> Have you not been putting attention? He lies, lies, and lies to cover the lies and people do not care.
People don't care because they expect politicians to lie. Hillary had her fair share of lies also. So we need a different yardstick to judge candidates beyond he/she lies.
With regards to paying attention, I have been paying attention to this entire campaign and while paying attention I noticed that the version of Trump I saw in that speech was very different from the version of Trump that was portrayed in the media during the entire election campaign - from words to demeanor to tone.
It wasn't just a small difference either, it was a stark difference. This means one of two things:
1) After winning a mandate (presidency, house, senate) that validated his entire campaign message, he decided to switch tactics and tone and give up bigotry and hatred in favour of unity.
Or
2) The way he was portrayed by the media during the campaign was inaccurate, and his message has been one of unity and nation building all along.
There is significant amount of evidence to show the latter, but either choice bodes well for the future.
I'd put it at about 75% (1) (and we'll see how long that switch lasts; I really hope he manages to keep it up, although experience makes it difficult to be too optimistic) and 25% (2). The media really wanted stories about what a horrific boor Trump was. I expect they were good for clicks, and also I'm sure the vast majority of the college educated, urban members of the media honestly believed, as I do, that Trump wasn't fit for the Presidency, and wanted to convey that to others. A lot of the time he obliged; sometimes he didn't, and so they stretched to make it fit. ("Kicking out" the mother and baby from the speech was one of the most egregious examples.) Ultimately they did their own cause a disservice, as many people wrote off all Trump reporting as biased, and he ended up getting away with a great deal that he shouldn't have.
I watched his acceptance speech live and was mildly encouraged. I still have grave doubts, but since there's no going back, all we can do now is make the best of it.
> "Kicking out" the mother and baby from the speech was one of the most egregious examples.
That was one example of stretching things to make them fit, others included:
* Trump wants to build a database of Muslims (if you look at the transcripts it was actually the reporters suggesting this, not Trump, Trump moved on to talking about something else (the wall) and the reporter kept asking questions and took his replies as if he was talking about the database).
* Trump mocked a disabled reporter (the reporter's disability was completely different from the impersonation Trump did but coincidentally a freeze frame from the video had a pose similar to a picture of the reporter. So either he knew of the reporter's disability but was doing a completely different impersonation, or he didn't know of reporter's disability and was doing a completely different impersonation - either way he wasn't mocking the reporter's disability).
* Trump called for the assassination of Hillary Clinton and Supreme Court justices (transcripts clearly show the context was talking about exercising voting rights).
The list goes on, and on, and the more you look in to it, the more you see example after example where the media took something Trump said or did and applied a narrative to it that matched a narrative various email leaks have shown was the strategy to defeat Trump.
And now half the U.S. is scared because it seems one of the Clinton campaign's main strategies was to make people scared of a president Trump.
The strategy worked well in that many people now seem to be afraid of what's to come, but acceptance-speech Trump did not come off as scary. I think it's worth giving him a chance.
I don't disagree with you, and I especially agree that it's worth giving him a chance. That said, there are examples where what he said was just as bad as it sounds:
* Calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
* "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families."
* I actually disagree with you on this one. Here's the quote: "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know." When I heard the audio of that, it sounded very much like he was talking about people taking matters into their own hands. It came across as a joke, but one in very poor taste. Still, I suppose it's conceivable that he's talking about something else, so give that one a pass.
* Then of course, "And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." Sure, that's not a public statement, nor a statement of policy. It's also not something I can imagine myself or one of my friends saying though. It speaks to his character.
That's just a few. He's not as bad as the media or (obviously) the Clinton camp portrayed. But he still seems plenty bad. That said, maybe he can still govern effectively, and maybe some of the change he brings about will be positive. I hope so.
For nation building, his campaign slogan from day one: Make America Great Again.
For inaccurate portrayals in the media, Wikileaks/Guccifer leaks from the DNC pointing out deliberate strategy to brand Trump as a rascist, sexist, xenophobic, fascist bigot, along with evidence showing strong media collusion to do that, and then going to the source of his most controversial statements and finding out that many were taken out of context to push those exact themes.
But I guess the biggest is simply what I mentioned above. Throughout the campaign Trump has been painted as a bully, as hateful, as a bigot as someone who does things his way and doesn't listen to others. This is also someone with a highly inflated opinion of himself, who paints his name in giant gold letters on his planes and buildings.
He and his platform had just won 'bigly' - the presidency, the senate, the house. If anything the win would embolden someone with with the above characteristics and this speech was the culmination of his entire campaign and what he stood for.
And yet none of those things came through in his speech - no message of hate or divisiveness, no bullying, no messages of vindication or retribution, instead it was the opposite. Reaching out to people who opposed him, offering to work together regardless of race and religion and political affiliation, everyone coming together to build a better America.
That language and tone doesn't square with a narcissistic, bigoted, bully who says what he wants and takes what he pleases.
It just doesn't.
And when I'm confronted with a situation where reality conflicts with my perception of reality, the choice is either to update my perception to match the reality I'm seeing and hearing, or to further twist reality to match that already inaccurate perception.
In any event, Trump made it clear in that speech he wanted to work on unity and building the nation.
Is that something you can support?
If yes, I suspect you are likely to find common ground with many of his supporters. If no, that is on you more than on Trump.
I'll happily admit I was impressed with his conduct with Obama this morning, and the victory speech Tues/Wed. However, you cannot deny that it stands in contrast to the Trump of the campaign trail. It stands in contract to the Trump of later the same day:
> Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair! [1]
Let's not pretend his the victim of a vast media conspiracy to smear him. He has done patently divisive things: Promulgating birtherism, attacking Judge Curiel, attacking Megyn Kelly, the Muslim ban, the mexican-immigrants-are-rapists comment, the calls for mass deportation,...
The only prospect that gives me hope is a temperate, center-right Trump administration emerging from the miasma of this campaign, and working towards unity with his party, the democrats, and the country. I want that, I believe you want that, and I hope most of his supporters want that. For that to happen though, Trump has to be the one to work toward unity, to reach out to the groups he has inarguably alienated.
I saw that tweet, but also saw that many of the protests are being organized by the George Soros backed, MoveOn.org.
That's George Soros the billionaire backer of Hillary Clinton and also someone in opposition to Trump's anti-globalist agenda.
I have no doubt many of the protestors are genuinely protesting against what they believe Trump will mean for the nation. However I do also question the motives of people stirring that up, especially when protests become violent and cause damage to people and property.
> Trump has to be the one to work toward unity, to reach out to the groups he has inarguably alienated.
I agree and I think he made overtures to this in his acceptance speech. He does need people to meet him at the discussion table though, and violent protests, and burning effigies of Trump don't help achieve that aim.
