> I'd wager that a significant number of votes were cast for Trump as a kneejerk reaction (i.e., pushback) to some extremely vocal groups on the far left making conspicuous attempts to control other people.

Right. I totally agree. I mentioned this just upthread, though in a slightly different context.

The 90% of sane voters are defined by the crazy 5% at either end, because you're either in one party or the other...

Some candidates and some parties are better about not endorsing these loons though, which is all we can ask for. At least to not have their nonsense codified.

> The "Social Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes" have, for the last several years, been [...]

Even though I'm closer to their side than the KKK types at the other end, I too see them as a toxic corruption of the proper message. I do think we need to get rid of bullies, but I don't think that simply having an unpopular attitude is a problem unless you act upon it to actually discriminate, etc.

I don't know the anti-Sarkeesian tweets you mention but I've seen many other baseless fits pitched, so I can imagine.

> The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at "racists" (who may or may not actually be racists — the word gets tossed around so often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless)

Yes, and being someone who cares about actual racism, this bothers me. We can't get proper treatment for real issues if we're executing people for tweets.

> [...] while wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an actual black supremacist movement.

Yeah, I don't know how people can openly support any racist group in the name of wiping out racism.

> I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it.

I remember just as many tantrums from the candidates in the previous elections. (Asking for recounts, mocking the person asking for recounts, etc.) The protests are somewhat new, but they're a peaceful expression of disgust, not riots or anything. They seem totally reasonable, considering the toxic messages flying around.

> President Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the DNC to give him the shaft)

I agree, but I'll point out that both political parties are intended to do this. Because similar candidates are "spoilers" in a first-past-the-post election you need a way to weed out people like you but with slightly less chance of winning. The only issue is that they did it behind closed doors.

This won't be fixed until we have a better process, such as Approval voting, that isn't vulnerable to these problems.

> for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC

I have no faith that he wouldn't have, but it seems unlikely given how much nasty infighting there way.

> I'm more worried about the American people at this point than I am about the president.

Well ultimately, that's the right stance. The president, even elected and in power, can't do anything on his own. Everything he hopes to accomplish can only be enacted by the people. If we do terrible things under his rule it'll be because we were already willing to and just waiting for someone to come along and justify it.