Making Trump pay for Clinton defeat?

My conclusion was drawn basically from the undercurrent of white/non-white antipathy, the one pro-Trump, the other pro-Clinton, but which went in favour of Trump because of significant defection of the black and Latino vote to Trump.

This was consolidated no doubt by how proactive he was in his campaigning against a presumptive Clinton, and aided by his down-to-earth message about jobs etc, and in no small measure by the Brexit development.

In this letter I once again go against the grain by asking questions about this “woman power” which reared its head against the new President and seems to have the endorsement of so many.

First, is this a case of disappointment gone awry because of a Trump victory seemingly unthinkable to Clinton supporters? A Trump victory was never on the cards and that seemed to have hurt to a point of total irrationality as with Madonna’s obscene language on the media and her thoughts about burning down the White House.

As to the question of rational behaviour, barring the issue of Russian interference in the election, yet unproven, is not Trump’s victory at the polls constitutional by way of the Electoral College vote which totally negates the argument of the majority vote for Clinton which so many protesters seem to cling to? As to the objectionable policy lines attributed to Trump, do they not carry another side to those objections, providing solutions to long-standing problems? For example, is the wall, either as reality or metaphor, not key to solving illegal immigration from Mexico impacting negatively on jobs for Americans.

And on the issue of jobs, is there not need to apply checks and balances to unfettered free enterprise — so un-American to so many — that involves American factories going to other countries taking the jobs with them? For “jobs” is key to family prosperity and even as climate and environmental issues are important, should these not be balanced with bringing back jobs in coal and regulated fracking and oil exploration? What of Trump’s pro-stance? Does it not provide a balance to pro-abortion activism which finds the first totally unacceptable and grounds for protest? And as for Obamacare, the concern for its replacement is legitimate, but is not the issue of escalating cost sufficient consideration to provide more affordable healthcare, and should extreme vetting for immigrants from pro-ISIS countries not be a priority considering San Bernandino and Florida? The women’s protest highlighted many of these issues but was there any critical evaluation of their merits allowing for informed decisions or is this a classic case of the effects of irredeemable failure reaching a point where logic, fair play and the idea of giving a newly appointed President opportunity to prove his worth are all thrown out of the window and only a primordial desire to make him pay for dashing their hopes and expectations remains? I leave that to your better judgment.

Dr Errol Benjamin ebenjamin522