Trump or Clinton?

[killramos]

^ Agreed, I just liked the article and as I said was surprised they published it. I think its a symbol of them backtracking, not much to be gained from calling the POTUS names for 4 years.

Oh wait its HuffPo thats exactly what they will do

[lilmira]

Can we get back to dragging an old person out of the house? Oh wait

[R154]

So far, what I have seen from fb and beme, there is so much crying.

Really an astonishing precedent has been set. Going forward, I wonder what other types of candidate will emerge.

[R154]

Originally posted by lilmira
Can we get back to dragging an old person out of the house? Oh wait

Nice.

[pheoxs]

Originally posted by R154
So far, what I have seen from fb and beme, there is so much crying.

Really an astonishing precedent has been set. Going forward, I wonder what other types of candidate will emerge.

I think if anything it will push for more moderate candidates for both sides. Yes trump won but thats only because both candidates put forward such shitty options. Had either of them put someone less extreme they would've had the majority vote with ease.

[403ep3]

:P http://www.thefader.com/2016/11/09/d...e-cbc-election

[suntan]

She was in hysterics last night. Also she blamed the MSM for giving him so much coverage.

[nissanK]

In a segment which aired before the result was announced, Moodie-Mills described the election as "white supremacy's last stand,"

Soooooo I guess Hilary isn't white????

What a knob.

[n1zm0]

Should've invested in arms manufacturer stocks long ago as a gamble, almost every single major company is up by huge numbers this morning (Norinco, Raytheon etc).

[ZenOps]

In many ways, Trump doesn't have to do anything for political turmoil around the world.

Just based on campaign promises with outright oppressive foreign policy will be enough to shift power players. It really doesn't matter if he follows through on campaign promises or not.

Putin will probably retract his troops to see if Trump follows through on the destruction of NAFTA (very high probability) and NATO (less probable, but still possible)

Free trade never is in the best interest of any nation that simply has the means of policing and charging others fines for "parking their tank in the wrong spot". Having free and fair trade is really stupid if you have the biggest gun.

Under Trump, if NATO is indeed dissolved, it would probably be wise for Canada to buy two nukes (from France maybe?), point one at New York and one at the Kremlin. But that's just my assessment.

It may come as hard news, but America is no longer our ally - and if they dissolve NAFTA, we will be less than friends. If NATO goes, we are just slightly above mexico.

[msommers]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz

Pffft.... Asshole!!

Coffee fucking everywhere!!!!


-----

How were the markets this morning?

[Lex350]

This is a clip from an article for a law professor from Columbia university...it was written yesterday before the vote.

Democrats in shock tonight, if you lose this election, please understand that you did not lose it to Bengazi, a private server, or even to the right wing. You will have lost it to Goldman Sachs, superdelegates, and the faction of the left that your current party leadership does not understand and will never find. And it was never about Sanders. He was a placeholder, a variable. Replace him with any other Democrat or independent, and the 2016 election formula remains the same.

Remember that 57% of Clinton "supporters" said after the convention in July that they supported her only because they don't want Trump to win (ftr, 53% of his "supporters" said the same of her). Those aren't motivated voters, which is why Michael freakin' Moore of all people predicted Trump will win this election. And you would have supported your party's nominee no matter who it was, right? I know you would have because you've been screaming at the Bernie-or-busters for the past 4 months that you would have. You meant all that "unite behind the nominee" stuff, right? Of course you did. Now remember a few months ago when Sanders was polling 10+ points ahead of Trump while Clinton was in a statistical tie? Remember all that data showing that she was the least likely Democrat to beat him in the general election? Now recall why she got the nomination anyway. It wasn't because of popular support. She was the 2nd least popular candidate for the presidency in all of modern politics, ahead of only Trump, who may have overtaken her tonight. So, do you remember the reason? It's the same reason the Republican party nominated GWB in 2000: cronyism. The wealthy and powerful party insiders chose their crony. Because she failed in her overt, unapologetic attempt to steal the 2008 Democratic primary from the voters, she got a bigger head start this time. She got all the queen's horses and all the queen's men lined up years ago to ensure she would succeed in 2016, voters be damned. And I don't mean Sanders voters. I mean all of them.

The Democratic Party has wasted the past 4 months fighting tooth and nail against the right-wing hatred of Hillary Clinton, and for naught. The fact that the right wing can't distinguish it's hatred of her from its hatred of her husband, of the President, and of the First Lady should've been the first clue that was an enemy they could not defeat. That enemy would rise up equally against any Democrat, and create whatever false narrative was necessary to justify the hatred. Her real enemy was not all the crazy lies and conspiracy theories. Her real enemy--and the difference between her neck-and-neck polling against the biggest joke in the history of US politics and Sanders' vast superiority against the same opponent-- has nothing to do with how Republican voters feel, nothing to do with Bengazi, a private email server, Russian uranium, the founding of ISIS, or any other crackpot theories.

