General US Politics

[Lord Raven]

I think there were plenty of voters who really liked Clinton, those who were cautious (like me and her general view towards the Middle East and provocation of Russia) and then there's the "hate less than Trump" tier. I think just as many voters liked Trump as they liked Clinton because he at least throws out bullshit they want to hear and Clinton is loved by baby boomer/gen X democrats and minorities.

It's the millennials and younger Gen X's that said that both of these candidates were mediocre to shit, and I am inclined to agree (Clinton being mediocre at best and Trump being destructively bad).

[Etrurian emperor]

i think clinton actually helped give trump perceived credibility as an antiestablishment candidate by running such a terrible campaign.

Yes. She did.

I have some degree of sympathy for Clinton. Losing the election again was a personal failure, its an humiliation failure considering her opponent was Donald Trump and its also a historical failure. Clinton will go down into the history books as the person who failed to prevent the damage inflicted by Trump, ensuring that damage is partially her responsibility as well. This is all the more so because she herself is a big reason for her loss.

I don't think the hate Clinton got was entirely rational like Pizzagate or the belief she's somehow a worse person than Trump but the rational complaints can all be traced back to her own behavior. For instance the Email scandal that haunted her campaign was entirely of her own making. Even if we were to accuse the FBI/CIA of foul play then its a foul play by a means she herself gave to them on a silver platter.

The stakes were to high to screw up and yet Clinton still screwed up. That reflects badly on her.

[Phoenix Wright]

I think there were plenty of voters who really liked Clinton, those who were cautious (like me and her general view towards the Middle East and provocation of Russia) and then there's the "hate less than Trump" tier. I think just as many voters liked Trump as they liked Clinton because he at least throws out bullshit they want to hear and Clinton is loved by baby boomer/gen X democrats and minorities.

It's the millennials and younger Gen X's that said that both of these candidates were mediocre to shit, and I am inclined to agree (Clinton being mediocre at best and Trump being destructively bad).

i'd argue they were both destructively bad, with trump being a few rungs higher on the the ladder.

[Radiant head]

I mean I don't think clinton was unusually worse than the last 3 presidents (though that's still pretty bad). the issue is more that she couldn't even convincingly run on progressive/populist rhetoric like obama, who represents the same politics did, didn't go to wisconsin or michigan, focused on bullshit like russia instead of actually refuting trump's populist snake oil, and probably most damning of all was chuck schumer was saying horribly dumb shit like they would lose blue collar voters but make up for it by picking up wealthy neighborhood voters. only this kind of incompetence could allow someone like trump who should have self-imploded to win

Edited January 9, 2017 by Radiant head

[Lord Raven]

i'd argue they were both destructively bad, with trump being a few rungs higher on the the ladder.

At the very least, Clinton believes Climate Control is real, even if she is in favor of fracking.

Thoughts on this? One of the things I've read on here was kind of trippy (the burning man one)

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis

[wissenschaft]

Honestly, the election results were not shocking. In fact, they were predictable. We (America) almost always elect a different party to the presidency after a 2 term president. So this result was very predictable. in fact, since the modern two party system came into being, the incumbent party has held on to the presidency after 2 terms only twice.

Well, it will be.....interesting to read all the tweets from Trump. A tweeting president, this is going to be a weird 4 years.

Edited January 10, 2017 by wissenschaft

[Rezzy]

Honestly, the election results were not shocking. In fact, they were predictable. We (America) almost always elect a different party to the presidency after a 2 term president. So this result was very predictable. in fact, since the modern two party system came into being, the incumbent party has held on to the presidency after 2 terms only twice.

Well, it will be.....interesting to read all the tweets from Trump. A tweeting president, this is going to be a weird 4 years.

Wait a sec, didn't I post that exact same thing a few pages ago?

Since WW2, only Reagan/Bush Sr held the White House for 3 consecutive terms. Before then, one party keeping the White House for inordinately long periods was a lot more common.

[Phoenix Wright]

At the very least, Clinton believes Climate Control is real, even if she is in favor of fracking.

Thoughts on this? One of the things I've read on here was kind of trippy (the burning man one)

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis

what do i think?

