Donald J. Trump —-    Republican — 62,980,160   45.94%
Hillary Clinton  —- Democratic — 65,845,063  48.03%
Gary Johnson  —— Libertarian —- 4,488,931  3.27%
Dr. Jill Stein  — Green —  1,457,050  1.06%
Write-ins  — 1,126,145  0.82%
Evan McMullin  — Independent —  728,830  0.53%
Darrell L. Castle  — Constitution —  202,980  0.15%
Gloria LaRiva  — Socialist and Liberation  —  74,402  0.05%
Rocky de la Fuente — American Delta  33,133  0.02%
None of these Candidates  — 28,863  0.02%
Richard Duncan  — Independent —  24,307   0.02%
Dan R. Vacek — Legalize Marijuana Now —  13,538 0.01%
Alyson Kennedy — Socialist Workers — 12,467 0.01%
Mike Smith — Independent — 9,346 0.01%
Chris Keniston — Veterans — 7,251 0.01%
Michael A. Maturen –American Solidarity — 6,730
Lynn S. Kahn — Indendent — 5,730
James Hedges — Prohibition — 5,617
Thomas Hoefling — America — 4,845
Monica Moorehead — World’s Workers — 4,319
Laurence Kotlikoff — Independent — 3,599
Peter Skewes — American — 3,246
Rocky Giordani — Ind American — 2,752
Emidio Soltysik — Socialist — 2,705
Scott Copeland — Constitution Ind — 2,356
Kyle Kenley Kopitke — Ind. American — 1,096
Joseph Allen Maldonado — Independent — 961
Rod Silva — Nutrition — 751
Khadijah Jacob-Fambro — Revolutionary — 749
Ryan Alan Scott — Independent — 749
Jerry White — Socialist Equality — 483
Bradford Lyttle — Pacifist — 382
Frank Atwood — Approval Voting — 337
………………………………………..

All righty then.
I don’t trust the “write-ins” total, in the sense that we’re in the realm of votes being tossed in the “under-vote” — ie: the 2016 election is famous for having a record number of people skipping the top line Presidential — how many of those counted as such actually wrote in, oh, Colin Powell or Donald Duck or whatever?

We need a re-count in order to see who really beat who … Khadijah Jacob-Fambro or Ryan Alan Scott  — both stuck at 749 votes.

Now.  Draw up a line for the spectrum — lefter-most to righter-most, and drab the candidates on the line.

Sad to see Monica Moorehead can’t get to her 1996 tally of 29,083.  It’s even a drop from her 2000 total.  Maybe it shows a drop of support from the previous regime of North Korea to the new one?

The front page headlines blaring out from Trump’s inauguration speech… and what the first quote off the script is… ranges from the “This is Your Day”, the oddly ahistorical (or perfectly historical?) “America First” pledge appears to be the topper,

I suppose it’s Trump’s broadest thematic line.  (Unless it’s the standard issue “Give the Power back to the People“.

And then there’s…

This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

Noting the dark contours of the America as painted by President Donald Trump.

Are you PUMPED?

[…]
Yes, this is the soundtrack my mind wanders to at various phrases.  A-contextual, I assure you.

America will start winning again, winning like never before.

Not even World War 2?

Oh.  Wait.  Got another one.

One line of Strategy from the “Trump Resistance” that is stupid, dishonest, and will not be all that successful.

If you’re an internet troll, you can help, too—by using your formerly evil powers to influence Trump supporters. Maybe get a fake Twitter account, pretend you’re a booster for Trump, and sow seeds of discontent among his followers with stuff like, “Man, I really wanted change! Where are those jobs I was promised?”

The trolls aren’t going to be all that convincing, the aping of Trumpian talking points from a point of caricature until they find a breaking point to bring in some anti-Trump line won’t be terribly graceful.

This is good and all, but…

Educate yourself and support good reporting—but when you see clickbait, don’t click on it. Be skeptical about what you read in the news and demand verification—yes, even if it seems to make Trump look like shit. Especially then.

We’re failing a tad with the whole “Russian Pee Pee Party”.  Or for that matter the one about making up sock puppets to trump up trump than dump on trump, which lies in the same arena of “fake news”.

Now mull the line on… DON’T TURN AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY …
(Sigh).  The two party system is always going to leave you flat-footed.

Interesting to figure out this voting configuration.  The major news coming out of this is presumed 2020 Presidential candidate bidder Cory Booker voted no, against an amendment Bernie Sanders proposed that would allow pharmacists to import identical, but much cheaper, prescription drugs from Canada and other countries, alienating liberals who might otherwise go big with some grillings Booker has for a Trump appointee.

Republicans who side with Bernie Sanders, as against “Big Pharma”.

Boozman (R-AR)
Collins (R-ME)
Flake (R-AZ)
Grassley (R-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)

The libertarian-tinged or “tea party” Lee, Paul, and Flake.  McCain represents a lot of retirees.  Collins sits on the Canadian border.  Dean Heller may be eyeing a race of some vulnerability in two years.

Democrats who vote nay, and maybe sidestep the issue with “nuance”.

Bennet (D-CO)
Booker (D-NJ)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Tester (D-MT)
Warner (D-VA)

Who’s running in 2 years off this list?  Donnely, Henrich, Heitkamp, and Tester gots to get their campaign cash from somewhere.

Apparently, Mein Kampf is heading Germany’s best-seller list right now.

Is it possible that Germany is just now waking up to the detailed memoirs of Norwegian Karl Ove Knausgaard?

Or is there some other Mein Kampf out there?

“Thank God for Meryl Streep.  Because she’s stopping the coming nuclear war from happening.”
I think the logic here is that Trump’s attention wanders to tweeting against the latest Hollywood celebrity commenting against him is stopping him from other acts.

Sure enough, we get the “OVER-RATED” tweet from the president-elect.

The USA Today’s “Life” and entertainment section published a piece, which by listing off the many awards and plaudits Meryl Streep has received.  To prove that she is not over-rated.  It’s a misunderstand of the word “over-rated” — by definition, she is rated very highly, and you’re charging that she should not be rated as highly (for whatever reason)…
Frankly, all it takes to be eligible to be “over” or “under” rated is to be RATED in the first place.

At any rate, the main problem with Trump’s tweet (and the problem moving forward) is that it forces one to look at the comment that inspired the tweet in the first place.  Streep took a cheap shot at football, and mixed martial arts, and has an over-rated view of Hollywood… which, last I checked, is about to throw out a whole bunch of new sequels to action blockbusters this year.

There are no heroes in this stupid twit and tweet game.  Even if, surely, Trump is the greater villain.  (Due to the role being played here.  Gad, I must have missed the George W Bush repose to Michael Moore’s Oscar comments.)