Donald Trump is the president-elect of the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

I suspect the democrats are regretting throwing Bernie under the bus.

Just one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI

In case you are curious look at the Wikileaks emails. Obama & Clinton administration stirred up Syria to what it is now and created vacuum for ISIS.

She also told public how long the nuclear response time is which is quite ironic after saying Trump could not be trusted with that information.

We'll see.

You bring up some valid points. But a lot of what you mention is very much bound to state administration and legislation. Of course federal laws and the supreme court can have a big impact, but the states still have a lot of say in the matter.

And even if Clinton had won, with the current climate, she wouldn't get much through Congress or Senate.

Then again, a different candidate than her might have helped to flip the senate.

What I mostly meant by that: it's done, he won. Have to deal with it now.

In short, I agree that in all likelihood the most disappointed voters will be those who voted for Trump expecting him to do all those things you're afraid he'll do. They wanted someone to really shake things up, and he'll give them modest tweaks and proposals with great branding.

It seems not so long ago when Obama was criticized for his inability to do many changes he promised to do, simply because the image of US president holding all the possible power in the US is an illusion, for a very long time.

Personally, I don't care much about his racism, bigotry etc, many powerful people are like that, they just don't admit it openly to the media. What I care about is long-term chances of mankind for survival on this beautiful little blue ball, the only home we will have as a mankind for a very, very long time.

And in this topic, he seemed... pretty horrible in every single way. well, fuck.

What if the things staying the same are the larger risk? The current status quo (a change from the past) isn't sustainable for many.

> The world might not go on for the Muslim hoping to immigrate to our country.

Be specific - which criteria is keeping them out? Why do they want to come to the US?

> poor pregnant women who might not get access to a safe abortion

You mean who get illegal abort?

> who [sees] a president who brags about sexually assaulting women

because it was publicized as part of a smear campaign. What about the public officials who see the email scandal, and that it didn't hurt president Clinton?

Like Trump said, what of Bill Clintons affair? No moralizing over that?

> trans person who is no longer allowed in the bathroom in which they feel the most comfortable

Lets say this really was a "world-ender"; What about the people who share that bathroom, who are also "uncomfortable"? Are subjective feeling only meaningful if exhibited by the trans community?

Just a few years ago, he was a Democrat, pro abortion, etc.

Do you really think a man of that age suddenly completely changes his views? And then again about every month (or hour) during the campaign?

I don't understand the point you are making. If people beat globalization, if voters want anti-establishment more than establishment, shouldn't Bernie have won?

I don't buy it. anti-Establishment is the story progressives tell themselves, that the Trump voters would have been Sanders voters. But Sanders voters believe bankers and corporations have fucked over their jobs, and Trump voters think Mexicans and minorities are to blame. There might be some overlap, but telling yourself this was merely about anti-Establishment and "draining the swamp" doesn't explain why incumbents scored a huge victory tonite.

And one of the driving forces behind Trump's success is a whole lot of foreign/liberal/establishment/non-insider figures pontificating about how that sort of person's culture must be pretty messed up if Trump is expected to pick up votes from them. (Just because a point of view is justified doesn't mean it doesn't provoke a backlash)

Which is too bad because you sound like a great person. The world would be a better place if we could be hear honest opinions without taking personal offense. But if I go to India and talk to them about the way they treat women, they might recall the last time some white people showed up and started telling them how they should run things.

People want positive experiences and encounters because, honestly, life can suck and negative feedback loops are a real thing.

I've lost the goodwill of colleagues and friends by being as callous as you want others to be to you. You might want to meditate on that.

When I go to a Polish festival, there is sausages and beer. It isn't broadcast that the government has gone extreme right wing, that womens right to abortion is being removed and criminalised.

When I go to an Indian festival, there is curry and mendhi. It isn't broadcast that women have few rights, and (gang) rape is more common than it should be.

The point of these festivals are to celebrate the positives, not to focus on the negatives. They're celebrations not protests.

My family is Bangladeshi. The food is amazing and the people are generally kind. But we came to the U.S. for a reason. It's worth remembering: 30% of Latinos in Florida voted for Trump. The left is not doing a good job walking that fine line between "we welcome those who want to become American" and "we are willing to give up the aspects of American culture that make people want to come here."

Everyone has their own little safe-space and their own desire to stifle others speech (voter suppression?). Just some hard statements follow from fact and some do not.

Immigrants aren't the problem for most "right wingers." Illegal immigrants are.

