Say it with me: President. Trump.
It appears that Mr. Trump gets a promotion based on the all-but-final results (pending are MI and PA which he is leading in with most of the votes counted).
Do you think Hillary will concede tonight?
Do you think Hillary will concede tonight?
Look at how the media kept telling us she had it in the bag. My favorite part about last night was when the news kept showing those long-faced fascists at her headquarters all staring up at the screen with tears rolling out of their puppy-dog eyes. I still can't believe what I was seeing...
Hillary is pure evil, guys.
Brother and sister, you asked for it!
I'm willing to give him a clean slate until he proves me wrong.
I want to see HC prosecuted.
I want to see a wall
I want to see government spending dramatically reduced without taxes being raised.
I suspect none of these will actually come to pass. Even so, its his to prove that he's more than a "personality."
At least O is out. H isn't in. And there's a chance both the worthless shits will be held accountable.
And I'm giving Trump a clean slate as well.
I don't agree with a wall. Too much money and I think they will still find a way around it. If people who come here illegally are prosecuted and sent home we don't need to spend money on a wall. I agree with the rest though. :)
After almost eight years of darkness, I now see light.
I say the "wall" is a symbolic thing. I think Trump will tighten up the border to eliminate illegal immigration.
I dont know about government spending at all.
death (for the time being), and played
Russian roulette.--
What now remains is to keep strict guard on
Trump (who is not really a free-enterprise man), and to clamp down on him if he tries to
bring in statist measures (as he almost certain-
ly will). And to push him on repealing Obama-
care, and not to let the Congress (including, es-
pecially, Republicans) get away with dragging
their feet on it.
God, that felt good.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politic...
Gary Johnson may have helped propel Donald Trump to victory Tuesday. Gary’s vote totals in numerous “swing states” were significantly greater than the difference separating Trump and Clinton. Many polls had consistently shown Trump gaining 1% to 2% against Clinton when Johnson was included as a choice. Several network news commentators pointed out that Gary Johnson drew a significant number of millennials and others who would have otherwise made up an important part of Hillary’s base.
from likely otherwise Hillary voters were higher than Trump. I have seen no "analysis" (or detailed second guessing) that shows how the vote might have split without Johnson in the mix.
I suspect it will be hard to make a clear case that the Lib. ticket affected any specific electoral result. (Subject to change ! since many were within 1%).
Regarding Gary Johnson, it would be interesting to see the analytics behind which voters he drew. I would have guessed he drew Republicans, but perhaps not. I'm sure someone is out there parsing the data as we speak.
In 1968, Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden led the progressives protest of the Vietnam War. Their protests involved supporting third-party candidates.
They promoted the Negative Voting Myth to get their third-party votes.
They did not realize the Negative Voting Myth does not win elections. It pulls votes from the “lesser evil” and helps elect the “greater evil.”
Unless they wake up, these Myth Keepers may to the same thing the progressives did to Al Gore. If they refuse to vote for Donald Trump, they may be responsible for electing Hillary Clinton.
Aristotle’s Positive Voting Principle
Aristotle proposed the Positive Voting Principle to replace the Negative Voting Myth. Yes, the Negative Voting Myth existed in the days of Aristotle.
Aristotle (320 BC) wrote:
In the case of evil, the reverse is the case, since the lesser evil is counted as a good in comparison with the greater evil; the lesser evil is more worthy of choice than the greater, what is worthy of choice is a good, and what is more worthy of choice is a greater good.
In modern terms, Aristotle’s Positive Voting Principle is:
Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win, and eliminates mandatory conditions.
Stated simply, the Positive Voting Principle is:
Always vote and act to achieve the greatest possible good.
All major Christian Religions support the Positive Voting Principle
Historically, all moral philosophers and all major Christian religions support the Positive Voting Principle.
Aquinas wrote our moral duty is to achieve as much good as possible from every situation, including our vote. He says we cannot achieve good by acting on something that is impossible, like voting for a third-party candidate
Church Summary on Positive Voting Principle
A Methodist minister quoted Apostle Paul wrote, “Don’t be defeated by evil, but defeat evil with good. All major Christian churches tell us to vote and to use the Positive Voting Principle:
Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win, and eliminates mandatory conditions.
Only some far-right Evangelicals and Mormons support the Negative Voting Myth.
The Positive Voting Principle forbids Mandatory Conditions.
Mandatory conditions are immoral because they can eliminate from consideration the candidate who may be the greater good
Some pastors proudly tell their flock a candidate must meet certain “mandatory” conditions to get their vote. Their mandatory conditions reveal they do not understand morality, logic, or the teachings of all major Christian religions and philosophers.