If she loses tonight, it won't have been to the right wing at all. It will have been to the independents and that ever-growing subset of left-wing progressives that actually agree with that ever-growing subset of the right wing that is tired of the influence of special-interest money in politics (her record here couldn't be worse), tired of career politicians (ditto), and tired of denial after denial after denial of her prior inconsistent statements. No matter how much worse Trump's prior (and current) statements were, he owned them all. That would never lead me to vote for him, but it led me to question how the Democratic party could be so blind to 1) the fact that its candidate could actually under-perform this evil, fascist buffoon on something as important as personal integrity, and 2) the fact that an ever-growing number of voters-- progressive, leftist, moderate, independent (nevermind conservative) voters-- really care about that shit. Modern progressives see little difference between a moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat. For them, Clinton could never shake those countless videos of her claiming on one stump to be progressive and on another to be a moderate, into one mic a "proud" pro-life, pro-war, pro-big-bank, pro-defense-of-marriage, Goldwater girl and into another mic a pro-choice, anti-war, anti-bank, lgbtq-supporting left-of-leftist, or her ever-changing lie upon 'splainin lie about an evasive corkscrew landing under sniper fire that never happened. It wasn't even factually important, but she changed her story on it 3 or 4 times, digging her hole deeper. You can't turn a blind eye to all that while criticizing Trump supporters for turning a blind eye to all his faults, no matter how much worse his are. For the voters Clinton could never court, asking which is the better candidate is like asking whether Neptune or Uranus is the more habitable planet. It's neither, by a country mile. Trump represents the worst of American society and Clinton represents the worst of American politics.
Democratic party leaders, your voters have evolved far ahead of you. Loyalist Democratic voters, take your party back from it's tired old leadership or prepare to keep losing. Those left-leaning millennials you've been counting on to be the future critical mass of your party are as disinterested in crony politics as they are in right-wing policies. Bernie Sanders is not the reason they didn't come out in droves. Hillary Clinton is. And she would be equally offensive had she been nominated over anyone else. Every intelligent objective observer knew months ago that, although Trump was the only Republican Clinton could possibly beat, Clinton was also the only Democrat Trump could possibly beat. Republicans got out the vote today, and Democrats could have too if they had wanted more than the minority vote. Party leaders should have wanted the independent and modern progressive votes badly enough not to do what those voters would hate the most: imposing on the people an entitled insider crony.
Loyalist Democratic voters in shock tonight that this contemptable douchebag might actually win this election, you have only a handful of party insiders to blame. They chose cronyism over democracy. And over you. They bowed to her highness because she demanded that it was her turn. Remember what you all said about GWB 16 years ago? Yeah, it's that. It's exactly that. It's not your fault. You would have fallen in line behind Warren, or Sanders, or O'Malley. Hell, you'd have fallen in line behind Biden for Pete's sake. But, with the possible exception of Biden, the progressives and independents would've fallen in line with you. You'd have been one big happy party, and you'd have buried this sideshow turd months ago if only you'd fallen in line behind anyone else. Seriously, anyone.
Take back your party from its current crony leadership and rebuild it from the ground up or lose its future critical mass. It won't matter whether you lose it to a third party or to disillusionment.

[killramos]

People who think Bernie Sanders could have won the election are even more delusional than people who think Clinton was a star candidate.

[msommers]

I like Bernie but I have to agree he never had a shot with his super left ideals.

[J-hop]

So does anyone know, once he is officially in office is he legally required to release his tax returns?

[R154]

Originally posted by J-hop
So does anyone know, once he is officially in office is he legally required to release his tax returns?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say he isn't legally required to do a damn thing anymore.

He isn't even legally bound not to use the office to grow his wealth.

He will have an army of lawyers and lawmakers complicit in making him more rich and protected.

Game. Set. Match.

[R!zz0]

Wonder if North Korea will be threatening USA anymore?

Or probably doesn't give 2 shits.

[01RedDX]

.

[rage2]

Originally posted by J-hop
So does anyone know, once he is officially in office is he legally required to release his tax returns?

Nope. Releasing tax returns was just a tradition.

[J-hop]

I think you're right. Just doing a quick search he doesn't have to. Obama apparently has the power to release trumps tax returns but I doubt he would.

It's too bad, I bet they are pretty embarrassing for trump.