Trump Presidency

[BGIF]

The campaigns are over. The people have voted, the states have finally all been called and Trump is the President Elect.

The numbers are in: Trump wins Michigan by 10,704
Kathleen Gray , Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau 1:45 p.m. EST November 25, 2016

In the closest race for president in Michigan's history, Republican Donald Trump is hanging on to a 10,704-vote win over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The Michigan Secretary of State posted results Wednesday that were submitted by the state's 83 county clerks on Tuesday after the votes were reviewed and certified by each county.

Before that compiled count, Trump held a 13,107-vote lead over Clinton. But after each county certified its results, the lead shrunk to 10,704, with the biggest chunk coming from Wayne County, which showed that Clinton had gotten 565 more votes than originally tallied by the county.

The state's Board of Canvassers will officially certify the results on Nov. 28. The electoral college in all the states, including Michigan's 16 electors, will cast their votes on Dec. 19.

...

 

[BGIF]

Clinton's popular vote lead passes the 2 million mark
David M Jackson , USA TODAY 7:21 p.m. EST November 23, 2016

Hillary Clinton's margin in the popular vote against President-elect Donald Trump has surpassed 2 million, furthering the record for a candidate who lost in the Electoral College.

Thanks to votes still being counted in California and other western areas, Clinton's vote advantage hit the 2 million mark on Wednesday morning, according to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

As of mid-day Wednesday, Wasserman's spread sheet had Clinton at 64,225,863 votes to Trump's 62,210,612.

Much of that lead was generated by California, where Clinton had 3.7 million more votes than Trump in the last totals reported Tuesday evening.

The Democratic vote was not distributed well enough across the country, however; Trump carried most of the states and prevailed in the Electoral College.

...

 

[BGIF]

Wisconsin agrees to statewide recount in presidential race | Reuters
By Susan Heavey | WASHINGTON

Wisconsin's election board agreed on Friday to conduct a statewide recount of votes cast in the presidential race, as requested by a Green Party candidate seeking similar reviews in two other states where Donald Trump scored narrow wins.

The recount process, including an examination by hand of the nearly 3 million ballots tabulated in Wisconsin, is expected to begin late next week after Green Party candidate Jill Stein's campaign has paid the required fee, the Elections Commission said.

The state faces a Dec. 13 federal deadline to complete the recount, which may require canvassers in Wisconsin's 72 counties to work evenings and weekends to finish the job in time, according to the commission.

The recount fee has yet to be determined, the agency said in a statement on its website. Stein said in a Facebook message on Friday that the sum was expected to run to about $1.1 million.

She said she has raised at least $5 million from donors since launching her drive on Wednesday for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania - three battleground states where Republican Trump edged out Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by relatively thin margins.

Stein has said her goal is to raise $7 million to cover all fees and legal costs.

Her effort may have given a ray of hope to dispirited Clinton supporters, but the chance of overturning the overall result of the Nov. 8 election is considered very slim, even if all three states go along with the recount.

...

Although Trump won narrowly in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the margins make it highly unlikely any recounts would end up giving Clinton a win in all three states, which would be needed for the overall election result to change. Trump beat Clinton in Pennsylvania by 70,010 votes, in Michigan by 10,704 votes and in Wisconsin by 27,257 votes.

The presidential race is decided by the Electoral College, based on a tally of wins from the state-by-state contests, rather than by the popular national vote. The Electoral College results are expected to be finalized on Dec. 19.

Trump surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win, although Clinton will have won the national popular vote by more than 2 million ballots once final tallies are in.

 

[BGIF]

Status of Trump Nominees Updated 1/24/17

Status of Trump Nominees Updated 1/24/17

Senate Approved
Defense Secretary - Retired Gen. James Mattis
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly
CIA Director - Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo
UN Ambassador - South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley


Senate Committee Approved
Housing and Urban Development - Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson
Transportation Secretary - Former Labor secretary under former President George W. Bush and wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Elaine Chao with no objections
Secretary of Commerce - Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee voiced no objections to the nomination of corporate turnaround expert billionaire investor Wilbur Ross
Secretary of State - former Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson, Approved by Senate Foreign Relations Committee 11-10 along party lines

Senate hearings complete
Rick Perry (Energy): No committee vote set
Wilbur Ross (Commerce): Committee vote Tuesday
Ryan Zinke (Interior): No committee vote set
Betsy DeVos (Education): Committee vote Jan. 31
Jeff Sessions (Attorney General): Committee vote delayed; possibly Jan. 31
Steve Mnuchin (Treasury): No committee vote set
Scott Pruitt (Environmental Protection Agency): No committee vote set

