Don't ascribe the views of the loudmouth few to a whole swath of people. I'm almost completely certain that neither racism nor homophobia have much of anything to do with the outcome of this election. Those aren't the issues at play here. A large number of states have already made strides for gay equality, in the face of a lack of progress from a liberal president. The racial issues currently at play in the US are already a topic of conversation, and will receive attention regardless of the skin color of the person in office (even if that skin is orange).
Your idea of "will receive attention" sounds outright dangerous, if not condescending. You are using the excuse that if one has done one unbigoted thing, one can no longer be or act a bigot.
There are other issues that many people view as being more pressing. In particular, there are a large number of gun owners who very likely voted against Clinton, simply because they perceive that she would aggressively and purposefully seek to infringe the second amendment. You might agree that gun rights should be tackled... but there are a very many Americans who very strongly disagree.
In response to unfiltered fear mongering, not fact.
Additionally, there is a very large portion of America that is completely dissatisfied with the financial state of our country. Government shut-downs, furloughs, and a constantly rising debt are things that many people find unacceptable. There's plenty of argument to be made that republicans have contributed to the financial situation as much as democrats have... but at the end of the day, it's the republican side that *claims* to want to get that debt under control; democrats haven't addressed the situation with any intent. In fact, many of the policies that democrats support are very specifically things that will cost more money, increase our debt, and increase taxes. Democrats might say they'll increase taxes on the wealthy... but what democrats continuously fail to hear is that most Americans don't want taxes to increase on anyone - they want the government to spend less money.
Well, econ is not your strong suit, I reckon.
There are a bunch of other issues, certainly. I don't follow them all. But at the end of the day, I think you guys are
ignoring the voice of the people. You're insisting that all of Trump's supporters are actually pro-Trump (rather than anti-Clinton), and you're condescendingly declaring that they're all giant dummies, and that's why Clinton lost - it's not that people have things they care about that Clinton failed to address or that represent an opposition to the democratic platform - it's just that they're all stupid, that's all.
You end up acting as if the voice of all of those people doesn't matter, because
you think they're stupid and what is important to them should be ignored, because
you think
you know better.
Sorry, but anyone who paid attention in 10th grade European History class knows enough. I studied that in the US. At public school. What, they only thumb-suck and pop opiates, now?
Quit blaming this failure on "people are too stupid... waaahhh!". Start trying to figure out what's actually important to people, and how important it is. Start trying to figure out where the democratic platform is failing to address those needs. Start trying to understand what alternative Trump is representing.
None. There is a global labor surplus. I believe this was discussed some time ago on ISF wrt to unemployment insurance and so on. Very different approaches will be needed. Right now, with structural issues unattended, you get the highly and increasingly disparate incomes.
That someone as asinine as Trump managed to win this election deserves a LOT more attention from you. Dismissing it like a child calling another a poopy-head isn't going to gain you any traction, nor is it going to aid you in the next election cycle. Treat this as the wake-up call that it is.
Given that the very real issues America faces actually relate to becoming a more pragmatic, fact-based, reasoned place, what do you suggest? The 21st century is decidedly not the 20th, even if it may face similar dangers, or worse. Trump is the imaginary Maginot Line against the dangers of the world. We all know how fighting and working on yesterday's assumptions can lead to catastrophic failure.
The game is geopolitics, power the currency. This currency is backed by cash and influence, only partially by muscle. Cash accrues best to those with large internal markets from which to gain the production volume and economies of scale in innovation and research to outcompete others. This is what the USA did in the second half of the 20th century. This is the 21st century, the largest market is no longer the USA, that old motor will no longer win all the races, even not for lack of trying. That new world is a result not just of trade agreements good or poor, but from contemporary market structure.
Now, USA, plan your future. My guess is that you could use friends of similar mind, exactly those you plan to push furthest away right now, exactly those who are in shock.
