Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

2016 US Presidential Election


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3855 replies to this topic

#3841
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,337 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

UB3fKxG.jpg


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#3842
TheComrade

TheComrade

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,642 posts

Surprisingly good point from "Economist":

 


THE last-ditch effort by some Democrats to thwart a Donald Trump presidency ended in a fizzle on December 19th...
 
No realistic observer expected 37 Republican loyalists—more than 10% of the total—to send Mr Trump packing (in many cases violating state laws and exposing themselves to financial penalties). But it is remarkable that 7 of the 538 electors felt free to switch their votes, by far the most in recent memory. This election was the first since 1872 with more than one faithless elector.
 
The failure of the rebellion will not be more than a footnote to the 2016 presidential election. Yet it may leave an enduring legacy... Here we find a mantra among instigators of the failed electoral coup: this election is different. Mr Trump represents a unique threat to the American republic. The electoral college should thumb its nose at democratic laws and norms as an emergency measure to save the union. This time only... This point contains a deep fallacy. Once the electoral college is untethered from its traditional role as rubber stamp of the state results, there is no way to pin back its power... With a budding electoral vote split of 273-265, for example, just four electors would need to be persuaded to abandon the winning candidate to throw the election to the loser.
 
If electors feel empowered to indulge their own political preferences, and enabled to make a personal mark on history, the result may be a handful of unelected people overturning a verdict delivered by 135m or more voters. That is precisely the precedent that the failed 2016 electoral coup has unwittingly set.

 

Very true. So far, these electors were no more than rubber stamp and "our old beautiful tradition". If they will become the real political institution, candidates may start struggling for their votes while popular vote will become less important. This is much easier to "persuade" 5-10 electors than 5-10 million voters, isn't it?
 
In more extremal scenario, college may become the ideal tool of dictatorship: "Election-2044 is over! Once again, 527 of 538 electors voted for our beloved Great Leader, while others, morally and professionally unworthy populists, were rightfully filtered out despite their relatively good performance in popular vote... deal with it, losers, such is the great wisdom we inherited from our Founding Fathers!"


#3843
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,731 posts

Even the voters supported Hillary and she still lost.

 

It's official: Clinton Swamps Trump in Popular Vote

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...ount/index.html

 

Extract.

 

(CNN) More Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than any other losing presidential candidate in US history.

 

The Democrat outpaced President-elect Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes, with 65,844,954 (48.2%) to his 62,979,879 (46.1%), according to revised and certified final election results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

 

Clinton's 2.1% margin ranks third among defeated candidates, according to statistics from US Elections Atlas. Andrew Jackson won by more than 10% in 1824 but was denied the presidency, which went to John Quincy Adams. In 1876, Samuel Tilden received 3% more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes, who eventually triumphed by one electoral vote.

 

…In the final count, Clinton surpassed President Barack Obama's 2012 total by 389,944 votes, but narrow losses in key battleground states meant Obama won 100 more electoral votes on Election Day.

 

Trump's victories in swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida -- all carried by Obama four years ago -- gave him a comfortable edge in the Electoral College. Still, Trump's claims of a "massive landslide victory" are belied by past statistics, which place his win among the narrowest.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3844
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,731 posts

 

Surprisingly good point from "Economist":

 

 

Actually, the defection of the seven electors does bother me. I can see politicians of the future, especially within the ranks of the Republican party, using the precedent that has been set to monkey around with the election results.  Much the way they impeached Clinton several years after Nixon was impeached and shamed into resigning. The electors pledged to Clinton should have remained loyal.  At least with Trump there was the argument of corruption on his part and the influence of a foreign power. Appeals to electors should have been on those narrow grounds. With the CIA denying them a briefing, all pretense that they were there as protectors of democracy vanished. At least in my mind.

 

In the future, electors may feel free to vote for their preference rather than who they were pledged to support. One of the many bad legacies left by the Trump campaign.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3845
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,731 posts

Well, being as how there is still some interest in keeping this thread alive:

 

The Republican Sabotage of the Vote Recount in Michigan

 

http://www.truth-out...n-and-wisconsin

 

Extract:

 

A record 75,355 ballots were not counted (in Michigan)

 

….The uncounted ballots came mostly from Detroit and Flint, majority-Black cities that vote Democratic.

 

…Michigan votes on paper ballots. If you don't fill the bubble completely, the machine records that you didn't vote for president.

 

…In Michigan, you can choose to make one mark that casts your vote for every Democrat (or Republican) for every office. Voters know that they can vote the Democratic ballot but write in a protest name -- popular were "Bernie Sanders" and "Mickey Mouse" -- but their ballot, they knew, would count for Clinton. However, the Detroit machines simply invalidated the ballots with protest write-ins because the old Opti-Scans wrongly tallied these as "over-votes" (i.e., voting for two candidates). The human eye would catch this mistake.