Nominated
Linda McMahon (Small Business Administration): Hearings Tuesday
Mick Mulvaney (Budget Director): Hearings Tuesday
Tom Price (Health and Human Services): Second hearing Tuesday
Andy Puzder (Labor): Hearing Feb. 2
Dan Coats (Director of National Intelligence): No hearing set
Robert Lighthizer (U.S. Trade Representative): No hearing set; Finance committee has to get through Price
Sonny Perdue (Agriculture): No hearing set
David Shulkin (Veterans Affairs): No hearing set

 

[Blazers46]

Vbook request: What year of the Trump presidency will there be a sexual assault scandal involving White House interns or staff.

Put the over/under for his first term at 2.5

 

[tko]

Vbook request: What year of the Trump presidency will there be a sexual assault scandal involving White House interns or staff.

Put the over/under for his first term at 2.5

Bill will give him some nice Cuban cigars on Inauguration Day!!!

 

[irish4ever]

Vbook request: What year of the Trump presidency will there be a sexual assault scandal involving White House interns or staff.

Put the over/under for his first term at 2.5

Bill Clinton vol. 2?

 

[GATTACA!]

Bill will give him some nice Cuban cigars on Inauguration Day!!!

Meh. Now that they aren't legal it just doesn't seem as erotic.

 

[greyhammer90]

Wanted to make some vbucks eh BGIF?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Trump's team of gazillionaires - POLITICO

 

[wizards8507]

Trump's team of gazillionaires - POLITICO

As if success is something to be ashamed of. I'd rather the country be managed by gazillionaires than auto mechanics, but that's just me.

 

[NDVirginia19]

Anyone see the two responses by Obama and Trump regarding Castro's death? Obama was a fucking wet noodle. Trudeau was even worse. Trump was the only one to mention what a scummy piece of shit Castro was, with is firing squads and human rights violations. The left still wonders why Trump won

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

As if success is something to be ashamed of. I'd rather the country be managed by gazillionaires than auto mechanics, but that's just me.

Is he really "draining the swamp?"

 

[IrishLax]

Anyone see the two responses by Obama and Trump regarding Castro's death? Obama was a fucking wet noodle. Trudeau was even worse. Trump was the only one to mention what a scummy piece of shit Castro was, with is firing squads and human rights violations. The left still wonders why Trump won

Yeah, people white washing Fidel Castro (and guys like Che Guevara over the years, too) really bothers me. Anyone who has known a Cuban immigrant knows that his reign of terror on that island is nothing to applaud on any level. For some reason, the far left is obsessed with turning these horrible human beings into sympathetic causes while taking people like Thomas Jefferson and saying "he wasn't great, he was evil because he owned slaves." Blows my goddamn mind.

 

[NorthDakota]

Is he really "draining the swamp?"

Is he supposed to pick poors?

 

[Wild Bill]

Yeah, people white washing Fidel Castro (and guys like Che Guevara over the years, too) really bothers me. Anyone who has known a Cuban immigrant knows that his reign of terror on that island is nothing to applaud on any level. For some reason, the far left is obsessed with turning these horrible human beings into sympathetic causes while taking people like Thomas Jefferson and saying "he wasn't great, he was evil because he owned slaves." Blows my goddamn mind.

You have to break a few eggs or something

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Trump’s education secretary pick supported anti-gay causes - POLITICO

 

[Bluto]

Yeah, people white washing Fidel Castro (and guys like Che Guevara over the years, too) really bothers me. Anyone who has known a Cuban immigrant knows that his reign of terror on that island is nothing to applaud on any level. For some reason, the far left is obsessed with turning these horrible human beings into sympathetic causes while taking people like Thomas Jefferson and saying "he wasn't great, he was evil because he owned slaves." Blows my goddamn mind.

What would Cuba look like today if Batista had not been removed from power? Now, if the US had chosen engagement with Castro over almost immediate regime change and antagonism (invasion, multiple assasination attempts and decades of sanctions) immediately after the revolution maybe that allows for a less oppressive government to develop.

 

[IrishLax]

What would Cuba look like today if Batista had not been removed from power? Now, if the US had chosen engagement with Castro over almost immediate regime change and antagonism (invasion, multiple assasination attempts and decades of sanctions) immediately after the revolution maybe that allows for a less oppressive government to develop.

I really don't know how his actions can be excused with "well, if other people hadn't..."

