Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[Kirby J. Parasol]

Once again the left proves to be COMPLETELY tone-deaf.

Those of us who voted Trump ARE DONE LISTENING TO YOUR SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS. We're done being told how to think, we're done being told how to speak, we're done being told what is and isn't acceptable by haughty, disconnected elitists who think anything that isn't a city is "fly-over country".

Every single time you try to talk down to us for being so stupid, you only fuel our fire.

But please do keep heaping fuel on that flame, I'd love to see two terms.

(As an aside. OF COURSE I hate the negative parts of Trump. He is petty, vindictive, hard to teach, unpredictable, arrogant, a liar, and anything but diplomatic. But who are YOU to tell me that I absolutely CANNOT vote for him, when your own candidate is ALSO so incredibly flawed and morally bankrupt?)

 

[macle]

"im tired of being called a racist when i say racist things"

 

[Kirby J. Parasol]

The tone-deafness is earth shattering.
Trump HAS in fact said racist things.
The problem is when you suggest that everyone who voted for him must also be racist.

Below: Observe a graphical representation of the effectiveness of just shouting "RACIST" in lieu of discussing any of the legitimate concerns Trump has addressed

 

[Sam]

no but they're complicit in racism

 

[Soul Fly]

No one's even being saying that. Except you. There is a difference between being a bigot and not caring if a person is bigoted before casting a vote for him (not that that's not just as abhorrent)...
God, get an attention span.

If anything you're too eager to label people as tone deaf leftists or Hillary worshippers. Everyone else is peachy with Trump. No?

No one is discounting anyone's issues. Calling Trump a bigot =/= discounting issues. Unless of course the issue at hand is"right to discriminate".

>downplays Trump's bigotry
>gets called out
>"Once again the left proves to be COMPLETELY tone-deaf."!!!
>gets called out again
>"The tone-deafness is earth shattering."!!!

wut?

 

[Kirby J. Parasol]

And what, pray tell, makes being "complicit in racism" so much worse than, say, being complicit in corruption personified? Or being complicit in unprecedented intelligence negligence? Or being complicit in the tragic abandonment of US Citizens in Benghazi?

Obviously neither side is voting for these candidates because of these BAD positions--besides the extremists, who of course do not represent the majority, and in fact are denounced by both candidates. We both voted for each of our candidates for the GOOD that we see in them.

Trump supporters see a man who is willing to fight hard for jobs, for trade equality, for secure borders, for security from terrorist attacks, for state's rights, for law and order. That's what we hope he can accomplish. Trying to simply dismiss him outright for being WACIS only empowers us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT I just now remembered I'm talking into an ocean of blue around here, because this website is mostly college kids lol
Hopefully Trump can successfully unify this country, and hopefully the left starts listening to Hillary and Obama's calls for unity, instead of resorting to divisive protests and hashtag campaigns

 

[Sam]

you know you were going alright there until the 'wacis'

But yes, racism is worse because it actually affects people. Racism directly affects minorities, homophobia directly affects lgbts, sexism directly affects women. If we elected Hillary Clinton, would we be empowering people to go ahead and have poor IT practices and be a little irresponsible with potentially sensitive information? Probably not. Does electing a racist empower racists across the country? Absolutely. And that empowerment is going to affect the lives of people and that just plain hurts.

 

[Soul Fly]

You're taking about the guy who hasn't paid income tax in years, has exploited middle-class taxpayers to weasel out of multiple bankruptcies, underpaid/stiffed/legally harassed his own contracted employees, and got his "Make America Great Again" hats made in China. It's also same guy whose notion of border security is a childish, literally impossible wall and blanket-banning an entire religion.

He'll protect your jobs, the rights of the working class from exploitation by the rich, and your borders.

We're talking about the same guy, right?

 

[Cresselia~~]

you know you were going alright there until the 'wacis'

But yes, racism is worse because it actually affects people. Racism directly affects minorities, homophobia directly affects lgbts, sexism directly affects women. If we elected Hillary Clinton, would we be empowering people to go ahead and have poor IT practices and be a little irresponsible with potentially sensitive information? Probably not. Does electing a racist empower racists across the country? Absolutely. And that empowerment is going to affect the lives of people and that just plain hurts.

