United States - 2016 Election Thread

Who do you vote for? (Virtual Poll, Nothing Serious!)

  • Clinton

    Votes: 10 41.7%
  • Trump

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 25.0%

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
There's a story out there that Donald Trump offered the VP spot to John Kasich (governor of Ohio). In exchange for Gov Kasich accepting the VP slot, Trump would hand over governance of domestic and foreign affairs to him while Trump, I may be paraphrasing 'goes around making America great again.' If that same offer was made to Mike Pence, he may be the most powerful VP in history (and the last two were consequential and powerful too).

Here's one place that story was reported. Article is good to read so you know what kind of politician Pence is.

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/meet-mike-pence-veep-run-trumps-america

As for Trump's "protectionist agenda", there's not much that he needs Congress for- as President he can unilaterally walk away from treaty obligations as he sees fit, per the terms of the treaty. This means that we're one Trump tantrum away from trade deals like NAFTA or mutual defense treaties like NATO from going poof.

And as for market turbulence, it's not just the unknown they fear. The market has shot back up in large part that Trump is running the standard screw the little guy Republican playbook- looking at appointing a Goldman Sachs guy for Treasury Sec, lots of oil and gas guys in the transition team... it's like their nightmare turned into a wet dream.
 
Pence is the real danger i think, he's already saying that he'll prioritice to take LGBT rights away again.
The American system of government doesn't grant such powers to the Vice President. This is fear mongering
 
Okay ladies and gentlemen. I do apologize for what I am about to say, but I have to say it. So if you are offended by excessive amounts of swearing and or poor grammar know that I am a little heated after what I just found out about a friend of mine.

OKay so at least I thought that after this election we would calm down and have some sort of calmness in the matter etc...however as we can all tell people are protesting in several cities about the outcome of the election with Clinton winning the popular vote so on and so forth. I however do not disagree with them it is their right to peacefully assemble and protest though I question blocking traffic as reliable means, but hey to each their own. My issue is what just happened to a friend of mine that I thought that after what they had said in UK would not happen in the States with people literally flabbergasted that immigrants were being targeted.

Anyways in my home state of CO of ALL places some fucking yahoos decided it would be fun to throw rocks at her and her child because they were wearing a Hijab, thought that it would be fun to say racial slurs like "sand nigger" and call her and her child a TERRORIST!!! I have known this woman for damn near 20 years of my life, we have gone to school together. Laugh, played, you name it. She was BORN here (America) making her a fucking citizen!!! We were in high school when 9/11 happened and I will tell you this, I have never seen her cry as much as she did that day nor the emotions of anger, frustration, hurt, despair. After hearing about this I was pissed, I WAS BEYOND PISSED!!! I have never in my life wanted to physically hurt somebody more then I have ever wanted to in my life!!! Thankfully she was able to get a general description of the two fucksticks that did this and from my understanding are being arrested. As God as my witness and you all here, If I see ANYONE trying to hurt my friends much less HURT other citizens just because they do NOT look like you, stand by to stand by. No words, just no words.

It is NEVER okay to do this!
I agree - It is NEVER okay to do this!

I like the Singaporean laws: anyone convicted of a Hate Crime is caned and serves time in prison.
 
@phil3k
Clinton has her good points, but at this point you're just blindly defending her and calling everyone else un-American, bigoted, sexist, racist, bad etc. Pic related
6hjR6hdp-vJ9qLOZkB3uFokI0v7x1hYKCopf6gKsC88.jpg
This happens quite frequently. Rather than listen to calm reasonable discussion, many shout "Nazi!" "Racist!" or the current Generation Snowflake shibboleths. Socrates would shake his head ...
 
These are the types of discussions that tear apart boards.

It has happened before ...
 
Not sure why there's any confusion left about this one. Here's a link to the official US Gov count totals, Gore won the popular vote by ~500k.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/popular_vote.html
There is no confusion. Then-candidate Bush won the Electoral College.

The elections of U.S. Presidents are determined by the Electoral College since 1804; although an earlier form was passed in 1787.

Is this the basis of all of those complaints by then-candidate Gore supporters? This is the epitome of a non-issue.
 
There is no confusion. Then-candidate Bush won the Electoral College.

The elections of U.S. Presidents are determined by the Electoral College since 1804; although an earlier form was passed in 1787.

Is this the basis of all of those complaints by then-candidate Gore supporters? This is the epitome of a non-issue.

To be clear, I am not American, and while I wouldn't have voted for Bush/Trump, I have no opinion on the validity of their elections. I live in and navigate reality as it exists, not how I wish it to be, and of course ponder in my own small ways steer it in measured terms based on my perspectives. My point was simply to provide facts - Gore won the popular vote (as did Hillary) and Bush and Trump won the actual presidential election via electoral college votes.

