[EdHominem]

> It's her characterization of half of the population of the US as "deplorables"

Let me help you read that quote: "you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic"

Half of Trump's supporters. That's roughly 20% of the country. And yes, if they're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, they are deplorable.

> Everybody needs to take a deep breath, take off the propaganda goggles, and have a look at the reality around them.

Cough, yes. You really should lay off the propaganda.

> Instead of writing off your fellow Americans as bigots, give them a chance to explain where they're coming from.

No. If you're telling me what to do in my bedroom, I don't give a rat's ass. If you're racist, I don't care what anecdotes made you that way. If you're trying to tell me who I can marry, I don't care in the slightest why you feel that way.

You don't want me in your kitchen telling you what to do, so don't pitch a fit when I don't care for you telling me how to run my life.

Stop trying to control people and they'll stop pushing back.

> Hillary, whether she intended to or not, gave her supporters a free pass

You're equating mean words with Trump's racist scapegoating, his stated intent to kill families of terrorists, deport people born here, etc. Get a sense of scale.

> never even gave Trump a fair listen

A fair listen doesn't mean hang on his words, it means to listen until he's made it obvious that he's clearly unfit for the position.

Maybe you believe he's smarter than all the generals, etc, but if I heard that ignorant bravado from a coworker or a presidential candidate I'd put them in the stupid pile.

For years before the election he went on about Obama's birth certificate. Him and the racists. But yeah, you can tell yourself that he had a real legalistic reason for asking Obama but not Clinton, Bush, etc.

> frankly, I blame the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign for that

I'm sure you do.

[groovy2shoes]

> You don't want me in your kitchen telling you what to do, so don't pitch a fit when I don't care for you telling me how to run my life.

> Stop trying to control people and they'll stop pushing back.

Ironically, I'd wager that a significant number of votes were cast for Trump as a kneejerk reaction (i.e., pushback) to some extremely vocal groups on the far left making conspicuous attempts to control other people. The "Social Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes" have, for the last several years, been loudly and publicly shaming people who don't share their opinions. These are the same people who decry bullying and use their hashtags to raise awareness about "cyberbullying", and then turn around and try their best to get some "toxic male" who criticized Anita Sarkeesian in a tweet fired from his job. The same people who emphasize diversity and equality while systematically silencing and excluding anyone with so-called "privilege". The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at "racists" (who may or may not actually be racists — the word gets tossed around so often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless) all the while wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an actual black supremacist movement.

The reasons for Trump's election are varied, complicated, and much more nuanced than "toxic masculinity and white privilege".

I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it. The power of the president is constitutionally limited for this very reason, checks and balances and all that. And, frankly, once we got through the primaries, I wasn't going to like the outcome of this election no matter what. President Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the DNC to give him the shaft), or even Rand Paul (too bad he's a boring, down-to-earth guy lacking in outrageous, showy behavior or anything particularly radical to put forward... and, for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC... I wouldn't be surprised at this point (cash rules everything and whatnot)). I'm more worried about the American people at this point than I am about the president. Shit's tense right now.

[EdHominem]

> I'd wager that a significant number of votes were cast for Trump as a kneejerk reaction (i.e., pushback) to some extremely vocal groups on the far left making conspicuous attempts to control other people.

Right. I totally agree. I mentioned this just upthread, though in a slightly different context.

The 90% of sane voters are defined by the crazy 5% at either end, because you're either in one party or the other...

Some candidates and some parties are better about not endorsing these loons though, which is all we can ask for. At least to not have their nonsense codified.

> The "Social Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes" have, for the last several years, been [...]

Even though I'm closer to their side than the KKK types at the other end, I too see them as a toxic corruption of the proper message. I do think we need to get rid of bullies, but I don't think that simply having an unpopular attitude is a problem unless you act upon it to actually discriminate, etc.

I don't know the anti-Sarkeesian tweets you mention but I've seen many other baseless fits pitched, so I can imagine.

> The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at "racists" (who may or may not actually be racists — the word gets tossed around so often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless)

Yes, and being someone who cares about actual racism, this bothers me. We can't get proper treatment for real issues if we're executing people for tweets.

> [...] while wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an actual black supremacist movement.

Yeah, I don't know how people can openly support any racist group in the name of wiping out racism.

> I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it.

I remember just as many tantrums from the candidates in the previous elections. (Asking for recounts, mocking the person asking for recounts, etc.) The protests are somewhat new, but they're a peaceful expression of disgust, not riots or anything. They seem totally reasonable, considering the toxic messages flying around.

> President Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the DNC to give him the shaft)

I agree, but I'll point out that both political parties are intended to do this. Because similar candidates are "spoilers" in a first-past-the-post election you need a way to weed out people like you but with slightly less chance of winning. The only issue is that they did it behind closed doors.

This won't be fixed until we have a better process, such as Approval voting, that isn't vulnerable to these problems.

> for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC

I have no faith that he wouldn't have, but it seems unlikely given how much nasty infighting there way.

> I'm more worried about the American people at this point than I am about the president.

Well ultimately, that's the right stance. The president, even elected and in power, can't do anything on his own. Everything he hopes to accomplish can only be enacted by the people. If we do terrible things under his rule it'll be because we were already willing to and just waiting for someone to come along and justify it.