Women having the right to choose is only a problem if you expect a woman's right to choose to extend to extinguishing the life of a fetus at any stage of pregnancy. Many "right wingers" are liberal on this up to a point (say the first trimester).

Many "right wingers" (probably not extreme right wing, but still) are socially quite liberal and support gay marriage.

So... I disagree with all your points. But I can see that this election, especially, has polarized people to the extreme. Rather than seeing the gradient on either side, everyone is seeing every person who votes for Trump as an evil person; and likewise, every person who votes for Clinton as corrupt.

In order to move forward we need to come to terms with this gradient in our individual values again. We need to realize that there are fiscally conservative Democrats, and socially liberal Republicans. When we can do that then we can get back to compromising to mutually beneficial outcomes.

And if we cannot do that then we, as a country, are in deep s--t no matter who is running the country.

I heard a great phrase on This American Life last week: Patriotically Correct. The Trumpian inverse of politically correct.

Here's the thing with Trump, he held so many conflicting policy positions over the course of the election, and was held to account so little by the mainstream media, that Trump supporters could basically line up with whichever of his policies they liked the most. People can ignore promises like tax breaks for the rich when he's promising to bring jobs back to the US.

Also, as I said in another comment, this wasn't a pro-Trump victory, it was an anti-Clinton victory, and Clinton has been disastrous with the US economy. She had no compelling rebuttal regarding her support for NAFTA and TPP, the huge (political and economic) disasters of the Iraq war, and had very close ties to Wall Street deregulation that was at the core of the 2008 recession. Clearly business as usual was not going to cut it, and Trump was boosted by that discontent.

Could you give a specific example here, as others have asked?

I don't doubt that you feel this way. As an immigrant into the US I initially felt there is too much political correctness going on, which prevented some people from expressing their thoughts clearly, which is never good.

But in terms of culture, I am surrounded by, and happily participate in the celebration of American culture. For instance, just to name a few things:

- trick or treating in costume with my kids on Halloween - pumpkin carving - lots of bbq-ing in the summer - incredible amount of decoration, shopping and eating during the holidays, Christmas trees - meeting extended family in thanksgiving, eating turkey - wearing green on St Patty's day (not sure if that counts)

I also don't meet any Americans who are apologetic about any of these types of cultural expressions. I could argue that diversity and celebration of foreign culture is also a distinctively American trait, but that is a separate point.

So my question again would be - can you give an example of a cultural expression or tradition which you would like to see continued, but is disappearing, perhaps due to media pressure from the left?

It took me years and quite a few misunderstandings to realize this, so thanks for that.

(preface: not saying this is going to occur or repeat etc but-) I believe everyone here would not want genocide, rape camps, slavery or other atrocities to exist (they may very well do so today, but we can also hopefully agree this is something that is to be avoided as much as possible).

"The left" is fixated on this. The context of "how did I get here?". How is it that I am having dumplings delivered to my door while there is starvation still rampant in the world? These questions lead to the thread pulling of context and it's interplay with the current circumstances of the (left-leaning) individual.

From here this leads to history, oppressive and forceful spreading of Christianity throughout the world through often violent and culturally dismissive means, exploitation, and the above atrocities.

The left is predominantly concerned with not repeating these same mistakes. While they do suffer from some of the issues that affect "the right" voters - I would vouch on a general scale globally not really as much:

The right usually work highly volatile positions which they are sold as (and rightfully so) adding to the prosperity of their nation and fulfilling of a duty, they feel (also rightfully so) like fodder used by their nation for economic gain and prosperity. The right voter base will react against any entity that is destabilizing this - it is unfortunate that they are treated as such with no opportunity for transition when the industries predominantly aligned with these groups are by their nature bound for a temporary life time.

While the left does often experience the same hardships of economic immobility, job loss, they can abstract themselves from this with the often larger city centres offering alterntives to these downturns. The right is unable to do the same.

I am of the opinion (emphasis on opinion in these very volatile areas that we have to apply utilitarian laws to) that Christianity/left-values are - as you said - group identifiers that allow a sense of belonging.

