Trump is elected as the 45th president of the united states.

What do you guys think?

Share your opinion.

Vote; http://www.strawpoll.me/11645928

Barack was the worst president USA had, even worse than Bush.

Russia is the strongest military nation in the world, you should be ill mentally and politically irresponsible to threaten them for no reason.
Also bad news for ISIS, very bad news for them, they lost their protection...

I feel a war, anyone else?

^ defo, Trump and Putin sending nuclear missiles to blow up whatever country they want. Maybe WW3..... scary thought

Would be scarier if it was USA against Russia..

We've escaped 3 : look at who financed the Clintons and you have your answer.

^ u refering to Saudi Arabia. Look who financed Trump....... Man U

Too many politics. Go easy on this one guys.

I'm truly happy! Between a corrupted lying b*tch (Hillary) and a
arrogante honest idiot clown (Trump), I prefer the clown.

I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER.

Bernie was the only reasonable candidate in the first place, but he was mistaken because of media bias & uneducated americans.

His own fortune ? Dr chelsea between 2 bad choices the worst was Hillary no debate for me and I stop this here, im not really adept of political correctness debates and I don't think anyone read Hillary Clinton emails provided by wikileaks, she financed and helped ISIS for god sake. Between a war criminal and another arrogant billionaire, I made my choice.

@decentk Agreed

@tiki he had a shady way to do that aswell btw. Can't explain it right now, it was too complicated for me.

To do what ? To finance himself or to make money ?

Putin actually strives to improve relations with the U.S., and in this case Trump. Clinton keeps on thinking that she will somehow make Russia worse if she's going to be leader, which she'll never be.

Being a citizen of the U.S., there is actual hope that something will change, because Trump actually has some sort of plan, but Clinton just wants to win for no apparent reason.

Now that Trump is president, we will just have to wait and see...

@SoccerBoss: your statement is too weak, too bias and can be said to both sides, same with other claims.

To us all, Trump is just a blatant left and right mixed up kind of talker, and someone who has a lot of money.

They both suck badly

As far as I know, I'm the only really active American on the forum, so my perspective on this may differ somewhat, but I hope it will offer considerable insight to you all no matter what you think of the outcome or the two candidates that ran.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate that ticked all the boxes of her party, the Democrats. She is a former First Lady of the President, former Secretary of State, has a wealth of experience, and is in every way qualified to be the President from credentials alone. Going into the Primaries (where the nominees are elected party leaders) everyone assumed Clinton would win in a cakewalk. She didn't, for a few main reasons.

1. Bernie Sanders

The Democrats like to offer themselves up as a party that represents the political left, which most Americans accept without a second thought, and which most non-America think is hilarious. There is no left-wing party in America. The Democrats are socially left-center, economically center-right, and militarily right. So when a candidate that actually is a left-winger is exposed to America, it is truly amusing to see their reactions. Sanders ran on a platform that many of us outside America take for granted, less expensive education, government-funded healthcare, cuts to the military, pro-abortion, environmental conscientiousness, and other typically left-wing ideals.

It is important to note that America had not seen anything like it since Communism was big nearly one hundred years ago, and Sanders got labelled a "socialist Jew" pretty quickly. America has never had a socialist as a president, and certainly never a Jew, in fact every single President in American history has been Christian, usually devotedly so, since that is a quality demanded by a faith-dominated section of the country known as the "Bible Belt." You may recognize it as the area in the Midwest and south of the United States that was painted by a big red brush this election.

This meant that the reception Sanders got was very emotionally charged on both sides. The children of the 90's embraced him as they all "felt the burn." For the majority of Democrats, let alone the non-left leaning populace of the country, Sanders represented a threat to established order of the white house that has been more or less in place since John F. Kennedy's assaination - moderate or right-leaning politicians that respected the majority whites and their Christian faith. It is for these reasons that Sander's supporters suffered a considerable amount of unfavorable depiction in the television media. On the internet as we're all aware, it was a profoundly different story, but since the majority of America voters are over the age of 40 (true story) posting on Facebook only does so much.

It is important to note that Sanders would have lost without the DNC's disfavor of him. Unlike Trump, who overcame his party's distrust of him through sheer votes, Sanders could not summon a large group of people to his cause save for millennials, minorities DID NOT come to his rescue, something that is overlooked by the vast majority of his supporters. There is only one group big enough in America to win an election on its own, and that's old white people. Trump got that, Sanders did not.

This left many of his supporters (of whom I know more than a few) noticeably riled up and angry at the Democratic Party. However, the campaign Sanders ran had another fact that was just as important - it forced Clinton to shift her policies to the left in an attempt to pick up Sander's electorate, something that would have her "feeling the burn" on Tuesday.

