Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[PassedOut]

The essence of it is that the regressive Left hates America (the constitution, rule of law, checks & balances, ethical journalism, morality, patriotism, liberty, meritocracy, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, don't tread on me.)

I know and have talked with a lot of people, and not one fits your description.

[y66]

I greatly appreciate awm's thoughtful comments on the topic of making his home elsewhere and kenberg's. This is not an easy decision. Life is short. The world is beautiful AND murderous. Moving isn't giving up. Giving up is giving up. Moving is a rational choice to change one's environment in order to thrive and perhaps engage even more constructively. It's also one of the basic freedoms which, surely, everyone cherishes just as much as they cherish the right of people who don't have this freedom to vote.

 

I recently read an interview with Richard Ford in which he said he had to leave New Orleans at one point in order to write (his wife stayed on longer because she had a job there that she loved and payed the bills). Ford has also more than once observed of the people who never left Mississippi (where he was born, raised and fled): the brave people stayed; and has admitted to being a fan of Walt Whitman's who had

 

the insane notion he could see all of America in a single paysage, who celebrated America for her industriousness but also condemned her for the cruelties of slavery, who was at once in Texas and Brooklyn, at once humble and immodest, the Whitman who declared:

 

This is the city and I am one of the citizens,

Whatever intersects the rest intersects me, politics, wars, markets, newspapers, schools,

The mayor and councils, banks, tariffs, steamships, factories, stocks, stores, real estate and personal estate.

.

I also enjoyed this 2014 story about Paul Kingsnorth

 

George Monbiot, one of the England’s most prominent environmental journalists, is among Kingsnorth’s oldest friends. In 2009, after the manifesto was published, he and Kingsnorth held a debate in The Guardian, for which Monbiot writes a column. It was a heated exchange. Kingsnorth argued that civilization was approaching collapse and that it was time to step back and talk about how to live through it with dignity and honor. Monbiot responded that “stepping back” from direct political action was equivalent to a near-criminal disavowal of one’s moral duty. “How many people do you believe the world could support without either fossil fuels or an equivalent investment in alternative energy?” he asked. “How many would survive without modern industrial civilization? Two billion? One billion? Under your vision, several billion perish. And you tell me we have nothing to fear.”

 

Naomi Klein also sees a troubling abdication in Kingsnorth’s work. “I like Paul, but he’s said rather explicitly that he’s giving up,” she told me. “We have to be honest about what we can do. We have to keep the possibility of failure in our minds. But we don’t have to accept failure. There are degrees to how bad this thing can get. Literally, there are degrees.”

 

On the surface, it can indeed seem as if Kingsnorth is giving up. Last week, he and his wife made a long-planned move to rural Ireland, where they will be growing much of their own food and home schooling their children — a decision, he explained to me, that stemmed in part from a desire to distance himself from technological civilization and in part from wanting to teach his children skills they might need in a hotter future. Yet Kingsnorth has never intended to retreat altogether. For the past three years, he has spent a good portion of his time trying to stop a large supermarket from being built in Ulverston, in northern England. “Why do I do this,” he wrote to me in an email, anticipating my questions, “when I know that in a national context another supermarket will make no difference at all, and when I know that I can’t stop the trend caused by the destruction of the local economy, and when I know we probably won’t win anyway?” He does it, he said, because his sense of what is valuable and good recoils at all that supermarket chains represent. “I’m increasingly attracted by the idea that there can be at least small pockets where life and character and beauty and meaning continue. If I could help protect one of those from destruction, maybe that would be enough. Maybe it would be more than most people do. “

 

It’s an ethic reflected in the novel he has just published. When he was a schoolboy, Kingsnorth told me, his teachers described the Norman Conquest, in 1066, as a swift transformation. An army of Norman and French soldiers from across the channel invaded England and swept away Anglo-Saxon civilization. The old ways vanished, and a new world emerged. He was surprised to learn, much later, that a resistance movement bedeviled the conquerors for a full decade. These resisters were known as the Silvatici, or “wild men.” Eventually William the Conqueror drove them from the woods and slaughtered every last one of them. They were doomed from the start, and knew it. But that hadn’t stopped them from fighting.

