Longknife

LK your opinion on this election was that the results were basically rigged and that the Media were going to be instrumental in a Hilary victory. Others shared this sentiment After this result what do you now think? Well we still have hard evidence she rigged the Democratic Primary (or allowed others to do it for her). I'm glad she didn't rig the presidential election, but at the same time speaking more pragmatically, I'm amazed these people rigged the Democratic Primary and couldn't grasp that if you fix the Democratic primary, you probably have to be ready to do the same for the main election or you won't like the results. While it let's me breathe a sigh of relief in the sense perhaps fixing the election is far harder than we've been led to believe (the 2000 election was very suspect, for example, and I think it gave many Americans the belief that yes numbers get fudged regularly), it also gives me a new kind of stress in that I do find it a tad alarming the Clinton campaign could be that incompetent. As I said, I'm glad it wasn't rigged, but I would also hope people running for president are intelligent and can grasp basic concepts such as that. The media continues to be problematic, and one has to wonder why. Are they just on auto-pilot? Are they answering to George Soros or something? It's nothing but propaganda at this point to instill hate, and that's exactly what we don't need. The only one not acting as anti-Trump propaganda is FOX News, which has always been propaganda for the right anyways. To me, this election was a lesson in respect. I would be quick to agree that Trump is the worst, least qualified presidential candidate the USA has ever had, but that does not give people a license to be hateful towards the entire Republican party. People thought it did, and look what that got them. THAT'S the lesson. Some people don't get this, but I feel people succumb to mob mentality and the like, so I'm less critical of them. The media, I'm highly critical of them because they're the guys that can spark mob mentality in the first place. Based on what I've read, mainstream media lost 40% of it's viewership in 2015, so I suspect they're desperate to stay afloat. Perhaps in their desperation, they're no longer interested in serving the interests of the people, but rather the interests of the highest bidder. Perhaps the goal isn't to increase viewership and thus gain ad revenue, but rather to suit the narrative of a wealthy donor who will continue to provide for them so long as they continue to suit his narrative. That would be extremely dangerous, and I'd hope we could come up with a way to address this problem without having to come dangerously close to something akin to censorship. What's crazy to me is and a reason I was so critical of Clinton is because her campaign crossed multiple lines for me. For me, it was never about Clinton vs. Trump, it was about the precedent of future elections. Before Clinton, I never had to worry that users online were paid shills that were paid to present this idea that there's tons of pro-Clinton supporters out there and that any discussion with them was just arguing in bad faith. Before this, I'd never find myself questioning if my online partner in discussion was sincere or if they were paid, and what that ultimately resulted in was a LOT less discussion of issues because nobody knew when their discussion was in good faith or a blatant waste of time. Before Clinton's campaign, anything I've learned from Wikileaks would've been something I referred to as a conspiracy theory. Great example, there's currently a theory out there painting George Soros as a Bond Villain who purposefully creates unrest in countries - particularly USA and Russia - so that he can play it to his own advantage. Think Peter Baelish from Game of Thrones using chaos as a ladder. That's George Soros, and while parts of that theory I saw sound absolutely crazy and absurd, I actually find myself in a position where based on what I have seen, I now have to afford such a theory the time of day and question if it's true or not. Her campaign is over now, but the remaining problems seem to be the media and potentially George Soros. As I said I've no idea why the hell the media continues to run on auto-pilot with such a blatant bias against Trump and in favor of the democratic party (and of course not all Democrats. Only the ones the establishment likes or considers beneficial), but it's a problem all the same. I do NOT see them fixing that problem either, as I get the impression their paycheck now more or less comes entirely from some establishment millionaire rather than viewership, so they've no motivation to change. On that note? Sad that Jon Stewart is no longer on air. I remember one Wikileaks email implicating Colbert took some money from Clinton's campaign, and sure enough even comedy central shows have become very very slanted. Jon Stewart however said this, which is one of the better summaries I've seen of this election and the problems that remain:

