SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
And the winner of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, as reported by the major mainstream media outlets is Donald Trump. It has also been reported that Hillary Clinton called President-elect Donald Trump to concede.
Electoral vote count (so far): 279 for Donald Trump, 218 for Hillary Clinton. 270 electoral votes are needed to win.
Popular vote: 57,227,164 votes (48.0%) for Donald Trump, 56,279,305 votes (47.2%) for Hillary Clinton. Update: Now it is closer to 59,085,795 votes (47.5%) for Donald Trump and 59,236,903 votes (47.6%) for Hillary Clinton.
Yell, scream, gnash teeth... but please keep it civil.
Results at CNN, NYT, FiveThirtyEight, Wikipedia.
takyon: Republicans have retained control of the House and Senate.
Here's some market news:
Dow futures plunge nearly 750 points as investors warily eye electoral map
Asian markets plummet on likelihood of Trump victory
Bitcoin price soars as Trump pulls ahead
Opinion: How to profit from a Donald Trump victory
Ballot measure results will be covered in an upcoming story. Some initial results can be found at Ballotpedia and CNN.
[TMB Note: Stop breaking stuff, cmn32480]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gidds on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:32AM
I hope your optimism will turn out to be justified — but I fear it won't.
I fear that liberalism is becoming, not merely unfashionable, but downright dangerous. If experience elsewhere is anything to go by, the illiberal will take this as an encouragement; you're likely to see all sorts of ugly views, antagonism, and hatred coming out of the woodwork now, from people who think this victory removes any need for them even to pretend to live and let live.
And for anyone who voted for Trump on the basis of "How bad could it really get?", I fear you may be about to find out :-(
[sig redacted]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:41AM
There are reasons to be optimistic about Trump or believe that the negatives are overstated. We've never seen a Republican President that has been so at odds with his party's leadership, particularly on issues such as the TPP. However, Trump believes himself to be a great negotiator and we could see the divisions disappear fast. Watch what happens in the first year closely and decide for yourself whether Trump is the one calling the shots, or his White House staff, perhaps his Vice Prez, or some other elites somewhere.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 09 2016, @09:52AM
If Trump shuts down the TPP permanently, he will have justified every vote for him. The TPP is the death knell of middle America. Everyone knows it. Every other incitement, every other reflexive utterance, is purely secondary to that. It's not often that a policy initiative should be so pivotal, but the TPP is such a one. Hillary's second, Kaine, had already hinted before the election that Hillary would reverse her "public" stance on TPP. People in the industrialized Mid-West read that exactly as it was meant, that Hillary would immediately cut their throats upon election. Once again, Hillary was figuring that she could "triangulate" her way out of it. Thank god she has not, and that there remains a chance that she might finally answer for her crimes.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday November 09 2016, @11:11AM
I've read something about another similar deal already being worked on to replace it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @11:33AM
> The TPP is the death knell of middle America. Everyone knows it.
Which specific terms of the TPP make it so noxious to middle america? Not copyrights or patents or corporate sovereignty, specific policies that will be bad for middle america which I presume is either manufacturing or agriculture.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @02:43PM
The fact that it was created and negotiated in total secret, with anyone thinking about leaking any details being under threat of imprisonment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:28PM
The thing was pretty much designed as 3 agreements. The idea was to have 'free trade' then basically do the same thing they did with NAFTA and the US/Mexico/Canada. They consider NAFTA a good deal. Oh and it is for the 1%rs. A few 1%rs showed up and said 'hey you know that is a really bad deal for you right?'. They got laughed out of the room, Ross Perot and Donald Trump were one of the few saying it. They saw exactly what the 'opportunity' meant for them and others. They then went on and took full advantage of it themselves when it passed. They knew.
It is basically the car salesman saying 'hey this nice looking car is a lemon but I will sell it to you for a million dollars' then you turning around and saying 'well how about two million'. They are going to say sure.
TPP is fairly much DOA now. But it was shapping up to be NAFTA 2.0 but with the Philippians and Africa. China saw it for what it was. An end run around the economy they had setup with Nixon. The idea was to also rope in Europe. Like they did with Canada last time. That way it does not look one sided. It would just do the same thing Mexico did to Canada. Canada is not the manufacturing gem it used to be. Everything went to mexico then china.
You can read the full text on wikileaks. It is rather dull and dry. The idea is to remove trade barriers. Those barriers exist to balance out trade partners who do not play nice. But get rid of those and slave labor is not out of the question. Just 'something to be concerned about'.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gidds on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:01PM
Up to now, maybe; but once the bigwigs accept the result and see the ugly popular mood, they'll realise the danger in being seen to go against it, and they may go along with Trump out of fear and/or self-preservation.