Interestingly, a lot of Chinese Americans voted for Trump. (At least for Chinese Americans who still know how to write Chinese.)
Though most Indian Americans were against Trump and are writing very sad posts on Facebook.

It seems to me that for people who are proficient at writing Chinese are generally supportive towards Trump.
The only group of Chinese people against Trump seem to be the environmental activists.
Since, Trump is going to fuck up our planet, right?

 

[Bughouse]

Sorry but you can't pin immigration-driven voters picking Trump because Obama couldn't fix immigration.

The democrats got a bill together that had full democratic support and nearly half republican support in the Senate.

It was dead on arrival in the house even though it would have passed because of the "hastert rule" so house republicans didn't let it get a vote. This was 2013. We had years where it could have gotten done. Republicans said no.

 

[JALMONT]

I don't understand why people in this thread continue to blame the apparently "racist white American middle class" for voting Trump. There is no one to blame but the DNC for why one of the most unpopular candidates for president in the history of the United States was elected. They didn't have to set up Clinton to be the candidate, the candidate that everyone knew was the establishment candidate and that many people clearly had concerns about (see: primaries).

Hillary flat out wasn't a good candidate, let alone a perfect one. She ran an over-confident campaign and it showed through voter turnout. People (even in this thread!) continually dismissed the many legitimate reasons that they had for being uncertain about Clinton being president. Regardless of whether or not those fears were true, or if their concerns truly were sexist/racist/etc, Clinton and the media did not do a good job of alleviating those concerns.

If the half of the country that voted Trump truly is racist/sexist/etc, what good does it do to label them as such? Doesn't it make more sense to try and work with those people and convince them that their viewpoint is wrong and change them instead of writing them off? It doesn't matter if your one viewpoint is the "right" one if you can't convince others that it is.

I really think people should look at the article I posted in the thread earlier if they haven't already. I still have yet to see an adequate explanation for a lot of the points raised in the article, mainly because I think it's easier for people to blame the "racist Trump voters."

 

[CaptKirby]

I may as well post this here since I bothered to type it out on facebook already

going out of one's way to push propaganda or say someone is a bad person for "being on Trump's side" is insincere, imo they took the poorer of two horrible choices, I guess in their opinion they took the better of two horrible choices...I will consistently stick to my opinion and call Trump things like a monster (because he absolutely is one - a mass of ego and rabid vitriol who got to spend his life wildly gambling with hundreds of millions of dollars he never earned, and became president by running on a platform of discontent and little to nothing else), but hysteria is unhelpful, judging each other is unhelpful; like with anything, all you can do is have the best conversations you can with other people and try do a REASONABLE job of understanding why things turned out this way

in the end politics is a crazy mass of complex issues - did Obama do a perfect job? absolutely not...will Trump do a good job? here's hoping

 

[Cresselia~~]

I don't understand why people in this thread continue to blame the apparently "racist white American middle class" for voting Trump. There is no one to blame but the DNC for why one of the most unpopular candidates for president in the history of the United States was elected. They didn't have to set up Clinton to be the candidate, the candidate that everyone knew was the establishment candidate and that many people clearly had concerns about (see: primaries).

Hillary flat out wasn't a good candidate, let alone a perfect one. She ran an over-confident campaign and it showed through voter turnout. People (even in this thread!) continually dismissed the many legitimate reasons that they had for being uncertain about Clinton being president. Regardless of whether or not those fears were true, or if their concerns truly were sexist/racist/etc, Clinton and the media did not do a good job of alleviating those concerns.

If the half of the country that voted Trump truly is racist/sexist/etc, what good does it do to label them as such? Doesn't it make more sense to try and work with those people and convince them that their viewpoint is wrong and change them instead of writing them off? It doesn't matter if your one viewpoint is the "right" one if you can't convince others that it is.

