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]
> President-elect Trump will be less important than his Supreme Court choices.
I think you underestimate how much damage an ADHD Trump + a republican congress can do.
I'm oddly sanguine about scotus appointments. I think all of his promises about the scotus will go out the window now that he's won. He is a transactional man and he gains nothing by keeping those promises since there is nothing in it for him. He's more likely to appoint sycophants than scalias. They'll probably be total dumbshits, but they won't believe in republican orthodoxy.
No, you OVERestimate the importance of Trump. Whackos are afraid he'll nuke Mexico? FFS, some of you need to get a grip. There are laws in place that restrict the president's freedom of action. He can't just go off half-cocked, and start doing whatever the hell he wants.
Now, if Trump really had free reign, like in a monarchy, then we would indeed have reason to fear Trump.
You clearly don't understand how modern monarchies work.
Queen Elizabeth has no control of the UK's nuclear weapons, she cannot issue directives to the police, security or military forces without the approval of Parliament. She is the titular head of the country and its forces but she has ceded all real control to Parliament. I cannot think of a European monarchy that has the powers that you are suggesting that they have in your statement.
Try reading wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
The monarch and his or her immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties. As the monarchy is constitutional, the monarch is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours and appointing the Prime Minister. The monarch is, by tradition, commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. Though the ultimate formal executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and, in practice, within the constraints of convention and precedent.
He was referring to the generic abstract concept of a monarchy and how power is concentrated in a single individual.
Not to the specific implementation in today's european monarchies. I think we can all agree that they've been nothing more than figureheads for a very long time.
He never specified any monarchy, modern or otherwise. Just the broad abstract concept of a monarchy. The modern part was your addition.
He can't just go off half-cocked, and start doing whatever the hell he wants.Now, if Trump really had free reign, like in a monarchy, then we would indeed have reason to fear Trump.
He can't just go off half-cocked, and start doing whatever the hell he wants.
Er, yes he did. And what is more he was quite wrong in how he believes that a monarch (conceptual or otherwise) can behave. I merely corrected his mistake.
Whackos are afraid he'll nuke Mexico?
There is only one monarch that I can think of that heads a country with nuclear weapons. So, by association, he is implying that the UK monarch has the power to control nuclear weapons - which she doesn't. Certainly no historical monarch (again conceptual or otherwise) ever had that capability either.
Now, if Trump really had free reign, like in a monarchy
So we are talking about Trump - who I seem to recall was elected quite recently. I would certainly term that a modern event. So he is being compared to a 'modern' monarchy. Monarchs haven't had the sort of power that he is claiming they have for over a hundred years - certainly Queen Victoria had handed over much of whatever 'power' she had to Parliament during the early part of her reign. Chancellors, sheiks and dictators might have had it but, with the exception of perhaps Russia, they haven't had nuclear weapons to play with.
It's not difficult to work out what was meant, but if that was not what he meant to say then perhaps he should have expressed himself differently.
That's not a monarchy it's an oligarchy with a mascot.
You fail to grok that the Republicans in Congress hate Trump's breathing guts even more than the Democrats in Congress do. Trump was a big, fat Fuck You to them and everything they stand for by the American people. He won't be able to get shit remotely controversial done unless career politicians on one side of the aisle or the other pull their heads out of their asses and start working for the people instead of themselves.