Official presidential election results thread - Nov. 8, 2016

[AuH20]

The media loves savaging the kid. Yes, he's been damaged by vaccines that you deny!

 

[enhanced_deficit]

The media loves savaging the kid. Yes, he's been damaged by vaccines that you deny!

Michael is 100% correct about the crooked media... this is a new low attacking a kid for being sleepy at 3AM.
At least the kid showed up after the historic results... unlike the "highly qualified" puppet that many in media have been prostituting for.

 

[AuH20]

Michael is 100% correct about the crooked media... this is a new low attacking a kid for being sleepy at 3AM.
At least the kid showed up after the historic results... unlike the "highly qualified" puppet that many in media have been prostituting for.

He's likely autistic too. That's why Trump is a vaxx skeptic.

 

[AuH20]

 

[staerker]

Brussels, meet your destroyer.

The trolling never stops! haha

 

[AuH20]

 

[AuH20]

 

[Weston White]

Not wonderful. Rumors beginning that Chelsea is being setup for a Congressional run: http://nypost.com/2016/11/10/chelsea-clinton-being-groomed-to-run-for-congress/

 

[helmuth_hubener]

No, that's not what I said. Here is what I said:

"wild-eyed, grandiose things"

OK, so I say "significantly good" you were saying "wild-eyed and grandiose." You accept "significantly good" and reject "wild-eyed and grandiose" as unlikely. So what is half-way between "significantly good" and "wild-eyed and grandiose"? Terrific? An order of magnitude better than every President the US has had before? Doesn't sound too bad to me!

It is precisely because I am "highly logical" that I regard assertions of "maybe just maybe" as non-responsive and dispositive of nothing.

Well I wasn't trying to "dispose" of you! I think you were trying to have a different soft of discussion than me. Probably a rigorous debate. Not me! I was just talking like a normal person. Just making a comment! I'd never presume to dispose of you, nor would I want to!

"Maybe just maybe" Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been that bad as POTUS and would have done some good things.

Would you take that seriously as an adequate defense of her?

Sure! Sounds like a great defense. Again, you seem to think I am trying to defend one Donald J. Trump in some sort of rigourous way -- or in any way whatsoever! That would be a bit of a .... misunderstanding.

Can you, Occam's Banana, affect the outcome of the national Presidential election?

Answer:

No.

Neither can I! (We have a lot in common!)

So, where I'm coming from is this: I figured, why not enjoy it?

That's all.

Do I get my hopes way up? Nah. But Occam, let me tell you, this was a truly incredible election. Trump is something unprecedented, something unpredictable.

Anyway, I'm not trying to "refute" anything you're saying or have said whatsoever. I'm just saying that Trump is a non-puppet (IMO) and I for one am optimistic for his administration. At least, as optimistic as one can be when convinced his civilization is in a death spiral.

By the way, one of the proposals that I would imagine falls in the category of "wild-eyed, grandiose things" would be this:

During the campaign, Mr. Trump actually proposed to pay down/off the national debt by selling off federal assets. This is precisely the same proposal Harry Browne made in the 1996 and 2000 campaigns, when running as the Libertarian candidate for President. Now maybe it was wild and grandiose then, too. It probably was. But I supported it. All we libertarians did. And it would of course be inconsistent to support it when one man proposes it and oppose it when a different man does. So I support that Trumpian proposal 100%. Is it likely? Hey, it wasn't super likely to happen even if Browne or Ron Paul had been elected! Nobody said saving the country would be easy. But if Paul or Browne were in there, I'd like to believe they would at least put up a fight for their campaign promises and policy proposals, and maybe they'd win. Maybe Trump will fight and win, too. He certainly has so far.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I should have explained it was posted on FB... I liked it so I cut/pasted from a thread where I read it.
srry.
and..
agree... if I was to 'guess' it is referencing the damage from policies, i.e. no child left behind/everyone is a winner if you participate etc, etc.

Don't worry; I could tell.

I was just using it as an opportunity to remind parents that they can fight back -- there are things they can do to prevent their children from getting soft. Paper route morning and night like Walt and Roy Disney's dad! Potty trained by eleven months! Hang them up in the closet by their toenails every time they misbehave! (Just kidding about the last one!)

 

[goldenequity]

Brussels, meet your destroyer.

OMG... that is so EXCITING!!!!! hhhhhhhhhhhAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[enhanced_deficit]

To be fair, there would have also been some repair jobs created had the voters allowed SWC Hillary to damage or break the glass ceiling.

 

[AuH20]

It really is a mental disorder.

 

[AuH20]

The full version.

 

[AuH20]

 

[AuH20]

 

[AuH20]

Even in this emaciated, weak state, America is still defiant.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...is-the-most-defiant-nation-on-earth/93582748/

John Oliver on the surprising election results:

"But that’s not the point. The point is, will America be okay? That’s a difficult question to answer," he continued. "I will say this — you are a defiant nation. This is the most defiant nation on the planet Earth."

 

[AuH20]

 

[AuH20]

They sure are taking it well..............

 

[AuH20]