I personally am left leaning so disagree with the assessment of "legitimization" of Christianity when there are several open cases of heinous instances where it hasn't afforded the same - and has resulted in a highlight reel of the worst humanity has to offer (not isolated of course to Christianity, but it is a hard case to sell that solidifying this group will result in net positives, especially when blatantly used as a tool by politicians to consolidate their own power). Along with this, certain issues regarding race, gender, and other imagined hostilities seem to be purported by 'the right' as concerns, when in reality we are simply serving to undermine the countries we all wish to be their best. We should be openly encouraging performance from skill and shaking our heads at those who would lower another's potential by a bizarre rubric. While there is much to be said for the benefits of community, there is simply too much castigation from the right to misdirected or non-existent perceived threats. As you said "there is no shame in wanting a group identity", I believe that this metric should then be used to not demonise females wanting to belong to "feminism", Latinos wanting to belong to a Latino identity, or the many other groups who have been - throughout history - actively suppressed either through violence, genocide, or structures in place that do not afford them the same opportunities being demanded now. To ask for legitimacy whilst ignoring past (extreme) grievances when the same was requested and then crying foul is remiss.

However I believe that across the globe that left-leaning parties need to do much much more work at re-training, re-educating, and emphasising just what tremendous effort the blue collar - and often right-voting - people of their countries have sacrificed so that the left get their opportunity to learn and mobilize upwards. There is a need to bring them along as well or the country is just as doomed and suffering of citizens just as bad.

We need to work together, support each other, and not be drawn in to crude openly-acknowledged-as-broken party systems.

That being said - if Trump does not destabilize this system in the US and push the country toward a preferential system, he isn't worth the square inch of a used toilet paper. (one final left-leaning comment in there!)

P.S. I genuinely hope he tries to "shake things up", however all rhetoric points to him being more fascinated with self-service - even above those issues of the hard workers in the centre of the US that supported him with their hopes on the line.

Also, abortion is a really big deal. To some degree, the evangelical/conservative Christian vote was split this time around because Trump had a loud but not very reputable position against abortion. It's remarkable that Trump won despite that shortcoming.

We are all human and we are all subject to the same primal forces. It's our job to fight it.

Bombing abortion clinics? Protestors holding signs saying "God hates fags". Systemic child abuse?

Do you have examples of the left in the US banning free speech for those that think differently from them?

> What are you afraid of?

A ban on abortions for one.

Right-wing politics is not much different in that regard.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-sp...

>Not sure how Christianity is shoved down your throat.

Stuff like this - http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146538958/rhode-island-distric...

>What are you afraid of?

Being forced by my government to adhere to a religion I don't want to adhere to. Things like forcing my children prey in school. Being a second class citizen.

>Christmas?

I'm not afraid of Christmas but I don't personally celebrate Christmas (not even in a secular way) and I'd like to keep it that way. I'd also like anyone to celebrate any holiday they would like to celebrate, including Christmas if they want.

> Accidentally going to mass?

Being forced to go to mass.

I think Christianity is harmful but I don't wish to tell other people what to do with their lives and I respect their right to practice whatever VooDoo they want to practice.

We do, in fact. That's the whole point.

"his work is both simple-minded and sensationalist, just the ticket for newbie collectors who are, to put it mildly, connoisseurship-challenged and resonance-free. "

If not, I am wondering what is?

Honestly, I wanted to know what has made the whole country to dislike her.

Sexist - ... Not going to link it - I'm yet to hear Hillary's version of "I can walk right up to men and grab them on the cock". This is a one way street. I actually would struggle to think of any prominent female who would act in the same manner of openly stating they can abuse a person such (and even to try and recant this later)

Vengeful narcissism - Despite being cleared of any charges, he openly alludes to the imprisonment of his opposition: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/03/trump-ril...

Do you acknowledge any of these? Dispute video evidence? The sources?

I am genuinely perplexed you seem to believe there is no evidence, however it seems you have a shifted-goalposts view of what constitutes "sexism" "racism"or "vengeful narcissism".

If you disagree with my post - which is a high probability - can we try a thought exercise?

Describe a scenario that you believe would be scandalous sexism if Trump mete out that act. I am interested to see the threshold that needs to be met to constitute as "sexism" under your rubric.

Even the USSR was extremely nationalistic, albeit thinly veiled behind "internationalism".

Brexit was competitive, Hillary-Trump competitive, Modi perhaps, Putin elections weren't. Not in 2000, not in 2004 and certainly not in 2012.

In particular, there were anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat while he was in charge that he didn't do enough to prevent and/or condemn.

For the record, all my information has come from The Economist. I'm not Indian or an India expert.

The "riots" weren't really riots per se or protests but rather acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing from both Muslims and Hindus in the area due to earlier incidents.

