2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

[Carolina Red]

Can anybody find a clip of the point where Hillary is admonishing Trump for rejecting the findings of US intelligence agencies saying that Russia is behind the hacks/leaks?

I liked what she did there with her demeanor. She was cool and calm leading up and then when he rejected the findings, she let some passion go into her response to him.

 

[Carolina Red]

I seem to remember he even started talking about "the inner cities" when asked a completely non-sequitur question by a black guy in the town hall setting.

Yep. He did. And what makes it worse is that his stereotyping of "inner city = black people" isn't accurate.
http://qz.com/806830/donald-trumps-...-affecting-the-african-american-middle-class/

 

[Fergies Gum]

If/when he loses this, I wonder what will happen to Trump. Will he disappear into darkness or somehow still be an influence in the Republican party.

I reckon he will be involved in creating a news organisation but will go hide in a corner at trump towers for a few years.

His secret service protection will end and he has pi**ed off a lot of people. Even if he hires a large team of private security (which he will be forced to do), he knows full well, that he will never be as safe as he has been during the past year or two.

 

[sglowrider]

He'll start that Trump TV thing. And he's effectively already got everyone who's voting for him now on board. It'll be like Alex Jones on steroids. I'm not even sure he believes the stuff he says himself but he's got absolutely no concerns about making money on the gullible masses who do. That's my take anyway.

Its not so easy for a number of reasons:

1) His position will have been diminished especially if he is killed by a landslide election.
2) He can try and try and become a network type TV News like Fox but how will he fund it? Who will fund it based on his previous track records with casinos where the house has a 92% chance of winning and he goes bust within 24 months. Most investors will be wary.
3) Al Jazeera America spent $500million as a startup capital. Then proceeded to lose another $500million before closing down this year. So see point 3
4) Failing to go Big, then doing a web/Youtube service like Infowars or The Blaze may not suit his massive ego.

 

[Maagge]

Its not so easy for a number of reasons:

1) His position will have been diminished especially if he is killed by a landslide election.
2) He can try and try and become a network type TV News like Fox but how will he fund it? Who will fund it based on his previous track records with casinos where the house has a 92% chance of winning and he goes bust within 24 months. Most investors will be wary.
3) Al Jazeera America spent $500million as a startup capital. Then proceeded to lose another $500million before closing down this year. So see point 3
4) Failing to go Big, then doing a web/Youtube service like Infowars or The Blaze may not suit his massive ego.

I'm sort of assuming the money will be there somehow, and that a landslide loss doesn't matter to his followers. Maybe I'm being a bit too cynical in thinking they won't need much persuasion in terms of buying his "It's rigged" excuse.

 

[bazalini]

#trumpbookreport is a laugh

Let me tell you about Les Miserables. He was a good man. Great man. Les. Such a man. He became miserable thx to Hillary. #TrumpBookReport

The bridges, nobody builds a bridge like me. I'll build one and make Madison County pay for it #TrumpBookReport

“We’re gonna catch so much rye, you won’t believe it. We’re bringing those rye catching jobs to America.”#TrumpBookReport

Uncle Tom's Cabin, worst cabin in the inner city. Terrible schools. Nasty women & bad hombres everywhere. #trumpbookreport

Those poor heights. They were wuthering. Wuthering so bad. Bigly wuthering. I'll make them great again #trumpbookreport

7 Dwarfs stalking a beautiful lady. she's beautiful right. I'm going to build a wall. stop dwarfs from invading and taking our jobs #trumpbookreport

 

[sglowrider]

I'm sort of assuming the money will be there somehow, and that a landslide loss doesn't matter to his followers. Maybe I'm being a bit too cynical in thinking they won't need much persuasion in terms of buying his "It's rigged" excuse.

I thought so at first but he is getting more toxic and if he loses bigly, his standing will have diminished. Tough to get that sort of funding of like a Al Jazeera America.

He apparently isn't all that cash rich so he cant fund that sort of money for a media vehicle that he thinks will fit his stature.
A decent size audience maybe there but they are low quality (non-college educate women and men) types for advertisers and ironically even for the Trump brand.

 

[JustAFan]

I'm sort of assuming the money will be there somehow, and that a landslide loss doesn't matter to his followers. Maybe I'm being a bit too cynical in thinking they won't need much persuasion in terms of buying his "It's rigged" excuse.

Somehow he will come up with the starting cash, even if he loses by a landslide there will still be tens of millions who will have voted for him and are potential viewers of his network. Plus just like with FOX it would draw a lot of viewers from the other side just so they could make fun of it, get angry about it, post about it, etc.

 

[bazalini]

You wonder where Trump will go after this?

Certainly can see a TV station like Fox News, his ego will want to be front and centre. He loves the attention and everything that surrounds it. He won't get another chance for President after this. What ever remains of the Republicans will not have him near it. I could see one of his sons go for it down the road.

