy.

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  59. 2020 by sjbe · · Score: 2

    rexit remorse will set in quickly and a D wave will flow into Congress in 2018.

    I'm more concerned about 2020 because that election is the one that will determine who gets to gerrymander the congressional seats for the next 10 years. The reason the republicans control congress right now is largely thanks to the results of the 2010 election.

  60. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The people that have the guns have no problem with Mr. Trump.

  61. Re: Not a level playing field by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can't elect women that don't run.

    There are many reasons why Congress and the population as a whole don't sample equally.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  62. Progressives did it to themselves by RichPowers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The seeds of the republic's destruction were sown in the 1910s by the Progressives: the States were expelled from Congress (Seventeenth Amendment), federal income tax instated, and Federal Reserve created, leading to inflationary monetary policies that impoverish savers and create asset bubbles. Someone like Trump is an unsurprising response to decades of unchecked statism and the rise of the managerial/bureaucratic class; by definition, such a class cannot constitute anything close to a numerical majority.

    The people are mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore.

    Now Trump will become head of the federal leviathan the Progressives created and Republicans failed to control. He will have unprecedented executive powers thanks to the COWARDLY failure of Congress to reign in G.W. Bush and Obama.

    But I do feel some schadenfreude now that Progressives are talking about secession.

    For years, I was called everything from a neo-Confederate to racist for advocating states' rights and secession (if needed) in response to the federal leviathan that spies on us, wages unconstitutional wars, and debases our currency. I was called backwards when I sounded the alarm against political and economic consolidation in D.C., about how it was always a conceit that such programs could work without destroying liberty in the process. A nation of 310+ million stretching from sea to shining sea should not be centrally managed from D.C. -- or anywhere. And now we have Donald Trump in the presidency. Great.

    The REAL winners in this election? The ideas on which this republic was founded. Competitive sovereignty between the states. Limited federal government based on strict interpretation of enumerated powers. Congressional primacy (Article I > Article II). A president with less executive power. The rule of law. Separation of powers. Decentralization. Liberty.

    Restore the republic, and you have less to fear from tyrants like Trump, Clinton, and the would-be Caesars who show up in 2020. This country was blessed to have one Cincinnatus in Washington, but we must always err on the side of prudence and never give into further political consolidation.

  63. Re:Hateful posts on Slashdot (or elsewhere) by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Your words don't represent the western civilisation. Your words only represent the ignorant and short-sighted ideas of someone who has never seen/done much. You might be even just repeating what others said before you. Ironically, you are likely to have been enjoying privileges during your whole life and haven't ever had the kind of problems you are afraid of. You think that everyone else wants what you have and that they don't know how to get it (or are too lazy or uneducated or poor or similar).

    The reality is that your intransigent behaviour is precisely what increases the chances of your blind fears to actually materialise. Violence, hate, lack of understanding, intolerance, lack of opportunities, prejudices, short-sightedness or similar are the kind of things which provoke the appearance of what you don't want. Your just-in-case, unmotivatedly aggressive behaviour towards those different than you is likely to provoke their aggressive reactions. Do you want to feel safe, to be happy and to minimise the chances of anything bad happening to you and your beloved ones? Make an effort to understand and to be understood. Accept yourself and others and don't believe in generic magical solutions or bad guys. Remember that everyone else wants the same for themselves. The complexity of the world scares you? The world doesn't need your fear and you don't want to feel it, why keep doing it? If you cannot deal with something, just don't do it; nobody has requested your fear. Focus on your local community and the people you deal with on a daily basis. Just feeling hate or fear or frustration isn't an acceptable behaviour; not caring about what you don't want to understand would be 1000 times better. Stop thinking that what works for you, works for anyone else (or just deal with people thinking like you, if you prefer). Stop believing that everyone wants what you have (or replace fear with proudness and happiness about having a so-interesting-to-everyone-else life and fully enjoy it). Why do you think that sharing your fears will be helpful to anyone? Scared people tend to make really bad decisions. Also never forget that each single action has a reaction; better make sure that you know what you are doing before affecting others or plainly don't do anything. In summary: live and let live.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  64. Not only that... by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not only that, but they pushed hard (with dubious means as we found out) to have Clinton win the nomination, when she is probably the "Democrat" that Democrat voters themselves like the least. And "like the least" is a euphemism when many outright hate her. ALMOST ANYONE else would have had an easy time against Donald Trump, but no, they didn't want people like Bernie etc, Clinton was the DNC's favorite gal...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  65. Re:Not a level playing field by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is it that over half the population is women and yet they account for only 20% of congress?

