Jonathan Swift wrote the book on this phenomenon. Remember the Lilliputian war over which end of the boiled egg to crack? People tend to be fractious and xenophobic over the most trivial differences, and we reinforce our sense of belonging by hating and vilifying the "others." Religions have always latched onto this tendency by stirring up hate against other sects.

If memory serves me, I seem to remember that Boko Haram wished to join with ISIS, while ISIS was on the rise. But their reaction was more or less "No thanks, you're not Arabic."

Of course, their tune changed recently as they are loosing battle after battle, area after area.

@ thelargerbowl

Well, the vote is the representation of an Electoral College of intellectuals chosen by the popular vote from each of the parties. These people hold public office and are nominated as Electors during the national conventions of each party, as I understand it. Then, the popular vote decides along majority party lines a proportional number of Electors. If 45 of the 55 possible Electors in California are Democratic, then the thinking is the entire 55 Electoral votes goes towards the Democratic candidate, and so it goes, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska where the Electoral votes remain split along party lines. So, theoretically, if Hillary got the popular vote, her party's proportion of Electoral votes should have easily handed her POTUS.

But, and here's the craziest thing you can imagine, those Electors do not have to vote along party lines. They can vote any way they choose and they did not choose their own party's candidate. Ain't that nuts? The popular vote put Democratic Electors in the Electoral College who decided to shoot their own party in the foot rather than give Hillary the head office job, or in her case, the office head job like Billary enjoyed.

So, no matter how you toss the dice, even the Dems in position to decide what's best for the country did not see it in good hands with their own candidate, popular vote majority or not. Remember, the popular vote is not a sampling of the knowledge of the candidates. It's a sampling of an opinion of them. The Electors are nominated after much unbiased review and examination of their knowledge of the American political landscape, its issues, its foreign affairs and general state of the union are assessed. These people do not represent partisan hardliners. They are Conscientious Objectors keeping America First concerns on the front burner and all other non-POTUS stuff at the State level and lower (back burner). Given the choices, Trump talked about the front burners where Hillary pretty much told them nothing so it did not come down to a coin toss. Trump was the obvious choice at the Electoral (informed) College level.

And, about your parroted supremacist slur, how many people do you think Trump employs? Of them, what is the mix of cultures in their ranks? Of them, what is the mix of genders in their ranks? Now, considering this man cannot continue in business without addressing and embracing the voluminous number of Human Resources issues within the ranks of his employees, I'm pretty sure he's well situated to further his understanding of it across the national and international landscape. His limits are rightly prioritized by the protection of that landscape before he addresses the back burner stuff. How many employees have the previous presidents had to manage? None. They are not accountable for that, never have been and never will be. Trump brings something brand new to POTUS and it's called experience with people at the hourly wage level.

Campaigning - Rhetoric is the stuff of political campaigners. If you believe what you hear on the campaign trail you're anyone's fool - sign up, you'll see. Trump employed tactics he's learned as a head of corporations where he's learned what the people (ignorant masses) want to hear. Hillary thought the coattails of the presiding administration were credentials enough just to play the game and attempt to look the part. But, guess what, Obama's legacy is nothing to stand on so what did she have that was standing out, unique, fresh and promising? Nada. Trump, on the other hand, was talking the shit the majority of people in flyover country wanted to hear and he knew it. Ann Coulter nailed it early on that he'd get elected and why. No one was listening as the Dems steamrolled their way over the mainstream news media with the same old underdog patronizing, self-worshiping, empty-headed reforms the majority, and the Electors, were tired of.

Still, neither candidate bristled with potential so we ended up with the lesser evil.

-----------------------------------------------------------

@Chimp3 -

You can live out your life identifying the compromises people make in their decisions and judgements, or you can compromise that effort and just look for the better things. I chose the latter a long time ago.