What strikes me about Trump is where is he getting his money from. I n Ireland & Scotland all his golf courses are a disaster and running at losses. With the whoel Tax thing and not releasing figures I would not be surprised if Trump went bankrupt in the near future. Something is just not right about his whole business affairs

 

[Maagge]

A decent size audience maybe there but they are low quality (non-college educate women and men) types for advertisers and ironically even for the Trump brand.

Hadn't thought of this. That's gonna be important to any potential investors.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Gloria Allred - lawyer for one of the women accusing Trump of sexual molestation - has said that a new Trump sexual assault victim will come forward today: press conference in NY at 11am EST.

 

[sglowrider]

You wonder where Trump will go after this?

Certainly can see a TV station like Fox News, his ego will want to be front and centre. He loves the attention and everything that surrounds it. He won't get another chance for President after this. What ever remains of the Republicans will not have him near it. I could see one of his sons go for it down the road.

What strikes me about Trump is where is he getting his money from. I n Ireland & Scotland all his golf courses are a disaster and running at losses. With the whoel Tax thing and not releasing figures I would not be surprised if Trump went bankrupt in the near future. Something is just not right about his whole business affairs

This is just my guess -- Trump launders money for a bunch of people into his hundreds of companies. The way its been setup is just not normal. (I have worked a quite a few very corrupt markets and dealt with these sorts of people before.)

He would had problems getting funding to buy properties after his multiple failures in the 90s. He stiffed banks and investors. And Wall Street banks will have been well aware of his reputation. Failing to get funding for traditional sources, he has had to seek it from grayer markets.
Example -- the way he charges the GOP for his election expenses isnt something a normal billionaire would do -- nickel&dime stuff. It's just the process of how he seems to be able to inflates charges then trickles them into multiple entities that makes me suspect he is in the grayer markets of the business world... with a nice legit shop front.

 

[The Firestarter]

This is just my guess -- Trump launders money for a bunch of people into his hundreds of companies. The way its been setup is just not normal. He would had problems getting funding to buy properties after his multiple failures in the 90s. He stiff banks and investors. And Wall Street banks will have been well aware of his reputation. Failing to get funding for traditional sources, he has had to seek it from greyer markets.
Example -- the way he charges the GOP for his election expenses isnt something a normal billionaire would do -- nickel&dime stuff. It's just the process of how he seems to be able to push funding/charges into multiple entities that makes me suspect he is in the greyer markets... with a nice legit shop front.

Hence the Russian capital connection. No sane US bank would fund him anymore.

 

[PeteReDevil]

www.nastywomengetshitdone.com

 

[Crossie]

I'm now convinced that Trump is a disguised neo-fascist, intent on undermining democracy, stirring up civil unrest, encouraging post-election violence and an armed insurrectionary movement of "patriots".

...

The list goes on. They guy is not just a joke, not just a paranoid narcissist, not just a racist misogynist homophobe and not just a serial liar and con-artist. The guy is a very dangerous neo-fascist.

Indeed he is dangerous, and anybody who plays it down is in denial. I'm more concerned how many Americans and other people fall for him.

What strikes me about Trump is where is he getting his money from. I n Ireland & Scotland all his golf courses are a disaster and running at losses. With the whoel Tax thing and not releasing figures I would not be surprised if Trump went bankrupt in the near future. Something is just not right about his whole business affairs

Just one or two weeks ago, his Tachmachal (spell?) casino closed, IIRC because of financial reasons. I read somewhere that since he had offended muslims with his 'don't enter the country' talk, his businesses in countries with a majority muslim population decreased.
Politico and others said that just a third of the money he raises goes into the campaign. He might find a way to use the rest for Trump TV.

 

[sglowrider]

Hence the Russian capital connection. No sane US bank would fund him anymore.

Usually the old adage in technology startups is that you should always be in sports, gambling or sex if you want have to have the highest rate of success, particularly for disruptive technologies. In the casino business, you have nearly 92% chance of the house winning.

So how do you bankrupt so many casinos as Trump has? Poor business model or poor management or in Trump's case, both.

 

[Ubik]

www.nastywomengetshitdone.com

 

[GiddyUp]

Who is the McMullin guy?
I am a noob so please bear. How can a person who isn't running nationally run for one state alone?

Edit: I've looked him up.

I believe he is running for president of Utah.

 

[Silva]

 

[Adebesi]

I'm sort of assuming the money will be there somehow, and that a landslide loss doesn't matter to his followers. Maybe I'm being a bit too cynical in thinking they won't need much persuasion in terms of buying his "It's rigged" excuse.