My biggest concern moving forward actually isn't that we have Trump for the moment, but that the media and some individuals (luckily I don't feel it's a majority) don't seem to grasp what a dangerous tone they're setting for the nation. I mean on one hand I didn't want Hillary to win because it'd set a precedent for future candidates to rig the Democratic primary or buy off the media. She didn't win, so cool, no precedent. On the other hand, it also should've been a learning experience about how you can't just function as blatant propaganda, you cannot show blatant disrespect for either political side, you cannot provide false narratives and you cannot just try and use a bad candidate as an opportunity to push an establishment one. I honestly question if ANY lessons were learned. Talk of Tim Kaine as a potential 2020 candidate, that the media still seems to be on auto-pilot and can't find a better use of their time beyond...whining about Trump's dinner, the surprising amount of friends and contacts I have that seem to think USA is about to become Nazi Germany....I mean as I said, an old high school friend of mine that used to be pretty level-headed told me to stop mansplaining when I stated that "emails > LGBT" is a rather dishonest oversimplification seeing as how included in those emails were statements implying Clinton hates homosexuals. (and yes I agree she wouldn't act on that, merely wished to highlight oversimplifications accomplish nothing) There's sooooo many people who seem to want to view Trump's victory as proof that people hate their minority group and want to kill them, when wtf no, go view the facts objectively. There were a number of reasons not to vote for Clinton and you've no proof people purposefully voted Trump specifically to spite your group. Such a ridiculous oversimplification is akin to if I said Obama voters hate babies and want humans to stop populating the earth and die off because he condones abortion. Trump's presidency has plenty of potential to be terrible and questionable, but I continue to be amazed at how I'm constantly distracted by other problems that somehow manage to seem bigger. It's like the entirety of the USA is trying to out-terrible each other, and I legitimately think that some serious action needs to take place in regards to the media as of late, as I find it alarming I can't name a single mainstream media source that's credible anymore. Hell, I can't even name a secondary one that's widely known but not quite mainstream (Huffington post, TYT, Alex Jones) either; they're equally terrible. The media played a huge role in how terrible things got, but even today we see no shame and no sign of things changing for the better from them.

Indeed, and the media has glossed over the fact that she was the first female campaign manager in a successful Presidential election. Sexism. Can you guys believe all those sexist, bigoted democrats didn't want him to win so his campaign manager wouldn't succeed? Hard to believe how hateful some people are!

At this point I've decided for myself the election isn't about right vs. wrong, Trump vs. Hillary, but about those of us that can figure out what basic respect for others is and those of us who view someone harboring a different opinion as justification enough to assault them and treat them as scum. I really hope the former can talk the latter down.

volo this video is nothing but some unrelated criminal act ....where does it say they are Hilary supporters? But I did watch it to the end and I have to say the guy does look stupid putting a sign in an empty garden.. its obvious he wants to draw attention to himself ? Alright guys, I wanna see some really clever responses to this one. Bruce set up an amazing opportunity for you all to powerbomb him clear out of the sky, so let's not be ungrateful and let his efforts all be for naught. I don't wanna see anything cliche, anything too obvious or expected. Let's see some really original and creative retorts here. Let's put on a good show. Why bother with an idiot who thinks putting a support sign for a candidate in his own yard is justification for pulling a gun on him? Why do you guys in Poland also keep big signs in your gardens with the names of your favorite politicians ....it must a nightmare to maintain with those long Polish surnames you all have ..." zxadsadfggftsussnn " Yeah. Our presidents name is the same lenght as SA president, you racista nationalistic swine. Why you shouting at me? Im just trying to guess your politicians surname ..okay give me one more chance ? "myaxzrtyuoyuiuz " or " yarsvtewxzlllexrghwip " ...how did I do? There are many things that I could make fun of our politicians, especially the ones currently in power, but the names are the last thing I would come up with... Come one Bruce, I know you can do better than that. Just look and google for the current minister of defense. Sharp_One's right, too. Bruce being racist.