I really think people should look at the article I posted in the thread earlier if they haven't already. I still have yet to see an adequate explanation for a lot of the points raised in the article, mainly because I think it's easier for people to blame the "racist Trump voters."

It appears to me that many people confuse between middle class and upper class.
It seems to me that middle class gets blamed for every single thing especially when they are not responsible.

"White and wealthy voters gave victory to Donald Trump."
So I suppose it's the upper class?

But really, I don't agree that you should find a particular group of people, label them and then blame them.
Especially when it comes to wealth and generation, because they are not discrete categories, unlike race.

 

[Sturdynips]

As a non-American international relations student, Trump is fascinating. He is in direct opposition to the liberal international order founded post-WW2 and sponsored by every US president since. The implications of Trump's view that mutual defence treaties etc are not in the US interest is especially concerning for smaller nations with powerful, anti-democratic neighbours such as those surrounding China and Russia (anyone that says Russia is pro- democracy is kidding themselves). If Russia were to mobilise against European nations, there is no guarantee a Trump administration would commit to step in. The same could be said regarding Chinese mobilisation in the South China Sea. This is especially odd considering Trump's desire to expand the military even further; the US already has over 50k personnel in Asia alone, but if an increase is not for the purpose of defending liberal internationalism and interdependence, then what does increased spending mean? The answer according to Trump is to make America and America alone the undisputed global powerhouse again, which makes a showdown with China all the more likely, especially if he follows through to heavily tariff Chinese imports. All in all it's hard to see the world order surviving - realist 'every man for themselves' is looking more likely to be sponsored by the US.

On a moral note, there are a lot of issues that concern me. How does a primary school teacher explain to a white child that bullying the middle-eastern kid because of his heritage is wrong when the president says it isn't? How does a father justify his daughter being groped without consent is wrong when the president is a man who brags of it? I anticipate that the US will have a lot of social upheavals and likely violence. Racially-driven violence is an issue already in America, and I can't see it improving. It will be interesting just how much of his extreme policies he will actually try to enact, and if he moderates them, how will his hard-core voters react.

 

[Eo Ut Mortus]

I don't understand why people in this thread continue to blame the apparently "racist white American middle class" for voting Trump. There is no one to blame but the DNC for why one of the most unpopular candidates for president in the history of the United States was elected. They didn't have to set up Clinton to be the candidate, the candidate that everyone knew was the establishment candidate and that many people clearly had concerns about (see: primaries).

Hillary flat out wasn't a good candidate, let alone a perfect one. She ran an over-confident campaign and it showed through voter turnout. People (even in this thread!) continually dismissed the many legitimate reasons that they had for being uncertain about Clinton being president. Regardless of whether or not those fears were true, or if their concerns truly were sexist/racist/etc, Clinton and the media did not do a good job of alleviating those concerns.

If the half of the country that voted Trump truly is racist/sexist/etc, what good does it do to label them as such? Doesn't it make more sense to try and work with those people and convince them that their viewpoint is wrong and change them instead of writing them off? It doesn't matter if your one viewpoint is the "right" one if you can't convince others that it is.

I really think people should look at the article I posted in the thread earlier if they haven't already. I still have yet to see an adequate explanation for a lot of the points raised in the article, mainly because I think it's easier for people to blame the "racist Trump voters."

Regardless of your views, you can't just say one party is to blame. The fact is, numerous factors contributed to electing Trump, including but not limited to the DNC and systematic racism. If you can point directly to a factor and say, "Well, if this (possibly in conjunction with other factors) had changed / occurred differently, Trump wouldn't have won", then we can definitively assign blame to it.

This might seem like a pedantic definition, but it leads into my next point: People who desire change should try to effect it where they can. Even if you argue the DNC is the most to blame, what is the average citizen going to do to get them to change? Shoot them an email? Racism is a far more accessible avenue, so it shouldn't be surprising why people are focusing on it.

I do agree much of the dialogue surrounding racism is problematic, and this election has served to highlight the issue. The social climate that realized a Trump presidency has existed for a while now, but many people didn't care to speak up against it until this election (and even then, it took a while). It took the emergence of a caricature villain and the development of voting blocs and cultures to engage people against longstanding issues. This speaks to the social apathy of many voters: they only saw the problem when it was made obvious, and they sought the obvious solution. Isolating racism to a single group was way easier than treating it as a pervasive institution.