I can imagine the money will be there to do this TV station thing. Even if he loses by a large margin he still has a lot of people behind him and attracts viewers. I dont think he will go into hiding at all, I think he will use his TV venture as a platform to make life very difficult for Clinton. I think he plans more of the same and there will be plenty of people willing to lap it up and, that being the case, other people willing to finance it to make money.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

I can imagine the money will be there to do this TV station thing. Even if he loses by a large margin he still has a lot of people behind him and attracts viewers. I dont think he will go into hiding at all, I think he will use his TV venture as a platform to make life very difficult for Clinton. I think he plans more of the same and there will be plenty of people willing to lap it up and, that being the case, other people willing to finance it to make money.

It'll have to be funded by Breitbart. He'll just slap his name on it and get to spout his bs, just like most of his buildings.

 

[Giggs86]

In the CNN focus group, 23% undecided voters went to Trump, 22% undecided went to Clinton with 54% no change

How can anyone still be undecided by this point is beyond me.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Morning Schmoe is getting a lot of sticks on Twitter btw. The dam has finally broken after he defended Drumpf not saying he'll concede gracefully.

 

[JustAFan]

How can anyone still be undecided by this point is beyond me.

My only guess is that they know they don't want Trump, but they don't really like Hillary either. It might not be a matter of seeing them as equally awful but wanting a much better choice.

Either that or they just are not brave enough to tell a pollster, "feck off, it's not any of your business who I am voting for."

 

[botond]

 

[Red Viking]

@Red Viking another very good post (I won't quote it because of its length).

I think we mostly agree, except on the issue of NATO which becomes a chicken/egg scenario depending on viewpoint, really.



This is very true. The only thing I'd say is that any country (considered a military power) would respond almost identically to the Russians if faced with an encroachment upon their traditional sphere of influence. There was an agreement with NATO made in the 80s that they would not advance toward traditionally Russian controlled spheres. NATO has sought to break that agreement at every turn since. As Stockham notes:



So, whilst I agree that Russian annexation can't be given a free hand, it does have to be seen in a wider context -- one that can't simply exculpate NATO's involvement. Sure, countries can decide to join NATO, but NATO should never have sought to expand to the East, and should have simply made known that those applications would be ignored. In all honesty, NATO hasn't had any legitimacy since the Cold War. We'll likely disagree on this, but I can at least understand your viewpoint (it's a relatively common one, after all).

This likely going to be a fairly lengthy response as this is clearly a complex situation with root in some fairly big difficult political circumstances of the time. I will delve into Stockhams note you quote give here and try explain the democratic deficit of the deal between Bush and Gorbachev and the ramification of it. First i would like to say a little about what i think is absolute important for democracy and that is honesty and transparency and you can add integrity to it as well. When we talk about honesty then both NATO and Russia have done things in the past and present that have given each other reasons to mistrust each other and on the surface this seems to be a root of the problems until and up today at least partially. As you say NATO have expanded the territory they operate in and the Russians have used direct military force to expand their territory. There is another angle we cant get into and this is the personal one as we don´t know the people involved enough to know what their true motives were or are for what they do. So i will leave this bit out as it is merely speculation but in a way very important aspect as people are driven by many different things such as ambition or altruism etc which can have an major impact on what is going on in international politics, but it is hard to prove but we are dealing with human beings so its natural this aspect plays a huge role in this.

Before i go further i want to explain what i mean when i say personal liberty and collective liberty in a democratic context:

1. Personal Liberty is the voting aspect of the individual and the right to freely vote for the candidate of their choosing.
2. Collective Liberty is the aspect of democracy that taken places during debates outside and inside the parliament and the participation and process in this.

It is in my opinion extremely important that for personal and collective liberty to function in the national democracy of a given country. It most be without "hard" external influence regarding its policy making otherwise you destroy the integrity of the democracy and there by the hole idea of having democracy in the first place. When i say hard, i mean political forces out side the given country trying to dictate weather it should follow a certain interest group ( American or Russian etc ). When Bush and Gorbachev made this arrangement i think both had fairly good intentions in an attempt to de-escalate the political situation at the present time. I cant really say more about the motives as i wrote at the start dealing with motives is extremely hard as there is rarely fair evidence to prove it either way. This arrangement had an unfortunately side effect that all the neighbouring countries and their democracies integrity got swept aside as they become de facto client states to the Russians if this agreement is fully followed by everyone involved. This really means Russia were allowed per this agreement to dictate the shape of collective liberty of these countries and i don´t think any country have the right to assert such influence in this manner upon another country as i strongly believe in the integrity of all national states even if i disagree with their policies. Now if the collective liberty becomes infected like this it will naturally affect the personal liberty as you no longer can vote for what policy you prefer as you will be restricted to the options given to you in this case by the Russians. In one big swoop a fairly big group of countries democracies were swept under the carpet and an big dilemma exist because of this. I am personally a big believer in keeping your word and the agreements you make, but in this case these countries did not have a proper say in this and they are the most affected by it. So you got 2 options here going forward and these are: should these countries abide by the terms dictated by them by bigger states or do we all have an duty to respect the personal and collective liberty of these states by allowing them to persue their chosen policies decided by the democratic process in their countries ?

