Still hurting,

you have to accept that I am not attacking or being demeaning in any manner.

But before I can try to help, I would need to understand what you mean by two things.

What "Lies about Hillary perpetuated by the far right also have become the truth to many." are you talking about? If you can provide specifics, then this could be addressed.

Also why are you angry that "so many people who hated both candidates either didn't vote at all or, more importantly, voted for a 3rd party candidate."?

Regarding the anger towards the third party vote. I disagree in a major way. The only way to get better candidates than the two horrid dogs we got is to make a statement. Frankly, my opinion is that not enough people did it. Voting for a third party sends the message that if you don't put up a person worthy of our vote, then you won't get it. The Hispanic community did just that and will have forced the Democrats to put forth someone who isn't just going to assume they are guaranteed votes. In my opinion, everyone should have done that and forced both parties to put forth candidates worthy of America and the American people.

Clinton, like Trump, was a flawed candidate. She lies about nearly everything and people saw that for what it was. She was tied to the current administration and government status quo. She is an insider and people are not happy with the way things are going on inside.

The last 8 years have seen the country become more and more divided. The Democrats have blamed the Republicans for a lot of it (some of it founded) but have ignored how their party and President has utilized class and racial divides routinely. Racial tension is higher than i has been in a long time and it has allowed both sides to say and do things that are (or should be unacceptable). Things like accepting BLMs movement and stances seem to be a step back in racial relations and brought forth language and postures previously found unacceptable. As a result, voicing the counter commentary became acceptable. So much so that Trump could say things without retribution that would have killed a candidacy previously.

There is a schism between urban and rural. Urban people look down at Rural people with an elitist snobbishness that many find distasteful. Coloring rural people as ignorant racists. This was bound to create a backlash and it did here.

Globalization is not liked by all. A significant number of people do not want this. The ignoring of this faction is what caused the shock of Brexit and other votes around the world. It played a part in this election too.

Voting for or against Clinton just because she is a women is as silly as voting for or against Obama because he is a man of color. It happens, but is insane that gender or color should be something to hang your hat on.

It isn't one thing that happened here. It is numerous issues. The last 8 years have not been pleasant to a lot of people. This was in part a reaction to all that.

The fact that the race was even close (let alone lost) against Trump should have folks not questioning the voters, but how someone like Clinton was put forth. And the same the other way. The fact that Trump was in such a close race (losing the popular vote) against such flawed candidate as Clinton should have the Republicans seriously rethinking themselves.

I guess it is just easier to blame the voters and sexism or racism. That way you don't have to deal with the myriad of other issues. It truly was a sad day. Not when Trump was elected, that was just a result, but when those two candidates were put forth. Very sad.

But first let me say that racism does exist in the US and many other places around the world. No doubt about it and it is horrid. There is also bigotry and racial divide around the world. The fact that such a comment about the first lady would be made and then supported is certainly an indication that it exists, if you weren't aware of it before. It isn't just a white thing either. It goes both ways. I truly believe that we were heading towards, as the famous quote goes, "I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood." We weren't there by any means, but we were heading in that direction.

In the past 8 years we have seen a President support through words the belief that criminals were unjustly shot by police officers. How did he do this? Not by saying that, but by addressing the press reports of things immediately as tragic, without knowing all the facts. Is it tragic that a young man got shot? Yes. Is it tragic that a criminal charging an officer got shot? Not so much. Loss of life is, by definition, tragic, but there are degrees.

It is a subtle process in many ways. When he says that Travon could have been his son, it places an importance upon the event that wouldn't have been there. It is an unnecessary statement that heightens racial tensions. When he addresses very quickly the tragic shootings of minorities, without knowing all the facts, but takes his time to address those non-minority shootings. The press plays a part in this and then he reacts to it, when he should be silent until all the facts are known. It is his tone and manner in addressing the everyday shootings that do it.

This is enough to embolden groups like BLM to turn King's dream upside down. Separate meetings for organizers so that they can have "safe spaces", separate dorms for minorities, etc. all go without comment by the President who is quick to comment on the tragedy without knowing the facts. It promotes a racial divide. By allowing and often meeting with and supporting ideas that are not directed towards King's dream, but appear to be blaming white's for everything, he helps to create a racial divide.

Also, the defense by many of his supporters to any criticism of him or his policies is "opposition is due to his being black" is allowed to stand, if not encouraged, has helped fuel the racial divide we are seeing now. It certainly couldn't be because they don't like the policy, it has to be because he is of color. Do you not see how that fuels racial divide?

The whole socialist programs to redistribute wealth. Rhetoric directed at those few who have gained massive wealth under the free market that is in place are deemed to be bad people and somehow that is unfair, starts to pit class against class. Obamacare is actually a form of that. It was seen for what it is (by the courts)as a tax upon the wealthy. The it's time they pay their fair share mantra pits the classes against one another.

Both these issues have grown under this Administration. As I said elsewhere, when the rhetoric of BLM was deemed acceptable it allowed for the equally horrible voice of the other side to become acceptable. I truly believe Trump, in the past, would not have survived some of the comments he made if we already didn't have a lot of flaming rhetoric out there.

I have answered your question, I could go on and on about it, but I think that gives you a sense of how it appears to have happened. So let me ask you this. You seem to be blaming Trump for the racial divide (or at least saying he is expressing it). Why do you think that after 8 years of a President of color we are so racially divided? It certainly can't be because of Trump as he is relatively new to the political scene. Why do you think it is?

but I assume it is some shot at me. Coming from someone who refuses to answer questions asked of them, it seems kind of silly to participate in this behavior.

I have been pretty open about my disdain for both candidates. I have been open regarding my dislike of Bush and many of his policies. I have been open about my dislike of Obama and his policies.

So rather than trying to be coy, why not just be open about what you are trying to say to/about me.

Or will you now run away and say that I have been condescending so that you don't have to address any topics you start?

you asked a question, I tried to provide context. Will you actually address the topic or just try to take shots as that is easier?

quick to jump on the pony express, I figured you were just ducking yet another issue.

You two are right. I do have a horse in this race (yes I figured out your cute little dig). It just isn't the horse or race you think it is. My race is against bigotry, racism, intolerance and sexism. You two think you know me. You probably have me pegged as some sort of closet conservative. You just don't get it. I could try to explain my belief s and how I got them, but the truth is you aren't interested in them. You have shown no desire to actually understand any differing viewpoints. I don't like the policies of Obama or Clnton or Trump or Bush. Other than Trump, they are currently irrelevant. Trumps comments are disgusting and bother me tremendously.

I have answered every question placed to me. I provided why people would vote against Clinton for reasons other than bigotry. Yet you two ignore it. I have provided reasons why some folks might see racial and class tensions have increased due to Obama. Yet you two find it cute to bring up ponies.

I have tried to discuss topics in a reasonable manner. So you know what, I am going to take a page out of murphyslaw book. I am going to disengage from this conversation. You probably didn't know that we were engaged. I am assuming that the proposal involved a great amount of alcohol. So bluster and type whatever you want when ever you want. It is clear you don't really want any discussion so I am out on this topic.