 

In Kingsnorth’s telling, it also didn’t stop them from wondering whether they should keep fighting. On the afternoon following the concert, standing in the wooden shelter, he described his novel as being both about the collapse of a civilization and about the collapse of long-cherished certainties about what it means to be civilized. His introductory remarks were lively and entertaining, but nervously so, as if he were reluctant to begin. Later, he told me it was the first time he’d ever read publicly from the book. He read a strange excerpt, a sort of dream vision about a young boy and a stag. “I have no idea which part of my subconscious I dredged this up from,” he later wrote me, “but the conversation they end up having is pretty much the conversation I have with myself at the moment when it comes to what the hell I can possibly do to be of any use at all”:

 

when will i be free saes the cilde to the stag

and the stag saes thu will nefer be free

then when will angland be free

angland will nefer be free

then what can be done

naht can be done

then how moste i lif

thu moste be triewe that is all there is

be triewe

be triewe

 

“I hope these ramblings are of some use to you!” he signed off. “I will have a glass of wine now and try not to worry about it.”

and this poem

 

Then we will go to Europe

 

by Paul Kingsnorth

 

Then we will go to Europe, go

to Venice or Berlin, and live like Rilke

in communes of verse and there,

maybe there, we will shake off this disease

 

which dulls our senses and dulls everything

and spreads like aluminium

and clings like a plastic bag in a high branch,

like crude to a gannet’s feathers. Or

 

if not in the cities then in the forests

or in red caves in red deserts

or around the craters of gunungs in the archipelago

or among sandstone towers in the valleys of the West.

Oh ’

 

I don’t know. Just take me

somewhere it has not yet reached, somewhere

lonely and still real and let me

stand there and feel nothing

and lose the fear and, finally,

breathe.

[awm]

Honestly, I am not out to "change America" or anything like that. Most people react more to emotion and faith-based arguments than facts anyway, and any talents I have don't lie in that direction. In fact the country seems to have voted that (among other things) educated liberal Jewish-Atheist scientists like myself are to blame for most of the country's problems and are not welcome here. By leaving I am very much respecting the election and the will of the electorate! The America I believed existed for the last forty years was quite different from this, but maybe things have changed or I just never knew what was going on in the middle of the country.

 

Like most people, I just want to live a happy life. I want to work at a job that challenges and interests me, where I'm doing something that I believe is good (or at least not bad) for the rest of the world. I want to live in a place where I feel safe and secure, and where my family, friends, and coworkers (who may be of different gender or religion or sexual orientation or ethnicity) are similarly safe and secure. I'd like to have sufficient wealth and freedom that I can do things I enjoy, like traveling and playing bridge, and retiring at an age where I can do those sorts of things full time. Of course I have my political views (which tend to center around believing that properly-run government can be a mechanism to reign in big corporations and to maintain individual safety and security and freedom).

 

In fact many of the standard things Republicans want are good for me personally -- my income is high enough that their tax cuts help me, and I don't directly benefit from the federal programs they most want to cut. Certainly I am bothered by the fact that many of their policies are bad for other people I know (like my wife's students for example) or even people I don't know, and I worry that they will give big corporations too much power to pollute or underpay workers, and that we will see people dying on the streets from easily-curable diseases because basic health care is priced out of reach. But again, I work for a big and powerful company that treats me pretty well so the personal impact is small. A "normal Republican" (like McCain in '08 or Romney in '12 or either of the Bush elections) would not have me considering leaving the country.

 

This election though, seemed very much a referendum on whether people who are not white christians ought to be welcome in this country at all. I don't want to live in a country where bullying is accepted, women can be grabbed by their private parts, and people like me are blamed for problems that we really had nothing to do with. So I'm respecting the will of the electorate and leaving. Yes, I'm sure some of them would rather that I be burned at the stake or at least waterboarded (hey I guess we are doing that again now?) But I'm not going to be quite that obliging.

[kenberg]

Adam, I doubt that anyone wants to waterboard you! On the other hand, if that's the best that can be said for where the country is, I see your point.

 

We will all make our choices. As I mentioned, there was a small family gathering last night, my younger daughter had a birthday. Two grandkids were there, aged 14 and 17. The adults talked about the election, the 17 year old talked about Physics, the 14 year old knew about Terrence Tau and wanted to hear about arithmetic progressions of primes. As to Trump discussion, nobody really had clear ideas, or at least I didn't. My son-in-law favored an all purpose pardon for Clinton, thinking that Giuliani will be the AG and will hope to make life miserable for her. I see the point, but I go with giving Trump/Guiliani/whomever the opportunity to show at least some restraint. Of course it will not be me in the crosshairs. My daughter's view was more of extreme dismay that such a discussion could ever be taking place. On this we could all agree.