    For the same reason that over half the population is women and yet they account for only 15% of the prison population... they take fewer risks.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  66. Yup exactly this by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2

    Yeah me too. I know of 3 Trump voters, and all were for Bernie originally. I know of 4 more Bernie-or-busters that voted third party. You have it exactly perfectly right.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  67. Re:Better plan for the economic consequences.... by dwpro · · Score: 2

    because of all the idiots voting for 3rd parties

    Sure, blame that whopping less than 5% of people that voted for someone other than the two record-breakingly unlikable candidates that were put up on offer. Clearly it's their fault.

    --
    Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
  68. Re:Fucki voting your conscience by zennyboy · · Score: 2

    Not just your lifetime, but your country's lifetime, IIRC...

  69. Re:Not a level playing field by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really? How many women are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies? How many women have been president? Vice president? How is it that over half the population is women and yet they account for only 20% of congress? If you honestly think it is a level playing field then you are either delusional or sexist.

    Why does it matter? Why do you want to force people into positions that they don't want? Why do you believe that someones genitals, or sexual identity is important? Do you also believe the same thing about an individuals race? Why does it seem your most important qualification to hire someone, or have them in office is something that they're born with.

    All of those things? If you want to put people a head of others based on characteristics that they were born with instead of their skill, ability, or the earned merit that they gained from hard work. You're no different then a sexist that believed that only men could be doctors or politicians in the 1910's and earlier. Or a racist in the 1960's that believed those "blacks and/or mexicans" could never be educated enough to succeed.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  70. Re:Fascism has come to America. by clonehappy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have to understand that they can't help it. They're running a program they've been coded to run, just like a computer. Anything that's not in 100% agreement with their opinion is automatically flagged as "hate", "dangerous", "scary", and must be stopped "at all costs". Do we blame the computer when it executes the commands it is told to execute and then gives an incorrect result? No, we'd blame the programmer.

    We need to look no further than the schools/universities, media, celebrities, and those who control them (the programmers) to see why leftism is losing. Radical leftism is a failed ideology, but like all malevolent actors they just assume they can brute force their code onto enough systems so that they control the botnet. They've programmed these "machines" to react in this way. Unlike computers, however, we can't just wipe the hard drive and start with a fresh image--and unlike coding we can't debug the routine to see why it provides the incorrect result.

    All the rest of us can do is continue to spread the words of truth, honesty, love and liberty rather than the inverted result you get from the malfunctioning machines.

  71. Can the telephone survey industry now just die? by GreatOldOne · · Score: 2

    Really, now that somewhere in excess of 30% of people refuse to participate, and they botched this one so bad, will the people who hire these jerks now just go away? Yes, it appears that Clinton won the popular vote, but she didn't get 50%. I was one of the crowd who voted 3rd party, since the Dumbocrats and the Repugnicans couldn't nominate someone who could come up with a better campaign slogan than "The other party sucks worse."

  72. Re:Not a level playing field by mpercy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And if Dr. Condoleeza Rice had run, we'd probably have elected the first black woman. But she didn't.

  73. Re: Trump 2016!!! by Lije+Baley · · Score: 5, Funny

    How can there be a civil war when the people who lost don't have any guns or Russian hackers?

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  74. Re:Lost the popular vote, though. by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    Another voice who doesn't fully comprehend what 'The United STATES of America' means, both in theory and in practice..