It is emotional, it has been emotional in SA to Im surprised other members haven't noticed this? It's the refusing to discuss it part that interests me. One of the main issues walking away from this. The establishment has a number of lessons to learn from this. The average voter...? The average voter needs to return towards tolerance, respect and a willingness to discuss differences, otherwise things are only gonna escalate. I have faith things will eventually cool down, but for the moment it doesn't seem to be getting much better, and that's rather disappointing. For me it was a high school friend on facebook who implied this is evidence people care more about emails than the wellbeing of homosexuals. I pointed out Clinton's emails peg her as homophobic as a way of showing how simplifying the issue gets us nowhere, and then highlighted that she has no way of proving votes took place specifically with the spiteful intent of harming homosexuals instead of for a number of other reasons, not to mention that NH, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania going red alongside the low voter turnout was "evidence" suggestive that this wasn't just bigots responsible. Was more or less just trying to tell her to calm down and no the world isn't out to get her for being a lesbian and she's totally safe in DENVER COLORADO, AN ACTIVE AND ACCEPTING METROPOLITAN AREA, instead of any dialog I was told to stop mansplaining as 2-3 friends of hers all jumped in to tell me a white man shouldn't try to explain anything to a minority group right now (remember, I was born disabled lolwtf), all with a snarky pretentious tone like I was "their enemy" or something.

volo this video is nothing but some unrelated criminal act ....where does it say they are Hilary supporters? But I did watch it to the end and I have to say the guy does look stupid putting a sign in an empty garden.. its obvious he wants to draw attention to himself ? Alright guys, I wanna see some really clever responses to this one. Bruce set up an amazing opportunity for you all to powerbomb him clear out of the sky, so let's not be ungrateful and let his efforts all be for naught. I don't wanna see anything cliche, anything too obvious or expected. Let's see some really original and creative retorts here. Let's put on a good show.

You'll still see their media. Not as if their residency affects people all that much, looking at it. If you mean the very biased news media, I recently saw a stat somewhere claiming the news media lost 40% of their viewership in the last year alone. In many ways, I'm sure the bias was a desperation move just to stay afloat. If they can't receive money from viewers, sell out to the highest bidder, right?

This is why I find the US system a bit odd, but hey, it's their playfield and they live with their choices and how they occur. Never really was interested in the mechanics, but it seems odd to me, that you can have such huge disparities between direct and indirect election method and for me it'd be logical that the indirect should move towards the direct one in terms of representation of results I think that's the entire point of the electoral college system. To prevent population-rich states from dictating federal policy by virtue of having more voters. For better or worse it's working as intended. It makes sense, it's just not often significant because the idea is...Let's say you have the EU vote on legislation. Pure population would be unfair and would be to the detriment of smaller states like Denmark and the Netherlands, even if they have drastically different cultures that should be recognized individually. Thus, each country needs some degree of more equal representation to account for their cultural differences. In USA it's less blatantly neccesary since the cultural differences are mild, but I would argue this election is actually one of the first in a while that highlighted the need for the system. I would argue Michigan in particular is a great example of a state with a different outlook on things compared to the average USA state. When our economy is hurting, Michigan feels it first, and as such, Michigan has proven very unpredictable this election cycle because they've experienced issues many other states cannot even imagine. As such, Michigan has a very unique view moving forward that other states probably can't quite relate to. For this issue, Michigan is a decent-sized State, but imagine if those unique problems were Alaska. Imagine if fracking for example largely occured in Alaska, and because the area was so remote and disconnected from middle America, politicians had an easier time downplaying the problems of fracking. If fracking were a major point for the election, then yes, I would like to see Alaska get their 3 electorate representation even if their population is peanuts compared to most states. Or let's say another election climate change is really affecting certain states that are barely above sea level as the sea level actually begins to rise. You might see a spike amongst these states voting for a candidate against climate change whilst landlocked ones that are less affected hardly consider that issue to be important. Cultures may not differ, but experiences regarding policies definitely can. But yeah, the system is good in theory, it's just often a spark for frustration because the effects of it can be exceedingly subtle or seldomly pivotal.

