Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday November 09 2016, @12:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-the-people dept.

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]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday November 10 2016, @03:01PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 10 2016, @03:01PM (#425141) Journal

    I've heard that one before. It's a huge contortion to blame the housing bubble of the 2000s on a late 1970s Carter era law. If it was such a terrible law, why didn't it cause problems right away instead of 30 years later? What about the repeal of Glass-Steagall in the late 1990s, why isn't that mentioned? Funny how one act from the 1970s gets singled out for the blame, while dozens of more recent changes are passed over.

    That 1970s legislation is the act that shut down redlining, the unfair practice of discriminating against poor and colored people with higher interest rates or just plain refusal of loans, despite the absence of sound reasons to conclude that they are higher risk. Many critics of that act are motivated by racism, not financial reform. That bit about forcing banks to make loans that will be defaulted on is a total lie. The act says very clearly that activity is to be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2