P&R Election Day 2016 Special

In other news, people who mocked Trump for not accepting the election results take to the streets in protest because they can't accept the election results.

SJW's are just the extreme form of it, progressive liberals general subscribe to the social theory's that created those SJW's. One need merely to read P&R to see liberals being bigoted and then accusing conservatives of being bigots. A few pages ago a poster accused Trump voters of being misogynistic racists. A complete dismissal of the cares and concerns of non-urban white people who are being socially attacked 24/7 in the liberal media. "Uneducated white males" has been an insult and term of derision. Every liberal needs to take a serious look at how they perceive that population demographic and understand their own bigotry and hatred first.

The Republicans had their revelation moment, now it's the Democrats turn.

Something else I find interesting is that Michigan and Arizona won't be officially called even though it's obvious that Trump won in those states. New Hampshire is too close to call, victory by a thousand votes or so. Everything just stopped counting when he hit 279, ignoring the other 27 EC votes he got. 306 is a comfortable margin to win by.

I actually laughed at this. I'm not sure what they expect. America voted, they aren't just going to say "Well, ok, there's a pretty big protest so, uh, I guess Hillary wins." Same thing with Brexit, if Britain doesn't leave the EU after their people voted to, why vote on anything?

What's done is done.

This could get interesting very quickly, where's my popcorn?

Both parties have the right to say whatever they want to each other, and third parties are free to express their opinion about either person. All persons involved have the same rights and are equal.

Stopping someone from expressing their opinion in public because you don't share that opinion isn't progressive or fair.

If people really want fairness and equality, they need to stop, and look at things from an outside perspective and apply these principles to everyone, equally, regardless of what they believe or say. If those principles don't fit everyone, then you need a new principle.

Didn't know that about Brexit, I admit I haven't kept up. On Trump, I'll wait and see.

Except it doesn't look like Trump is going to win Michigan.

That said I don't know what they are doing in those states.

What's your source? RCP has it with a 0.3 Trump lead and 100% reporting.

If it was 100% reporting it would be called, every other website has it at 96% reporting.

He took Michigan. The Democrats want to skip over it so they don't have to accept losing such a liberal state to "someone like him".

You want to see how liberals view rural people,

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/11/09/van-jones-emotional-election-results-sot.cnn

The blame "racist white people" for Clinton losing the election.

The first thing they tell you in History 101 is that we learn NOTHING from history.

Whats your source other than your ever present superiority complex? Why hasn't Fox News called it?

Every time we go through this

The Electoral College, while originally devised for much different, more practical reasons, serves a very vital function now:

You can not ignore rural America and focus on the cities and expect to win

If you want to win, you have to appeal to urban AND rural populations. Running up the score in California and New York does not make you the choice of most of the country.

As an added bonus, it means when we have recounts and disputes, those recounts and disputes are limited in scope. Imagine the 2000 Florida *** on a nationwide level.

So yeah, leave the Electoral College alone. Everyone knows how it works, and both parties have won with it. If you win the PV and lose the EC, it's because your pitch was aimed too hard at the coastal cities.

I hadn't even considered this aspect. That alone is a deal-breaker for the popular vote argument.

So it's OK to take away someone elses rights if you believe it is in their best interest. Don't tell that to the politicians please.

The NY Times says the same thing as RCP. 0.3 in Trump's favor, 100% (probably rounded) of the vote counted, 92% chance of Trump taking it.

You mean the cities that drive the economy? The cities with the most diverse demographics? Population centers can not be treated as trifles.

Cities represent modern America the romanticized melting pot. The rural areas are homogeneous populations that represents the romanticized nostalgia of what America was.

That is the issue. Sooner than later it will become forgotten. That is what is meant by the struggle of two Americas.

Reality is though the blue collar industries that made those areas great during the end of the 19th and the better part of the 20th century are gone and will not becoming back.

It's a shame those people are so desperate that they believed the hollow promises of the east coast billionaire and bought his proverbial Springfield monorail.

Only to find out automation is the present and future.

Will they rage when they realize nothing promised comes to fruition?

Shame they couldn't get the guy that offered the ideas to achieve an affordable pathway to upgrade their skill sets for the 21st century industries.

This isn't true. A high court ruling concluded that parliament had to vote on it as a referendum is advisory, not binding. The case was brought up because our PM refused to keep parliament updated on the process.

Any MP who tries to stop the process is being met with major contempt, even from many remain voters, who see it as undemocratic to ignore the will of the people. I don't think many MPs outside of Scotland will vote to stop brexit for fear of losing their seat to UKIP in 2020.

That's standard political theory for progressives. Your view only counts when it's part of the acceptable views officially endorsed by the People's Republic of America party.

Just look at all the arguments by liberals to disenfranchise rural white voters and prevent them from expressing their political opinions.