 

We will all choose. I am not sure I have much more to say on this whole business of Trump.

[Winstonm]

We progressives made a fatal error in this election cycle in the assumption that reason would overcome rage; however, we never in our wildest dreams understood that our neighbors, those living side-by-side with us were not just the opposition party but genuine enemies.

 

I see today that Trump is already promising to follow through with his "Deportation Squads". Just what this country needs is bands of roaming police and military rounding up people at the point of a gun. What will be next, the brown-shirts and Trump Youth pointing out detractors?

 

Make no mistake. It is not Trump that is so dangerous to freedom. It is the people who supported or ignored his vitriol and voted him into office.

[Winstonm]

There were many people who may or may not be racist, but are definitely sick of all the politically correct nonsense being pushed down their throats. Trump's message inspired them to vote.

 

It may come as a shock to you that political correctness is simply a matter of following the teachings of Christ to treat others as you would have them do to you. Or easier still, it is simple civility. It is simply a matter of respect to describe someone as challenged rather than retarded. In fact, political correctness is more an acknowledgement that the randomness of evolution could have left you with the same malady, affliction, or disability and it shows compassion for those who nature treated less kindly.

 

To bitch and hate the idea of having to be speak with compassion about another human being is quintessentially racist.

 

Live with it - the bigot you describe lives in your mirror.

[Winstonm]

 

This election though, seemed very much a referendum on whether people who are not white christians ought to be welcome in this country at all. I don't want to live in a country where bullying is accepted, women can be grabbed by their private parts, and people like me are blamed for problems that we really had nothing to do with. So I'm respecting the will of the electorate and leaving. Yes, I'm sure some of them would rather that I be burned at the stake or at least waterboarded (hey I guess we are doing that again now?) But I'm not going to be quite that obliging.

 

There are elements of this society who would do just that - maybe worse - do we forget so soon the lynchings of the KKK, the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, or the murder of Martin Luther King Jr.? There are people in this country who would mimic Isis and kill with no compunction those with whom they hate for no other reason than they are different than themselves.

 

The ugliest part of this election is that those people - a violent minority - were granted a voice by Trump, who at every rally urged hate and violence and discrimination, and were then legitimized by every single person who marked a ballot for Trump, regardless of their reasoning to do so.

 

If you do not actively say no to bigotry, you are in silent agreement. From this you cannot hide.

[jonottawa]

There are people in this country who would mimic Isis and kill with no compunction those with whom they hate for no other reason than they are different than themselves.

 

Yes, they're called Islamic terrorists. They not only WOULD mimic ISIS, they HAVE mimicked ISIS, and they will again. And President Trump will protect America from them.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

 

Democrats are the party of media bias and collusion, of the constitution meaning whatever the popular culture of the day thinks it should mean, of a corrupt Justice Department, of open borders, of globalism, of rigged primaries, of election fraud, of immorality, of misandry, of hedonism, of degeneracy, of deadbeat dads, of prescription drug addiction, of corruption, graft, bribery & lobbyists calling the shots. Many of them call for the murder of the President-elect & the rape of the future First Lady (both hashtags are trending on Twitter.) And just here on this forum, we can see how offensively many behave, violating the rule against personal attacks again and again.

 

President Trump rejects all that. God bless him. And God bless the country that elected him in a landslide.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEddipbpkw

 

https://youtu.be/zY3nRgEZTm8?t=5m47s

[Winstonm]

Yes, they're called Islamic terrorists. They not only WOULD mimic ISIS, they HAVE mimicked ISIS, and they will again. And President Trump will protect America from them.

 

Some day you may find out you live in a real world rather than imaginary - for your sake I hope you do.

[hrothgar]

Yes, they're called Islamic terrorists. They not only WOULD mimic ISIS, they HAVE mimicked ISIS, and they will again. And President Trump will protect America from them.

 

Winston made a serious point.

 

Are you unable to understand it or do you just find it amusing to play the idiot?

[Winstonm]

This says it better than anything I have seen thus far.

Here’s Why We Grieve Today

NOVEMBER 9, 2016 / JOHN PAVLOVITZ

 

I don’t think you understand us right now.

 

I think you think this is about politics.

 

I think you believe this is all just sour grapes; the crocodile tears of the losing locker room with the scoreboard going against us at the buzzer.