The Majority of victims were Muslims. It is estimated that at least 250 girls and women had been gang raped and then burned to death. Children were killed by being burnt alive and those digging mass graves described the bodies as "burned and butchered beyond recognition". Children were force fed petrol and then set on fire, pregnant women were gutted and their unborn child's body then shown to the women.

In the Naroda Patiya mass grave of 96 bodies 46 were women. The murderers also flooded homes and electrocuted entire families inside.

Violence against women also included their being stripped naked, objects being forced into their bodies and then their being killed. According to Kalpana Kannabiran the rapes were part of a well organized, deliberate and pre-planned strategy, and that this puts the violence in the area of a political pogrom and genocide. Other acts of violence against women were acid attacks, beatings and the killing of women who were pregnant. Children were also killed in front of their parents.

Children and infants were speared and held aloft before being thrown into fires. Describing the sexual violence perpetrated against Muslim women and girls, Renu Khanna writes that the survivors reported "that sexual violence consisted of forced nudity, mass rapes, gang-rapes, mutilation, insertion of objects into bodies, cutting of breasts, slitting the stomach and reproductive organs, and carving of Hindu religious symbols on women's body parts."

Testimony heard by the committee stated that: A chilling technique, absent in pogroms unleashed hitherto but very much in evidence this time in a large number of cases, was the deliberate destruction of evidence. Barring a few, in most instances of sexual violence, the women victims were stripped and paraded naked, then gang-raped, and thereafter quartered and burnt beyond recognition ... The leaders of the mobs even raped young girls, some as young as 11 years old ... before burning them alive ... Even a 20-day-old infant, or a fetus in the womb of its mother, was not spared.

Frontline magazine reported that in Ahmedabad of the 249 bodies recovered by 5 March, 30 were of Hindus. Of the Hindus that had been killed, 13 had died as a result of police action and several others had died while attacking Muslim owned properties. Despite the relatively few attacks by Muslim mobs on Hindu neighbourhoods, 24 Muslims were reported to have died in police shootings

According to official figures, the riots resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus; 2,500 people were injured non-fatally, and 223 more were reported missing. Other sources estimate that up to 2,500 Muslims died.

The US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report quoted the NHRC as concluding that the attacks had been premeditated, that state ( Gujarat ) government officials were complicit, and that there was evidence of police not acting during the assaults on Muslims. The US state department also found that Gujarat's high school textbooks described Hitler's 'charismatic personality' and the 'achievements of Nazism'. US Congressmen John Conyers and Joe Pitts subsequently introduced a resolution in the House condemning the conduct of Modi in inciting religious persection in Gujarat. They stated that Modi's government had a role in "promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred and the legacy of Nazism through his governments support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified". They also wrote a letter to the US State Department asking it deny Modi a visa to the United States.

People from cultures that wear something over the head does so much more in the new country while the home country is starting to loosen up. Even though this is exactly why they moved away in the first place.

(We have friends from Somalia, Germany, Turkey, Russia, Egypt and then some, that describe this for us)

And even then, it's hard to pin down.

I, for one, notice that Australians are quite different from Americans and Brits. And of course even more so from the multitude of Asian, South American and European cultures.

I think something people always seem to overlook is that there never really was a singular American culture. The different regions have had very distinct cultures. I've been to Polish festivals across the Midwest, large bbq/cookouts in the south, and plenty of bluegrass festivals around appalachia.

There's plenty of culture around. It's just not at the surface anymore now that mass media and other interests have sort of taken control of that arena.

not found on its interstates? Driving cross-country is not a qualification to make such a negative statement.

But the USA is also a country of immigrants and natives. It seems silly to toss out immigrants who have actually enriched the culture of the country. I think it's fantastic that you feel the German influence in Pennsylvanian, there are Chinatowns in most cities, I've heard rumors that there might be some Irish influence in Boston etc. etc.

I am a little sad that the native culture isn't a bit stronger.

That's just one example, there are literally millions. Here's another way of looking at it:

  - if a African American outwardly expresses his cultural origins and identity, this is called "affirmative" -- a word with positive connotations;
  - if an Italian American expresses ties to his cultural origins, it's considered less inspiring, but still ok
  - if an white European American expresses pride at his cultural heritage, then he's usually derided as nativist, racist, xenophobic, or, worst of all -- an old fogey.

I really hope the Left tune in to the grievances of the majority now, because I'm fearful of what comes next if they don't.