The United States was antagonistic with him for a reason. He is solely responsible for being a brutal dictator... no one forced him to behave the way he did after rising to power. No one forced him to be Marxist enriching himself/his family to the detriment of his citizens. No one forced him to let Russia put missile sites on his island. No one forced him to silence dissidents, stomp on human rights, and cause (directly or indirectly) the needless death of his "comrades."

He made those decisions of his own volition and they're indefensible.

 

[NorthDakota]

Trump’s education secretary pick supported anti-gay causes - POLITICO

Your witch hunt is silly.

 

[IrishLax]

Trump’s education secretary pick supported anti-gay causes - POLITICO

From that very article:

However, a top official from Equality Michigan, a gay rights group from DeVos' home state, believes her personal views aren’t accurately reflected by her family’s past donations and expresses hope she will protect LGBT kids — while also noting plans to watch her actions.

So basically... she's three degrees of separation from doing a single damn thing that is "anti-gay" despite the headline. So typical. This is crap is why Trump won. People who aren't "homophobes" are really fucking tired of being called homophobes.

I've donated money to the Catholic church. The Catholic church has regularly been painted as anti-gay for its teachings. Does that make me "anti-gay"?

 

[IrishinSyria]

From that very article:

So basically... she's three degrees of separation from doing a single damn thing that is "anti-gay" despite the headline. So typical. This is crap is why Trump won. People who aren't "homophobes" are really fucking tired of being called homophobes.

I've donated money to the Catholic church. The Catholic church has regularly been painted as anti-gay for its teachings. Does that make me "anti-gay"?

I mean I didn't see where it called her a homophobe?

When someone is nominated with almost no experience (she's basically a lobbyist for charter schools) you kind of have to read the tea leaves a little bit to get a sense of what they're going to do since no sane person is going to say more than they need to before/during confirmation. This:

DeVos and her husband have given hundreds of thousands to Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group whose founder called the battle against LGBT rights a "second civil war," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The group has also pushed so-called “conversion therapy” — discredited practices aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation — according to the Human Rights Campaign.

DeVos’ ties to a group that pushes “conversion therapy” is “most alarming,” and DeVos needs to clarify her stance on the practice, Griffin said.

“If Betsy DeVos is to serve as our nation's Secretary of Education, she must clarify whether she shares her family's support for this abusive practice, or if she'll pledge to work to ban it,” he said.

is a pretty reasonable thing for gay rights advocates to be nervous about, I think.

 

[IrishinSyria]

For what it's worth, I don't think she has to pledge to work to ban conversion therapy, because I don't see how that's within the scope of the job. I do think gay rights groups should absolutely try to get her on the record on stances that concern them (equal treatment for LGBT teachers and students, anti harassment programs, etc...)

 

[IrishLax]

I mean I didn't see where it called her a homophobe?

Not in those words, but it says "supported anti-gay causes" which is implicitly the exact same thing.

As you read, the article doesn't back up that headline.

is a pretty reasonable thing for gay rights advocates to be nervous about, I think.

Meh, maybe. Not any more than it is for conservatives to act ridiculous about Planned Parenthood funding. Just because the Government funds Planned Parenthood doesn't mean they "subsidize the murder of babies"... but that's the rhetoric you routinely see from conservatives. This is the exact same shit. She is not on record anywhere as personally supporting a single "anti-gay cause"... there is no evidence that she's trying to enact any sort of bigoted legislation... but because of a tangential donation link, Politico is going to run that headline which is all most people will actually read.

 

[BGIF]

Wanted to make some vbucks eh BGIF?

My sole motivation was moving on from a contentious campaign to the acknowledgement that all the states had counted their votes and that the primary opponent in the election, Hillary Clinton, had conceded the election. As she noted in the presidential debates, for 240 years the candidates have accepted the results. It's time to move on.

As far as any pecuniary compensation attached to the opening of a timely topic, I will defer to the rules of the board.

 

[Bluto]

I really don't know how his actions can be excused with "well, if other people hadn't..."

The United States was antagonistic with him for a reason. He is solely responsible for being a brutal dictator... no one forced him to behave the way he did after rising to power. No one forced him to be Marxist enriching himself/his family to the detriment of his citizens. No one forced him to let Russia put missile sites on his island. No one forced him to silence dissidents, stomp on human rights, and cause (directly or indirectly) the needless death of his "comrades."

He made those decisions of his own volition and they're indefensible.