 

I can only tell you that you’re wrong. This is not about losing an election. This isn’t about not winning a contest. This is about two very different ways of seeing the world.

[rmnka447]

It may come as a shock to you that political correctness is simply a matter of following the teachings of Christ to treat others as you would have them do to you. It is simply a matter of respect to describe someone as challenged rather than retarded. In fact, political correctness is more an acknowledgement that the randomness of evolution could have left you with the same malady, affliction, or disability and it shows compassion for those who nature treated less kindly.

 

To bitch and hate the idea of having to be speak with compassion about another human being is quintessentially racist.

 

Live with it - the bigot you describe lives in your mirror.

 

Political correctness wouldn't be that much of a problem if it were used simply as you define it. But, unfortunately, some progressives try to use it as a club to silence any disagreement with what they see as the only acceptable view of social and political issues. You ought to read "The Silencing" by Kirsten Powers. She is a dyed-in-the-wool LIBERAL and CNN contributor. She wrote the book to point out by chapter and verse of how the radical left is attempting to coopt free speech and discussion in this country. She's labeled them "illiberal" liberals. It's chilling because the behavior described points back not only to similar behavior during the right wing McCarthyism of the '50s, but even further to the kinds of things that the Nazis did to try to take over Germany in the '30's.

[Winstonm]

Political correctness wouldn't be that much of a problem if it were used simply as you define it. But, unfortunately, some progressives try to use it as a club to silence any disagreement with what they see as the only acceptable view of social and political issues. You ought to read "The Silencing" by Kirsten Powers. She is a dyed-in-the-wool LIBERAL and CNN contributor. She wrote the book to point out by chapter and verse of how the radical left is attempting to coopt free speech and discussion in this country. She's labeled them "illiberal" liberals. It's chilling because the behavior described points back not only to similar behavior during the right wing McCarthyism of the '50s, but even further to the kinds of things that the Nazis did to try to take over Germany in the '30's.

 

I don't understand why you would point to the most radical extremes of the political spectrum to try to make a point about political correctness - when the extreme right speaks of violence and hate. We all know extremes are unhealthy, either way. This election was sad because the extremes were legitimized by the President-elect.

[barmar]

Again I wonder, how much of this is truth versus hoax.

From http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/12/post-election-spate-hate-crimes-worse-than-post-911-experts-say/93681294/

The [southern Poverty Law Center], which tracks hate crimes, says it has logged more than 200 complaints since the election, and while it could not provide a figure for the average number of complaints it takes in each day, Cohen assured that the number is much larger than what is typical.

[mike777]

1) I hope posters stop with the SPLC it has lost all credibility for months if not years.

2) As for the election, as I understand it Clinton lost 4 million votes from 2012, not gained but lost.. as I understand it Trump gained zero or something less than zero .enough said.

 

 

 

I read about millions of people not accepting and causing millions of dollars of damage not accepting the election of an old white guy a very old white guy who is ...fill in the blank. I guess since he is white and male killing people and causing millions in destruction is a side note see 60 minutes tv....tonight.

 

 

-----

 

 

see my notes on a minority who stop in trusting institutions.

Please read history from roughly 1912-1914, revolution only requires an angry minority....and distrust in institutions.....

[helene_t]

Political correctness wouldn't be that much of a problem if it were used simply as you define it. But, unfortunately, some progressives try to use it as a club to silence any disagreement with what they see as the only acceptable view of social and political issues.

Ha-ha, I upvoted a post that was also upvoted by Jon :)

 

To me, the expression "political correctness" has a silly connotation, something like making up awkward ways of saying things in a way that make them sound less derogatory. Such as "visually challenged" which is in fact much worse than "blind" because the use of the word expresses the view that concept is awkward.

 

On the other hand, I also think that it is easy as a priviledged person who does not belong to any socially disadvantaged group to underestimate how hurtful it is if people make silly jokes or advocate "profiling". For example, when Dutch media discuss the "blackfacing" tradition of the St Nicolas celebration, I find it difficult to relate to it, but then I try to imagine how I would feel if people were making fun of transsexuals in a similar way.

 

I prefer to talk about decency instead of political correctness. Yeah it is just semantics, I know. But to me, political correctness sounds like a taboo on discussing anything that is politically inconvenient, such as for example oppression of women in non-Western ethnic communities.

 

Also I think that "politically correct" is an oxymoron. Something can be factually correct, or it can be politically convenient.

