Cherry-picking a conservative, racist democrat isn't advancing your argument by an inch. And this is aside from the issue of the Democrats being a right-wing party that isn't fundamentally different than the Republicans. They may be slightly to the left of the Republicans, but that doesn't make them some left-wing force (even by European standards, the Democrats are right-wing). The Republicans played a progressive role during the Civil War and Reconstruction (the Democrats were the party of Southern slave owners), but those times are long past. The fact of the matter is that Trump opportunistically pandered to the existing racial, ethnic, etc. hatred and emboldened various hate groups (Neo-Confederates, Neo-Nazis, KKK, Alt-Right, etc.) in the process. Meanwhile, Obama gets the blame for "division" that existed before he was nominated years ago (I also wouldn't call diverting anti-racist sentiment into safe channels for the establishment by Obama "cop bashing"). Racist and corrupt police have created very dangerous situations for minorities across the United States.
I honestly wasn't surprised that Trump won. I'd almost go so far as to say that the odds weren't really against him, either. He played his cards right, appealed to the right people, and now we have the best physical representation for what America is today. Well, the more vocal and show-y portion of it, anyway.
Can we take a minute to talk about how badly the Dems shot themselves in the foot in this race? They had an ideal candidate-- popular, progressive, and likeable-- and did everything they could to sabotage his campaign. The people chose Bernie, but the party chose Hillary, and the party sent a clear message that the voice of the people wasn't important. It was many of these same people, disillusioned by a party that ignored them, that decided to follow the OTHER populist candidate, Donald Trump. It's obvious to just about everyone who was paying attention that Bernie would have beaten Trump OR Cruz in the general election, likely in a landslide.
One of my main gripes with Hillary was that she directly attacked Trump's supporters. It's one thing (and pretty much expected) to insult other candidate but to stoop that low is just BEGGING people not to vote for you.
Elections rigged: Hillary - 1 Trump - 0 Clear winner in my book. Do a bit of research if you don't know what this is in regards to.
Right after it hit the news, a lot of Trump supporters started calling themselves Deplorables. So at least she gave us that.
I never supported Hillary, but the truth of the matter is that by "deplorables," she was referring to the "half" of Trump's supporters that happen to be "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic - you name it." She did not directly attack all of his supporters. Meanwhile, Donald Trump insulted entire ethnic groups, encouraged violence against peaceful protesters, and mocked a disabled reporter. His opportunistic pandering to racists and xenophobes is also responsible for various hate crimes that have been documented recently. The Electoral College system also played a role, as all indications still show that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Clinton's history of being part of the problem and the rigging of the DNC primaries certainly contributed to lower voter turnout (a less repulsive candidate could have easily tapped into the "silent majority" that is opposed to Trump). There is the issue of Trump filling the "anti-establishment" vacuum as well, but I touched on that above. So far, it seems that one of the things Trump will be able to accomplish will be regressive tax cuts (G.W. Bush transformed a surplus into a deficit with similar measures) that will not benefit the white working class demographic that clinched the presidency for him. It's going to be amusing to watch his support basis turn against him as events continue to unfold.
-TIMELINE OF LIBERAL CERTAINTY- January 2016 - "Trump will never actually run for president." June 2016 - "Huh. Well, he'll never win the primary." July 2016 - "What the hell? Oh well, at least we know he won't win the presidency. Totally certain." November 2016 - "NOOOO!!! Uh... um... he won't be a good president! Trust me, I'm smart! I went to college!"
Clinton never had a Surplus. I'm sick and tired of people repeating that bull*squee!*. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Some of the details Bill Clinton has stated weren't true (old projections of such a surplus ballooning were also obviously false), but a surplus did in fact exist: http://www.politifact.com/new-jerse...linton-touts-fiscal-record-president-during-/ Oddly, your source makes note of the US Treasury, yet the Treasury Department admits the existence of such a surplus: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-clinton-surplus-became-a-6t-deficit-2013-1 Furthermore, even if we believed your source (it claims the deficit was "almost eliminated" for fiscal year 2000), it still wouldn't get around the issue of the disastrous results of Bush's tax cuts and such. Here is some more information on how workers are not going to benefit from Trump's policies.