Don’t be a Myth Keeper
Let’s explain the Negative Voting Myth this way:
Suppose you get to vote for Candidate A, whose abortion policies will kill 10 million babies, or Candidate B, whose policies will kill 1 million babies. Who will you vote for?
All normal Christians will vote for Candidate B so they can save 9 million babies.
Myth Keepers won’t vote for either candidate because they don’t care about saving 9 million babies. They care about their “conscience” and “principles. Some promote the Negative Voting Myth. Their myth would kill 9 million babies.
Reject the Negative Voting Myth and reject all groups that promote it.
How to vote right
Before we can make a good decision, we must define the key question.
The Key Question of the 2016 presidential election is:
Will Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton better serve America as President?
A subset of the Key Question is:
Will Donald Trump’s 3 to 5 Supreme Court justices better serve America than Hillary Clinton’s choice of Supreme Court justices?
The Key Question is NOT:
• Is Donald Trump perfect enough for me?
• Will I violate my principles if I vote for Donald Trump?
• Do I like Donald Trump?
When we choose a President, we should not be concerned about “likes.” We should be concerned only about who will do the best job for America.
Conclusion
First, define and answer the key question:
Will Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton better serve America as President?
Second, follow the Positive Voting Principle:
Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win, and eliminates mandatory conditions.
“If they refuse to vote for Donald Trump, they may be responsible for electing Hillary Clinton.” Excuse me, but I am not in any way responsible for the actions of others.
“Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win . . . “ That would have eliminated voting for your candidate Trump, since the polls were saying he could not possibly win.
“Always vote and act to achieve the greatest possible good.” This argument sounds more Utilitarian than Objectivist. And no two people agree on what the “greatest possible good” is.
“All major Christian Religions support the Positive Voting Principle. Historically, all moral philosophers and all major Christian religions support the Positive Voting Principle.” An argument from authority, and in this case religious authority that has no credibility at all as far as Objectivism is concerned.
“Aquinas wrote our moral duty is to achieve as much good as possible from every situation, including our vote. He says we cannot achieve good by acting on something that is impossible, like voting for a third-party candidate.” The only “moral duty” recognized by Objectivism is to refrain from initiating force. And there are other reasons than winning to vote for a third-party candidate, in this case crossing the 5% vote threshold to become a recognized political party and not having to spend so much on achieving ballot access.
“Suppose you get to vote for Candidate A, whose abortion policies will kill 10 million babies, or candidate B, whose policies will kill 1 million babies. Who will you vote for? All normal Christians will vote for Candidate B so they can save 9 million babies.” So faced with a choice of Hitler who promises to kill 6 million Jews and Stalin who promises to kill only 5.9 million Jews, a “normal Christian” will vote for Stalin? Even when given the additional choice of voting for “none of the above”?
I don’t see where your citing of religious authorities and appeals to “moral duty” have much in common with Objectivism.
If you're a Trump supporter and want to taste the panic and drink the tears of the Left, visit http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/11/09...
We are now living almost the eight years of damage that this regime has inflicted to the systems we believed could not be corrupted. And it isn't going well.
Me dino celebrates a good but flawed victory over totally corrupt evil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgR15...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuDeB...
As would all accept, there are no perfect candidates, and those who cloak themselves to be such are people who do not deserve the votes they are asking us for.
Did feel even better (why it's in first place) about the video with Godzilla sending a three-headed monstrosity off in total defeat.
I first saw that silly Godzilla movie as a (drafted) Marine at an air base called Cherry Point, NC, with a guy named Thacker (also drafted).
When Godzilla did that dance, Thacker screamed with laughter and all but slid out of his theater seat.
Yesterday was much better than the alternative described by Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", and in my opinion we were quickly heading to that point.
Now is not the time to rest. Now is the time to act. We need to ride our elected representatives and president like they are low-grade beasts of burden. Remind them that we sent them there cut spending in Washington and to dismantle liberal pork-barrel programs.
- Winston Churchill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ty7W...
Doesn't matter though. Americans knew all this before they elected Trump and were in complete denial. Ayn Rand would be contemplating moving back to Russia, since you elected Wesley Mouch. Good luck.
And if Trump was Wesley Mouch. Clinton is Mouch on super steroids. She would have continued the policies of Obama (which have doubled our national debt in 8 years) and try to add free college education and debt forgiveness for current students to the list. She would have put a progressive Justice on the Supreme Court to destroy the Constitution like all progressives have been trying now for over a century. So while Trump is a bad candidate, Hillary is orders of magnitude worse.