I generally have very little interest discussing global politics outside of business strategy discussions with business leaders, lobbyists, politcians or legislators .. But your response leads to an area of particular interest for me.. Which is the "History of Politics" !

The roots of the electoral college are fascinating, the framers being the only folk that can reliably state the rationale why, there's rampant speculation, from disenfranchising the common man to avoid a tyranny of the masses, to simply managing the logistics of a world with limited means of communication and dissemination of information. What you called "an earlier form" of the electoral college mechanism was produced by these same lauded framers as is (partially) the subsequent change and clarification, in the 1800's being the 12th amendment.

Now, part of the controversy here, is proportional vs. negotiated representation in national politics. You can see a similar issue at work here related to representation due to population which in a North vs. South context resulted in the 3/5ths compromise which wasn't revisited until the 1850's

So, yes, no doubt Bush won the election based on the rules established. Trump has won as well under the same/similar rules. I have no opinion on whether the rules will or should be changed - that's up to the various States and the U.S. Government itself. That these rules exist, however, is a fascinating quirk that should give us insight into the long history of the country and where it has changed, and could be headed, for decades to come. Thinking in 10, 20, 50 or 100 year spans though is where it all really takes on relevance. Never forget that at one point "The Sun Never Set on the British Empire"
 
  • Like
Reactions: DireWolf98
To be clear, I am not American, and while I wouldn't have voted for Bush/Trump, I have no opinion on the validity of their elections. I live in and navigate reality as it exists, not how I wish it to be, and of course ponder in my own small ways steer it in measured terms based on my perspectives. My point was simply to provide facts - Gore won the popular vote (as did Hillary) and Bush and Trump won the actual presidential election via electoral college votes.

I generally have very little interest discussing global politics outside of business strategy discussions with business leaders, lobbyists, politcians or legislators .. But your response leads to an area of particular interest for me.. Which is the "History of Politics" !

The roots of the electoral college are fascinating, the framers being the only folk that can reliably state the rationale why, there's rampant speculation, from disenfranchising the common man to avoid a tyranny of the masses, to simply managing the logistics of a world with limited means of communication and dissemination of information. What you called "an earlier form" of the electoral college mechanism was produced by these same lauded framers as is (partially) the subsequent change and clarification, in the 1800's being the 12th amendment.

Now, part of the controversy here, is proportional vs. negotiated representation in national politics. You can see a similar issue at work here related to representation due to population which in a North vs. South context resulted in the 3/5ths compromise which wasn't revisited until the 1850's

So, yes, no doubt Bush won the election based on the rules established. Trump has won as well under the same/similar rules. I have no opinion on whether the rules will or should be changed - that's up to the various States and the U.S. Government itself. That these rules exist, however, is a fascinating quirk that should give us insight into the long history of the country and where it has changed, and could be headed, for decades to come. Thinking in 10, 20, 50 or 100 year spans though is where it all really takes on relevance. Never forget that at one point "The Sun Never Set on the British Empire"
Fair enough. From my perspective, I appreciate your reply. Thank you for your calm and reasoned reply.

To honest, here in the U.S., I have been at Ground Zero for a lot hysteria; over-reactions; manufactured fear; and fear mongering. I want to avoid venting here.

We could discuss the Electoral College, but that would be a long conversation and my work load is intense right now.
 
Here's one place that story was reported. Article is good to read so you know what kind of politician Pence is.

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/meet-mike-pence-veep-run-trumps-america

As for Trump's "protectionist agenda", there's not much that he needs Congress for- as President he can unilaterally walk away from treaty obligations as he sees fit, per the terms of the treaty. This means that we're one Trump tantrum away from trade deals like NAFTA or mutual defense treaties like NATO from going poof.

And as for market turbulence, it's not just the unknown they fear. The market has shot back up in large part that Trump is running the standard screw the little guy Republican playbook- looking at appointing a Goldman Sachs guy for Treasury Sec, lots of oil and gas guys in the transition team... it's like their nightmare turned into a wet dream.
I hate to flame a moderator, so I won't.

First, Wired is fantastic in its coverage of the High Tech sector and related trend. Politics? That's a bit out of their skill set. It might be compared to ESPN posting restaurant reviews.

Second, if my memory serves me well, Goldman Sachs had a great relationship with Secretary Clinton. I seem to remember that they paid Secretary Clinton (prior her becoming a candidate) a lot of money for speeches.