True, but you could say that about nearly every politician that's been elected recently. At some point you have to vote for the person you agree with and just hope they will hold up at least some part of what they've promised.

Not if you were simply voting against Hillary.

They weren't duped - they got what they ordered - but liberals might want to re-examine their mission statement.

Regardless of the merit, when you have actual white men talking like that, it seems a tad self-destructive.

Or the business culture which is very unique, at least I've seen nothing similar anywhere in the world.

Then there's a degree of freedom of speech that nowhere else exists, and rights like being allowed to carry a gun in public which is vigorously defended by large parts of the population.

And yes, there is an American brand of Christianity. Even if you don't see it in population centres it's still there everywhere else and it is more important than Christianity in most other Christian cultures.

There's a kind of attitude among US citizens leaning towards some Classical Liberal or Libertarian principles that can't be found anywhere else in the world. Where ever else you go the majority expects the government to take care of every member of the society from cradle to grave.

- Scott Fitzgerald - Mark Twain - Herman Melville - John Steinbeck - Wall Whitman - E. Allan Poe - Ginsbert - Bukowski - Charlie Chaplin - Miles Davis - Bob Dylan - (countless others)

Depends on where/what you choose to look. I understand that the average American is not all that knowledgeable but neither is the average European, Australian, Japanese or Nigerian...

Fuck yeah?

Until the humiliating defeats with Brexit and Trump, the progressive left was so high on its own supply, they wouldn't hear it. Some still won't hear it, they're just covering their ears and panicking, because they think the media's image of Trump and his supporters - the same media that predicted a 93% chance of Clinton presidency - was actually an accurate representation of reality.

Think men aren't horrible oppressors? You're a misogynist, sexist MRA who wants to bring women back into the kitchen. Think "white people" are just a convenient but wrong proxy for class, and that blindly inviting uneducated and illiberal refugees into a service-based economy and libertarian culture is a recipe for disaster? You're a racist islamophobe who thinks black lives don't matter.

Respecting white culture means respecting the values that built western society, and that includes rationality, impartiality, and evidence-based inquiry. Valuing male culture means acknowledging meritocracy, understanding that respect is earned - not given - and encouraging confidence to accomplish by yourself.

There is really a stunning amount of projection stemming from the left these days, and it's left otherwise sympathetic people out in the cold. The progressive left repeats the right words, but they don't seem to understand what they mean or where they came from, incapable of self-reflection.

Theresa May comes to India and talks about better trade relations because of "our shared past".

Either she is naive and stupid or she really loves her colonial loot. Nobody in India wants to be reminded of our servitude in the "shared-past".

I think you might be forgetting about at least one other country.

If you want a counter-example, you can look at small town and rural upstate NY and realize how their concerns are always neglected because the sheer number of NYC voters drowns out any chance they have to be heard as part of the electorate.

Well, no, because it was designed this way. Popular vote is the obvious option when designing a democracy. They decided to go with something else under the specific understanding that any system other than a popular vote would allow this to happen.

> In the 21st century, winning the most votes for president only results in a 50% success rate for Democratic presidential candidates.

It will always affect Democratic candidates more negatively because they don't do as well with rural voters and the electoral college exists almost specifically to give rural voters more power. This is by design--not an oversight or misunderstanding.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/20/as-low-skilled-job...

For example, Ukrainians and Russians (i.e. also not EU members) have exactly the same treatment as Bangladeshi.

I believe that he might destroy big corporations, I don't believe that will be good for the people they employ, or who have their pension invested in them.

Basic left wing ideas of taxing successful and rich people and reducing inequality, supporting those who lose jobs to structural unemployment might have headed this off. I guess we'll never know.

Donald Trump is also rich. What if he also make policies that benefit his organisation and his associates ?

http://www.savalinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Call-Ce...

Which look very similar to this:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d4/84/2b/d484...

The main difference is the machine is a calling machine instead of a sewing machine.

Call centers are more like call mills, and those people are definitely wearing shirts with blue collars.

I have to wonder if a capitalist like Trump can be of much help with such a transition.

The decentralized nature of the economy also makes it so that an overly internal strategy like tariffs are insufficient. If the US stops buying from China altogether, China is still the manufacturing pit stop of the world. The rest of the world has no reason to coordinate the tariff strategy with you. Only your nation artificially sees increased prices. It's even worse if your nation ups production but nobody wants to buy it because it's too expensive. Your production isn't a power unless you export, and tariffs alone won't make you export.