Still, that absolutely does not invalidate or excuse the fact that racism is a problem within the demographics that voted for Trump. If you disagree, fine; this is not a call-out or an attempt to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree. It's only the identification of a problem such that those who agree can take steps towards its resolution.

 

[Fireflame]

Because the golden rule of a election is you don't attack the voters. Is that so hard to understand?

The "golden rule" that no one follows? Legit, in the post you were responding to, some Trump supporter threw a beer bottle at a guy's face, and his whole face is bleeding. Tell me how that's not attacking the voters? Not to mention that Trump himself attacked all kinds of voters. He's attacked all Muslims and Mexicans in America, most of which are voters, he's mocked the disabled, who are voters, and he has harassed women, who are voters. So presumably the candidate you support has broken your "golden rule"...

(I've only seen him insult muslims and mexicans)

Clearly you've been living under a rock, right?

My lack of worry about him "insulting everyone"... is that it just purely is tapping into emotions people already harbor. You call it racism, I call it "ISIS exists, they behead people. Mexican cartels exist, they fill our streets with drugs.".. a geniune worry. And he taps into that for voters.

Trump was NEVER "purely tapping into the emotions of voters" at all. He lied to them and supported negative stereotypes against minorities. Saying "all Mexicans are stealing are jobs! All Mexicans are rapists and criminals!" is NOT "tapping into the voters's emotions", when it's, in fact, altering their current emotions. Yes, people already think this, which is entirely wrong on their part. The Mexicans are not taking our jobs. When you grow up, do you want to work at McDonald's? Do you want to become a garbage worker? Of course not. The "Mexicans" in this instance would want any job in order to make money they need for living. They're taking the jobs no one wants.

Moreover, "Mexican cartels exist, they fill our streets with drugs" is just wrong. One, they're not filling our streets with drugs. Otherwise, you would see more policeman and such. Two, this doesn't mean that ALL Mexicans are drug dealers. They aren't. Stop believing in stereotypes. "ISIS exists, they behead people" isn't a statement that would relate to racism, so pick a better example. Yes, that's true, but you can't make the distinction between that and racism if you want to call "racism" something else.

You know the saying "one bad apple spoils the rest".

Yeah. The apple is Trump and "the rest" is the people...

The electoral college exists so that the small town folks actually matter. Otherwise you might just dismantle your form of democracy and call it dictatorial, because Democrats more or less control the big cities.

Tough. But, abolishing the electoral system still means the small town folks matter. The current system should just be the popular vote. That's all the voters everywhere. It doesn't matter if you live in a city or in rural areas, since all the major cities vote Dem (less places more votes) while everyone in rural areas votes Repub (more places less votes). Either way it's balanced out, but with the popular vote, it makes sense and doesn't create stupid conflicts.

Because he campaigned and played the game better.

You sure Trump played the "game" of politics better? He lost every debate and he had no policy. This election was a completely different "game", less on policy and more on stupidity.

And on another issue, there is the fact that we have a loose cannon who asked three times "why can't we use nuclear codes", and says he wants to be "unpredictable", clearly a bad idea when there are countries that can end us, and who might panic in the event of a unnecessary nuclear launch meant for ISIS. He doesn't understand the concept of mutually assured destruction, and lacks the empathy to care, since he and his family will be entitled to a nuclear bunker, immune the consequences.

I am still in the firm belief that thus was just "tough talk".

So just dismiss this as "tough talk" and say it's all hunky dory? If this is "tough talk", then the wall, having Mexico pay for the wall, climate change being a hoax created by the Chinese, deporting all Muslims, killing terrorists' families, waterboarding them, (you know, war crimes), and the video with him being misogynistic, are all "tough talk". This is way too many things to be tough talk. Mike Pence legitimately believes in conversion therapy, and since that's true, then any one of these aforementioned things can be true. This ties into the argument of candidates having flaws (which both do):

Trump supporters' view:
Trump's flaws: "Everyone has their flaws" / "it was rhetorical" / "just tough talk"
Hillary's flaws: "OMG! She has FLAWS! We can't have someone this corrupt as president!!!! OMG OMG MORE INVESTIGATIONS!!!!