[hrothgar]

You ought to read "The Silencing" by Kirsten Powers. She is a dyed-in-the-wool LIBERAL and CNN contributor.

 

Once upon a time, she might have been a liberal, however, she had one of those road to Damascus type epiphanies and now self identifies as an evangelical Christian.

 

This was about the same time that she started associating with outlets like Regnery Publishing...

[hrothgar]

 

To me, the expression "political correctness" has a silly connotation, something like making up awkward ways of saying things in a way that make them sound less derogatory.

 

"Political correctness" is an expression of tribalism.

Its a club that folks can use to attack liberals for being sanctimonious.

 

Don't get me wrong, I went to Wesleyan University where political correctness is a way of life...

[There is actually a character in the movie "PCU" vaguely based on me]

 

With this said and done, I find it remarkable that the same people who rail against Political Correctness also get mortally offended when people label them with expressions like "Basket of Deplorables".

 

Simply put, it's the not the behavior of the liberals that their critics disapprove of, rather, the only question is who is being targetted

[Zelandakh]

Funny, but one of the prime factors that drove some people to vote for Trump at the end was the thought that Hillary Clinton would be appointing Supreme Court justices.

 

Progressives/liberals only have themselves to blame. It seems like whenever they talk about judges it's in terms of appointing judges who agree with the liberal agenda and will essentially rubber stamp it. But judicial appointments should never be about enabling anyone's agenda -- progressive or conservative.

Could you name the last 5 judges appointed by Republican presidents that were liberal in their views and supported a woman's right to choose?

[Al_U_Card]

 

The essence of it is that the regressive Left hates America (the constitution, rule of law, checks & balances, ethical journalism, morality, patriotism, liberty, meritocracy, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, don't tread on me.) And many Americans still love America. And so the regressive Left has decided in its infinite wisdom to replace Americans who love America with foreigners who hate America as much as they do.

Rather, they hate people with ideas that do not conform to their own. Difference, for them, means insecurity and that breeds fear which adequately explains the visceral and vituperative attitude. The smug and sanctimonious attitudes come from life in an echo-chamber where self-congratulatory platitudes replace reasoned debate and skeptical attitudes.

[PassedOut]

Funny, but one of the prime factors that drove some people to vote for Trump at the end was the thought that Hillary Clinton would be appointing Supreme Court justices.

 

... judicial appointments should never be about enabling anyone's agenda -- progressive or conservative ...

 

If the courts ever become widely politicized, then we're well down the slippery slope to a totalitarian government.

Trump: Roe v. Wade is dead

 

In his first prime-time television interview since his upset victory on Tuesday, Mr. Trump repeated his promise to name a Supreme Court justice who opposed abortion rights and would help overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized them, returning the issue to the states.

 

Asked where that would leave women seeking abortions, Mr. Trump, on the CBS program “60 Minutes,” said, “Well, they’ll perhaps have to go — they’ll have to go to another state.”

[kenberg]

Ha-ha, I upvoted a post that was also upvoted by Jon :)

 

To me, the expression "political correctness" has a silly connotation, something like making up awkward ways of saying things in a way that make them sound less derogatory. Such as "visually challenged" which is in fact much worse than "blind" because the use of the word expresses the view that concept is awkward.

 

On the other hand, I also think that it is easy as a priviledged person who does not belong to any socially disadvantaged group to underestimate how hurtful it is if people make silly jokes or advocate "profiling". For example, when Dutch media discuss the "blackfacing" tradition of the St Nicolas celebration, I find it difficult to relate to it, but then I try to imagine how I would feel if people were making fun of transsexuals in a similar way.

 

I prefer to talk about decency instead of political correctness. Yeah it is just semantics, I know. But to me, political correctness sounds like a taboo on discussing anything that is politically inconvenient, such as for example oppression of women in non-Western ethnic communities.

 

Also I think that "politically correct" is an oxymoron. Something can be factually correct, or it can be politically convenient.

 

 

I have long wished for the retirement of the phrase "political correctness" for reasons such as you state. I would add one more: There are real issues to be discussed, some of them difficult. Of course there are bigots out there, and of course there are those who have a rigid list of thoughts that cannot be expressed or considered. It is way to easy to dismiss an honest effort at solution by leveling charges of bigotry or of politically correct rigidity. Sometimes people are really trying to address a problem.