    Your proposal should require a constitutional amendment, for it fundamentally changes our nation, in a way that was conceived and intentional at its founding.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  75. Perhaps by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the democrats learn a single lesson from this election, it's that:
    Democracy is compromise.
    Starting a negotiation with the premise (stated stridently and repeatedly) that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a complete and utter fucking moron doesn't make you right. It makes people hate you.

    --
    -Styopa
  76. Congratulations "blue-collar" by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now you have a populist who will bring back the minimum wage (while such a thing exists) manufacturing jobs from China (great going Peter Navarro - and if you voted for Trump but have no idea who this is, you are part of the problem), at least until automation kicks you to the curb. "Blue-collar" workers have (best case) staved away their downward decline for a few years, while destroying any hope of a transition to a decent health care system and safety nets that they'll need in the coming decades.

  77. Re:Not a level playing field by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

    Really? How many women are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies? How many women have been president? Vice president? How is it that over half the population is women and yet they account for only 20% of congress? If you honestly think it is a level playing field then you are either delusional or sexist.

    Perhaps it's time to ask that question of the 42+% of women that voted for Trump?

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  78. Necessary by Robotron23 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Donald Trump's victory is a much-needed wake up call to the elites of the USA and the wider world. Hillary Clinton remembered the affluent east and west coasts and forgot those in-between. Trump did not persuade voters; voters persuaded Trump to represent them. The orchestrated anti-Trump narrative in the media did not achieve the desired effect of promoting Clinton, who is popularly viewed as untrustworthy and corrupt.

    The 'status quo' candidate representing the interests of high finance and corporations lost and the change candidate emerged victorious. The House, Senate and Presidency are all in Republican hands, thanks to the votes of people inhabiting cities and towns of the USA which have been in decline for decades due to a lethal combination of unhindered free trade, advancing technology, and outsourcing of labour. Millions of desperate people were left to drown by a disdainful elite, and would grasp any life raft offered; it was Trump who made that offer. Whether he'll follow through and actually help those left behind, only time will tell.

    The U.S. election result is further evidence that the majority of the mass media lives in a self-perpetuated bubble, insulated from the harsh and grim realities ordinary people face every day. Huge frustration and discontentment in modern politics manifested in the UK with the Brexit vote to leave the European Union, and it is manifest in the U.S. Presidential election. In Bernie Sanders the Democratic Party had a more palatable populist, but preferred to nominate their Establishment candidate instead.

    So they did...and so she lost.

    1. Re:Necessary by Patent+Lover · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Donald Trump is in the elite of elites. He was born with a fucking gold plated platinum spoon in his mouth. Trump could give a flying fuck about "those in between". Wake the fuck up.

  79. Re: Trump 2016!!! by marklark · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As opposed to the current transfer of public goods, services, and privileges to private (sometimes foreign) interests through access to the highest levels of the gov't courtesy of donations to the Clinton Foundation?

    I and many other Americans decided to risk your hypothetical instead of continuing the current reality.

  80. Re:Not a level playing field by wyHunter · · Score: 2

    It's because she was too smart to want the job!

  81. Re: Trump 2016!!! by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2

    Ultimately, I voted for Trump because he can't do WORSE than Obama or Hilary. He might do a terrible job, but he can't do worse, and to my knowledge, he's not a happy criminal whose family has anyone who airs their laundry killed.

    I think you're seriously underestimating Trump.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  82. Re: Trump 2016!!! by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can't do worse than Obama? Shit he was doing worse than Obama from day 1 of his campaign. Well you'll be yearning for him back soon.

  83. HST says... by BrianMarshall · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Hunter S. Thompson once said something like:

    "During the campaign, you screw your enemies. Once you take office, you screw your friends."

    A lot of Trump's supporters aren't going to be happy that he can't deliver on all the promises he made.