Until the actual election results I would have agreed with your friend because my experience is many people, including some forum members, did seem almost obsessed with the email scandal But I would ask your friend when was Trump homophobic, because I can recall when he demonstrated other forms of bigotry but not homophobia ? When he chose Pence, who is openly and actively against LGBT rights and protections and who thinks that conversion therapy is not just okay but better target for governmental funding than AIDS prevention, you know that he isn't big supporter of LGBT people. I'd "agree." The thing is my stance is that while no one will deny that about Pence, I do have to question the likelihood that'll arise in terms of policy. In the same fashion that I would acknowledge we seem to have evidence at least heavily suggesting Clinton is homophobic, I would laugh at a person who suggested Clinton would act on those personal beliefs so long as gay marriage is popular politically. Same thing with Pence: yes he would gladly ban gay marriage as a person, but as VP he is very very unlikely to get such an opportunity, and even if, say, Trump lost his position, Pence replaced him as President and he attempted to make such legislature, I'm not 100% certain that even a republican congress would approve. Yes, plenty of Republicans agree, but not all, and politically it wouldn't be a wise move. I've not really paid Trump's sexism any mind because I don't possibly see how it will affect his presidency to any extreme further than the average Republican (honestly I'm more concerned about the women working in the White House), and here...? Unless someone can explain a likely path through which the gay community can and will be damaged by the Trump administration, I think it a tad unfair to hold their personal beliefs up to scrutiny, but not Clinton's too.

http://time.com/4564143/hillary-clinton-concession-speech/ For anyone that cares to watch, the concession speech should happen "shortly."

Good to hear she plans on doing it, though I do wonder what the (repeated) delay is. I hope she's doing ok mentally and that this hasn't mentally/emotionally traumatized her or something. I mean that.

I do wish Mrs. Clinton all the best with coming to terms with our strange, human culture though, even if the race is over and her cultural studies may slow as a result. I eagerly await the day she can interact with humans successfully and feel at home amongst us. I can't imagine how hard it must be being a lizardperson on Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM3XU4RtBQo

Do they also include VP that in interviews tells that if they win election they will as soon as they get in office start to remove LGBT protections, rights, including same sex couples to marry? By no means did I mean to insinuate her homophobia would ever come to light. She's smart enough to keep policy based on what's popular, and will do so even begrudgingly. I just found the idea that "emails > Homosexuals" to be a rather crass oversimplification of what's a much more complex topic and no, the vote for Trump was not an aggressive slight against homosexuals.

A high school friend on facebook (that I haven't logged into in months) said Americans think emails are more important than the LGBT community by voting for Trump and we should be ashamed, I mentioned one of those emails included heavy implications Clinton hates homosexuals. She told me to stop mansplaining. :C

As for Hilary, I've lot any respect that I had for her once she has sent her lackey to send people home... this was so class less and only shows she was really unift to become a president. If you can;t have class in a defeat, then you are unfit for any large responsibility. I'm still kind of in shock over that. She even sent out the most recognizeable name from the whole email leak scandal. My gut always told me this woman has a disgusting personality on her, but when you compare to other politicians that come out to thank their supporters and to concede gracefully or just show basic respect, it's like wtf is so wrong with this woman that she couldn't do it? It's made extra pathetic when you look back and realize that 1) Her little policy of having a "public policy" and a "private policy" resonated even with her concession. She told the public "GO HOME IT'S OK WE'LL WIN TOMORROW" and then conceded privately to Trump in the same hour, showing she's learned nothing, and 2) A couple weeks ago Trump was scrutinized for giving an honest answer about how he'd concede if he felt the election was fair and the Clinton campaign alleged such an answer wasn't gracious. Credit to her for conceding, but not showing your face to your supporters when they've come out to be with you during the most important time of the election isn't exactly graceful either. I mean I think if I'd said a month ago "I think Clinton is in this race for hubris and for the prestige of being first woman president," I may not've been taken so seriously. Probably only a select few that got the same vibe would agree as a gut response. Now...? I mean she certainly hasn't ever done anything during her campaigns that shows any level of respect or consideration for her supporters.

