[TeMPOraL]

I didn't call them that - you did, by asserting that the sore losers I identified actually form the majority of the voting population.

EDIT:

Also, "you lost me" kool kid dismissal is supposed to be used with things mentioned early in the piece of writing, not with literally the last two sentences of the post. You admitted that you read everything, so no points for style :P.

[alex_young]

You very much did. Go reread your comment.

You lost me is me telling you that I was entertaining your argument up to the point where you called the majority who voted for someone else sore losers.

The 'kool kid' slur seems pretty unnecessary. What value does that add to your argument?

[TeMPOraL]

Let me quote directly from my comment:

"I'm starting to get a feeling that some people on anti-Trump side are just sore losers, and can't accept that he won democratic elections; no, it must be some conspiracy."

Note the key word "some" here. I didn't call the majority of voters (or even of those not voting for Trump) "sore losers". Most people who didn't want Trump to win are sad about the outcome - that's normal. But there's a huge difference between being sad your side lost, and going around talking all the time about how the other side could not possibly have won (and it must be some kind of evil conspiracy).

The "wrong" side won, but the real question isn't how, it's why. As for answering it, 'idlewords says it's a "bug in the operating system of our democracy, one of the many ways that slavery still casts its shadow over American politics". Personally, I disagree. I think this is democracy working as designed, and the whole situation should be a sad lesson about a) what you get when lots of people feel they are treated unfairly, and b) that general population is kind of dumb in aggregate, and nationalism is unfortunately the default state (in-group/out-group).

That, and c) what you get when you let media spin the "Muslim == terrorism" narrative ad nauseam for close to two decades now.