 

…Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette stymied Stein's human eye count. The Republican pol issued an order saying that no one could look at the ballots cast in precincts where the number of votes and voters did not match -- exactly the places where you'd want to look for the missing votes. He also ordered a ban on counting ballots from precincts where the seals on the machines had been broken -- in other words, where there is evidence of tampering. Again, those are the machines that most need investigating. The result: The recount crews were denied access to more than half of all Detroit precincts (59 percent).

2016.12.16.Palast.middle.image.jpg

 

Photo of Michigan ballot with bubble.

(Image courtesy of Palast Investigative Fund, 2016)


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3846
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,731 posts

Pro-Trump Group Blew by Basic Campaign Finance Laws

 

https://www.propubli...gn-finance-laws

 

Introduction:

 

A group that gave more money to one of President-elect Trump’s fundraising efforts than any other political action committee failed to disclose its donors before Election Day and exceeded caps on contribution amounts.

 

America Comes First PAC was created in early August. But for the next three months, it disclosed nothing about how much it raised, who its donors were or how it was spending its money.

 

That eventually prompted a warning from federal regulators.

 

“It is important that you file this report immediately,” read an October 31 letter from the Federal Election Commission.

But Election Day came and went — and still nothing.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3847
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,731 posts

Voters Really Did Switch To Trump At The Last Minute

 

http://fivethirtyeig...he-last-minute/

 

 

Extract:

 

Our October 2016 (panel survey) was conducted with nationally sampled adults over age 26 between Oct. 14 and Oct. 24 …it ended soon after the third Clinton-Trump debate….Clinton was riding high in the polls — and 43 percent of our panelists in that wave expressed support for Clinton… 36 percent for Trump. By way of benchmarking, this same group of panelists had gone for President Obama over Mitt Romney 46 percent to 39 percent in October 2012.

 

At first glance, it might seem as if Clinton in October 2016 was in roughly the same position as Obama was in October 2012…. Both enjoyed margins of 7 percentage points among exactly the same group of people. But there were critical differences… First, the number of undecided respondents in 2016 was 21 percent, significantly outpacing the 15 percent we saw in 2012. Second, our 2016 survey ended on Oct. 24, leaving two full weeks before the Nov. 8 election for people’s minds to change.

 

…while most people’s support remained the same, the changes we did observe were consequential. Consider the table (in the link provided), showing panelists’ support in the October 2016 poll versus their support in the post-election poll, which took place from Nov. 28 to Dec. 7. Eighty-nine percent…reported the same preference in both waves, whether it was for Clinton (38.0 percent), Trump (35.2 percent) or neither (15.8 percent). But among those who did move, Trump had the advantage. While no one moved from Trump to Clinton, 0.9 percent of our respondents moved from Clinton to Trump….If there were a comparable swing in the national electorate, 1.2 million votes would move to Trump.

 

Trump also outpaced Clinton among people who were previously undecided or third-party backers, with 3.1 percent of respondents moving from those categories to Trump while just 2.3 percent did the same for Clinton. Clinton also saw 3.1 percent of her October supporters defecting to third-party candidates or becoming undecided. Trump lost just 1.7 percent.

 

In all, Trump picked up 4.0 percentage points among people who hadn’t been with him in mid-October, and shed just 1.7 percentage points for a net gain of 2.3 points. Clinton picked up a smaller fraction — 2.3 points — and shed 4.0 points for a net loss of 1.7 points.

 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3848
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,731 posts

Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says

 

http://www.nytimes.c...-hack.html?_r=0

 

Extract:

 

But the intelligence agencies’ conclusions that the hacking efforts were successful, which have been presented to President Obama and other senior officials, add a complex wrinkle to the question of what the Kremlin’s evolving objectives were in intervening in the American presidential election.

 

“We now have high confidence that they hacked the D.N.C. and the R.N.C., and conspicuously released no documents” from the Republican organization, one senior administration official said, referring to the Russians.

 

It is unclear how many files were stolen from the Republican committee; in some cases, investigators never get a clear picture. It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.

 

It is possible that in hacking into the Republican committee, Russian agents were simply hedging their bets. The attack took place in the spring, the senior officials said, about the same time that a group of hackers believed to be linked to the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence agency, stole the emails of senior officials of the Democratic National Committee. Intelligence agencies believe that the Republican committee hack was carried out by the same Russians who penetrated the Democratic committee and other Democratic groups.