 

[Divine Retribution]

Hide

Well, Donald Trump is president. Hope you like your eggs with a side of nuclear radiation.

Okay memes aside, I'm gonna say a shorter version of what I said on Serebii (albeit to a much less reasonable audience) here; this isn't the end of the fucking world. WWIII is no more likely with an idiot like Trump behind the wheel than it is with a warmongering demon like Clinton holding the reigns. Did you forget she supported the invasion of Iraq and the destabilization of the Middle East? How exactly did THAT turn out?

There's no way in hell he's going to start rounding minorities up and gassing them or something like that, and all the "literally shaking" in fear that's happening on social media right now is an overreaction, plain and simple. I didn't vote for the guy either, and I hold him in about as high regard intellectually as I do dog shit, but at the end of the day there are checks and balances that limit the amount of damage he could do even in a worse case scenario. I'm fairly certain he's just barely smart enough to understand the implications of nuclear warfare, so don't expect him to wake up some day and press the big red button because he decided he doesn't like China anymore.

I don't like Trump. I didn't vote for him, I didn't want him, and I don't think he's gonna be a good leader of the free world. But at the same time I also don't think he's the demonic spawn of Satan and Hitler. Some people need to calm down a bit, stop the hysterics, and be a little more objective.

Thank you.

 

[Mr.E]

Trump probably isn't gonna "press the button" but the fact we even have to consider that he might is a big fucking problem. We've all seen how easily he gets riled up by how badly Clinton baited him in all three debates and he only kinda halfway pulled it together by the middle of the third one.

Objectively, this guy has admitted to numerous actual crimes in addition to more technically legal but morally/ethicaly dubious actions. Hillary? Well, she mishandled some poorly-identified classified information that ultimately didn't seem to hurt us anyway. That doesn't excuse her behavior, but it's a lesson to be learned more than a legitimate issue to worry over. Hillary might be a notorious doublespeaker, but she only has 20+ years of political experience we the people can draw off what her actual positions might be (spoilers: they're fairly leftist, slightly more than the average Democrat overall). Trump? We have only vague ideas of his positions on any given political issue -- immigration and taxes are about the only subjects he's given anything substantial on (and his tax plans are ever-changing and universally panned by liberal and conservative economists and political think tanks alike) -- because he's never actually bothered to sit down and think about politics, because he has literally zero experience being a politician. Nevermind the fact that he constantly spews racist, sexist, and/or anti-Muslic rhetoric from his mouth such that even if he is just being a blow-hard, the fact that we've now elected him validates the existence of this kind of vitriol-spewing hatred for all the bigots across America that actually do have such feelings about certain minority groups.

Hillary and her campaign did plenty wrong, from the whole DNC shoving her down our throats thing (and tacitly screwing over Bernie if not outright rigging primary results for her) to her shitty slogan ("Make America Great Again" is a fucking excellent slogan; "I'm With Her" makes the election about her and not the People) to her lack of campaigning in the upper Midwest thinking she had those states in the bag and didn't need to court them for votes. Ultimately, though, she was still arguably the most qualified presidential candidate we've ever had up against inarguably the least qualified candidate ever so I still strongly disapprove of those who voted Trump. Yes, we need a change from the Establishment, but Donald Trump was honestly just about the worst possible choice you people could have made to champion your banner.

On the bright side, for us true progressives, I don't think the Democratic party has a choice at this point but to take a long, hard look at itself in the mirror and figure out where to go from here. Hopefully it's in Bernie's direction, as his success in standing up to Clinton in the primaries has proven there's a market for progressive policies while Trump's victory has proven populism is electable (even in the face of having no actual qualifications), and the party evolves into something that's a little more competitive in the face of the Red Wave sweeping this country as of late. It's probably too late as it is, the appointment of hyperconservative Supreme Court justices is liable to set us back 50+ years of social progress to say nothing of the immediate actions of a Republican-controlled everything.

