Are the presidential election results real? Or simply a simulation?

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 10h10 hours ago
SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

Right now Trump's tweet is:

Quote:

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 10h10 hours ago
SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

Yes Mr President. We will see your another defeat at court. Good day and good night.

......
The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury. Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. Although we agree that “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010), the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact. Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.
The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.
7 Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.8 We disagree, as explained above.

To the extent that the Government claims that it has suffered an institutional injury by erosion of the separation of powers, that injury is not “irreparable.” It may yet pursue and vindicate its interests in the full course of this litigation. See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2015) (“t is the resolution of the case on the merits, not whether the injunction is stayed pending appeal, that will affect those principles.”).
7

By contrast, the States have offered ample evidence that if the Executive Order were reinstated even temporarily, it would substantially injure the States and multiple “other parties interested in the proceeding.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). When the Executive Order was in effect, the States contend that the travel prohibitions harmed the States’ university employees and students, separated families, and stranded the States’ residents abroad. These are substantial injuries and even irreparable harms. See Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012) (“It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976))).

More

oristarA wrote:

The Road to Impeachment

(From Public Policy Polling)
February 02, 2017
After 2 Weeks, Voters Yearn For Obama

Less than 2 weeks into Donald Trump's tenure as President, 40% of voters already want to impeach him. That's up from 35% of voters who wanted to impeach him a week ago. Only 48% of voters say that they would be opposed to Trump's impeachment.

More

I needn't point out how deceptive your reply is, I don't even have to note how poor was your attempt to deceive.

It wasn't whiners, it was voters.

Read it all and you might begin to grasp why Trump has fallen so precipitously in the polls.

“Voters who didn’t like Trump but were willing to give him a chance have quickly decided he’s not fit to hold the office.”

Just three weeks into his administration, voters are already evenly divided on the issue of impeaching Trump with 46% in favor and 46% opposed. Support for impeaching Trump has crept up from 35% 2 weeks ago, to 40% last week, to its 46% standing this week. While Clinton voters initially only supported Trump's impeachment 65/14, after seeing him in office over the last few weeks that's gone up already to 83/6.

Public Policy Polling surveyed 712 registered voters on February 7th and 8th. The margin of error is +/- 3.7%. 80% of participants, selected through a list based sample, responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet through an opt-in internet panel.