Actually the primary reason the US was antagonistic towards him was he disagreed with the US economic hegemony as it existed in the late 50's early 1960's. It had nothing to do with treating people kindly or poorly. The US has a pretty bad track record of backing brutal regimes in the Americas that even went so far as killing Catholic clergy. To be frank Castro looks like a choirboy compared to many of the juntas and scumbags the US went all in with during that same time period. So if we were willing to engage with regimes with total shit bags who were offing nuns and priests then why not with Castro? The most current example of this disgusting double standard is our long standing alignment with what is one of the most oppressive and brutal governments in modern times, Saudi Arabia.

 

[IrishLax]

Actually the primary reason the US was antagonistic towards him was he disagreed with the US economic hegemony as it existed in the late 50's early 1960's. It had nothing to do with treating people kindly or poorly. The US has a pretty bad track record of backing brutal regimes that even go so far as killing Catholic clergy. The most current example of this is our long standing alignment with what is one of the most oppressive and brutal governments in modern times (Saudi Arabia).

I understand basic history. And "disagreed with US economic hegemony" is a hilarious way of rephrasing "openly and vehemently opposed the United States while allying himself with our direct enemies and threatening the safety of the country."

You say we could've "chosen engagement with Castro" that it could've maybe "a less oppressive government." I'm sorry but I won't get on board with blaming his choices as dictator on the country that said "hmm, we're not going to support this guy and are going to try to remove him immediately." That's like blaming Stalin's brutality on those pesky citizens and foreign influences that "forced" him to be so paranoid... maybe if they hadn't been against him, he wouldn't have had to be such an oppressive dictator...

I refuse to be an apologist for a mass murder whose crimes against humanity can literally fill a novel. Fuck that. And it's shameful how many people like Trudeau, etc. are white washing his history and pretending he was anything other than an unrepentant monster who is hopefully burning in hell at the moment.

 

[Bluto]

I understand basic history. And "disagreed with US economic hegemony" is a hilarious way of rephrasing "openly and vehemently opposed the United States while allying himself with our direct enemies and threatening the safety of the country."

You say we could've "chosen engagement with Castro" that it could've maybe "a less oppressive government." I'm sorry but I won't get on board with blaming his choices as dictator on the country that said "hmm, we're not going to support this guy and are going to try to remove him immediately." That's like blaming Stalin's brutality on those pesky citizens and foreign influences that "forced" him to be so paranoid... maybe if they hadn't been against him, he wouldn't have had to be such an oppressive dictator...

I refuse to be an apologist for a mass murder whose crimes against humanity coan literally fill a novel. Fuck that. And it's shameful how many people like Trudeau, etc. are white washing his history and pretending he was anything other than an unrepentant monster who is hopefully burning in hell at the moment.

Castro didn't immediately align himself with anybody and to say he aligned Cuba with anyone immediately following the overthrow of Batista is rediculous. Look if you don't believe the US put economic interests above and beyond anything else as far as its foreign policy in the Americas is concerned (including killing Catholic clergy and raping nuns) that's fine. My underlying point is the US went all in with all kinds of scumbag dictators in the Americas and it is a fact that the only reason Castro (arguably the most benign of the bunch) is some big bad bogey man is he gave the US the finger when it came to economic issues. If you want to be a social justice warrior against oppressive governments in the Americas I will applaud that, however the sad truth is Castro and his cronies were choir boys compared to many of the US backed regimes.

 

[IrishLax]

Castro didn't immediately align himself with anybody and to say he aligned Cuba with anyone immediately following the overthrow of Batista is rediculous.

He took over in the beginning of 1959. By that summer, he had installed a Marxist government effectively aligning himself with the Soviet Union. By 1960, he was fully aligned with our most staunch enemy and pushing anti-US rhetoric. So what is your definition of immediately?

 

[Bluto]

He took over in the beginning of 1959. By that summer, he had installed a Marxist government effectively aligning himself with the Soviet Union. By 1960, he was fully aligned with our most staunch enemy and pushing anti-US rhetoric. So what is your definition of immediately?

Nope. Revolution effectively ended in early 59. He traveled to the US in late 59 and stated that he wanted to work with the US. The seizure of holdings of US corporate interests prompts US government to go all in on defining Cuban government as some big bad boogeyman. 1960 US places embargo and green lights Bay of Pigs. Bay of Pigs occurs in 61. This kind of stuff is par for the course with US Foreign policy and its not anti US it's anti kleptocracy. So yeah, immediately would be a year or two into the change from Batista to Castro.