We rated 82 out of a total 666 right-wing

it is clear what forces are at play here.

but in all seriousness, we are not in a golden age of journalism. i'm not sure how, but journalists need to crack down on themselves, and we need to help them. in direct reply to the article, and as a leftist, i would argue part, not all, of the reason this dichotomy exists (between falsified info from the left vs the right) is because the right needs to lie to sell some of its narratives, because facts do not align with the narrative. this is especially true for social issues, and partly true for economic/political issues.

likewise we are not in a golden age of faith in the political process, nor are we in a golden age of worthy politicians.

hillary clinton is an embarrassment to the american people. russia is responsible for wrecking our political process, but the motive is understandable. clinton and others from the dnc also tampered with the process. treason is too strong a word, perhaps, but the fact remains that she fucked with our democratic process so that she could be in power. that shows not a little of disrespect for herself, we the people, and the democratic process itself. i cannot say i am happy trump is president, but i can say i am somewhat glad clinton was not elected.

and the reason i am so hostile towards clinton is two-fold:

1. everyone already knows i hate trump.

2. left-leaning folks need to understand just how bad she is. she is part of the reason the united states is a pseudo-democracy (ie, kind of an oligarchy, at least on a federal level). the bush family, clinton family, kennedy family: they're powerful. the united states shouldn't be like that.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Nobody]

is because the right needs to lie to sell some of its narratives, because facts do not align with the narrative. this is especially true for social issues, and partly true for economic/political issues.

I really, really, really, really, really, really, really hate to argue from a right winged point of view when it comes to american politics, but do you honestly think the right is the only one that needs to lie when it comes to politics, specially when it comes to economics?

Did Bernie Sanders ever tell the lower middle class that in order to do what he wanted to, he'd need to increase tax on them, and by a substential amount, for exemple? This is an honest question, btw. Did he say it could have increased the debt, which would have big consequenses? Did he say that a the increased protectionism he defended would raise the price of goods previously imported (this is also one of the many huge issues with Trump, BTW)?

Edited January 10, 2017 by Nobody

[Phoenix Wright]

that's not what i said.

the article clearly states that the left lies, but lies less often. i offered my two cents as to why, speaking from an obvious bias (but again, i would argue factually backed up). moreover, i noted that most lies likely are rooted in social issues. i'm not sure the buzzfeed article went into detail on what info was lied about, though.

as for the edit: i'm not sure. but i do not believe his tax plans were going to raise taxes on the middle class. could be wrong, though. as for protectionism, no, and i think that would have been a mistake anyway. but sanders is still far, far better than any other candidate in recent history. at least on paper.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[Nobody]

that's not what i said.

the article clearly states that the left lies, but lies less often. i offered my two cents as to why, speaking from an obvious bias (but again, i would argue factually backed up). moreover, i noted that most lies likely are rooted in social issues. i'm not sure the buzzfeed article went into detail on what info was lied about, though.

as for the edit: i'm not sure. but i do not believe his tax plans were going to raise taxes on the middle class. could be wrong, though. as for protectionism, no, and i think that would have been a mistake anyway. but sanders is still far, far better than any other candidate in recent history. at least on paper.

I honestly believe that that's is mostly because of the fact that the USA is to the right on the spectrum as a whole, but when it comes to the USA only, I agree with you. It IMO also has a bit to do with populism. Populism sadly comes coupled with lying or omitting stuff uniteresting to the elector they're trying to chase, and the republican party in general tends to be more populist (be it religious, ethnic, or just "anti-liberal" populism).

I mean, I don't personally agree with the sort of politics Bernie Sanders does, and I much prefer the mainstream moderate democrats, but, considering your political position, I can totally see why Bernie was in your opinion the best choice, and it's IMO a coherent view, but like, there are always trade offs, and any sort of political position has negative aspects, even if much smaller compared to the positive ones. The European countries with more expansive wellfare than the USA have higher taxes not only on the rich, but also on the middle classes, and that's a trade off for more expansive welfare, which is IMO very much worth it, but still a trade off. This has nothing to do with you, but I've seen (liberal) people saying that "Trump is horrible but at least he's lowering my taxes", without realizing that only happens because of the dismantling of the welfare, or the opposite, people who support the increase on welfare complaining about higher taxes. These things are linked and many don't realize it, and it's imo important for people to know the negative aspects of the politics they defend so they can explain why they're smaller than the good they'd bring.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Nobody

[Lord Raven]

that "thoughts?" was aimed at everyone but good post for the most part but I have issue with this

I still remain unconvinced that Bernie was the best candidate in the Democratic Party. As much as I love his rhetoric, the fact that the left-wing of politics needs populism in the US, and his political views, but I do not believe he'd win. He's also kind of a bullshitter too, like Trump but on the left.

