- It wasn't a landslide victory for Trump. Based on statistics, there were many new Republican voters, including voters who switched sides. The turn-out for Democrat voters were not as high because many took a apathetic stand and assumed that it would be a clear win for Clinton. Did Americans not learn anything from Brexit?
- 3rd party voters really screwed things up for Clinton, and consequently, themselves. All this talk about voting with their 'conscience' is really bullshit because they are really voting with their 'ego'. An election this huge isn't about who you like or dislike, but who - logically speaking - will make the best President for your country. Is it not an obvious choice between a woman who is clearly more qualified with lifelong public service and policy-making experiences, and a racist/sexist/misogynistic man with not much intelligence or human decency? People keep portraying Clinton as a corrupt elite - but isn't Trump just as (if not more) corrupt? Perhaps the only difference is that one flaunts his (moral) corrupt-ness and one doesn't.
- According to Chomsky, 'One of the great achievements of the doctrinal system has been to divert anger from the corporate sector to the government that implements the programs that the corporate sector designs, such as the highly protectionist corporate/investor rights agreement that are uniformly mis-described as 'free trade agreements' in the media and commentary'. What this suggests is that the government by implementing corporate policies, becomes a sort of 'scapegoat' perceived as money-making corrupt bureaucrats. Yes, of course Clinton and the Clinton Foundation are close to money, and represent a group of people that can easily be targeted as corrupt. What does that imply? They've been digging her emails, digging her and her foundation down for years, and nothing substantial has been found.
- It's always cooler and perhaps, even easier, to be anti-establishment, to a point where you lose sight of reality, and the reality is that you now have a mad man as your leader who would probably turn the running of a country into a 'family business' as one friend states. Anti-establishments often lead through rhetoric: big, vague ideas; simplistic logic of 'us' vs 'them', breaking facts down into easy, catchy slogans. As Chomsky says, 'Trump was seen as the symbol of 'change' -- change of what kind requires a careful look at his actual proposals, something largely missing in what reached the public. The campaign itself was remarkable in its avoidance of issues, and media commentary generally complied, keeping to the concept that true 'objectivity' means reporting accurately what is 'within the beltway', but not venturing beyond'.
- Trump voters were not necessarily your lower-income working class; statistic show that people with income bracket of 50k - 90k were strong Trump supporters. Trump voters did have lower education level.
- Trump support is predicated on a false sense of American identity. 'Make America Great Again' or 'Take our Country Back' is really about appeasing white, conservative male Americans. They are afraid of losing their status as the dominant race; not just about losing their jobs but their sense of identity, which was flawed to begin with. National identity should not be seen as something static but something that evolves with the times.
- The tax cut argument doesn't hold up! Trump's tax proposal benefits the rich, people like him, not small-businesses or working class!
- As G says, Trump legitimizes 'Dumb': bad, vulgar language, base instincts, lack of civility. G says Americans feed off drama and sensationalized news; they need to have things blasted loudly into their faces (which explains why people don't think that the country has improved vastly under Obama). Simas states that social media creates 'a new permission structure, a sense of social affirmation for what was once thought unthinkable'. We get lazy, we read off soundbites, choosing what to believe and not to believe, which are often determined by how 'interesting' or how many 'likes' it has received, without really going too much into details.
- We've arrived at an age of populist nationalism and de-globalization. It's not a new or surprising trend, though we would like to have believe the U.S to be better than that. According to Sharma and Fukuyama, there are parallels in the retreat of economies that came after 1914 and 2008. International trade increased, rapid modernization led to social and economic changes that institutions were unable to sufficiently adapt to and keep up with. One analysis is that many worker-retraining measures failed to materialize and were never really implemented as a necessary agenda. Many feel that the establishment has failed them because they see others, including, especially, "minorities / outsiders", make progress while they've been left behind.
- Voters need to be responsible. With Singapore, it's naturally easier to oppose the PAP because they've been the only ruling party since independence. But how many of us really understand the ins and outs of policy making? And do we subject ourselves to the same level of false consciousness as your 'hardworking, white working/middle class' when we ignite fear against immigrants (when we are ourselves of a migrant generation)?
