DECISION AMERICA 2016: The Election Results Thread

[beazalbob69]

After all she married royalty

Was she married to another before The Donald came along?

I can't see Melania trump baking cookies.

The cookies must be in the oven when this pic was taken.

I find this picture very strange, but no stranger than the weird "Dressed in old fashioned Thai garb" wedding portraits that I'm sure many posters here on TD have hanging in their village mansions.

[SKkin]

Here's some 'esoteric' things about lion symbology...

Lion

The lion like the eagle symbolizes dominance or dominion. It is important in heraldry and in fable is referred to as "king of beasts." Its astrological sign is Leo, and has the sun for its planet. The basis of the association between the lion and the sun is the animal's strength, its golden-brown color, and the ray-like mane of the male. Similarly as the eagle, the lion is believed to be able to look straight into the sun without blinking.

As a symbol the lion represents both religious and stately power and leadership. The Gita calls Krishna "a lion among wild creatures"; the Buddha is "the Lion of the Shakyas"; and Christ "the Lion of Judah." Muhammad's son-in-law, Ali, honored by the Shi'ites, is the Lion of Allah. Many divinities are depicted riding or seated upon lions, and they decorated Solomon's throne as well as the thrones of the King of France and medieval bishops. Also the lion symbolizes Christ as judge and teacher, carrying his book or scroll; and is the emblem of St. Mark. In medieval iconography the forequarters of the lion represented Christ's divine nature, while the hindquarters, deliberately contrasted because of their weakness, symbolized his human nature.

However, the lion's strength is not always effective because infrequently he does not restrain it in order to use it properly. St. John of the Cross noted the lion's "heedless, angry appetite," a symbol of imperious will and uncontrolled strength. This led to the phrase "pot-bellied lion," a symbol of blind greed which Shiva treads down. In Christianity too, where the aspect of controlled strength of the lion symbolized Christ, this aspect of uncontrolled strength represents the Anti-Christ. Even though this is a negative aspect, it might also justify the lion being symbolic of imperial heraldry and medieval bishops, greed is a human failing too.

As can be seen, like the eagle, the lion has an androgynous nature too. Many ancient cultures also associated him with chthonic creatures and deities such as the crocodile. In Egyptian iconography, lions placed back to back, each looking in the opposite direction, one to the east and the other to the west, represented their watching the course of the sun passing from one end of the earth to the other. Watching as they did the birth and death of daylight the lions came to represent yesterday and tomorrow, and from this they took on a rejuvenation symbol since the sun's nightly underground journey brought him from the lion's jaws of the West to the lion's jaws of the East so he was reborn each morning. In ore general terms, the lions symbolized renewed strength ensured by the day-night cycle of exertion and rest.

From the above description it is easy to understand the alchemical association of the lion. Like the eagle the lion has an androgynous nature, all of the opposites are present he is strong and weak, courageous and cowardly, the symbol of power and creed. The opposites in the lion's nature are similar to the snakes of Mercury's caduceus; their treatment determines their appearance just as the alchemist's mixture determined his product. The lion's golden brown color resembles the sun or gold which the alchemist strived for. The lion also symbolizes rejuvenation, in alchemical terms, the destruction of the base material and rebirth of the new. A.G.H.

[longway]

Not to take this too far off topic, but does anyone else feel like there are just numerous posters on this thread who think the word "libtard" makes them sound like a super clever and funny person?

I love conservatives, god bless 'em my entire family is full of 'em and I'm not some hard line party guy anyway. I think that should be fairly obvious from my posts. I don't get too worked up, I go shooting with my conservative friends, have lived in Arizona and Texas for many years. I have no problem with conservatives whatsoever is my point.

But, and I say this as kindly as I can, conservative people simply (and nearly universally) wouldn't know "funny" if it hit them across the face like a hammer. Don't ask me why, I can't explain it. It's a thing.

A little word of advice if I may. The word libtard. Not funny. Not clever. I know you think it is. But it honestly just makes you sound stupid. It makes you sound like a retard, really

This post is not meant to be political. Thank you for your time, I hope this has helped you move forward socially in some small way.

You are making some large assumptions there of why the word is used.

I think libtard is a fitting moniker for the crazed, self-obsessed, and usually, clueless and rude liberals that inhabit the coastal enclaves.

For example, Trump won because libtards spent the whole election shrieking sexist and racist, and refused to acknowledge issues that did not obsess the coastal liberal enclaves, and since the election the solution they have hit upon seems to be to shriek sexist and racist even louder than before and run around breaking stuff (especially ironic give the dark prognostications of trouble should Trump win, with a simultaneous smugness about just how wonderful they themselves are).