1. The Problem of Clinton Herself

As anyone who picked up a newspaper in the last year would know, Clinton came with a fair amount of baggage. The hilarious thing is that she was depicted a criminal by her political opponent and the media in general, yet she was never actually convicted of anything. From a fact perspective that seems odd, but in reality it's completely understandable. You may be concerned about your doctor having a malpractice suit against him, regardless of if he was actually convicted, and I think that is a worthy concern. If someone was accused of having sexually assaulted many different people, regardless of if they were found guilty, reservations on them as a person would be expected.

The e-mails are the obvious case, since Benghazi is actually a very simple situation which Clinton had little practical (although admittedly a lot of theoretical) control over. Having over 50k e-mails carrying confidential material on a private server is very serious, and people have had the book thrown at them for less. That being said, a few things should be taken in to account, (a) Clinton was not alone in this, private servers were faster, so nearly EVERY member of government used one, even for confidential material, (b) no material was actually leaked, and (c), Clinton acknowledged wrongdoing. The FBI were not completely transparent in their recommendation that Clinton not receive charges, but they stated that they recommended such being they did not believe that a court would be able to find her guilty. That's important, but it's not the FBI's opinion on what Clinton did, but rather on the likelihood of her actually be convicted based on the evidence that they had.

There were other problems of course, notably her accountability and demeanor. Most of the American voters, myself included, simply didn't trust her. We've had presidents recently, most notably Bush, who said one thing before he was elected and did the exact opposite once he was there. Small government and isolationism my ass Bushyboy. In any case, Clinton's establishment roots didn't exactly endear her to voters who saw her as cut from the same cloth as Bush, or even her own husband. I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN! Ahh memories.

As for her demeanor, voters saw her as cold and aloof. She actually addressed that here:

I felt that was a fair answer, but it didn't change how I felt, and that was that I didn't want to vote for her.

Donald Trump

The President of the United States needs no introduction. You've all seen his face plastered over every newsreel and headline for the last few months. I don't even know where to start, and I probably don't need too. You all know who he is. So I will spend this time not addressing him, but instead, his voters.

There were many good reasons for Americans to vote for Trump. Preventing a left-leaning presidency would have been a reason. Making sure that the vacancy on the Supreme Court was filled by a Conservative would have been an EXCELLENT reason. However, Trump did not campaign on a platform of either of those things. He ran on a platform that appealed to the emotions of a large group of Americans that they were being disadvantaged. He won over the southern states with a hard stance on illegal immigration from Central America, particularly with his dreams of a wall on the border with Mexico. He appealed to the security that every country wants by suggesting bans on Muslims and being more active in the fight against Daesh. Trump depicted a "danger" to the American way of life via crime, terrorism, and secularism that appealed to many people, despite not actually being true. It was summed up quite well by Newt Gingrich, a politician in Trump's camp. (I couldn't find a video without a laugh track, sorry).

But realistically, all of that is immaterial. It's a platform, and voters are perfectly entitled to vote for any political platform they want, that of course, is the point of democracy.

What I, and nearly everyone else, including Trump voters, assumed would sink him was his obvious character flaws. He blatantly lied about events that had happened during the campaign, made disparaging comments against every minority group imaginable, and did every day what other politicians would consider to be political suicide. A few days before the campaign, this happened:

Not even mentioned the raping Mexicans, the disabled reporter, the weight comments about a former Miss Universe, or the statement that he could shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue and not lose any votes, the comment I and everyone else thought would sink him was the infamous "grab them by the pussy" which affected a large group of Trump voters. First off, obviously, the women. Second off, his massive base of Evangelical Christian voters. I didn't see a way out of that one for him, since at best we would be electing a misogynistic asshole and at worst an actual rapist.

The Actual Election

It was an interesting one. Clinton won the exit polls handily, and everyone (even Trump's camp) assumed she would cruise. Obviously, that is not what happened. A breakdown of demographics looks something like this:
Women with a college education got scared off by Trump, and voted in overwhelming numbers for Hillary. College educated men did the same, but not as profoundly. Women without a college degree (whom Clinton was expected to win over) actually split their vote, which after some of Trump's comments surprised nearly everyone. Men without a college degree voted in overwhelming number for Trump, which was expected, since those are the individuals who would feel most hard done by in America right now. Minorities barely supported Trump, but also did not vote for Clinton in the numbers they did for Obama. Millennials voted for third parties or simple didn't vote at all.

This is where it all comes back. I assumed if Trump would win it would be because he got all of the white men to vote his way (since his comments and policy scared off all the minorities/immigrants/young voters and probably should have scared off women - but didn't). That was actually not the case at all. Trump got less of the white vote than Romney did 4 years ago when he ran against Obama. Clinton got slightly less minorities as well, which effectively cancelled it out. Clinton (thank you useless electoral college system) actually won the popular vote like Obama did 4 years ago, but she lost several states (Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, and Florida) by 1-3% of the vote. Third parties, who younger voters came out for, picked up 5% of the vote in nearly all of the above states, a vote that came directly out of Clinton's electorate because of...millennials.

