redneckdevil

Arizona I believe is only 69% done and Wisconsin is 90% done

Hey, I voted for Bernie, who projected much, much better than Hillary did against Trump at the time. I very, very reluctantly would've preferred that she won tonight, but that's not how the right of the nation felt, I guess. None of us can do much about that, and you lashing out at us isn't going to change that.Okay I apologize, I just am very frustrated ....its too late Barti, funny enough I never wanted you guys to go through thisIt's okay Bruce, TBH I bet most of America feels frustrated as well. It's the political machines fault and it's us the people's fault for ending up with the 2 "main" choices we did. It was bottom of the barrel choices. I mean is ANYONE here an avid Trump fan? The only difference here between users is some of us consider Trump a "neccesary evil" and some of us don't. I don't think anyone's viewing this like "omg here comes the best president ever." I don't. I rather Trump than Hillary if those were my only choices, but by no means do I think highly of him, I can only say that I agree with some of his "ideals" that's spewed amoung his crap, but ce la vi. I'd rather have weed legalized and less IRS, but those were problemly pipe dreams as well

Hey, I voted for Bernie, who projected much, much better than Hillary did against Trump at the time. I very, very reluctantly would've preferred that she won tonight, but that's not how the right of the nation felt, I guess. None of us can do much about that, and you lashing out at us isn't going to change that. Okay I apologize, I just am very frustrated ....its too late Barti, funny enough I never wanted you guys to go through this It's okay Bruce, TBH I bet most of America feels frustrated as well. It's the political machines fault and it's us the people's fault for ending up with the 2 "main" choices we did. It was bottom of the barrel choices. Also whoever did NOT vote for Trump, it ISNT their fault. The election was not created to vote for the winning candidate NOR to vote to deny a candidate, it was created to vote for whom the voter wanted president weither they won or not. It's actually people who vote to DENY another candidate that is the problem, because it's goes against what voting was established for in the first place, so that the voter themselves by themselves had a voice. If people actually voted who THEY wanted as president, I don't believe we would have had this Clinton and Trump as our candidates for the primaries.

So we start off the year with sooooo many deaths of great people, cubs win the World Series, brexit happens, and trump might get dominated with a republican House AND Senate.... I'm thinking the Mayan calendars were off by 4 years...

Looks like trump gained a lead in penn

I think Trumps got Arizona, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin. That'd give him 31 points. 1 point shy. He could end up having that "Obsidian" bad luck in being 1 point shy

I'm going thru these states looking at the counties, if Hillary does win, by no means was this really a victory. A lot of her states she won is mostly red and surprised she actually won them.

Holy ****...we may have a Rep senate AND house along with Trump.... That ain't good. Like seriously I know the democrates have ****ed up with the manipulation of media and etc, but we need SOME opposition in there for them.

I don't think Johnson has to worry about being blamed this election like in Florida with Bush and Gore, I think Comey might be the whipping boy.

Where did you see that?I'm watching the google page. I typed in who's winning the presidential race and then click on popular vote under all states under presidentsHope that makes sense. Also, I'm very surprised how well trump is doing with the swing states. Ohio and Florida are in his favor ATM and we all know what that means.

I'm with Guard Dog, I voted for him because of 2 reasons. One, because I voted for who I'd like as president weither they had a winning chance or not. Two, so that next election hopefully him or his party can get some extra dough and have a 3rd party from the get go.

I was one of the 2k+ in my county to vote for Johnson. Sadly looks like Johnsons only at 3%.

No, of course it's not racist, slaughtering white people is perfectly OK, why do you ask? I know you being sarcastic Remember Bruce, ONLY white people can be racist, everyone else is just discriminating...

Personally, I think yes. BUT if u asked a bit of Americans, they'd say no. I mean we have people who believe the black panther moment wasn't racist (needed but racist) with the calls for defeating whitey and the enemy being the white devils. U have them say it's not ALL white people, just white people who wasn't FOR them that is their enemy and the cause of every problem they are having. Sounds the same, except now it looks like yal dealing with a BLM moment that has political swing and instead of sniping cops and media covering up black killing and terrozing whites here, looks like ur gonna have an acceptance of "killing whites" as okay. Hence why most sane people here agree with the cause of BLM but don't agree with their practices because this is what it can lead to. I wish u luck and safety BruceVC, we don't agree on alot things but that's human, we still get along. I hope it doesn't get bad down there for yal

Hence why I voted for a mostly republican senate and house, just in case Hillary does win. Check and Blances in its fineist. People forget that both parties bring good things to the table and also some terrible and idiotic things. Making it hard, either forces them to compromise and work together OR make it where nothing gets done. Both are great things because either both parties get things done OR no one get things done which is also good because we as a country can basically run on autopilot for a bit, and sometimes that's what we need.