Its their combination of hypocrisy, smugness, lack of tolerance and self awareness and jaw dropping stupidity that makes the moniker libtard so appropriate.

[wasabi]

Now if I had that sort of money I would have had a family portrait at my Thoroughbred stud farm with my Son astride the top stud stallion, Triple crown winner.
That would've been more appropriate.
For the Christmas card portrait we would have a picture of us at the last Boxing Day meet with her Majesty's hounds, My Son on his hunter pony and Mary with the quad followers.

[Humbert]

I think libtard is a fitting moniker for the crazed, self-obsessed, and usually, clueless and rude liberals that inhabit the coastal enclaves.

I see longway has embraced the media's fashionable explanation of the moment.

shriek sexist and racist even louder

The irony. The only shrieking around here is coming from you.

Its their combination of hypocrisy, smugness, lack of tolerance and self awareness and jaw dropping stupidity

A perfect description of yourself, longway. Introspection, try it sometime.

Has there ever been a bigger hypocrite on this forum than longway, the annoying brit who fancies himself an expert on America and Americans.

[longway]

^ typical libtard style of debate, he has no coherent rebuttal to what I say, so attacks me.

And this ad hominem style takes an ideological form in pc, where there is no need to acknowledge any points made, or offer any coherent rebuttals, all you need to do is shriek racist or sexist, as everything is reduced to a bizarre hierarchy of oppression based on sex and skin colour.

[Humbert]

shriek racist or sexist, as everything is reduced to a bizarre hierarchy of oppression based on sex and skin colour.

Are you retarded? Trump's whole appeal is about dividing people. Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, women, LGBTQ. He makes a direct appeal to white nationalism.

[Humbert]

typical libtard style of debate

Any other line of attack than blaming scapegoats? Libtards, vaginas, Mexicans, Muslims, the east coast elite, the liberal media.

[koman]

Christ Humbert, the man was simply attempting to answer a question that arose about the oft used word "libtard". I thought he did a very decent job of doing so. Is there any need to launch a personal attack because he tried to explain the use of a word?

Can you deny that the kind of people he refers to exist, any more than the unpleasant elements of the far right wing conservative exists?? You and your fellow liberals are not lacking in caustic and at times quite objectionable words to describe them. I've used libtard myself on occasion....with respect to certain elements in society.....but it's not intended to include the majority of perfectly sensible, normal, and rational folk who call themselves Democrats or Liberals.

I see the barrage of abusive and offensive language now being directed at Mrs. Trump and it is just as offensive and disgraceful as the kind of things Mrs Obama has faced over the years.....and they are just getting started.

Lines are being crossed like never before and it's hard to see how any nation can come back from such a degrading spectacle without some really serious shit happening. Anything offensive that the Donald spouts is quickly upstaged by the extremists among his opponents.

America haters around the world must be rubbing their hands in glee.....Your own people are doing far more damage to their country and society than all the world's jihadists groups combined could ever do.....

[Humbert]

Christ Humbert, the man was simply attempting to answer a question that arose about the oft used word "libtard". I thought he did a very decent job of doing so. Is there any need to launch a personal attack because he tried to explain the use of a word?

Baloney. He's making insulting generalizations as usual. How is calling out his hypocrisy a personal attack?

[MrG]

Lines are being crossed like never before and it's hard to see how any nation can come back from such a degrading spectacle without some really serious shit happening. Anything offensive that the Donald spouts is quickly upstaged by the extremists among his opponents.

That's just plain old news-speak horse-shit. Donald dragged the nation across this line, and to say people have not right to call him on it is to call for a white flag by the opposition. "We won. Go away and be nice so we can win somemore."

The things that Trump has been called are based on things he has said and ways he has acted--acusations based on documented proof. It does not compare with the birtherism, hateful, violence inciting remarst gainst Muslims and Mexicans that Trump has built his election on. My wife is Asian and Asians have been stopped on the street and told to "go home.". The country is already in a mess. This shit didn't happen before Trump, and it's only going to get worse whether people call him names or not. So get over it. Trump is a pathetic cry baby: don't become one yourself.

[koman]

Christ Humbert, the man was simply attempting to answer a question that arose about the oft used word "libtard". I thought he did a very decent job of doing so. Is there any need to launch a personal attack because he tried to explain the use of a word?

Baloney. He's making insulting generalizations as usual. How is calling out his hypocrisy a personal attack?

