Do you, now?

Not nearly as much as those who kept blurting out the 'sexist/homophobe/racist/transphobe' canards, parroting what they had been told by their useful idiot handlers. At least those 'fools' you speak of had 30+ years' worth of venality, corruption and two-faced expedience to back up the epithet you're trying to downplay and relativize. Especially in light of it serving as a masterful foil to Trump's anti-establishment, outsider candidacy that couldn't really be argued against, since, you know, it was a two-way race without any other senators and congressmen in play that you could point to and say 'see? He did it too, so it's totally a-okay if I did it'.

What do you want a blue for?Just ask tinye (KINGSHIT) and the piece of shit followers to spam it into deletion.

Most so-called theories do have a base in the reality. "Ridiculing rhetoric" and obfuscating of the truth is the most powerful weapon a politician have.

What's wrong with the words "new world order" and youtube? Even EU and especially UN has such an agenda.that can be associated with that (how about the Roman Empire?), to create a unified collective order/power. There's neither evil nor good in that.

Throughout the history, what people had considered to be just a hypothesis or a myth have turned out to be true... Everything that is considered too radical or too foreign, is not covered.. Subsequently, books and newspapers won't always draw the whole picture as they're often coloured by the political agendas of that country.
And yet people are still pouring in. Also, as an American such as him would be given a hospitality that is worthy for a king. Don't forget - it really matters where you come from, right? :p

Well, this is the price of democracy.
1) Most of people are average (by definition),
2) Average people can be rather easily tricked, threatened, bribed or confused (general experience),
3) All votes are equal, majority wins.
I still think sticking with this system is worth occasional Trump, compared to other tempting options.

Yes, 3) technically isn't true in the system of electoral votes, but all players knew the rules before the game and played by them, and Rule of Law is itself valuable principle.

So much for good luck...

Yep. Every system in which some votes are worth more than others is broken.
Imho there is no way to justify this since it goes directly against la égalité.

They are new to you ? When a neonazi militant (actively supporting the neonazi formations in his country) who foams post after post after posts about jews controllong the world, about his fantasies of beating up homosexuals (and his ex-gf), about subhuman primitive foreigner "cannibals" creeping in his country, who drools with admiration at each military dictatorship popping up in the world, who keeps openly expecting a global cycle of violence to cleanse the world, and rejoices openly at any sign of polarization leading to it, keeps mentionning the threat of a "new world order", you think that it is three random words arriving together out of chance, because it's about some order that would be new in the world ?

Some other people with a minimum of culture tend to situate and contextualize a bit better the concepts and notions that keep popping up in his rants. And that are extremely tracable.

Just read this! Explained in a nutshell! And, also; why they (I mean USA) is in a loophole and they can't change it!

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/12315574/electoral-college-explained-presidential-elections-2016

Good point here.

But in defense of my imbecilic-seeming countrymen, let me just say that this took the "perfect storm" to create a Trump presidency. Indeed, I have watched this sorry shit-show play out all year since working for the Sanders campaign in the primary, and as much as I never wanted to admit this outcome was possible, if I'm to be honest here I saw this coming ever since Bernie lost.

And the real "Kingmaker" here (yeah that term seems appropriate somehow) was the Democratic party.. Here the two primaries showed all of us, clearly, without a fucking doubt that this election was and would be dominated by an anti-establishment sentiment. Bernie's rise from nowhere to giving Clinton the run of her life, plus Trump dominating the Republican side from the get-go thru the finish made that incredibly clear to anybody with half a brain.

But here the idiot DNC had already decided years ago that this was "Hillary's turn" (stemming back to '08), so the Democratic leadership worked from day 1 to squelch the Sanders campaign, and there was no quesition to them from day 1 that Hillary was "their girl". COMPLETELY ignoring the overall mood of the nation, and the fact that if people had to single out one politician who represents "the status quo", Hillary would be first on the list.

Ever wonder why there were so few Dem primary candidates compared to the Republicans? Cuz they knew the leadership had already decided the thing beforehand, and they'd be fighting against the party from the get-go. Only a select few were willing to take all that on.

If the Dems had run Sanders, who had the same kind of "outsider cred" as Trump, minus the side-helping of idiocy and authoritarianism... well this would be a vastly different conversation in this thread today. But running Hillary during a period of intense anti-establishment feeling, against a perceived "outsider", made it possible for even one of the weakest, least popular candidates in our history to win. So, in the endless irony that we live with here in good ol America, the Democratic party leadership and Hillary herself turned out be Trump's MVPs. I don't believe he could have won it without them. They created the perfect storm that allowed some zero-experience zero-intelligence reality star buffoon to win.

And if you're not sure if what I'm saying is true, just look at the exit polling. 38%, I believe, was the number of Trump voters who said they don't like him and their choice was a "lesser of 2 evils" thing. Nobody thinks "evil" about Sanders, even those who disagree with him. His track record of integrity and fighting for the small guy and working people is quite the opposite of Clinton, and his overall "favorable rating" was recently noted as the highest of any politican in America. This guy would have won over my Midwestern working class neighbors who are the ones (well along with Florida i guess) who handed this thing to Trump. Rather than handing the presidency to Trump, Bernie woulda handed him his ass.

So Trump fans, toast the DNC today as you celebrate your win. Without their game-playing we'd be talking about president-elect Sanders today.

Edit: I don't think I quite tied things together completely here with my response. Having said the above then, the reason people were so susceptible to believing any number of nasty claims about Clinton was because of that intense anger towards the establishment. You could have probably directed at least part of that vitriol on anybody perceived as an "insider", and it would have stuck - at least enough to have a significant effect. And beyond that, the Republicans had been working on destroying Clinton's reputation for years, in anticipation of a presidential contest against her.

Bottom line there: never doubt the ability of someone to believe something they *want* to believe, however far from the truth it might be. People wanted to believe that bad stuff about "the insider Clinton" so it was an easy sell, honestly. This is kinda the same principle at work with conspiracy theorists, as has been much discussed in another thread here.

For whoever is interested: Tomorrow are the first Somalian elections since 1984.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_parliamentary_election,_2016

This is a rarity and should get way more coverage than the regular bollocks from the US.

Make it's own threat!
That IS something to celebrate!

Trotsky was brutal and cynical; Stalin, however, was brutal, cynical, and the most profoundly paranoid bureaucrat this world has ever seen.

contributed ;)

I partly agree with your thoughts. Clinton certainly didn't come off looking like anything but the embodiment of all the worst parts of the DC status quo from the Democratic primary, but I'm not certain Sanders would have won, either. On the other hand, I also think only maybe two of the other Republican primary candidates had any shot of winning the general, no matter how much the pundits claimed otherwise.

As an "ABC" voter this election (the behavior of both Clintons back in the 1990s helped me to decide that I didn't really identify with either party, and I'm not the only Gen X'er who feels that way), I'm also not certain that I would have voted for Sanders. As an example, I'd be happy to see 18-year-olds who have busted their butts off in high school to make the grades get some help to earn a degree in something with a real career path, but I have no desire to pay for someone who wants to slouch around for four years drinking and smoking weed to excess and doing the absolute minimum necessary to not flunk out while they "find themselves". And knowing how Washington works, that's the way that program would probably end up functioning, no matter how well-intentioned its creators.

More than anything else, this election has shown that both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly out of touch with voter J.Q. Public. The old party lines and definitions just don't fit comfortably for a majority of citizens anymore.