 

 

But Donald Trump is a special case in this, as he often is. Saying something along the lines of "I know it isn't politically correct but she is an ugly fat cow" is hardly a brave departure from political correctness. Ugly rudeness is ugly rudeness, it has nothing to do with being, or not being, politically correct.

 

Here is an example of what I mean about honest discussion. Apparently HC did not draw nearly as much of the Latino vote as she hoped and expected. Why not? I have a suggestion. I do not at all like being classified, in discussion of voting, as an old white male. Possibly Latinos do not like being lumped together either. As the campaign wore on (and "wore" is certainly the correct word) we kept hearing about how HC would do well in such and such a state because there is a large Latino population or a large Black population. As if this ethnic feature defined the person. Really, it is stereotyping. The Latino farm worker could well have different political views from the Latino businessman, and they might both differ from the Latino mathematician. Not that all farm workers or all businessmen or all mathematicians think alike either, but at least if people are grouped by occupation the members of that group have something in common other then ethnicity.

 

In my opinion the Dems placed far too much reliance on ethnic factors. I am an old white male. I am fine with acknowledging this. No problem. I take my senior discount at Burger King. And I laughed when the person behind the counter suggested that she might need to see an ID to verify this. I just resent it if someone thinks that "old white male" defines me.

[Al_U_Card]

I just resent it if someone thinks that "old white male" defines me.

It just describes us, Ken. Our life experience and the perspective that it has brought us, defines us. Only we can change that and no amount of incoherent ranting by immature egotists is sufficient to make a difference unless we so choose.

[olegru]

I found this article written by Russian emigrant like me. It pretty good reflects my opinion, at least one side of it. Article was in Russian, translation is mine, sorry, not very good.

American students ask for vacation to handle the upset caused by the results of the election. They need time to cry. It is a standard in USA now. But, notice those crying babies are the same people who wish you death, call you Hitler and so on only because you do not agree with them. The current problem of USA is the dictate of infantile, hysterical dictators who behave like the 3 year old. They never knew real problems; from the early childhood they got used to think that theirs opinion is the only correct one. This is the source of offended-culture.

If adult hears something unpleased, he just goes away, as long as nobody got hurt. Not our crybabies. They immediately start to dictate others how they should speak and how they should think. They think that because they are not pleased to see or hear something, they have right to teach others. All protests we see are the apogee of the culture of distractive toddlers behavior, unaccepting any opinion that different from own and disliking people who dare to say “No”

Americans, who are highly empathic nation, permitted that culture to exist, but it went out of control. Many people simply afraid to open their mouth, in order do no accidently offend somebody. America demonstrates what would happened if you allow children to rule. We became dictatorship State. It is not dictate based on any kind of social inequality, it is the dictate based on relationship of weak victim and strong man who is in fault by default. Yes, man is in fault because he let that situation arise. Now any attempts to change the situation cause hysterics and well known labels: "racist, bigot, chauvinist, misogynist, privileged". Those labels are not reflection of reality, but weapons. If you hear somebody (Trump for example) blamed by using of this words, don’t hurry to believe. It could be true, but much more probably that it is just methods to apply pressure to return the control.

The USA society of today is society ruled by sensitive offended dictators who does not allow the small deviations from “I wish that way”, and react like small children to get what they want by starting to cry, tear, curse and intimidate. The second part of society are “parents” who endure all of that, because they were told many times that any negatives, including the word “No” is a life-long trauma for child.

Trump is perceived as a big man who does not give a damn for all psychologists’ recommendations. His election is the hope for people to free themselves from the tyranny of forever offended.

People hope to return the liberty to think and to say whatever they want, not what is politically correct. The liberty to have own opinion. Liberty to joke way they like.

Try an experiment.

Say to people who support Clinton that you are Trump supporter. They will react strongly trying to put their ideology on you. In the best case, they will insult your opinion, more often they will label and insult you personally. They could even break relationship with you.

Now try to say people who support Trump that you are Clinton supporter and see the difference. With small exceptions, they will naturally accept the fact that friends could have different opinion and it is not the reason to change anything in relationship with them.

According my personal observation result of election was caused by the choice of adult people, who did not like both candidates. The kept their opinion in silence, but from two evil prefer Trump. At least he could tolerate existence of the different opinion. They are not proud by the chose they made, but they did not have better choice available. Enough is enough.

[cherdano]

These people oppressed by political correctness sure get offended very easily...