    --
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    1. Re:HST says... by superposed · · Score: 2

      I'll be happy if he: ...
      3. Puts 10,000 troops spread across a 2000 mile border until Mexico decides to build a wall.

      Why, to stop undocumented workers from going home? You do realize more unauthorized immigrants have left the U.S. than entered it since 2007, right?

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

  84. Re: Trump 2016!!! by slashingweapon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, I'm pretty sympathetic to the (mostly real) grievances of Trump voters. My biggest problems with Trump are, in descending order:

    - His general disdain for constitutional rights. People think it's no big deal now because they aren't the target of his disgust, but wait until the day you disagree with him.
    - I think he has given license to political and racial violence.
    - And I don't think for one minute his tax policy will do anything other than benefit the very wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

    But hey, maybe I am completely off-base here. Maybe everything is going to be fine, and His Trumpiness will bring peace and prosperity to all Americans. If that happens, I'll vote for him in 2020. It wouldn't be the first time I switched my vote based on a president's job performance.

  85. BS by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump won on platform, and was the only person putting forth any platform. Immigration reform and protecting the US/Mexico border was the first part of his speeches and people latched on. Politicians have barely paid those issues lip service in the last 40 years, let alone done anything to fix it. In fact many will argue that the Democrats want more of the same because it increases their voting base.

    Trump actively questioned the decisions in keeping the US at war in the Middle East where thousands of US Soldiers have been killed and hundreds of thousands have suffered permanent disability. The President and Hillary planned and achieved massive destabilization in the Middle East and Africa. They failed to hold VA executives accountable for failures which have led to the suicides of thousands of vets and exacerbated health issues.

    Trump actively discussed the unfair economics at play which has greatly increased wealth disparity in the US, the massive amounts of unemployment and underemployment, and massive reduction in the middle class.

    Trump actively talked about media and political corruption, which was made very transparent despite the efforts of the people involved in corruption and holding power. Drain the Swamp should ring a bell.

    Trump sending mean tweets was the only thing the media talked about, but people saw him talking and heard the messages on platform which the media happily ignored.

    Compared to Hillary who wanted to do everything President Obama did but times 10. She only latched on to immigration because she saw how much she was losing and tried to pull base Democrats back to her side. Even then, like so many issues, people simply found no way to believe what she said she would do.

    I have said for years that we were due for a soft revolution, and that is exactly what happened. I have posted numerous times that Trump has a great shot because the average American is fed up. If the soft revolution does not work, we will get to a hard revolution. As I have also said, we hope it does not need to get to that point. Democracy still works, and that fact alone has given a huge number of people hope. Corrupt cronies don't always win, and people's voices are still heard.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  86. Ask the 6 million new non-voters by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Between 2012 and 2015, the US population went up ~10 million. Yet the total number of ballots cast in the 2016 presidential election is about 6 million fewer than the total cast in 2012. Where did these voters go? Why didn't they vote? The margin between Trump and Clinton was around 200,000 votes nationally, or about 1/30th of the difference between 2012 and 2016.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  87. Re: Trump 2016!!! by ISoldat53 · · Score: 2

    Just joining the craziness.

  88. Re: Trump 2016!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You say that Trump is a caricature of the worst stereotypes...aggressive, irrational, uneducated, greedy, and violently racist...

    Those can be used to describe Hilary as well - including racist - and you can add the adjectives corrupt, immoral, criminal, and incompetent.

    No one should be happy with this election. The two candidates put forward by their respective parties were both awful. I wasn't planning on voting; I planned on abstaining, but my wife begged me to vote. Ultimately, I voted for Trump because he can't do WORSE than Obama or Hilary. He might do a terrible job, but he can't do worse, and to my knowledge, he's not a happy criminal whose family has anyone who airs their laundry killed.

    I voted third-party instead of endorsing either Trump or Clinton.