Third, Asian markets fell when results were being reported on election night. (I remember seeing coverage of a blubbering/confused apparatchik leaving Clinton HQ saying something like "the Dow dropped 800 points and trading was halted." US markets were closed at that time!) When US Markets opened, everything fine. CNBC didn't mention anything about this alleged "screw the little guy strategy."

Speaking of little guys, President-elect Trump just convinced Ford Motor Company to to keep one of its SUV plants in Kentucky.

We could fire back and forth and inflict Death By One Thousand Cuts. Let's all try to get along.

Peace, Love and the Grateful Dead,
The Dire Wolf
 
I hate to flame a moderator, so I won't.

First, Wired is fantastic in its coverage of the High Tech sector and related trend. Politics? That's a bit out of their skill set. It might be compared to ESPN posting restaurant reviews.

Second, if my memory serves me well, Goldman Sachs had a great relationship with Secretary Clinton. I seem to remember that they paid Secretary Clinton (prior her becoming a candidate) a lot of money for speeches.

Third, Asian markets fell when results were being reported on election night. (I remember seeing coverage of a blubbering/confused apparatchik leaving Clinton HQ saying something like "the Dow dropped 800 points and trading was halted." US markets were closed at that time!) When US Markets opened, everything fine. CNBC didn't mention anything about this alleged "screw the little guy strategy."

Speaking of little guys, President-elect Trump just convinced Ford Motor Company to to keep one of its SUV plants in Kentucky.

We could fire back and forth and inflict Death By One Thousand Cuts. Let's all try to get along.

Peace, Love and the Grateful Dead,
The Dire Wolf
A bit of light there... Financial markets are my things... I was actually very active during when elections ballots were reported.

Through options premium prices you can evaluate the probability the market consensus gave to each scenario as well as the intensity of the move.
In that case, the eve of elections day, Trump was given an implicit probability of 20% for a negative impact around -6% on the S&P ... And that's exactly what happened on the derivatives market (opened most of the night) when it turned out that Trump was certain to be president. S&P mini futures crashed (as Nikkei index and futures were doing). It went down around 3% if I remember and reached a level called Limit Down, forcing CME market to suspend temporarily it's real time quotation.
At the same time most Asian markets were going down between 2 to 6%... As expected.
When European markets opened, the same story happened... opening down on the shock of Trump election.

Then, then... something crazy happened. During victory speech (where he expressed his gratitude to Clinton) markets started reverting.
Furthermore, news came that expected deregulations should be good for the banking sector and some other industries.

Since Trump elections, we are in a very unexpected situation, where the consensus thinks now that it will be a good thing for financial markets.

Imo, I'm grateful for this guy to make Wall street great again (like in the eighties). For America or the rest of the people... Good luck !
Hehe... I have nothing to feel bad about if the people who are going to be frustrated are the one who decided to make the rich richer for quite bad reasons.
It's actually quite funny to have so much benefits from a situation you didn't want to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DireWolf98
A bit of light there... Financial markets are my things... I was actually very active during when elections ballots were reported.

Through options premium prices you can evaluate the probability the market consensus gave to each scenario as well as the intensity of the move.
In that case, the eve of elections day, Trump was given an implicit probability of 20% for a negative impact around -6% on the S&P ... And that's exactly what happened on the derivatives market (opened most of the night) when it turned out that Trump was certain to be president. S&P mini futures crashed (as Nikkei index and futures were doing). It went down around 3% if I remember and reached a level called Limit Down, forcing CME market to suspend temporarily it's real time quotation.
At the same time most Asian markets were going down between 2 to 6%... As expected.
When European markets opened, the same story happened... opening down on the shock of Trump election.

Then, then... something crazy happened. During victory speech (where he expressed his gratitude to Clinton) markets started reverting.
Furthermore, news came that expected deregulations should be good for the banking sector and some other industries.

Since Trump elections, we are in a very unexpected situation, where the consensus thinks now that it will be a good thing for financial markets.

Imo, I'm grateful for this guy to make Wall street great again (like in the eighties). For America or the rest of the people... Good luck !
Hehe... I have nothing to feel bad about if the people who are going to be frustrated are the one who decided to make the rich richer for quite bad reasons.
It's actually quite funny to have so much benefits from a situation you didn't want to happen.
Thank you very much for your contribution. My fumbling attempts at market commentary don't raise the bar at TAG. I have connections to the equities markets, but I don't have the deep insights of traders or strategists.

As for your other commentary, we will have to see if it's going to be a Wall Street/top 10% only recovery ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: hkAlone
"Whatever" - the mantra of slackers.
"If the hood fits" - that is a bigoted and prejudicial comment.