I'm afraid this seems like one more in a long line of self-deceptions I've seen this year:
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:33PM
Many newspapers that traditionally endorse the Republican endorsed Hillary, Gary Johnson, or nobody instead.
Many mainstream Republicans refused to endorse Trump, endorsed Hillary, or kept their mouth shut. Jeb Bush is a notable example.
Trump battled publicly with the Republican Speaker of the House and infuriated the Republican National Committee Chairman. These people are expected to be on the same page.
Several of his positions have been widely rejected by his party's politicians. Notable examples are the TPP, and his stance on Muslims entering the U.S. He also doesn't appear to share many of the traditional Republican social positions, aside from opposition to abortion.
Trump's own running mate, an establishment pick, openly repudiated Trump's comments or positions in some cases.
There is a lot of bad blood between Trump and other Republicans. It won't simply vanish, and I doubt we have seen the last policy clash.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday November 09 2016, @06:31PM
While it may seem to some (or even many) that the election of Donald Trump is some sort of bellwether for some sort of real change, you're about to be disappointed, IMHO.
The Presidential Election:
The played out pretty much along the lines of 2012, with Trump replicating the Ritt Momney coalition. But Clinton did not hold together the coalition that Obama had then.
The polls were, for the most part, pretty good, with results that were almost all within the margins of error.
The "swing" states were very close in terms of actual votes [politico.com]. For example, in Wisconsin, out of 2,944,126 votes cast, Trump beat Clinton by 27,390 votes, or 0.9%. In Pennsylvania, out of 5,969,446 votes cast, Trump beat Clinton by 67,951 votes, or 1.1%.
What this shows me is that this was a a typical R vs. D election. Trump turned out the R base, and Clinton did not turn out the D base.
The Congressional Elections
To my mind, these are even more evidence that the "drain the swamp" or "throw the crooks out" or "Washington is hopelessly broken/corrupt" rhetoric was nothing but hyperbole.
With the exceptions of Russell Kirk (IL) and possibly Kelly Ayotte (NH), every incumbent senator up for re-election won.
In the House, with a very few exceptions, incumbents won re-election, most quite easily.
So. The folks who inhabit "the swamp" and make up the "corrupt Washington elites" will go back to work for their corporate/special interest masters.
tl;dr: All-in-all, Nothing of consequence has changed. We're a tightly divided electorate and It's back to business as usual in DC. Perhaps one day, the hacks we send to Washington will stop jockeying for filthy lucre and work for the good of those they're supposed to be representing. I won't hold my breath.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:42AM
We're also going to see those same exact people who just spent the past 8 years talking shit non-stop about the president and openly stating how they want him and the country to fail to suddenly change back to the "Criticizing the president is treason! Why do you hate America so much?" that we saw during Dubya's administration. There will be no discourse, no discussion, only the same bullying, hatefulness, willful ignorance, and closed-mindedness that got us our new president.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:51AM
Gee, much different than labeling every criticism of Obama as racist?
Pot, Kettle, Black.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @09:07AM
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make about both Obama and Hillary. When people are making a big deal about non-issues or using something that only seems to be a problem when its because its "the other team" doing it (like say, bitching about Hillary's emails but not giving a fuck about Bush and Cheney deleting 22 million White House emails after a subpoena, or suddenly caring about the one embassy attack during Obama's administration but not the 13 that happened under Bush, or suddenly caring about "National Security" and "honesty but not giving a fuck when Bush's administration outed a CIA active agent, endangering her life and ending her career, and then committed perjury during the investigation, etc) then its clear that the hatred is already pre-determined due to bias and the person is just desperately looking for anything, literally anything, to justify that biased hatred.
Its pretty easy to tell bias from legitimate criticisms. Believe it or not, the people being called out as racists were, in fact, racists. Watch as they remain silent when Trump does literally the same exact things that Obama and Hillary got shit for without a fucking peep from the people who made the most racket when Obama/Hillary did it. That is called "hypocrisy" and "obvious bias", and whats the only difference? Skin color and genitals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @09:43AM
That is called "hypocrisy" and "obvious bias"
Nope, that's called what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
With that incredibly broad brush you're painting with, you forget that there were several who were critical of both Bush and Clinton (begins with an "l" but it's not the left).
And I'll remind you the same people who wanted Bush tried as a war criminal turned a blind eye towards everything Obama and Clinton were doing as well.