Not the way I read it at all, but then I'm not given to hyperventilation or bouts of incontinence over the use of a few tainted words on a forum like TD......

[longway]

shriek racist or sexist, as everything is reduced to a bizarre hierarchy of oppression based on sex and skin colour.

Are you retarded? Trump's whole appeal is about dividing people. Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, women, LGBTQ. He makes a direct appeal to white nationalism.

No, he made an appeal to nationalism, his idea is that nation transcends these false divisions, it's libtards who wish to twist it into something it is not, as your entire ideology is based on dividing people.

You hate white people, especially male, so anybody who objects to your nutty ideas automatically becomes a racist sexist, it's axiomatic to your bizarre belief system.

[koman]

Donald dragged the nation across this line, and to say people have not right to call him on it is to call for a white flag by the opposition

Huh???? WTF....who said anything like that....is there someone else in the room here?
Of course people have a right to challenge his words, actions and whatever results, or lack of results he produces. There are lots of ways to do that without attacking his wife and kids or smashing up Portland. Do you ever manage to understand a point that does not come directly from the loony left playbook?

[bsnub]

as your entire ideology is based on dividing people.

Your brainwashing is complete lemming feel free to step off the cliff now.

[MrG]

There are lots of ways to do that without attacking his wife and kids or smashing up Portland. Do you ever manage to understand a point that does not come directly from the loony left playbook?

Nobody mentioned wife and kids or smashing up Portland.
Is there somebody else in the room here, or are you hearing voices.
Do you ever understand the point that does not come from your tin hat.

Try to remember. I mentioned fact based arguments. His supporter carry swastikas and KKK emblems, but he doesn't denounce them. So call me names all you like...show me how well you want to unite the opposition behind behind a good click of your heels and "Heil Trump."

[koman]

There are lots of ways to do that without attacking his wife and kids or smashing up Portland. Do you ever manage to understand a point that does not come directly from the loony left playbook?

Nobody mentioned wife and kids or smashing up Portland.
Is there somebody else in the room here, or are you hearing voices.
Do you ever understand the point that does not come from your tin hat.

Try to remember. I mentioned fact based arguments. His supporter carry swastikas and KKK emblems, but he doesn't denounce them. So call me names all you like...show me how well you want to unite the opposition behind behind a good click of your heels and "Heil Trump."

Where did i call you names. I mentioned attacks on the wife and kids because that is what's happening out there in cyberland. I never said anything about it coming from you...

Fuck me, I was wondering how long it would take for the heel clicking Heil Trump BS to emerge.... now we know why the word "libtard" is used so frequently.

[bsnub]

long it would take for the heel clicking Heil Trump BS to emerge.

Right it just showed up like it's something new and Trump has never made any racist, homophobic, misogynistic, Islamophobic comments at anytime to earn that label over the span of the election cycle. Jesus Christ.

[Humbert]

shriek racist or sexist, as everything is reduced to a bizarre hierarchy of oppression based on sex and skin colour.

Are you retarded? Trump's whole appeal is about dividing people. Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, women, LGBTQ. He makes a direct appeal to white nationalism.

No, he made an appeal to nationalism, his idea is that nation transcends these false divisions, it's libtards who wish to twist it into something it is not, as your entire ideology is based on dividing people.

You hate white people, especially male, so anybody who objects to your nutty ideas automatically becomes a racist sexist, it's axiomatic to your bizarre belief system.

Amazing how you right wing nuts attempt to sanitize Trump's vile rhetoric with your ludicrous interpretations of his words. Your neo authoritarian view of the world is disgusting.

[koman]

ludicrous interpretations

I assume that this means ....any interpretation that is not exactly the same as your own?

[misskit]

About the election results, not sure to put this here as it may deserve a thread of its own. Makes me feel a bit ill.


NSA CHIEF: A nation-state made a 'conscious effort' to sway the US presidential election

The leader of the National Security Agency says there shouldn't be "any doubt in anybody's mind" that there was "a conscious effort by a nation-state" to sway the result of the 2016 presidential election.

Adm. Michael Rogers, who leads both the NSA and US Cyber Command, made the comments during a conference presented by The Wall Street Journal in response to a question about WikiLeaks' release of nearly 20,000 internal emails from the Democratic National Committee.

"There shouldn't be any doubt in anybody's mind," Rogers said. "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect."

more here NSA CHIEF: A nation-state made a 'conscious effort' to sway the US presidential election - Business Insider

[bsnub]

Hillary Clinton now leads the national popular vote for president by roughly one million votes, and her victory margin is expanding rapidly. That margin could easily double before the end of an arduous process of counting ballots, reviewing results, and reconciling numbers for an official total.