What, like Poutine and Canadian Bacon and bagged Milk and ending every sentence with "eh" and mounties and maple syrup and legal weed and free healthcare and surprising general racism against asians? As opposed to 'Murica, beer and McDonalds and guns in Walmart? Maybe it's because I'm not on that continent but I can think of more varied examples of Canadian culture than America. Even some of her campaign slogans were off-putting. "I'm with her" and "It's her turn" aren't inspiring, and they certainly don't dissuade the idea that she was just in this race to feed her own hubris. For me, at this point looking forward, I care about: 1) Do not just let Clinton slide on all her crimes. I actually don't care so much about her being punished or jailed, but I would like to see people remain interested in what she did and why, simple for educational purposes moving forward. If we fail to understand the why's and how's, this can happen again with other candidates. 2) Time to look into Trump's entire staff and policies...whenever they may develop. I know much of his staff is pretty terrible. Definitely a presidency to scrutinize heavily, because it's highly likely we want this candidate gone by 2020. 3) Bernie 2020 can happen? Yes? No? If it can't, there's other good candidates, but I feel he would be one that the DNC would not DARE to shut down again, whereas Gabbard may not hold that same impact. 4) Maine's vote for primary party votes that allows voters to select a backup vote if their primary candidate stands no chance. I can't find any news on it amidst all the news about Trump winning, but I feel this is actually pretty significant if it passed. One state can pave the way for many, and if come next election Maine went to a Stein candidate because they could afford to vote Green party with no fear, that'd slowly but surely take hold in politics, I feel, even if the Democratic and Republican parties stood against it. A candidate we want gone by 2020? Wasn't he recently involved in a civic suit because he allegedly raped a 13 year old kid? You really think he's going to last a year without being impeached? Which one was this? Honestly towards the end there were so many charges and a lot of them were proven fake or manufactured so I just started tuning it out. If it's in any way related to the one where the girl states her age and he says "she's gonna be my wife someday" then yeah, that's not happening. Just media hysteria to defame him. If there's another I missed, we'll see. Even if we impeach him though, Pence isn't exactly fantastic and he's still someone we'd want gone by 2020. EDIT: Wait no, impeachment means Pence gone too, no? But what happens then?

Pretty sure the overwhelming majority of us are libertarian left.

Even some of her campaign slogans were off-putting. "I'm with her" and "It's her turn" aren't inspiring, and they certainly don't dissuade the idea that she was just in this race to feed her own hubris. For me, at this point looking forward, I care about: 1) Do not just let Clinton slide on all her crimes. I actually don't care so much about her being punished or jailed, but I would like to see people remain interested in what she did and why, simple for educational purposes moving forward. If we fail to understand the why's and how's, this can happen again with other candidates. 2) Time to look into Trump's entire staff and policies...whenever they may develop. I know much of his staff is pretty terrible. Definitely a presidency to scrutinize heavily, because it's highly likely we want this candidate gone by 2020. 3) Bernie 2020 can happen? Yes? No? If it can't, there's other good candidates, but I feel he would be one that the DNC would not DARE to shut down again, whereas Gabbard may not hold that same impact. 4) Maine's vote for primary party votes that allows voters to select a backup vote if their primary candidate stands no chance. I can't find any news on it amidst all the news about Trump winning, but I feel this is actually pretty significant if it passed. One state can pave the way for many, and if come next election Maine went to a Stein candidate because they could afford to vote Green party with no fear, that'd slowly but surely take hold in politics, I feel, even if the Democratic and Republican parties stood against it.

That's one of the scariest parts, too. I fully believe that if the American voters had a crystal ball allowing them to know Trump will win, enough would've flipped their votes on Senate and House seats to at least counteract Trump and the Republicans a bit. Instead it seems we all overshot.

I'm guessing she'll flee to another country. Not sure which, but definitely not Ecuador. Also worth noting that in the aftermath, New Hampshire has actually switched back in Trump's favor. Electorate-wise, this wasn't even close.

That's PRESIDENT Dubbed Voice to you, sir!

We'll wipe our collective ass with it of course. I hear there's a special counsel with Hilzilla's name on him. I was serious but ok. Climate change deniers will soon be at the wheel. This is the biggest issue moving forward, and the #1 reason he needs to be a single-term president.

Something rather symbolic I realized: Clinton stated herself that she has public policies and private policies, and that no, she doesn't tell the public all of her policies from behind closed doors. How did her campaign finally end? Same exact fashion: Podesta comes out and tells the public "EVERYTHING'S OK, DON'T WORRY IT'S NOT GONNA END TONIGHT," but within an hour, Clinton concedes quietly. She didn't learn a thing. Luckily many billionaires lost trillions of dollars tonight, so no one will ever bet on that woman again.