President Elect Trump

rustneversleeps

thats good. you have to keep the cape crispy, no wrinkles.

in seriousness Vaggar, whats to defend? she ran a horrible campaign and lost. she had the Presidency set up on a silver platter and couldnt get it done. and that sucks for all the rationally minded folks that put their faith in her stopping the Donald madness. whats it say about her when with all the terrible shit we know about The Donald, she still couldnt win an election? its time to move on. i'd be embarrassed to still be "defending" hillary clinton now 5 weeks after she dropped the ball. she failed, we lose. pretty simple. the drama isnt necessary. but it seems like shes your Jesus Christ, so maybe thats why you defend her colossal failure?

rustneversleeps

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay
what exactly makes Hillary such a disgusting liar? And why not just not vote or vote third party then vote for someone you despise so much?

i dont despise her. but she was far from perfect is my point. is that too hard for you to comprehend? believe it or not, there really are a few of us left who actually dont toe a party line and will call a spade a spade. i owe no allegiance to hillary clinton. she failed. i thought she was the best candidate for America, thats why i voted for her. that doesnt mean i have to stomp my feet and look past the fact that she is very flawed herself. that was my point, we all voted for her and she had a laundry list of shit following her too. maybe you didnt read that part?

rustneversleeps

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay
what exactly makes Hillary such a disgusting liar? And why not just not vote or vote third party then vote for someone you despise so much?

can you point out where i said i "despise" her, or where i called her a "disgusting liar"? its this type of dramatic overreaction that makes radical liberals hard to stomach.

BS44325

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

vaggar99

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

InHiding80

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-met-paul-ryan-today-attend-rally-louisiana/story?id=44069147

"I don't need your vote anymore!"

Let the Trumpgrets increase in 3...2...1!

BS44325

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.

benjs

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

As BS has stated (which you chose to ignore and rant over), this was an election for change. It is exclusively your assumption that people didn't weigh the upside potential of positive change alongside the downside potential of harmful social rhetoric, against the proven track record of Clinton's continuation of the status quo (complete with all the perceived lack of speaking for the people) without that social rhetoric. The mental math came out predominantly Trump for enough people in enough states, and any retroactive analysis of the psychology behind those votes can only be conjecture.

Also, name-calling won't get you anywhere: if you're opposed to Trump's words, why don't you practice what you preach and speak decently? For example, the term "cries like a bitch" is quite sexist - maybe you should resign from the Ten Club forums.

Go Beavers

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.

A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

BS44325

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

To repeat again it is not something that I am trying to sell. I would not expect anybody on here to come to grips with what I am trying to explain or to "buy" my responses. This is generally a board of unpersuadables and that is ok. Just recognize going forward that not much attention can or should be paid towards an unpersuadable as it is a waste of time.

BS44325

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.

A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.

The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.

Go Beavers

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.

A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.

The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.

Electorate is another word for voters.

BS44325

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.

A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.

The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.

Electorate is another word for voters.

Oh. Sorry. Didn't realize that you're one of those "popular vote" people.

JimmyV

I don't think this is measurable in any way but I do think there might be a bloc of Trump voters who cast their votes for him as a protest against Clinton but without ever seriously believing he would win. I cast my vote for Sanders in the primary in part because I couldn't bring myself to buy into Hillary Clinton. In the general I turned to Gary Johnson. For many the idea of a third party is a non starter. How many people went to the polls believing she had their state locked up and voted for him out of spite or protest? I'm betting there are some out there.

Go Beavers

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.

A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.

The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.

Electorate is another word for voters.

Oh. Sorry. Didn't realize that you're one of those "popular vote" people.

Yes, I'm one of those who know that this election wasn't about change. At least not the change you're thinking.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

JimmyV said:

I don't think this is measurable in any way but I do think there might be a bloc of Trump voters who cast their votes for him as a protest against Clinton but without ever seriously believing he would win. I cast my vote for Sanders in the primary in part because I couldn't bring myself to buy into Hillary Clinton. In the general I turned to Gary Johnson. For many the idea of a third party is a non starter. How many people went to the polls believing she had their state locked up and voted for him out of spite or protest? I'm betting there are some out there.

There's an element of truth to this. And it does support BS's assertion of people voting for change.

I still maintain the majority of Trump voters bought his garbage.

BS44325

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.

A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.

The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.

Electorate is another word for voters.

Oh. Sorry. Didn't realize that you're one of those "popular vote" people.

Yes, I'm one of those who know that this election wasn't about change. At least not the change you're thinking.

My bad. I didn't realize I was in a discussion with a "popular vote" person. It's a totally different playing field. Can't advance into a discussion on anything else when there is a general dispute on the basic rules to begin with. All good.

Go Beavers

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.

A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.

The electorate went for Clinton? I must have missed that part but in terms of Trump's ability to make the "right decisions" you are correct...it is a gamble. A majority of states decided it was a gamble they were willing to take compared to the alternative.

Electorate is another word for voters.

Oh. Sorry. Didn't realize that you're one of those "popular vote" people.

Yes, I'm one of those who know that this election wasn't about change. At least not the change you're thinking.

My bad. I didn't realize I was in a discussion with a "popular vote" person. It's a totally different playing field. Can't advance into a discussion on anything else when there is a general dispute on the basic rules to begin with. All good.

If that's what you need to say to bow out, that's okay. I don't know what popular vote person is, I'm saying losing the popular vote proves your conclusion that this was a vote for change, false.

JimmyV

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

JimmyV said:

I don't think this is measurable in any way but I do think there might be a bloc of Trump voters who cast their votes for him as a protest against Clinton but without ever seriously believing he would win. I cast my vote for Sanders in the primary in part because I couldn't bring myself to buy into Hillary Clinton. In the general I turned to Gary Johnson. For many the idea of a third party is a non starter. How many people went to the polls believing she had their state locked up and voted for him out of spite or protest? I'm betting there are some out there.

There's an element of truth to this. And it does support BS's assertion of people voting for change.

I still maintain the majority of Trump voters bought his garbage.

I would agree that a large portion of Trump voters did buy into the garbage. The change argument is hard because I see some evidence for it, but I also see President Obama's approval ratings. He isn't an unpopular President nationally. So I'm not quite sure how his popularity and a desire for change mesh together. I think the greater problem was Hillary Clinton and an electorate that did not want her. If it was, say, Joe Biden at the top of the ticket, do we see the same result? I don't know. Maybe we do but we'll never know for sure.