Here's to hoping net neutrality isn't dead, a ballooning national debt on the order of 10+ trillion dollars doesn't drive us into Great Depression 2.0 somewhere down the road, and that minority rights aren't set back decades. And that Donald doesn't actually press the button, granted Hillary's record as a war hawk probably doesn't make her that much less likely to have done it either (but at least she has a calm and collected temperament).

And fuck the Republican Congress for getting away with blackballing Obama's Supreme Court appointment.

 

[Akarin]

The "golden rule" that no one follows? Legit, in the post you were responding to, some Trump supporter threw a beer bottle at a guy's face, and his whole face is bleeding. Tell me how that's not attacking the voters?

That's a supporter attacker a voter, not Trump himself. Pretty big difference.

 

[Divine Retribution]

-snip-

I do agree with pretty much everything you said except the first bit. When Bush was elected people were voicing concern over him having access to nuclear weapons because of how much of a clown he was too, and yet in spite of his numerous flaws, starting a nuclear war wasn't one of them. As for Trump's temper, there's a hell of a big difference between calling someone a "nasty lady" (which I regard as a statement of fact, by the way) and starting a nuclear war. I think even an emotional toddler like Trump understands that.

But in the end I fully agree that Hillary did an absolutely terrible job campaigning and the DNC fucked us over when they sabotaged Sanders. I'm almost ashamed to even identify as a liberal at this point. You'd think the left would have more respect for democratic process, but no.

The silver lining for me is that the DNC is going to be sore from this one for a long time. Serves them right for undermining democratic process and sinking the campaign of an actually likeable candidate with a liberal history (Sanders supported marriage equality in the past and opposed the war in Iraq whereas Clinton did not) who isn't as deep in the bed with Wall street, all so they can prop up a Machiavellian monstrosity who can't seem to do anything right other than starting wars which inevitably lead to political turmoil and disgusting death tolls. I'm not sure whose idea it was to pit a manipulative shark like Clinton against a populist like Trump when you have a populist in your own party who might actually stand a chance.

No, the DNC fucked themselves over too, and I hope they learn from it. Maybe next time they'll start respecting democratic process, and maybe put forth a candidate that actually espouses liberal principles even when they're not popular at the time.

 

[Fireflame]

That's a supporter attacker a voter, not Trump himself. Pretty big difference.

I distinguished that fact. A supporter still attacked a voter, breaking the "golden rule", which is not realistic. There's no election where there isn't people attacking voters, candidates or not.

 

[Heracr055]

Trump's first true test as President-Elect is to address the protests in an effort to defuse the nation. After staying silent all last night, Trump tweeted the following tonight: "Just had a very open and successful presidential election," Trump tweeted. "Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!" This continues to prove he is detatched from the reality and seriousness of his situation, and that he still dabbles in conspiracy theories. This is not good.

 

[Chomz]

Trump's first true test as President-Elect is to address the protests in an effort to defuse the nation. After staying silent all last night, Trump tweeted the following tonight: "Just had a very open and successful presidential election," Trump tweeted. "Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!" This continues to prove he is detatched from the reality and seriousness of his situation, and that he still dabbles in conspiracy theories. This is not good.

Well said. I'd temporarily had my hopes up that Trump would change his demeanor and moderate his behaviour upon winning the presidency. His victory speech, the olive branch he extended to Hillary, and his reasonably cordial conversation with Obama suggested a man who was beginning to realise the gravity of his new, unexpected, appointment, and was at least partly prepared to try and live up to it.

This tweet makes it pretty clear that we're all fucked.

 

[STEELDRAGON]

As a trump supporter in Cali almost everyone I know is balling their eyes out and having a mental breakdown. Its getting pretty old. I almost feel like my vote doesnt mean shit because I know all of California's electoral votes are going to Hillary.

