That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama.
A president's economic platform is more important, and Hillary, as did most pundits, mostly retold the old wives tales that globalization necessarily means giving up factories, or that somehow having jobs and motives for building stuff in one's country is obsolete, etc.
That approach might maximize enterprise profits, but not necessarily help middle and lower classes, and general societal wealth. A country can have huge companies, but not get out of them but minimal local jobs and infrastructure (because they outsource those), and not even taxes on their profits (since they use globalized subsidies and other schemes to avoid paying any).
I don't believe that Trump will actually fix that, but he at least (as did Bernie Sanders) paid lip service to the notion, and that counted to a lot of people.
There's also the foreign policy issues. Trump might be a "loose canon" or whatever, but Hillary has been constantly and vehemently pro war / invasion etc. She has threatened Russia and Iran, helped destabilize Syria, Libya, etc.
The very real potential for wars and tons of deaths (on both sides) is more important than whether Trump made misogynistic comments, or spoke against illegal immigration, etc.
This actually touches on what upset me most about this election. It's not so much that I think Trump is going to be horrible. I think he's been vague enough and it's obvious enough that he was playing to his audience that he could roll out Clinton's exact plan tomorrow and I wouldn't be all that surprised. What really bothers me is the support he got based on the persona and values he projected.
That people can equate breaking the rules using a personal email server with recorded audio of a candidate condoning and admitting sexual assault. That one was often brought out to even the score when tallying the reported sins of the candidates leaves me somewhat depressed about the state of my country. I'm left feeling that if a video was presented of Trump actually doing the things he talked about but denied, sure, Clinton would probably have won, but it still would have been close, and I'm left in the position of trying to reconcile what I thought were values most my country believed in with evidence to the contrary.
I think most Trump supporters saw a pattern of behavior in Clinton that they trusted even less than Trump's gaffes. Not so much that they condoned sexual assault, but they'd rather the devil who speaks clearly than the devil who seems to have a secret in every closet.
I understand that sentiment, but I never took Trump as one who spoke clearly. He spoke simply, but not clearly. I think Clinton was actually the clearer speaker by far, with her specific proposals and plans, but she didn't speak simply (and for what it's worth, I'm not sure we should optimize for candidates that speak simply over clearly, as I've covered elsewhere in these comments).
I feel there has to be a formula that defines how many people stop reading for each additional word you add to an informative document.
If you have written a 20,000 word document every time you're asked "Do you support the war in Iraq?" then I'm going to call bullshit.
Holding people accountable for their promises by a democratic electorate is impossible for promises over a certain level of complexity -- the voting mass simply doesn't have the time. And proxying personal research to biased, for-profit news organizations seems to be another feature that's gotten us into this mess.
You are underestimating the effect of a racist speech coming from a person in a position of power. Racists tend to keep their views for their own when are not sure they can speak freely without being judged. When they can speak freely they turn up the tone of the speech (which happened in Trump's rallies).
In Venezuela we had a similar situation when Chavez came to power, not with race but with economical status... At some point you could be yielded at the street just because the way you were dressed (didn't have to be fancy). All that was unheard before Chavez.
So yeah... A bad president can indeed reshape the view and behavior of people. Just wait until he has their own tv show as Chavez did.
We are the country we create, whoever is in power.
I find that pretty amusing.
People just self-regulate their views depending on how is perceived in the environment
(0) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias
Which I guess is great if you're a billionaire and probably get some time with Trump or someone close to him that knows what he actually plans to do.
In the meantime, all the rest of us are left with "I'm going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something great." Forgive me if I would have preferred something a little more substantial. Then again, I would like other people to have preferred that as well. :/
In this case, we have "I will make something great", as if every candidate wasn't implicitly setting out to to do the same and every voter wasn't hoping for the same. So, am I more or less likely to get the outcome I want in this situation? Who knows? I don't because there's no way to, but I would sure appreciate being empowered to at least try to figure that out.
The problem with authoritarian governments is that they can delay plans but never forget about them.
If Thiel really think that, then he is not only an opportunist but also a fool.
A) He was putting money towards the fall of our government as we know it, I think that would be consistent with his previous stances
or
B) He was investing in a future political career in the Republican party
but to be honest, hearing sama's comments on Thiel, it seems like he legitimately really likes Trump.