2. left-leaning folks need to understand just how bad she is. she is part of the reason the united states is a pseudo-oligarchy. the bush family, clinton family, kennedy family: they're powerful. the united states shouldn't be like that.

honestly the bush/clinton/kennedy family are done after this election, regardless of hillary's win. the US *shouldn't* have oligarchies, but this still comes off as a "the US shouldn't have this issue on a more abstract scale, therefore, we should support someone who wants to destroy things on a very very fundamental and tangible scale." I did not think in terms of the oligarchy, but that's such a low-weighted principle in the grand scheme of things. I also take issue with the idea that Clinton spat on democracy, even though she had 3 million more votes and the DNC staffer emails (at least the emails I'm thinking of) were dated after Super Tuesday II. For the things to criticize Clinton for - which amounts to fracking, presidents that still give into corporations*, foreign policy - but the oligarchy isn't one of them.

which somehow she manages to be the lesser of two evils here, but at least she'd appoint someone to kill Citizens United, rather than overturn abortion rights among other rights

journalism sucks in this country because it's come to a point where people just don't accept facts and complain about "ivory tower academics" for whatever reason. As well as electing a guy who has encouraged the following mentalities

a) "it's my free speech to be racist, so stop yelling at me about it you PC fascist"

b) neo-nazis

c) "if you feel it, it must be a fact"

d) general distrust towards facts, and re-inventing the narrative where the majority of shit that politicians say is okay

Edited January 10, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Rezzy]

hillary clinton is an embarrassment to the american people. russia is responsible for wrecking our political process, but the motive is understandable. clinton and others from the dnc also tampered with the process. treason is too strong a word, perhaps, but the fact remains that she fucked with our democratic process so that she could be in power. that shows not a little of disrespect for herself, we the people, and the democratic process itself. i cannot say i am happy trump is president, but i can say i am somewhat glad clinton was not elected.

and the reason i am so hostile towards clinton is two-fold:

1. everyone already knows i hate trump.

2. left-leaning folks need to understand just how bad she is. she is part of the reason the united states is a pseudo-democracy (ie, kind of an oligarchy, at least on a federal level). the bush family, clinton family, kennedy family: they're powerful. the united states shouldn't be like that.

I'm a far cry from you politically, but I find myself in a similar camp with the part I quoted there.

1: Same, although hate might be too strong a word, I just didn't think he was a good option for president

2: Very yes, I hate political dynasties

For the Russian hacking or PR campaign or whatever you want to call it. First, it should really be expected that our enemies will try to hack into our databases. We should do our best to prevent this. Podesta getting phished reflects more poorly on him, than anything else. Secondly, the campaigns should be conducted on the up and up. There was some pretty damningly corrupt stuff that wikileaks showed. The DNC should not have been colluding to get Hillary the nomination in the first place. The point of the primary is to find the best candidate, not anoint the next queen.

The Democrats continued attempts to technicality the election away from Trump did annoy me, though. The EC worked as intended, and if people don't like that, they should work to change it in future elections, not change the rules halfway through. I may not like the candidates, but I do like our form of government, and want it to be respected, lest future elections fall into chaos.

I really, really, really, really, really, really, really hate to argue from a right winged point of view when it comes to american politics, but do you honestly think the right is the only one that needs to lie when it comes to politics, specially when it comes to economics?

Did Bernie Sanders ever tell the lower middle class that in order to do what he wanted to, he'd need to increase tax on them, and by a substential amount, for exemple? This is an honest question, btw. Did he say it could have increased the debt, which would have big consequenses? Did he say that a the increased protectionism he defended would raise the price of goods previously imported (this is also one of the many huge issues with Trump, BTW)?

One of the many reasons I'm libertarian.

[Nobody]

One of the many reasons I'm libertarian.