Yep, that's right. Angry at Clinton, angry at the Democratic party, angry at the establishment, younger voters who would have voted Democrat instead put their votes into the Libertarians and Green Parties, at the expense of Clinton and benefit of Trump. Going all the way back to the treatment of Bernie Sanders by the Democrats, young voters remembered and elected perhaps the very anti-thesis of everything Sanders stood for.

As someone who voted for Sanders in the primary, and for Clinton in the election, I find this hard to comprehend. I didn't like Clinton, and against almost any other Republican, I wouldn't have voted for her. But Trump was too much for me. Questioning why the United States didn't use its nuclear power was the final straw for me, and I abandoned the part of me that even questioned if it was wrong to vote for Clinton just to stop Trump. I respect that fact that younger voters wanted to teach the DNC a lesson, but was electing Trump, who stands for literally nothing Sanders does, really the correct decision? Especially when Clinton moved her policy to align more to Sanders' in an attempt to soak of his voters, leaving her vulnerable to the right-center of Americans that ended up voting for Trump? I think hindsight is 20/20, and as Steve Zaragoza noted:

Regardless of the outcome, Trump is now the president. I can disagree with him on his policies, and motives, and wonder why the Evangelical Christians could be such hypocrites that they could elect in a man who is so different for their biblical ideal. I'm not angry at America, I'm just disappointed that Trump could appeal to (what I perceive as) the worst of the America people, and they would validate everything he's done. Now that it's a proven political strategy, we'll have to deal with for Trump's in the future. After all, politics is an imitation game.

I think the best way to leave this is with a line from my favorite show of all time, since it applies wholly to this situation:

@sun As far as I'm concerned, I only follow the US election to see wich criminal will launch the most war for oil or AIPAC interests, i totally ignore the internal issues... Workers voted massively for Trump because companies were closing to open elsewhere in the 3rd world countries, Clinton was financed by Goldman sacks directly involved in 2008 crisis and the main winners of the crisis at the world expense not only US citizens.
Clinton for me is irresponsible in international politics I'm glad to see her not winning, i do not know anything about sanders because I was only interested on potential winners... and im pretty happy the instable woman most.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kTZOy7gA88M

I also think US average citizen has enough from political correctness and wanted to say a big " fu** you " to media and establishement.
Im not a Trump fan, but if I had to choose, Clinton place is in jail not White House.

On ISIS : Assange interview ( WikiLeaks)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k9xbokQO4M0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PJLR1LhxiN0

This is what we escaped from and I'm glad for that. ( please watch, worth the minutes )

@Tiki

I was wonder why you thought Barack's presidency was worse than Bush's... I genuinely thought he was one of the best presidents in the past 30-40 years.

@Dynastian

Agree completely. I thought he should've let the banks responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis die, but it's hard to argue with results. He didn't get aggressive internationally, and did not have control over the house or senate for most of his time as president, making the real change he wanted often impossible.

@tiki

Russia does not have the strongest military in the world. They probably don't even have the second strongest. American military power is pretty much unmatched in the world atm.

This graph is actually true, which is the real joke here. Fact is, just because you have a really impressive military doesn't mean you can win a war against a grassroots foe. We have endless examples of this, from the US in Vietnam, the British in America, and perhaps most notably the USSR in Afghanistan. In terms of flexing ability though, America is totally unmatched.

As for your point regarding the irresonsibility regarding Russia, I agree, but for a different reason. The USA scorned the USSR's Cold War tactics in Eastern Europe, which was incredibly hypocritical because of America's own actions. I know that may rub those who live in former Soviet territories the wrong way, but fact is is that America was the general agressive power/bad guy in the Cold War. The USSR never really provoked the balance of power, even the Cuban Missle Crisis was an attempt to balance the presence of American nukes in Turkey. For those reasons, America has no moral high ground from which to lecture Russia, particularly post-Stalin Russia.

You also mentioned earlier that you think Trump will bring peace...I wish I had your confidence. America loves sticking its fingers in other nation's business, and that largely can to a stop under Obama, and I have no reason to assume that would change under Clinton. Trump is really unpredictable in that catagory, since he has no real foreign policy aside from "eliminate ISIS" while not explaining how he was planning to do so. Fun.

If all you wanted was peace, Trump was certainly the wrong vote in this instance.

@tiki: your point is really bias, do you think if Trump ever involved in foreign policy, he would be a nice guy? Every person in the congress or every work with the white house would have to deal with the foreign shit the way that it favor the US. One way or another. If you watch House of Cards, you will see a bit of the problem, the series covers that quite well.

Im not fan of them both, I think they both shit. But Trump is not a world leader kind of type, he's good for his own crocked business, and you know how bosses work right?

@Dynas: agree. Obama is one of the best president in the last 30 years, he took a country after the crisis and work from there. He's not perfect, he can't please everyone.

We are concern more than "it's just the US" because like it or not, US has a huge influence on world's economy?