Manufacturing businesses want an environment where (1) citizens are dirt cheap, (2) citizens can be legitimately abused, (3) government is stable and amenable to these practices, (4) the country is connected to global supply chains so you can integrate that country as part of your production system.

Also, if / when manufacturing does come back to the US, I imagine that it will bear the fruits of every company racing towards applied machine learning. It will be robotic labor that outscales cheap labor.

Not only are they idiots, but uninformed as well. That's always the root problem, isn't it? If only they would read what you read, they'd think what you think! Just gotta find a more effective way to brainw--I mean, communicate. Have you considered asking The Riddler for help strategizing? Maybe you could join forces with the Greens...

And leftists say that conservatives are stubborn, sheesh.

Trump may not be conventional, but he is only contradictory in some of his policies. 'Pro-life', immigration reform, and other policies are in line with Republican views.

If you're looking for more than that, I'm not sure what you're asking.

* Simply tax code, both personal and corporate.

* Devolve federal power back to the states.

* Improve incentives for development of US manufacturing base.

The US profited hugely from slave trade and labor. (Which most Americans usually conveniently ignore) Which helped it build up. So colonialization and domination was a factor for the US before they became a superpower.

It's true that in the earlier 19hundres the US were more reclusive and isolated.

The US economy wasn't in a good state before and after WW2... The war gave a huge boost to the economy and lifted the US out of the Great Depression. That probably laid the groundwork for the huge military-industrial complex today.

The Marshall plan wasn't just good will and benevolence either. A major goal was to create an export market to trade with. The US economy really took off after WW2! ( I can dig up a paper on that). Of course, building up a power base in western Europe to oppose Russia was also important.

Also, the falling apart of the old, Europe based empires from the late 18th century to 1930 and then the WW2 left a power vacuum, which the US filled, together with Russia.

And the world got a lot smaller then, thanks to airplanes, better technology. Nuclear weapons.

Just sayin'.

All what this explains is that the potential of the domestic trade in large country such a the US is enormous. Duh. Japan just like Germany relied on a post-war recovery, the Cold War, the US and invested back into their own growth instead of the military.

In short, no one denied that domestic trade has a lot of growth potential but that isn't an argument that international trade doesn't rely on one's influence and level of defense.

Also, regarding other comments, you always need to properly consider the full context when comparing the past to the present. For instance, until WW2 wars were consider much more of a political tool rather than a disaster. That is a vital point of view the culture of the West only slowly is developing and still in danger to get overthrown.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I#Efficacy

It also seems the original non proliferation treaty was at least effective in keeping the list of nuclear powers shorter.

People usually vote for who they like, not for who's probably competent. Regardless of education.

That's one she managed to spin positively.

Edit: just Google image search "Trump that bitch" and tell me again gender has nothing to do with it.

I don't think the majority of Trump voters actually believe that Clinton shouldn't be president because she's a woman. They just view her as a corrupt, establishment politician and Trump just seemed like the lesser of two evils in their eyes.

I think the media vastly underreported just how much the Right hates Clinton. The Right wing media has been pushing anti-Clinton rhetoric hard for about eight years now!

I haven't heard of Zwarte Piet. Could you describe that a bit more please? It sounds interesting.

Its designers read Aristotle before you and I existed. Our Constitution is an incredible work.

* Enforcement of existing immigration law

* Lack of sufficient safeguards in voting process

* Fear of large, primarily-Muslim immigration leading to less safety within our borders

* Political correctness leading to unwillingness to address certain problems for what they are

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. It's also tedious how voting for Trump is itself implied to be racist (because of the borderline-racist and racist things he's said), but that leaves out the context that the alternative was Hillary Clinton.

I'm actually a little confused why liberals want to push everything up to the federal level. They have total control over many states like New York and California, and it seems like they could accomplish their goals more efficiently if they weren't sharing senate seats with Alabama on key issues.

You get less federal funding for programs if the federal taxes are cut, but given California's salaries and population you're probably paying more than your fair share anyways.

https://www.quora.com/If-every-state-of-the-USA-declared-war...

CA is a big part of the US economy and culture, but in no way would I imagine that it could resist the rest of the 49 states.

Certainly there is a lot of high tech industry in CA but I doubt that Lockheed and the other defense corps are disproportionately reliant on CA, they have plants and R&D centers spread throughout the country.

I agree it's something interesting to ponder.

Have you visited London's "docklands"?

  four international airports