Well, Well, Well. Isn't this quite a cluster of kerfuffles. If God's faithful followers elected Trump president, they didn't do a very good job of it by giving Hillary the popular vote win. Preciseness People! So now, we are an even more deeply divided nation that for the most part sees power and position as the only way to govern the other 50% of voters who will be looking forward to the next election. Essentially, nothing has changed. Sure, Trump could bring us to the end of the world, but that is bound to happen sooner or later anyway. Until then, maybe a swamp is meant to be a swamp. Given the history of the presidency and congress, this easily could be the case. But even swamps can become too toxic.
My first thought is another four years of gotcha graphics (from the satirical to the idiotic to the threatening, abundant fodder for comedians, blatant lies and barely sufferable talking heads. (I'm talking about you Morning Joseph.) But some say that THIS four years will be so far beyond the norm that by the next election there might not be much that we recognize. I, perhaps foolishly, believe there will be a lot of opposition to wholesale change. Just call me Pollyanna. If so, it will be more like Washington being in a mess for another four years without getting anything done. Meanwhile, issues like immigration, the Middle East, and the economy will continue to fester and bleed.
A second thought is that the idea of having NONE OF THE ABOVE on the ballot is a damn good idea. If it got the most votes there would have to be a whole new slate of candidates. This way you could really make your vote count. Of course, a third party that represented the middle instead of Wall Street Corporations would be nice. The extremes are getting rather ridiculous. One wants to throw the baby out with the bath water and the other wants to fix everything that the baby cries about. (Term limits would be another good idea.)
A third thought is more of a question. Who told the underlying racists they could now freely express themselves in polite company? I believe hate speech is protected speech as is most other kinds a long as it's not destructive or assaultive. Many would disagree with that. I remember Phil Donahue (Google if you don't know that he is Marlo Thomas's husband)) saying once that he would rather know who these people were than be fooled by false rhetoric. No doubt, the PC world has made for a lot of secretive racists who reframed their opinions in code words. It's rather obvious that their newfound freedom lacks the "time and place for everything" idiom. Those who need safe zones so not to hear an offensive opinion might consider how offended others might be by their being so easily offended.
A fourth thought is that as much as some actions are needed, don't assume the promise of change is more important than the personal agenda of an opportunist who claims they have a mandate to rule even though they lost the popular vote. But winning the Electoral College is all that it takes to be legitimately elected. Like it or not, that's the way the system works. There should be no dramatics or violence but threats are inevitable. They seem to be a part of the American way. But so are protests and resistance. It will likely be a very bumpy ride for the winning voters as well as the losers. But I'm quite sure we're ALL way too used to that by now.
BONUS GG