Honestly, the fact that many americans think libertarians are centrists is one of the problems of the american politics. No, libertarians aren't centristis. They're not between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to economics. Their economic policies are extremely right winged.

I mean, it's nice to have people on the right that are sensible when it comes to social policies, but the libertarian economics are even more right winged than the rupublicans. Like, abolishing the FED, changing taxation to a flat taxing policy and abolishing most, if not all of the welfare, are extremely right winged views, with huge consequences, with few support among economists, for exemple.

I'm not condemning libertarian views, btw, i'm just saying that they're not any moderate on economic policies.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Nobody

[Lord Raven]

The Democrats continued attempts to technicality the election away from Trump did annoy me, though. The EC worked as intended, and if people don't like that, they should work to change it in future elections, not change the rules halfway through. I may not like the candidates, but I do like our form of government, and want it to be respected, lest future elections fall into chaos.

source? Are you referring to people saying "faithless electors out the ass pls!" because it's pretty obvious that wasn't going to happen. I've generally never heard of the Democrats pushing a recount, that was entirely Jill Stein and she was going to pocket the funds for the Green Party's next campaign.

Secondly, the campaigns should be conducted on the up and up. There was some pretty damningly corrupt stuff that wikileaks showed. The DNC should not have been colluding to get Hillary the nomination in the first place. The point of the primary is to find the best candidate, not anoint the next queen.

I also think if the Democrats were going for an oligarchy, then there'd be more outcry for Obama winning in 08 (lost popular vote, although technically didn't for whatever reason, but ultimately got the delegates needed) or something to that effect. I sincerely believe that they saw it plain as day that Sanders was overall a very weak candidate that just incited some feelings among the young electorate but has enough issues that would cost them the election.

There were 3 other people who ran, and only O'Malley wasn't super weak out of all of them - and even he has his baggage.

[Nobody]

There were 3 other people who ran, and only O'Malley wasn't super weak out of all of them - and even he has his baggage.

Do you think Biden would have been a better nominee? I'm an outsider, but IMO he seemed like a way better choice, that had party support without the controversy of Hillary.

I also agree with you about Sanders.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Nobody

[Lord Raven]

Yes because say what you will about the last 8 years but no dumb scandals in the White House. I'd have to look into the dirt on Biden but he would have been a strong candidate in public perception and is left in comparison to Hillary.

Now I think the chief criticism is his age. I don't think he'd have the energy and in interviews he believes that he simply wouldn't have the heart or ability to really run if he did. He was definitely in a better position than Gore and Bush Sr. in terms of incoming VPs, but that may be because I actually don't have an indifferent stance towards Biden (unlike Clinton) so I'll look deeper into it.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Rezzy]

Honestly, the fact that many americans think libertarians are centrists is one of the problems of the american politics. No, libertarians aren't centristis. They're not between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to economics. Their economic policies are extremely right winged.

I mean, it's nice to have people on the right that are sensible when it comes to social policies, but the libertarian economics are even more right winged than the rupublicans. Like, abolishing the FED, changing taxation to a flat taxing policy and abolishing most, if not all of the welfare, are extremely right winged views, with huge consequences, with few support among economists, for exemple.

I'm not condemning libertarian views, btw, i'm just saying that they're not any moderate on economic policies.

I never really claimed libertarians were centrist. Libertarians only really qualify as centrist in that the far right on economics is cancelled out by the far left on social issues. It's part of the reason I'm not a huge fan of the right-left dichotomy designation.

source? Are you referring to people saying "faithless electors out the ass pls!" because it's pretty obvious that wasn't going to happen. I've generally never heard of the Democrats pushing a recount, that was entirely Jill Stein and she was going to pocket the funds for the Green Party's next campaign.

I also think if the Democrats were going for an oligarchy, then there'd be more outcry for Obama winning in 08 (lost popular vote, although technically didn't for whatever reason, but ultimately got the delegates needed) or something to that effect. I sincerely believe that they saw it plain as day that Sanders was overall a very weak candidate that just incited some feelings among the young electorate but has enough issues that would cost them the election.

There were 3 other people who ran, and only O'Malley wasn't super weak out of all of them - and even he has his baggage.