 

[JALMONT]

Regardless of your views, you can't just say one party is to blame. The fact is, numerous factors contributed to electing Trump, including but not limited to the DNC and systematic racism. If you can point directly to a factor and say, "Well, if this (possibly in conjunction with other factors) had changed / occurred differently, Trump wouldn't have won", then we can definitively assign blame to it.

This might seem like a pedantic definition, but it leads into my next point: People who desire change should try to effect it where they can. Even if you argue the DNC is the most to blame, what is the average citizen going to do to get them to change? Shoot them an email? Racism is a far more accessible avenue, so it shouldn't be surprising why people are focusing on it.

I do agree much of the dialogue surrounding racism is problematic, and this election has served to highlight the issue. The social climate that realized a Trump presidency has existed for a while now, but many people didn't care to speak up against it until this election (and even then, it took a while). It took the emergence of a caricature villain and the development of voting blocs and cultures to engage people against longstanding issues. This speaks to the social apathy of many voters: they only saw the problem when it was made obvious, and they sought the obvious solution. Isolating racism to a single group was way easier than treating it as a pervasive institution.

Still, that absolutely does not invalidate or excuse the fact that racism is a problem within the demographics that voted for Trump. If you disagree, fine; this is not a call-out or an attempt to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree. It's only the identification of a problem such that those who agree can take steps towards its resolution.

I absolutely can and will blame the DNC for putting up a sub-par candidate in an extraordinarily important election and for doing so in a biased manner when it should have been patently obvious that what they were doing was dangerous, if not straight up wrong. OK, sure it's not the only thing, but I truly believe that they are largely responsible for the most part. It is a cop out to say we can't definitively assign blame unless I can directly point to something and say "trump wouldn't have won if this was different!" (I mean you can't say that about any factor...) because there were clearly many problems with both Clinton's campaign and the primaries. I don't want to claim things were rigged, but it is very clear that the DNC set up Clinton to be the candidate and was pulling for her over Sanders. And by doing so they screwed themselves.

When you cannot beat a candidate as unpopular as Trump then clearly you have a problem. Maybe it is true that Clinton is the lesser of the two evils. I would certainly agree with that statement. But that does not invalidate the feelings of others who feel the opposite, no matter if they are wrong. And that is important because those same people have a vote and those people put Trump into office, whether they voted for him or just decided to not vote for Hillary. Instead of writing them off as racists or enablers of racism, why did no one try to bridge the gap between what their concerns were and why they were voting for Trump? Why pretend that Hillary is a perfect candidate and pretend her downsides don't exist when clearly there is some segment of the population that is concerned about that?

It should be obvious from the result of this election to the DNC that they need to change, that much should be clear. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that racism is a far more accessible avenue though, although I do see what you mean. The thing is, the only focusing on racism I have been hearing is that racist white middle class America voted for Trump and that's why Hillary lost. I don't think that is very helpful at all but perhaps others have found success in converting racists by calling them racists.

I mean, what good does it do to put the blame on those people? If we really want to make the claim that the entirety of that group and thus half of America is racist, then things are hopeless and we're worse off than we were 50 years ago! In reality, I think it should be fairly clear that at least some portion of people who voted for Trump did so for reasons beyond racism. That is something that I think is extremely important to understand, even now after it's too late.

Personally I am not convinced that racist white middle class Americans were responsible for Clinton losing. I think a large portion of people who typically vote Democrat were turned off by Clinton, and their fears were ignored by both Clinton and the media. And for that I think the DNC is to blame. That is not to say racism does not exist among Trump supporters (well I mean only white people can be racist so of course some Trump supporters are racist!) or that it is not a problem (it absolutely is). I just feel that a Trump presidency was completely avoidable had the DNC and even the Clinton campaign done things better.

At this point, I'm just rambling and not really responding to Eo but yeah.

You sure Trump played the "game" of politics better? He lost every debate and he had no policy. This election was a completely different "game", less on policy and more on stupidity.

Why did Trump win then? I don't disagree with you that he looked bad in the debates and his policy was unclear. I would take things a step further and say his comments made him look like a fool or idiot at best. But yet he won. Why?