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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @09:41AM
Yeah, that's not going to happen. Enough with the hyperbole. Trump may be a garbage candidate, but he isn't going to destroy everything, just like Obama, Bush, etc. didn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @10:54AM
Bush did an excellent job of fucking things up.
So did Reagan.
And Trump is off the charts compared to either of them, they were all normal. Trump is abnormal.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 09 2016, @12:30PM
If Trump is "abnormal", then just WTF is Clinton? I mean, seriously, there are very few things about Clinton that even make her appear to be human, let alone "normal". She seems to be one of the lizard people.
Many of us have told you, we would be happy to vote for a woman, but first you've got to nominate a real woman!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 09 2016, @02:37PM
Here again I'll agree with you, though you've been an insulting dick elsewhere in the thread. Hillary is not a woman but a creature of pure, unscrupulous, amoral ambition. I'm sure that within 24 hours she and her surrogates are going to start spinning her defeat as proof of America's ongoing misogyny. That's not what this election is about, at all. It's about stated policy, but also about a deeper referendum on the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Despite the cynicism and betrayals, the American people are not yet ready to let go of their attachment to the original American social contract. They still want it to work. They want people who break the law to be punished. They want hard work to be rewarded. They want their government to work for them, not for itself or for the benefit of the elites.
Those are the overriding values, I believe, and gender and every other non-essential factor are in fact non-essential. If Elizabeth Warren had thrown her hat in the ring at the outset, having said what she had said about opportunity and economic equality in America, she would have run away with the election. Her gender would have had nothing to do with it. 1994 was the "Year of the Woman" in politics, but now in 2016 such proclamations are passe. Can you even imagine any news outlet proclaiming 2016 as "The Year of the She-Male" or "The Year of the Gay?" No, of course not, because whatever else has happened, America has moved beyond those kinds of labels.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Wednesday November 09 2016, @03:45PM
Hell, it probably doesn't even have to be real. Plastics and silicone are getting pretty advanced nowadays.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @09:05PM
Many of us have told you, we would be happy to vote for a woman, but first you've got to nominate a real woman!
One you can grab by the pussy and she'll let you, you mean?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 09 2016, @10:40PM
No, retard. A real woman, like my Mama, my sister, my wife, or my daughter in law. You know, WOMEN. People. Not objects, not sexual objects, but PEOPLE who happen to be female. The people who give birth, and nurture most of our helpless fools until we learn to wipe our own arses. You? You don't sound like you've ever shared much of anythine with any woman except your genitalia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @08:39AM
No, retard. A real woman, like my Mama, my sister, my wife, or my daughter in law. You know, WOMEN.
Are you saying we can grab them by the pussy? Very generous of you, but don't you think this shows a patriarchal notion of women as property? I expected more of you, Runaway, and I do not mean more "women".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @02:14PM
Trump's tax plan involves cutting the top tax rate to the lowest its ever been, to 25%, and to cut corporate taxes all the way down to 15%. If you've ever paid attention to the facts, you'll notice a correlation between higher taxes of the wealthiest and a healthier, robust economy, and a correlation between lower taxes on the wealthiest and a weak, dying economy. The economy is so, so, so very fucked under his tax plan, and the deficit is going to skyrocket because they'd basically have to shut the federal government down to compensate for the massive loss in revenue.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:11PM
Did you ever think that the problem might be that the government is spending/wasting too much?
Often the argument is to tax corporations. Corporations don't have magical money that comes from nowhere. It comes from selling products/services. Raise their taxes, it just gets passed along TO YOU as increased prices for their products/services. So arguing for higher taxes is akin to asking for higher taxes on yourself. Make it too difficult/expensive for the wealthy, and businesses to operate in the US, they'll just move somewhere that treats them better.
Another thing to consider is that it's not just the wealthy that get hurt. Anyone who has a retirement (401k , IRA, etc) has their money invested in big corporations. Hurting those corporations hurts the returns of many people's retirements that they've worked hard to accumulate.
Liberals are soo greedy. They want services, and benefits, but it's always someone else who has to pay for them. You never see any wealthy liberals offering to pay extra taxes. They'd rather use the government to compel others, at the point of a gun, to surrender their hard-earned wealth.
To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, "The problem with Socialism is that you always end up running out of other people's money."
Can anyone really say that the US in is good shape? 19T debt + $100T in unfunded liabilities to failed social programs like Medicare and Social Security.
I would be a millionaire right now, if I could have invested my FICA contributions over the years. Instead, they went into the legal ponzi scheme Social Security and were paid as benefits, or stolen by IOUs made by congress long ago.
Hillary was going to increase taxes by $1T, but raise spending by over $3T. How does that make any fiscal sense?
Someone please show me the math how wasteful government spending has any positive effect on the economy. Do you even know what the economy is?
Obama has spent ass tons of money. We've had stagnant GDP for the last 8 years. I suppose that's all W's fault and it would have been worse, and we should have spent more.
yeah sure. Fools.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Wednesday November 09 2016, @11:13PM
Poor corporations, they're having it so hard already, selling to a consolidated market of 350 million of the richest people in the world..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @08:13PM
Nonsence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 09 2016, @10:29PM
Correlation is not Causation.
A wealthy, healthy people can afford to squander resources on excessive and useless governmental overreach.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday November 10 2016, @12:16AM
Alone, reducing corporate tax is bad. Combined with increasing income tax on the 1% and reforming the tax code... Well, it will serve every single pro-American interest his campaign and even the Republican party ever supported.
As I mentioned in another post, we don't know what Trump will do. All his points can be part of either extreme left, extreme right or extreme center polices.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 12 2016, @03:16PM
There is a reason why you keep corporate taxes at same rate as highest tax bracket.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @07:17AM
which is CLOSE all the loopholes that effectively turns our tax rate into single digit percentages for companys and the very rich.
15% tax minus 0% 'saved' by loopholes. 15% effective tax
50% tax minus 49% 'saved' by loopholes. 1% effective tax
yes that 50% starts out much bigger. but gains us squat.