Donald Trump

When your dad becomes president but you just want to go to sleep.

https://my.mixtape.moe/gabwhf.webm

Also Barron is huge, he's like 5'5 at only 10 years old lel.

trump won with less total votes than the last two repubs lost with. Republicans did not come out in droves to support him like you are suggesting Scrotie. Voter suppression was highly successful this go round, from a dampening of spirits to actual voter suppression laws to acts of violence at the polls, the vote total is small compared to the last two elections.

"

LostForm wrote:

trump won with less total votes than the last two repubs lost with.

He says, with 99% of 2016 precincts reporting. Trump should overtake McCain's numbers.

I think you're being a little tinfoil on why numbers were lower. These were deeply unpopular candidates, as polls showed. Clinton is no Obama. I remember lawsuits in Nevada and Arizona, which either went Clinton or wouldn't have mattered. If there was any effect at all, it was minimal.

ya man tin foil hat, there was not a concerted effort by both sides to make each candidate look like a bad choice. There was not bevies of voter id laws designed to restrict the numbers of votes cast since 2012, there were not changes to the actual polling process, making the process take long meaning longer lines. Early voting schedules and availability were not being screwed with on a weekly basis. It is all tin foil hat those facts. But Hillary, she eats babies and trades in military secrets. man they have done a number on this country.

"

LostForm wrote:

Hillary, she eats babies and trades in military secrets.

She doesn't eat babies.

"

Xavderion wrote:

When your dad becomes president but you just want to go to sleep.

https://my.mixtape.moe/gabwhf.webm

Also Barron is huge, he's like 5'5 at only 10 years old lel.

Hahaha, yeah, poor kid.

Rewind...

"

Gary_GGG wrote:

It was the strongest both of them had been in the debates.

Hillary definitely looked and sounded like she knew what she was talking about, whereas Trump sounded like he knew what he wanted, but had no idea about how to get there.

One of these two has significant history in politics and it showed.

One of these two has no history in politics, and it showed.

...now the one with no history made history because he wasn't part of the elite establishment in DC.

And unrelated future prediction: expect GGG to rake in more money from Americans like me, because the value of our US dollar will soar after may be a year or two as Trump strengthens US economy and trade agreements. So while GGG charges the same price in US Dollars, you guys will end up getting more per US Dollar in New Zealand dollars,

"

LostForm wrote:

Voter suppression was highly successful this go round, from a dampening of spirits to actual voter suppression laws to acts of violence at the polls, the vote total is small compared to the last two elections.

The difference in vote numbers seems significant if you look at the top 2 parties but 3x as many people voted other in 2016 vs 2012 (3rd party, harambe, etc). These are the total votes (from http://uselectionatlas.org/ vs. voting age population from http://census.gov)

Total votes 2016: 126203785 vs. ???? (no data)
Total votes 2012: 129237642 vs. 235248000 voting age population (54.94%)
Total votes 2008: 131473705 vs. 229945000 voting age population (57.18%)
Total votes 2004: 122303590 vs. 219553000 voting age population (55.71%)
Total votes 2000: 105425985 vs. 209787000 voting age population (50.25%)

The voting age population estimates I'm finding (around 242 million) yield a turnout of about 52% for 2016. That's not an anomalous or concerning difference. Given that many voters were unhappy with both main party candidates in 2016, it's no surprise to see lower turnout. Blaming it on voter suppression is disingenuous.

If by voter suppression you mean suppression of votes by dead people, multivoting, and voting by people who are ineligible to vote, then yeah. There was much more scrutiny at the polling stations this year due to fears of fraud and rigging.

When I read about US election voting protocol it sounds so archaic. In some states they don't check ID. Some places all you need is a signature. Or they ask for name, age, address, and don't verify anything. Or you just sign a document asserting you are eligible to vote and vote away - yeah there can be a big penalty if they take you to court later but they're not going to go after you if you're in Canada or Mexico. It's so easy for me to drive to Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and vote (no ID laws or non-strict ID laws). I could probably vote multiple times in each place using other peoples info from phonebooks / social media. :p

In Ontario we have free photo ID health cards. You must register to vote, they mail out a notice of registration card with your info and designated voting area. You have to go to that location to vote. They check your photo ID, registration card, and cross your name off a list. If your name is not on the list you need to show proof of Canadian citizenship, proof of Ontario residence, photo ID with age, and your location of residence must be a match for that designated voting area (if you're homeless, there's an area for you). With these voting protocols we had a 68.49% turnout in 2015.

US needs something similar. And either subsidize drivers license/passport for low income or have a free national photo ID program that's verified. The US election system is designed as if all the voters are completely incompetent/helpless/have brain damage, or something.

"

Vhlad wrote:

When I read about US election voting protocol it sounds so archaic. In some states they don't check ID. Some places all you need is a signature. Or they ask for name, age, address, and don't verify anything. Or you just sign a document asserting you are eligible to vote and vote away - yeah there can be a big penalty if they take you to court later but they're not going to go after you if you're in Canada or Mexico. It's so easy for me to drive to Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and vote (no ID laws or non-strict ID laws). I could probably vote multiple times in each place using other peoples info from phonebooks / social media. :p

Not exactly true. For example, in my state of Pennsylvania, you need ID to vote the first time if you've recently registered in a precinct. If you've already voted in that precinct, then you don't need to show ID. And alternate forms of ID work, such as utility bills showing the same name and address.

So voting does have some protection, just not very good protection. It would be completely a waste of time for someone to register in and drive to different states to vote, but not impossible. The type of voter fraud that's a problem is mass voter fraud where hundreds or thousands of ballots are cast for people who do not exist, exist elsewhere, or are deceased. And that's not even counting the absentee voter ballot fraud.

I know this because I've worked as a Judge of Elections in my precinct years ago. The title sounds better than it actually is, as the pay sucks and you are overseeing only a handful of people and the voting location at your local precinct. You did it to contribute and volunteer your time more than anything else.

So far, all of the fraud that was caught and reported in the news has been in favor of Clinton. One instance was absentee ballots, another was electronic machine errors.

"

Vhlad wrote:

In Ontario we have free photo ID health cards. You must register to vote, they mail out a notice of registration card with your info and designated voting area. You have to go to that location to vote. They check your photo ID, registration card, and cross your name off a list. If your name is not on the list you need to show proof of Canadian citizenship, proof of Ontario residence, photo ID with age, and your location of residence must be a match for that designated voting area (if you're homeless, there's an area for you). With these voting protocols we had a 68.49% turnout in 2015.

US needs something similar. And either subsidize drivers license/passport for low income or have a free national photo ID program that's verified. The US election system is designed as if all the voters are completely incompetent/helpless/have brain damage, or something.

I agree that the US needs better voter verification, but this is currently a state-by-state affair, since Obama's administration has been in power and struck down proposed voter ID laws nationally. And in my state of Pennsylvania, our conservative leadership has been trying to pass voter ID laws, but it keeps getting struck down by liberals, be it in court or somewhere else along the bill process.

And I'll tell you why: voter ID will severely curb the current voter fraud that favors liberal candidates. The bulk of voter fraud is Democrat-inspired. Perhaps with Trump in office and Republican control, we'll finally be able to institute *real* voter ID laws to prevent as much fraud as possible.

Trump won by converting blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and the poor to the Republican ticket; Clinton barely made gains with women voters:
https://youtu.be/yhUXSX3ZnpE