 

The finding about the Republican committee is expected to be included in a detailed report of “lessons learned” that Mr. Obama has ordered intelligence agencies to assemble before he leaves office on Jan. 20. That report is intended, in part, to create a comprehensive history of the Russian effort to influence the election, and to solidify the intelligence findings before Mr. Trump is sworn in.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3849
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,731 posts

Sadist that I am, I just couldn't resist inflicting upon all of you this one final story regarding the 2016 election.  After you read this, you can celebrate the final conclusion to the 186 pages of temper tantrums (sorry about all of those on my part), exhibition of twisted logic, maddening repetition of themes (ditto my apologies here) and other manifestations of political manure.  Further discussion should be moved to the history forum( IMHO) or to other threads related to life under Trump.

 

https://www.yahoo.co...ion.html?ref=gs

 

Introduction

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The end of the 2016 presidential election is at hand.

 

A joint session of Congress is set to count the Electoral College votes on Friday, a traditional ending to a most unconventional presidential election.

 

Barring something bizarre happening, Republican Donald Trump will be declared the winner and will be sworn in at his inauguration on Jan. 20. Vice President Joe Biden will preside over the vote count in his role as president of the Senate.

 

All 538 electors met in their respective state capitals in December to cast their votes. Trump finished with 304 votes and Democrat Hillary Clinton with 227, according to a tally by The Associated Press. It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency.

 

Trump won even though Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes. His election has generated much angst among Democrats and others who oppose the billionaire businessman. But they have been powerless to change the outcome.

 

 

You made it this far?

 

Congratulations.  Your straight jacket and padded cell awaits.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3850
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,337 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

^ This thread's technically not gonna die for another 15 days, with the inauguration of Trump.

 

Also, I wanna say— ain't it funny that the Democrats were freaking out over the hacking of the DNC, which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Clinton campaign was corrupt and forced Bernie out of the race? I understand that it's still illegal, but here's the analogy: imagine if a burglar breaks into a rich person's home and discovers loads of child porn. The owner of the home then spends the next year saying trying to get people freaking out over the burglary, covering up the fact he has immense amounts of child porn.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#3851
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,731 posts

^^^Actually, not a bad analogy.

 

Our privacy needs to be protected for a reason.  It is simply not fair to expose one person as a consumer of objectionable porn, while giving the other person a free ride who may be doing the exact same thing.

 

For the same reason, there should either be transparency for all political parties (my preference) or the same degree of expectation of privacy for all political parties.

 

None of this the Green Party gets to have all of it's emails hacked and aired in public if the Donald  (or AI programmed on his behalf) so decides, while criticism of the Donald's  magnificence results in your (doctored?) emails getting "leaked" to the public. In that last sentence, delete "the Donald's" and insert "AI's" for future generations.

 

Yes, I get your point that Hillary was also a con artist at a certain level. Unfortunately, unless we can figure out a way to clone Bernie, so are the rest of them. Moreover, we should have been able to figure out that Hillary was a con artist without Putin's help.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3852
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,731 posts

Tensions Boil Up Between Democrats and FBI Director

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...s-hank-johnson/

 

Abstract:

 

Separately, many Democrats also blame FBI Director James Comey -- for re-opening an investigation of Clinton’s emails -- just 10 days before the election. And on Friday, Congressional Democrats let loose on him.

 

Democrats stormed out of a briefing on Russian hacking -- furious with one of the briefers, Comey. 

 

 “The FBI director has no credibility,” said Rep. Maxine Waters of California.   

 

The closed-door briefing for all House members was confidential. But multiple lawmakers tell CBS News that the former chair of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, asked Comey repeatedly why he never called her personally to inform her that the DNC’s servers may have been breached by the Russians.

 

Comey balked, eventually admitting “no, we didnt.”

 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3853
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,731 posts

What Are The Other Political Firestorms Engulfing the FBI Director?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...tion/index.html

 

Extract:

 

Testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee this week, Comey laid bare the inconsistencies of his responses to various investigations.

 

Comey declined to confirm or debunk reports that the FBI has been probing potential contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, saying "especially in a public forum we never confirm or deny a pending investigation."

 

(Senator) Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, seized on the fact the Comey was now mum when he acted very differently in the Clinton email server investigation.

 

"The irony of your making that statement here, I cannot avoid," King said incredulously.

 

 

Comey reiterated the investigation into Clinton's email server was closed when he spoke about it..


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3854
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,731 posts

So, Hillary was mean to Bernie and therefore none of this makes any difference?

 

Really?


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3855
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,337 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

It's over. It's officially, finally over.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#3856
Cody930

Cody930

    An Apple Pie from Scratch

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,522 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, US

Okay, I'll lock this thread now. Move all discussion of Trump here: http://www.futuretim...nd-discussions/


"Since we first emerged, a few million years ago in East Africa, we have meandered our way around the planet. There are now people on every continent and the remotest islands, from pole to pole, from Mount Everest to the Dead Sea, on the ocean bottoms and even, occasionally, in residence 200 miles up - humans, like the gods of old, living in the sky."





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users