This is kinda a catch 22 situation here because either way both the Russian and these countries have fair complaints to make about the arrangement that was made. The Russians want NATO and the said countries to abide by the agreement that was made and the affected countries naturally want their freedom to make their own decisions in both internal and international affairs. Either way forward 1 side is gonna get the bad end of the stick and be unfairly treated by different reasons and this is properly a reason why Russia is acting as they do though it certainly don´t justify their annexing of foreign territory. I personally believe the moment Russia decided to use direct military force upon these countries they lost every right to the original terms of the Bush and Gorbachev agreement to be kept and both sides now need to sit down and discuss this matter seriously to solve it as too many peoples lives are at stake and all personal squabble between all parts most be set aside for the greater good. It is time for politicians on both sides to earn their money.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

The way the whole concede thing being portrayed as a cornerstone is US democracy is just laughable. Don't see why a losing candidate has to concede. It's not like they'd stop counting votes post concession or something.

Just push the loser out of the picture and get on with the formal process.

 

[Adisa]

The way the whole concede thing being portrayed as a cornerstone is US democracy is just laughable. Don't see why a losing candidate has to concede. It's not like they'd stop counting votes post concession or something.

Just push the loser out of the picture and get on with the formal process.

If you're from my part of Africa, you would know how important it is for the loser to concede.
A candidate refusing to concede could potentially cause violence. Happens all the time.

 

[Zarlak]

The way the whole concede thing being portrayed as a cornerstone is US democracy is just laughable. Don't see why a losing candidate has to concede. It's not like they'd stop counting votes post concession or something.

Just push the loser out of the picture and get on with the formal process.

Refusing to concede shows that you have no trust in your countries democracy at all, therefore it kind of is.

 

[Rado_N]

The way the whole concede thing being portrayed as a cornerstone is US democracy is just laughable. Don't see why a losing candidate has to concede. It's not like they'd stop counting votes post concession or something.

Just push the loser out of the picture and get on with the formal process.

It's not about him conceding before the counting is done, it's about him refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the result.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

The way the whole concede thing being portrayed as a cornerstone is US democracy is just laughable. Don't see why a losing candidate has to concede. It's not like they'd stop counting votes post concession or something.

Just push the loser out of the picture and get on with the formal process.

What would have happened if Gore didn't concede?

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

If you're from my part of Africa, you would know how important it is for the loser to concede.
A candidate refusing to concede could potentially cause violence. Happens all the time.

Refusing to concede shows that you have no trust in your countries democracy at all, therefore it kind of is.

It's not about him conceding before the counting is done, it's about him refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the result.

It's not even a requirement, just a practice. As long as the elections are fair, democracy exists. Concession is just for good order's sake and not a core democratic component.

Moreso, if Clinton wins by a landslide, concession will be even more a farce than usual.

What would have happened if Gore didn't concede?

This might be the only exception. It was close and Gore actually had the popular vote. It still is not part of the process, but a concession will definitely enable smoother transition.

 

[Raoul]

Trump surrogate melting down on CNN right now.

 

[simonhch]

Agreed. I was being sarcastic.

Sorry

 

[Rado_N]

It's not even a requirement, just a practice. As long as the elections are fair, democracy exists. Concession is just for good order's sake and not a core democratic component.

Moreso, if Clinton wins by a landslide, concession will be even more a farce than usual.

I'm sure you will have seen some of the knuckle daggers attending his rallies, if he stands up and refuses to accept defeat and continues with the talk of a rigged election it will lead to riots and God knows what else.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

This is a (slightly superficial but) very good read about what the feck is going on in the land of the free.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I'm sure you will have seen some of the knuckle daggers attending his rallies, if he stands up and refuses to accept defeat and continues with the talk of a rigged election it will lead to riots and God knows what else.

All the more reason to scrap the importance of concession. I can understand the benefits, but equating non-concession to threat to democracy is just ott.

 

[Zarlak]

All the more reason to scrap the importance of concession. I can understand the benefits, but equating non-concession to threat to democracy is just ott.

It's not the act of not conceding, it's what it means. If he doesn't concede it means that he questions democracy, that he doesn't believe the result is legitimate and therefore mocks the democracy that the election is based on.

Yeah in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really hurt anyone but there is a meaning there.

 

[Adebesi]

This is a (slightly superficial but) very good read about what the feck is going on in the land of the free.

Mockney posted that a few days ago, it is very interesting.

 

[Giggs86]

They wouldn't want to be associated with him ever again. But for some, this already ended their political careers. Cruz being the most hilarious example.

Exactly. Everything he comes close to turns to shit. Being associated with him is a political suicide.