Ow. That hurts (not really). I notice those on the other side of the spectrum will throw insults but when you call them on it, they claim bigotry. If you use coded language, claim histrionics (as the picture depicts and also a favorite of sexists) then I won't apologize for calling you out on it. I'm not the one who put up this crap to 'make a point'.
 
There is no confusion. Then-candidate Bush won the Electoral College.

The elections of U.S. Presidents are determined by the Electoral College since 1804; although an earlier form was passed in 1787.

Is this the basis of all of those complaints by then-candidate Gore supporters? This is the epitome of a non-issue.

Actually there was something called the 'Florida Ballot Project' that recounted the votes in Florida from the 2000 election. This was done after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush and Gore conceded the election. Of course the recount was moot, but by some of the metrics used, the Florida Ballot Project concluded that Al Gore won Florida in 2000 (and would have won its Electoral College votes and the election).
 
Speaking of little guys, President-elect Trump just convinced Ford Motor Company to to keep one of its SUV plants in Kentucky.

I heard Trump also called up NASA and convinced them to make the Sun rise tomorrow morning.
 
First, Wired is fantastic in its coverage of the High Tech sector and related trend. Politics? That's a bit out of their skill set. It might be compared to ESPN posting restaurant reviews.

This was posted after I made reference to this story. I believe it was widely reported ( I don't read Wired articles because of their pesky paywall which pops up at work, so I don't believe I read it there). The article which I read on the link at home (because, I'm not going to surf TAG at work) was a factual and unbiased article. Dismissing what Wired wrote because it is a Tech magazine is a parlor trick, not legitimate criticism.

Second, if my memory serves me well, Goldman Sachs had a great relationship with Secretary Clinton. I seem to remember that they paid Secretary Clinton (prior her becoming a candidate) a lot of money for speeches.

Secretary Clinton was the junior senator from New York for eight years. New York City is the headquarters for all the major US investment banks, including Goldman Sachs so it's not unusual that she'd have a relationship with them. I mean, Hillary Clinton is the very definition of the coastal elite that Trump 'ran' against. Of course, Trump is also a coastal elite that lives in a gaudy building on New York's Fifth Avenue.
 
Ow. That hurts (not really). I notice those on the other side of the spectrum will throw insults but when you call them on it, they claim bigotry. If you use coded language, claim histrionics (as the picture depicts and also a favorite of sexists) then I won't apologize for calling you out on it. I'm not the one who put up this crap to 'make a point'.
If you are labeling me as a racist, then that is a highly inaccurate assessment. Therefore, "calling me out on it" is way off base.
 
Actually there was something called the 'Florida Ballot Project' that recounted the votes in Florida from the 2000 election. This was done after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush and Gore conceded the election. Of course the recount was moot, but by some of the metrics used, the Florida Ballot Project concluded that Al Gore won Florida in 2000 (and would have won its Electoral College votes and the election).
A consortium of liberal-leaning newspapers, including The Miami Herald and Newsday, subpoenaed ballots and information related to Florida 2000. Their conclusion: Bush won the state by every conceivable interpretation. If it had been otherwise, this consortium had the influence to trigger a tsunami of coverage of this situation. There would have been daily and weekly editorials, which would migrated to the major broadcast networks.
 
If you are labeling me as a racist, then that is a highly inaccurate assessment. Therefore, "calling me out on it" is way off base.

No, I believe you labeled me a bigot.
 
Last edited:
A consortium of liberal-leaning newspapers, including The Miami Herald and Newsday, subpoenaed ballots and information related to Florida 2000. Their conclusion: Bush won the state by every conceivable interpretation. If it had been otherwise, this consortium had the influence to trigger a tsunami of coverage of this situation. There would have been daily and weekly editorials, which would migrated to the major broadcast networks.

This is from Wikipedia. Granted, this is open source but it contradicts your conclusions.

"USA Today, The Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder commissioned accounting firm BDO Seidman to count undervotes: ballots that did not register any vote when counted by machine (many due to dimpled or hanging chads blocking a hole). BDO Seidman's results, reported in USA Today, show that under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes.[45] Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used."
 
"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt." -- Mark Twain

From what I read and saw reported, Ford is moving small car production to Mexico and retooling the same factory to produce new (presumably higher margin) SUVs (Lincoln SUV and possibly a new Bronco!)

Somehow, Trump had a phone conversation with Bill Ford and now he's claiming to have saved a factory from moving SUV production to Mexico. Of course, this was self-reported by Trump so take however you want. Ford says otherwise. Hey, who you gonna believe? An actual billionaire or Donald Trump?