I get what LK is talking about. There are 2 sides of the same problem, both are taken to extremes by both sides. So when we have freedom of speech, what is the best course of action? To deny the freedom or to allow it? If u deny it, then where do u draw the line? If u allow it, how should u deal with it and how and how much should we allow to be able to effect? I agree with LK in that off the job and in personal life, allow to be open about it. I was taught from a very young age that instead of denying, u just stay away and don't deal with it. When it becomes an attack that someone can't get away from or cannot stand up for themselves, u intervene if it's worth it to you. On the job (business, political, etc) u can't be open with it like LK says because then it has a much higher chance of effecting someone's personals life. It no longer is what I personal think and u can think a different way if u want to because of our freedoms, but people of opposing views can use that view over someone else because of hierarchy of power. Like Trumps obsession with Muslims viewed in a terrible light is bad, BUT isn't Obama's view of Muslims where the word Muslim was deleted from all records of 9/11 and other areas is ALSO bad even though it would seem he trying to be "PC" about it. When u deny something enough from people long enough, something/someone will try to break thru IF u don't maintain a balance. If people are being manipulated, even for the greater good or their own, people will rebel even if it's for a worse situation. That is why I believe Trump has been able to rise to power, because so far balance has been used with a nail bat to bash anyone who doesn't agree/believe in their opinion/view.

Wikileaks doesn't have agents. It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info. Which may or may not have been obtained illegally. That's the problem for the US, much as they'd love to go after WL overtly they cannot since they definitely don't do any hacking or similar directly illegal stuff; they just distribute information that is leaked to them. eg Manning didn't illegally obtain the info he gave to wikileaks, he illegally distributed information he had legitimate access too- similarly Snowden (albeit not WL related) didn't hack the NSA, he had legit access to information he then distributed. If Mark Rich gave WL the DNC leaks- as Assange has repeatedly hinted at- then it wasn't hacked either, since he had legit access to it. The only election relevant stuff that was likely hacked is the Podesta emails where he fairly clearly got phished. Yep, and that's the crux of the matter. They're real documents and emails, and there's never been a serious effort to discredit WL information as being false or altered, all the effort has gone into obfuscation rather than denial. If they were false that would be the defence, and it would be a complete one that would discredit WL far more than any amount of neo Red Scare McCarthyism and claims of bias could. Gee what a surprise, Zora defending Wikileaks. As usual you present a subjective and biased view of the reality of political developments around the world. For example you say things like " It just acts as a dead/ drop box for other people's info" and " they just distribute information that is leaked to them " , someone who believed you and had no knowledge of Wikileaks would think " so its just a benevolent organisation that just seeks to share information with the global information , whats wrong with that " Nothing would be wrong with that if that is what Wikileaks does....but they absolutely dont do that. They selectively target the Democrats and have ensured they release certain emails strategically to achieve the maximum disruption to the US election..nothing negative about Trump ...nothing So please stop suggesting Wikileaks is about " distributing information that is leaked to them ". They have a political agenda and only release information that aligns to that agenda That is the crux of matter Two things: 1) Nothing Zora said was subjective. He just laid out how the organization works. That's it. 2) You lack proof that Wikileaks is targeting the Democrats so much as Wikileaks may be targeting the biggest criminal. That's the issue, that's why no one buys your narrative. There's a very important difference between targeting someone due to personal bias and targeting someone because they've broken the law or done something wrong. When Nixon was thrown out, it was not because he was a Republican and the administration was targeting Republicans, but because Nixon legitimately broke the law. We lack proof that Wikileaks has an agenda against the Democrats for being Democrats or against any particular philosophy. Wikileaks itself has gone on record to say it has something against corruption and illegal activity, and thusfar their leaks do indeed match that claim. Given that we have 100% proof that Clinton and people within her campaign (Donna Brazile for example) have lied multiple times, and seeing as there's not one confirmed story of Wikileaks releasing bogus information, clearly evidence would suggest it's time to trust the latter group. Interestingly, Project Veritas' videos and Wikileaks inadvertedly confirm each other as true (forget exactly how, but information that came forward in one of the parts inadvertedly aligns perfectly with info from one of the wikileaks emails), as does Colin Powell when he simply came forward and stated his involvement in the leaks 100% happened and every email involving him is 100% legitimate. I am a registered Democrat, or was. At this point I'd like new parties. If I felt the media, Wikileaks or anyone else was unfairly targeting Democrats due to a difference in policy or a belief Democrats are idiots that deserve no respect or what-have-you, I would be up in arms. That's not happening here though. Wikileaks is not targeting Democrats, it's targeting CRIMINALS. And while few would deny the Republican party currently faces a sort of identity crisis and a whole wagon full of problems, if anyone's being unfairly represented or unfairly treated, it's them. The media is outrageously bias against Trump and Republicans at the moment (save for FOX news of course, who does the same to Democrats) that it feels like many carry the attitude that Republicans deserve no respect. That likewise disgusts me, so here I am up in arms about it and Clinton cannot rely on my vote this election. Okay lets keep this simple, thousands of emails of have released during the election that have negatively impacted the Democrats and they all basiclaly about Clinton and DNC Please provide me with links and or emails released by Wikileaks that have negatively targeted Trump and his campaign , I'll give you time to research this but I want to see the evidence that Wikileaks has been doing this...just find me two examples? There should be many if Wikileaks is this objective organisation and dont suggest that there has been nothing untoward or controversial or possibly illegal about the Trump campaign and numerous emails that would have been sent by them? So in summary, I want to see evidence that suggests Wikileaks is not only targeting the Democrats in their " quest to stop corruption and criminal behavior " and this pertains to the last 8 months and the US election KISSThe reason why U are not gonna find any Trump's emails is BECAUSE the emails that are being released are the ones HILlARY erased before the FBI and Law could see them. That's it. IF Hillary DIDNT delete and lie and hide these, hell used a SECURED server, this wouldn't be going on. At all. That's all these emails are, is emails that Hillary denied having on unsecured server BECAUSE they would be recorded. So the agenda is a careless and incompentant presidential candiante deleted and lied about the emails and then scrubbed her server and hammered phones etc, and wilileaks are showing us that she lied AND what she is hiding. That is all. Reason WHY Trump and whoever else isn't being "targeted" is BECAUSE they don't have top secret national security info AND if they did, are NOT using an unsecured server. So IF trump gets elected or in office and has access to that info and then pulls a Hillary, then yes he should be targeted. Until then, it's Hillary who has done something that many people have lost their jobs and endangered many lives by being careless. Careless and incompenetant being the FBI directors own words. Do you want someone who's by our national security head person own words careless? You seem to be forgetting the lesson Nixon taught us, if ur okay with what Hillarys doing then Nixon did no wrong whatsoever, and he did MUCH less than Hillary did.