But hey, keeping telling yourself it was all racism, and that only you can look into a man's heart and see where their motivations lie.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @10:06AM
And this is exactly why liberals lost and are going to become the hated minority they always claim to be. Wishing away your problems will not remove them. Wishing away the people you despise and taking away their right one by one won't make them powerless. I have said here on SN a long time back that the problem of western civilization is their quest to be efficient. Who cares about educating racists when you can just silence them? Why care about men's issues when you can just ignore them? Liberals have slowly and systematically involved themselves into a social engineering project where they demonized college men, caused ever increasing college dropout rate, didn't control the education loan crisis while subsidizing the female college students. And what happened? The non-college going white male population which has been voting democrats switched sides. And yet Trump did better among hispanics and didn't lose any women votes. Why? I have already read several articles from The Economist, The Guardian and Vox calling votes as idiots. Could it be that they, in fact, don't like to be called idiots? Could it be liberals squandered all chances of an open dialogue and power sharing until a long term solution could be found? Could it be that liberals are not that liberals and worked to preserve the status quo, becoming the the very definition of conservatism? Could it be that there might a cause behind someone being a racist? If liberals can't get underneath the skin of their haters when they actually have the power, why complain on losing it?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 09 2016, @11:23AM
Is that racism or team tribalism? There probably is racism, but certainly not all of it is.
That is called "hypocrisy" and "obvious bias", and whats the only difference? Skin color and genitals.
But they're also on different teams.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 09 2016, @11:35AM
There are some of us who did speak up about those issues, then. We were called 'traitors' and 'unpatriotic.' Me, I decried the corruption and criminality then, when Karl Rove and Scooter Libby destroyed emails rather than comply with federal records-retention acts.
Of course you and others like you will gloss over all that endlessly in order to fit everything into your simplistic narratives.
So if you want to escape the petard that you are hoisting others upon, then do the moral thing and call out everything that runs afoul of that code, no matter which team you identify with. I bet you can't do it, given the cavelier tone you've adopted thus far.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @02:47PM
Are you ready for another 4 years of that? Because I'm sure as hell not. America's fall to fascism is complete. And there's still this overwhelming idea that being against Drumpf makes one pro-Clinton. I assure, thats not the case. The world isn't black and white, there is no "either for us, or against us", but unfortunately we're about to live through another 4 years of that same bullshit that we suffered through during Dubya's administration yet again. Its a sad day for America.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:36PM
I agree. Being anti-Trump does not equal being pro-Clinton. I also agree that the world isn't black and white, and that there is a lot more nuance out there than the simplistic narratives pushed by the media. For example, I voted for Trump not because I am pro-Trump, but because I am vehemently anti-Clinton.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @09:54AM
I fear that liberalism is becoming, not merely unfashionable, but downright dangerous.
Because it has been hijacked by demagogues who want to punish any that do not agree with them. That is the singular reason for the backlash. Someone still has not explained sufficiently to me how 'safe spaces' are not segregation and racist/bigoted. Renaming bad things and then pinning the old names on your opposition does not make you a good person.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @07:16PM
It's not like these people who put Trump into office are hiding in secret underground caverns. Look at conservative twitters, look at voat.co, 4chan, whatever. It should be abundantly clear by now that you cannot trust the mainstream media. Their polls were about as accurate as their portrayal of Trump supporters. It's the same story more or less everywhere. The real thing that Trump successfully tapped into was the same thing that probably would have given Bernie the victory if he won. People are sick of corruption and career politicians enabling such corruption in DC. The housing market crash destroyed the lower and middle classes. The elites who caused it ended up better off than ever before and suffered not a single repercussion. We even gave them massive loans of taxpayer money to help them get back on their feet. Hillary was going to be more of this type of complete nonsense.
The entire nation is changing sharply populist and anti-establishment. If not for her control of the media and the DNC, this election would have been representative of that and we'd have had a battle of ideology between Sanders and Trump. Instead we had a battle of somebody representative of an establishment that's time is up being propped up only by the media and their demonizations. This is really like old war propaganda. People don't want to kill other people so in times of war the media would be used to vilify the opposition and make them seem inhuman. Go spend some time among them. You might fund a very different surface level but look under the surface and we all have so much more in common than these divisive politics would lead you to believe. Maybe this little SNL Skit, Black Jeopardy, was a lot deeper than it might seem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly0X2XmEf1s [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by mechanicjay on Thursday November 10 2016, @09:01PM
Yes! This was well done because 1) It was really funny. 2) Helps illustrate that there is more that connects us than separates us -- or at least that EVERYONE should distrust the man, which is an important place to start.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.