America would rather be led by someone who boasts of assaulting women, than a woman

[noblegiraffe]

And some people think we don't need feminism any more.

Stealth - they will be emboldened Trump supporters instead

Stealth, wtf? His election just gives them a mandate to behave like him.

We no longer have to worry about disgruntled trump supporters bearing firearms, doing his bidding.

Just the military doing it instead?

True, what I meant was the implication of what he said was take her out of the running. She's already out of the running. The bully has won.

What is upsetting me is this shit narrative (brexit and this) that the "losers" Should just shut up.
What happened to "First they came...." I am quite scared what we are sleepwalking into

I think it has so much more to do with anti-Muslim/white supremacy than anything to be honest. I think Trump would have won against any man. He said years ago Republican voters are so stupid they believe anything so if he was going to run it would be for the Republicans. Looks like he was right.

That's a myth as well, Last - the quote I mean. I agree it was about anti-Muslim/white supremacy.

US friends also telling me obamacare a big factor?

I don't think Obamacare was a big factor at all. It was something that Trump supporters often mentioned as a way to appear to have an actual principled reason for supporting him. What is going to be interesting is what happens when they get around to figuring out what to do with Obamacare. Removing health care from those who have it will have some political repercussions that I am not sure the Republicans fully realize.

I remember when the 'grab them by the pussy' recording came out. There seemed to be a real sense of horror, including among republicans who were condemning it. There was a hint that maybe they'd disown him, that he'd gone too far. It was quite heartening at the time. Then it all seemed to disappear, nothing happened and now the fucker has been elected.

Yy giraffe

There did seem to be a moment of actual disgust, albeit through the inevitable prism of 'someone's daughter/mother/sister', rather than just because people shouldn't be assaulted because they are people. Inevitably at least some of that was cynicism - Clinton was ahead in the polls, so if Trump was going to lose, distancing themselves from him in advance by taking the moral high ground was the right political manoeuvre.

Then the FBI shifted the focus.

Now I'd imagine the Republicans see the chance for unlimited power; Trump's not going to bother about the day-to-day of politicking so the Speaker is going to be the chief politician and do whatever the hell he wants, backed up by Trump saying whatever it is will make America great again. So they can ride his coat tails without having to be too closely associated with him and the endless stream of gaffes and offences he will cause. And they can focus on attacking women who couldn't be their wives, sisters or daughters because they are poor, non-white or immigrants. I wonder how far they will go in banning abortion, though - as there needs to be a loophole for rich white women to exploit at least.

I think Kellyann Conway deserves credit for running the winning campaign for Trump. It'll be interesting to see the role she gets in the new government.

HRC had a male campaign manager.

This is a good and non hysterical analysis of why Hillary lost, (even though she actually got about 200,000 more votes than Trump)

orgtheory.wordpress.com/2016/11/10/rust-belt-bungle-theory/

Heartening, although I do think that the end result is going to have a similar effect to Brexit, i.e. although the margins were tiny, ignorant bigots are going to take it as validation of their views and permission to behave appallingly.

When the FBI re-opened that inquiry my DP and I both said 'politics'. I'd like to see a full inquiry into how that happened and why it happened and whether it was legitimate. I don't have the foggiest about how US law works, but something was rotten in the State of Denmark there.

It was a myth? Oh - sorry Trib!!!! I definitely think Trump won on account of his racism and other people's, not so much on his views of women. As soon as he insulted Muslims, I had a feeling he would appeal to a LOT of people.

Yet oh, absolutely, and I should think the FBI are relieved that Trump got in, because they be under all kinds of scrutiny right now if Clinton had one.

I hold no brief normally for Alison Pearson, but she is bang on the money here.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/why-misogyny-was-the-donalds-trump-card/

Why isn't anyone slating Trump for the actual reasons he should be?

It's too easy to scream, racism, sexism, homophobia etc.. That requires no effort, and frankly I get annoyed when I hear this stuff because it reduces the validity of the terms!

I've heard nothng other than racism, sexism, xenophobia non stop for the last 6 months, and frankly those terms men nothing to most people any more, which is sad because they are the kind of terms that have been powerfull previously, and have evoked real emotion. Now they are laughed off.

Watching ITV and BBC coverage the other night, the word of the night was misogyny, which was used hundreds of times, and there was a succinct moment late into the night when a BBC reporter was asking a female Trump supporter if Trumps performance highlighted 'misogyny', their reaction? To laugh and say 'oh, you're one of those organisations'.

This was the most hurtfull part of the night for me, the denegration of potent terms that have been over used as a quick insult and rebuttle, that now speak more about the person who uses them than the person being accused!!!!

piz "Why isn't anyone slating Trump for the actual reasons he should be?"

which are...?

Pizanfan, you want people to stop using accurate terms to describe Trump?

But maybe you're right in that not enough people give a toss about his misogyny, racism, disablism etc etc. So perhaps the only way to argue against him is to ignore those things and only challenge him on his policies. Depressing that someone who can openly say such things isn't immediately discounted as a valid politician.

I feel this explains it the best:

good article from Hadley Freeman. White men are the most privileged people in the world. White American (and British) men have free access to the same, pretty good, education as the POC and women of those nations, and yet they have to whine and complain when the world doesn't actually hand them everything on a plate.

I'm sick of hearing theses reasons, these excuses, for voting for these hateful people with their hateful policies. I like how she compared them with toddlers!

Trump is the oldest candidate ever, at 70 and with his lifestyle it's incredibly possible that Pence will become relevant, and that should scare people! Pence is a real peice of work!

Trumps policies I disagree with aren't why he is a bad candidate, muslim immigration temporary ban is something other countries are implimenting, and most Muslim countries already do, especially when it comes to refugees. As much as I dislike that him opposing the Paris agreement is so much worse!

His lack of self control emotionally is a worry, he responds to tweets at 3am and is badgered into arguments he should steer away from!

His lack of experience in politics is crazy, his only experience in politics is running for office... TWICE!!!

There are other things that make him a bad candidate, he clearly isn't racist, or sexist, and to keep using those terms demeans those terms and highlights a lack of understanding of the issues of the accuser. It's like a child calling a banana gay, it's lazy and ignorant.

When you say situations of racism occur frequently what do you mean? Please give me an example of when Trump did something out right racist?