  89. Re: Trump 2016!!! by Sassinak · · Score: 2

    That and the fact that he's unstable.. Yes he will go through most of his aides.. but his public (internal meaning US) communications will undermine any attempts he does via his aides. Given 95% of the world didn't even think he win, and reject him.. And the only people that are voting for rooting for trump (outside the US) are nationalists, isolationists and communists is quite telling (none of who have the best interests of the US as a goal).

    I'm glad I emigrated from the US in time.. and took my 20 companies (and assets) and family out of the US in time. (upside we made a fortune selling short)

    I hope everyone gets EXACTLY what they voted for.. (which they will).. Trump most definitely will be an agent of change.. but its the case of the wish granting genie.. you got what you wished, just not in the way you wanted or the desired outcome.

    Best of luck folks.

    --
    God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
  90. Re: Trump 2016!!! by LordLucless · · Score: 2

    His general disdain for constitutional rights. People think it's no big deal now because they aren't the target of his disgust, but wait until the day you disagree with him.

    You say that like it's a distinguishing feature. You know what would have really made Trump completely unproblematic as a president? Maintaining the original constitutional limits of power, instead of growing the power of the federal government for centuries. The left has been pushing for more power in Washington since forever, because they needed it to "fix" the world. Well, now someone else is sitting in front of those levers you built, promising to "fix" the world.

    Do you understand why Libertarians support narrow limits to governmental power now?

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  91. Re: Trump 2016!!! by Yunzil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wouldn't vote for him in 2020 if he cured cancer single-handedly. He's a vile, disgusting failure of a human being.

  92. Inflation [Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    That's normal: some things go up, some go down.

    Manufactured goods have been consistently dropping or flat-lining per inflation.

    Housing and medical care have traditionally been rising over time. Housing because population increases yet factories cannot make new land (although Japan & China are trying).

    Medical rises because it's still labor-intensive in a hard-to-outsource way, and new treatments keep coming. In that past where people would just die, there are now treatments, but they are expensive.

    College is growing more expensive because a college education is almost a necessity to avoid being poor, as manufacturing and warehouse jobs are offshored or automated. Bernie was right about college being the new high-school. More demand usually means higher prices, at least for a while.

    Stocks and bonds are different animals than consumer products such that I won't consider them here.

    Average inflation has been sub-par. I'd like to see Helicopter Money theory tried, at least incrementally. It might just work.

  93. Re: Trump 2016!!! by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Funny
    I heard that it was SOOO quiet last night at Hillary's headquarters.....that you could actually HEAR the emails being deleted!!

    ;)

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  94. Re: Trump 2016!!! by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some who voted against him, you mean. American voters aren't one dimensional. We have pro-gun lesbian hedge fund managers living across the street from anti-gun evangelical illegal immigrants!

  95. Re:Yea, sure, uh-huh by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    Nobody wants Obama back

    Nobody could get Obama back. There's a big difference. Many people wished this election that a president could run a third term given the two talking turds that appeared on the ballot.

  96. Re:Yea, sure, uh-huh by skam240 · · Score: 2

    Technically if it was the voters deciding it would be Hillary as she won the popular vote. Going by our electoral system Trump of course won but don't pretend he won because of the pure will of the voters as there's a level of government between them and their actual voice.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  97. Re: Trump 2016!!! by skam240 · · Score: 2

    1) Trump's threat of lawsuits because he doesn't like what some one is saying is a life style for him. Here's a start but certainly not all encompassing http://www.dailywire.com/news/...

    This should be incredibly worrying coming from a President who has both chambers of Congress at his back.

    2) I don't you think realize that BLM is a completely decentralized movement. Yes there are crazy people involved who just want to riot but the vast majority of their protests are perfectly peaceful and are just full of people who want to draw attention to the massive numbers of black men in this country who are dieing from violence. Just because Hillary has ties doesn't mean she endorses every single sub faction of the group.

    3) If Trump treated his employees well he'd pay all of them. Furthermore, his habit of declaring bankruptcy (about 6 times I believe) and thus legally defrauding his investors for his own personal gain is rather worrying. He looks out for the people that looking out for works for him.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.