But one thing is certain: Clinton’s win is unprecedented in the modern history of American presidential politics. And the numbers should focus attention on the democratic dysfunction that has been exposed.

When a candidate who wins the popular vote does not take office, when a loser is instead installed in the White House, that is an issue. And it raises questions that must be addressed.



So let’s address them:

WHO WON THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE? AND BY HOW MUCH?

Clinton is winning it. The only question now has to do with the size of the win. You will see different numbers in different counts because keeping on top of the national totals requires constant monitoring of the results from 50 states and the District of Columbia. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report maintains one of the most frequently updated spreadsheets on the race. One week after the election, it had Clinton with 62,403,269 votes to 61,242,652 for Trump. That puts Clinton ahead by 1.16 million votes. Another able chronicler of the count, Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, also puts Clinton ahead by more than one million votes.

The million-vote figure is a baseline from which to analyze Clinton’s popular-vote victory. But it is only that—a baseline—as her margin will continue to expand.

HOW COME NO ONE IS GOING OVER 50 PERCENT?

The previous three US presidential elections saw the winning candidates win actual majorities of the popular vote. But that won’t happen this time. As in 18 previous presidential elections, the winner of the popular vote in this year’s election will achieve only a plurality of the votes.

More than million votes have already been counted for Libertarian Gary Johnson, Green Jill Stein, independent Evan McMullin and others, according to various counts. The totals for third-party, independent, and write-in candidates will rise as the tabulation continues—providing a powerful indication of the desire for a broader democracy and political alternatives. The high level of support for third-party and independent candidates also guarantees that neither major-party candidate will do this year what Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012: win a majority of the popular vote.

WHY AREN’T ALL THE VOTES COUNTED A WEEK AFTER THE ELECTION?

The United States has no clear and consistent national standard for holding elections or for counting votes. The rules differ radically from state to state. In some states, election officials are already engaged on the process of establishing a final official count. In other states, ballots are still being counted. The big distinction is between states that do most of their voting on Election Day and states that rely heavily on “absentee” ballots and mail voting. It happens that many of the bigger states that make it easier to vote (at the polls and by mail) are states that favored Clinton.

The biggest of these is California, where Clinton is ahead 62-33 percent at this point. California election officials explain: “It typically takes weeks for counties to process and count all of the ballots. Elections officials have approximately one month (28 days for presidential electors and 30 days for all other contests) to complete their extensive tallying, auditing, and certification work (known as the ‘official canvass’) Most notably, voting by mail has increased significantly in recent years and many vote-by-mail ballots arrive on, or up to three days after, Election Day (vote-by-mail ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received by the county elections official no later than three days after the election are included in the canvass). In processing vote-by-mail ballots, elections officials must confirm each voter’s registration status, verify each voter’s signature on the vote-by-mail envelope, and ensure each person did not vote elsewhere in the same election before the ballot can be counted. Other ballots that are processed after Election Day include provisional ballots (processed similar to vote-by-mail ballots), and ballots that are damaged or cannot be machine-read and must be remade by elections officials.”

As on November 11, according to the state’s updated “Estimated Unprocessed Ballots” report, more than one million ballots were as yet uncounted in Los Angeles County. Two days later, San Diego County reported that it has more than 600,000 ballots to count.

BUT THE HEADLINES JUST TALK ABOUT DONALD TRUMP WINNING?

Elite media outlets do not, for the most part, have an interest in vote counts and what they mean. Coverage of the 2016 election campaign confirmed the extent to which major media are more interested in personalities than facts on the ground. The television networks like to declare a “winner” and then get focused on the palace intrigues surrounding a transition of power. Those intrigues are worth covering. But perspective on the will of the people get lost. Election-night numbers get locked in, and that’s that. There may be a notation that Clinton won “a narrow popular-vote” margin, but rarely is there a deep dive—even as the “narrow” margin grows to something much more substantial.

It was announced on election night that the Republican nominee had secured a sufficient number of Electoral College votes to claim the presidency. With the counts continuing, and with recounts a possibility, the Electoral College totals as of one week after the election project that Trump will win 306 electoral votes, as opposed to 232 for Clinton. The Trump figure is 36 more than is needed to reach the 270 total that is required to claim the presidency. Trump will almost certainly stay above the 270 threshold, although he could still lose a state (such as Michigan, where he leads by less than 13,000 votes) or win one (such as New Hampshire, where Clinton is up by around 3,000 votes). The results in a number of battleground states were so close that a shift of around 55,000 votes in three states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) would align the national popular vote result with the Electoral College result for a Clinton win.