Let's break this dumb list down... Ok, so there are three examples here. They aren't clear which party the dead people voted for. Ok, this has more potential. Although it sounds like whoever was behind this fraud messed up by not letting the fraudulent voters know what there job was. How many of them successfully lobbied a democratic vote? 700 people cast two ballots! That's terrible. Who did they vote for? Who organized this? I'm going to stop there, but Pennsylvania actually come up two more times, so it is clear that they've got issues. But are they rigging it for one side? I mean, sure, you could assume allowing illegals to vote is clearly an attempt to get more Democrat votes. Except no one seems to have let those illegals know what their role is in this. It is also pretty clear that the registration is tied to driver's licenses, which is more of an example of dumb bureaucratic paperwork practices than actual fraud. So basically all of these examples don't clearly favor one party, they seem highly disorganized, and in a nation of 300 million, they are still a drop in the bucket. I'm going to go with stupidity over fraud. I didn't say that Hillary is rigging the elections, that link was for Bruce who doesn't think theirs ANY going on.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...the Democrats are going to rig the election....waaaaaaaaaaaaaa Stop whining LK, the election isn't rigged. Its a very tight race based on two very different ideological views of what " makes America great " Its almost impossible to predict who will win, well I wouldnt try in this current climate. But the result will be the fair result. Either Trump or Clinton will be legally elected , you must learn to accept this http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/BruceVC, here's a link since u require evidence The sad part is if Trump wins, people will believe it's legal. If Hillary wins, a lot of people are expecting fraud and rigging. Trump is a piece of ****, we can both agree to that, BUT it does say something about Hillary's character about if she wins, HOW she wins is gonna be questioned. It's sad that Trump seems more "honest" than Hillary.

Well it's a whole cluster **** TBH. It's driving home to a lot of people that the media is not un-biased and depending on ur party is which news station to watch. It's also a election where 2 people are SOOO bad that people are voting to make sure the other one doesn't win, not that they actually think theirs is a good candidate. The ones who DO think theirs is an actual good candidate for the most part is being selective in what they hear and agree/disagree (aka meaning "it doesn't matter to me that such and such has done this bc the other has done so much worse!" or "what they doing isn't so bad or it's just lies even when it's there in their face"). This whole election has been dirty from both sides and each side doesn't wanna admit that theirs is dirty bc then they'd be "wrong" and not a "winner".Then people gonna realize that their votes don't actually count and that it's up to the electoral college who wins, not the voters. Also this is basically our national anthem when it's election time. Red...at least we can still get stoned That never lets us down Damn right lol

Well it's a whole cluster **** TBH. It's driving home to a lot of people that the media is not un-biased and depending on ur party is which news station to watch. It's also a election where 2 people are SOOO bad that people are voting to make sure the other one doesn't win, not that they actually think theirs is a good candidate. The ones who DO think theirs is an actual good candidate for the most part is being selective in what they hear and agree/disagree (aka meaning "it doesn't matter to me that such and such has done this bc the other has done so much worse!" or "what they doing isn't so bad or it's just lies even when it's there in their face"). This whole election has been dirty from both sides and each side doesn't wanna admit that theirs is dirty bc then they'd be "wrong" and not a "winner".Then people gonna realize that their votes don't actually count and that it's up to the electoral college who wins, not the voters. Also this is basically our national anthem when it's election time.

Then I'd rather have Trumps VP than Hillary.

The Sierra Madre casino town in dead money Balmora in Morrowind That's really all that comes to mind. Most of the time cities are viewed as merchant hubs or as "dungeons" for the most part to me.

Could that be Obama basically saying she's on her own now?

might be that assange has something on comey.