Stein started the recount shenanigans, but Clinton got on board, when she should have either ignored it or disavowed it. Then faithless elector campaign, and most recently, the electoral vote tally challenge, that got shot down by Biden.

Sanders probably wouldn't have been a great candidate, but then again, Trump wasn't either in my opinion. The DNC should have just let the primaries play out, then you wouldn't have Bernie supporters feel justifiably cheated and have evidence to keep them from joining up with Hillary in good faith. Hillary may still have won the primaries, but she would have earned it, without the baggage of colluding with the DNC to get the nomination.

It's a bit like Barry Bonds, he would have been a first ballot hall of famer before his steroids, but the fact that he felt the need to cheat makes him lose a lot of supporters.

[Radiant head]

I never really claimed libertarians were centrist. Libertarians only really qualify as centrist in that the far right on economics is cancelled out by the far left on social issues. It's part of the reason I'm not a huge fan of the right-left dichotomy designation.

being "socially left" just makes you slightly less right-wing than otherwise, tbh

[Lord Raven]

Clinton campaign on the recount: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/29/hillary-clintons-campaign-didnt-want-this-recount-and-doesnt-think-it-will-change-anything/

tl;dr they didn't care but they weren't exactly getting on board. What were they to do? Tell Stein that she's irrelevant?

They also did let the primaries play out - I'm not seeing anything stating that they tampered (at least in a meaningful way). A more apt comparison is if Barry Bonds' food was spiked with illegal substances than him taking steroids on his own volition.

But I mean what I'm more curious about overall is a) who to put on the ticket in four years and b) the buzz feed article I posted, because the election is done and I find it best to talk about how politics and discourse in the public eye is going to work moving forward.

[Lord Raven]

EDIT: if you seen (null) from my statuses it's because IPB has a shitty mobile app, relevant to my double post too

Edited January 10, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Radiant head]

the democratic party is in shambles right now, even according to dem party loyalists. it's a waste of time to try to think about who they will run four years and probably more pressing if they're going to respond to trump by appealing to his racism or appealing to economic populism.

[eclipse]

Honestly, the election results were not shocking. In fact, they were predictable. We (America) almost always elect a different party to the presidency after a 2 term president. So this result was very predictable. in fact, since the modern two party system came into being, the incumbent party has held on to the presidency after 2 terms only twice.

Well, it will be.....interesting to read all the tweets from Trump. A tweeting president, this is going to be a weird 4 years.

Oh, thanks for reminding me! Obama's Tweets will be archived, as the @POTUS handle will be passed on to Trump. Happy searching!

[Rezzy]

being "socially left" just makes you slightly less right-wing than otherwise, tbh

Social issues is half of what makes right wing right wing.

I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization, pro-legalized prostitution, pro-reduced military spending. I'm not exactly welcome at the Republican table.

Clinton campaign on the recount: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/29/hillary-clintons-campaign-didnt-want-this-recount-and-doesnt-think-it-will-change-anything/

tl;dr they didn't care but they weren't exactly getting on board. What were they to do? Tell Stein that she's irrelevant?

They also did let the primaries play out - I'm not seeing anything stating that they tampered (at least in a meaningful way). A more apt comparison is if Barry Bonds' food was spiked with illegal substances than him taking steroids on his own volition.

But I mean what I'm more curious about overall is a) who to put on the ticket in four years and b) the buzz feed article I posted, because the election is done and I find it best to talk about how politics and discourse in the public eye is going to work moving forward.

I think ignoring Stein would have been the best option, or reaffirm what she said the day after the election to move on, rather than feed into the false hope of the recount.

Hillary was given debate questions ahead of time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/hillary-clinton-donna-brazile-cnn-political-commentator-spring-debate- question-wikileaks-john-a7389886.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/07/donna-brazile-is-totally-not-sorry-for-leaking-cnn-debate-questions-to-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.7269d0be7780

Edited January 10, 2017 by Rezzy

[Phoenix Wright]

I honestly believe that that's is mostly because of the fact that the USA is to the right on the spectrum as a whole, but when it comes to the USA only, I agree with you. It IMO also has a bit to do with populism. Populism sadly comes coupled with lying or omitting stuff uniteresting to the elector they're trying to chase, and the republican party in general tends to be more populist (be it religious, ethnic, or just "anti-liberal" populism).

this is speculative of course, but i think i agree nonetheless.