What is important here is to recognize that there was no Trump mandate, in the popular vote (which he lost by a significant margin) or in the Electoral College (which he won narrowly, thanks to close results that tipped a handful of states in his favor). Notably, Trump’s total fell below 50 percent in the majority of states; he lost 20 states and the District of Columbia, and in at least seven additional states he leads, but without a majority of the vote.


IS CLINTON’S POPULAR-VOTE VICTORY UNPRECEDENTED?

Yes. Clinton has already won the popular vote by a dramatically larger number of ballots than anyone in history who did not go on to be inaugurated as president.

There have been cases in the past where popular-vote winners have not become president. Three of them occurred in the 19th century, before the majority of Americans were allowed to vote. Before this year, there was only one instance in the modern era when a popular-vote winner was denied the presidency by the Electoral College. That was in 2000, when Democrat Al Gore beat Republican George W. Bush by 543,816 votes nationally.


Clinton’s popular-vote margin over that of Trump is now greater than that of Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and that of John Kennedy over Nixon in 1960.


Clinton is now winning roughly 47.8 percent of the vote, according to David Wasserman’s count for the Cook report. That’s a little less than the level reached by Gore in 2000. As Clinton’s popular-vote margin increases, so, too, will her percentage. It is possible that she will win the popular vote with the highest percentage of anyone who has not taken office.
But the percentage that matters is Trump’s. The Republican nominee will become president with less popular support than a number of major-party candidates who lost races for the presidency. Trump is now at 47.0 percent of the popular vote, according to the Cook count. That is a lower percentage than were won by Mitt Romney in 2012, John Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, or Gerald Ford in 1976.


IS THIS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON AND DONALD TRUMP?

No. Supporters of Clinton and critics of Clinton can kvetch about the virtues of her candidacy, and about what remains of the Democratic Party, for as long as their voices hold out. And Trump supporters can certainly announce that “the rules are the rules.” But this is about a higher principle than partisanship, and about something that matters more than personalities. This is about democracy itself. When the winner of an election does not take office, and when the loser does, we have evidence of a system that is structurally rigged. Those who favor a rigged system can defend it—and make empty arguments about small states versus big states that neglect the fact that many of the country’s smallest states (Delaware, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) backed the popular-vote winner. But those who favor democracy ought to join their voices in support of reform.


There are national movements to address the mess that is made when the Electoral College trumps democracy. There are petitions that call for abolishing the Electoral College. California Senator Barbara Boxer this week proposed a constitutional amendment to do just that, saying: “This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency. The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.”


There is also the bipartisan National Popular Vote initiative. Promoted by the reform group FairVote, it commits states to respect the national popular vote (as part of a multi-state compact in which states with a majority of electoral votes commit to assign them to the candidate who gets the most votes) and to ending the absurdity of elections in which losers can become presidents.

IF SOMEONE TELLS ME I SHOULD “GET OVER IT,” HOW SHOULD I RESPOND?

Just tell them that you agree with Donald Trump, who in 2012 described the Electoral College a “disaster for democracy.” On Sunday, he told CBS’s 60 Minutes that he still agrees with himself—even if he is not prepared to defer to the will of the people in this instance. “I would rather see it where you went with simple votes,” Trump explained. “You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.”

www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-victory-is-unprecedented-and-still-growing/

[Humbert]

assume that this means ....any interpretation that is not exactly the same as your own?

I don't have interpretations. I have his own words. You Trumpites keep saying oh don't worry, this is what he really meant. BS. His words were vile, his lying was constant and it is all down in the record so don't talk to me about my interpretations.

[Humbert]

You hate white people, especially male, so anybody who objects to your nutty ideas automatically becomes a racist sexist, it's axiomatic to your bizarre belief system.

I hate white people? No, racists are called racists because they discriminate on the basis of race, like Trump and his father did when they were found guilty by the US government for housing discrimination. Sexists are sexists because they discriminate on the basis of sex like Trump did when he boasted about using his position of power to make sexual advances on women in subordinate positions. Sorry but my beliefs are not bizarre it is you and your ilk that are attempting to normalize disgusting behavior. Your beliefs are bizarre.

[Cujo]

As a non U.S.A.nian I wondered about this electoral college thing and found this basic explaination.
What it DOESN"T explain, and which I can't find explained anywhere are how are the 538 electors chosen? WHO ARE THEY? are the susceptible to lobbying and or corruption.
It seems in this election at least some of them must have voted against their pledge.