Election 2016: Post-Mortem

Supporters of one of the two main candidates in the now-concluded 2016 presidential election in the United States - as well as the candidate himself - oppose political correctness. These supporters regularly tell people who disagree with them to "stop being so sensitive", to "quit being triggered" and to "go back to a safe space". Well, allow me to now "tell it like it is".

Enough Americans in key states voted to put a KKK-backed racist, anti-LGBT, anti-disability, sexual assaulter and misogynistic birther advocate in the White House. Why? Because the vast majority of his supporters are angry white people - especially angry white men - who feel threatened by non-whites and women having the same rights as them. Because they don't believe that people who are not like them should be treated with respect. Because they couldn't bear the thought of having a woman succeed a black man as president.

Any attempt to dismiss this and claim that they were just people who were "fed up with the establishment" is utter hogwash. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's opponent is a billionaire and thus, part of that establishment. His poll numbers went up in the Republican primaries whenever he spouted hateful rhetoric. Now that he appears to have won the election, hate crimes have skyrocketed, as evidenced here and here and even more so here. I'm not interested in hearing about how "not all" his supporters are like that; the #notallmen nonsense as a defense doesn't fly with me.

While in the offline world the deplorables are engaging in violence, on the Internet they are running amok, flooding all sort of discussion with their alt-right nonsense and other hate-filled rhetoric. On the Facebook page for actor Bryan Cranston, they are demanding he be "held accountable" and leave the United States after he made an idle threat to move if Clinton lost. They are demanding unity (or perhaps I should say compliance and obeidence) from people who oppose Clinton's campaign rival, forgetting or ignoring that they themselves rejected and sabotaged President Obama since he took office nearly eight years ago. In appears that in their eyes, the 1st Amendment only applies to them, as they consider the election result to be a reason in itself to tell others to "shut up" or "quit crying" if anyone has a differing opinion.

I used the term "Enough Americans in key states" to describe these individuals rather than something along the lines of "the majority voted for". This is because Clinton won the popular vote of the nation, which means that more Americans supported her rather than her opponent. The successor to President Barack Obama has no mandate.

There, I've told it as it is.