I mean, I don't personally agree with the sort of politics Bernie Sanders does, and I much prefer the mainstream moderate democrats, but, considering your political position, I can totally see why Bernie was in your opinion the best choice, and it's IMO a coherent view, but like, there are always trade offs, and any sort of political position has negative aspects, even if much smaller compared to the positive ones. The European countries with more expansive wellfare than the USA have higher taxes not only on the rich, but also on the middle classes, and that's a trade off for more expansive welfare, which is IMO very much worth it, but still a trade off. This has nothing to do with you, but I've seen (liberal) people saying that "Trump is horrible but at least he's lowering my taxes", without realizing that only happens because of the dismantling of the welfare, or the opposite, people who support the increase on welfare complaining about higher taxes. These things are linked and many don't realize it, and it's imo important for people to know the negative aspects of the politics they defend so they can explain why they're smaller than the good they'd bring.

indeed. i cannot argue against the basic premise of having taxes lowered--i just personally feel that it's a worthy sacrifice. and i say that as someone who doesn't make a lot of money and still pays ~25% of my paycheck in the form of taxes (like most people). to me, there are too many reasons to keep social safety nets and not enough reasons to dismantle them.

some argue that taxation is theft, and that is an idea that i wholly reject, however. some argue for a flat tax, but i also wholly reject that.

i think japan's healthcare system is an excellent model to consider. extremely efficient--so much so that fiscal conservatives should be rioting that we aren't trying it.

that "thoughts?" was aimed at everyone but good post for the most part but I have issue with this

I still remain unconvinced that Bernie was the best candidate in the Democratic Party. As much as I love his rhetoric, the fact that the left-wing of politics needs populism in the US, and his political views, but I do not believe he'd win. He's also kind of a bullshitter too, like Trump but on the left.

bullshitter as in empty promises--or something more dubious? one of my favorite aspects of sanders is that he isn't just talk, he's been there. he's fought personally for civil rights, civic rights, etc. that is rare. when it comes to empty promises, i would argue that you're probably right. it takes more than one person and sanders wouldn't have gotten the support that he needed in the government.

of course any presidential result involving sanders is merely speculation, but i think sanders would have defeated trump.

honestly the bush/clinton/kennedy family are done after this election, regardless of hillary's win.

why do you feel this way? what makes this the end, rather than a slump in the road?

the US *shouldn't* have oligarchies, but this still comes off as a "the US shouldn't have this issue on a more abstract scale, therefore, we should support someone who wants to destroy things on a very very fundamental and tangible scale."

i can see how my words come off this way, but what bernie spoke about was revolution. revolution comes with a bit of political infrastructure dismantling. i agree that it should happen, but probably not to the extent that my earlier tone makes it seem. i don't think our system is malfunctioning, i think it is broken.

I did not think in terms of the oligarchy, but that's such a low-weighted principle in the grand scheme of things. I also take issue with the idea that Clinton spat on democracy, even though she had 3 million more votes and the DNC staffer emails (at least the emails I'm thinking of) were dated after Super Tuesday II. For the things to criticize Clinton for - which amounts to fracking, presidents that still give into corporations*, foreign policy - but the oligarchy isn't one of them.

i can't get on board with this. she's a member of a political dynasty and was involved in destroying the chances a fellow democrat had to secure her supposed easy victory. if oligarchic is too strong a word for you, can we instead agree that she was machiavellian to a fault? to the point where faith has been lost in the democratic party for lots of people?

which somehow she manages to be the lesser of two evils here, but at least she'd appoint someone to kill Citizens United, rather than overturn abortion rights among other rights

true, i do not deny she'd probably be a better leader.

journalism sucks in this country because it's come to a point where people just don't accept facts and complain about "ivory tower academics" for whatever reason. As well as electing a guy who has encouraged the following mentalities

a) "it's my free speech to be racist, so stop yelling at me about it you PC fascist"

b) neo-nazis

c) "if you feel it, it must be a fact"

d) general distrust towards facts, and re-inventing the narrative where the majority of shit that politicians say is okay

indeed. :(

Edited January 10, 2017 by Phoenix Wright