Barack Obama or Donald Trump - who is the better leader?

"I’ll wait and see, and if I don’t like what I see I’ll vote to stop Trump."

I think that's the best, most reasonable thing that any American can do in this situation. Overall, I think we agree more than we disagree, so I'm having a tough time finding ways to continue this conversation (which is fantastic, by the way; thank you for your time).

That being said, there are still a few things that I think we could continue to talk about.

First, on your point about PC culture, I agree completely. I think that it largely arises out of a sense of white guilt for the plight of minorities, and is a way for liberals to feel better, to feel that they're not contributing to the problem, without actually doing anything substantive at all. And I think you're right; it serves little practical purpose other than pissing people off and pushing legitimate racists together.

Beyond that, PC culture is one of the main contributors to an overall sense of superiority among liberals, especially during this last election cycle, that led to an unfortunate amount of condescension and labeling towards supporters of Trump. I feel like a lot of people voted for Trump not because they wanted to, but because they wanted to strike back at the liberals who were, to be quite frank, being jerks to them.

Had liberals advocated for smaller government, then yes, it would've been much easier to compromise. But only because they would have ceased to be liberal. That highlights one of the core differences between Democrats and Republicans in this country, and one of the most difficult barriers for either side to overcome to understand their opponents.

The Republican perspective was well summarized when Reagan said "Government is the problem." Conservatives believe in a smaller government as a matter of principle and as a matter of philosophy, because they believe that more government must necessarily impede and hinder the rights of individuals and the flow of a free society. They believe that smaller government is inherently better.

But Democrats don't think like that. Democrats don't think in terms of big or small government. Democrats think in terms of helpful or not-helpful government. It's not so much a matter of philosophy (you mostly don't see Democrats attacking capital-S capital-G Small Government in the same way that Republicans attack capital-B capital-G Big Government) as it is a matter of utility. Democrats believe that the government can be a tool to improve society, to help people, and to increase people's freedoms.

So when Trump proposes a rule that two regulations must be repealed for every one created, or when Sean Spicer shows off the AHCA by comparing the page count with the ACA, Democrats get confused. For us, that seems arbitrary. If those regulations or pages are helping people, why repeal them? If they're not necessary, then why not attack them based on their content rather than saying "this is a regulation, and regulations are bad, so therefore this must be bad"? Because we are driven by utility and not philosophy, the philosophically-driven arguments of Republicans are often lost on us.

But the same story also plays in reverse. There's a not-infrequent narrative that liberals strive to take people's freedoms, to strive towards Socialism, or to peddle the narrative of Big Government. But that narrative simply misunderstands how liberals are thinking. This narrative gained more traction with Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, gaining so much momentum among Democrats. But it seems like few in both parties actually bothered to Google what "Democratic Socialism" is. Despite its misleading name, it bears little resemblance to actual Socialism.

Of course, few liberals would argue that an unnecessary or over-encumbering regulation should stay in place just for the heck of it. That's something we can both agree on. Democrats, like Republicans, believe in maximizing personal freedoms. But they believe in doing it in very different ways.

First, and unarguably, Democrats are more encouraging of freedom in the social sphere. From gay marriage to marijuana legalization, Democrats seem to more frequently advocate the "if it doesn't affect you, then who cares?" attitude. There are exceptions, of course, like gun control, but in general, there's a reason why Libertarians often describe themselves as economically conservative but socially liberal.

Second, Democrats have a somewhat different definition of freedom. If the government comes in and grabs, say, $50 million from the pocket of a rich person who makes $100 million a year...a Republican would say that this impedes upon this person's freedom to own property and to spend it how they choose. A Democrat would agree. But a Democrat would also argue that this $50 million could be used to, say, provide scholarships for 1000 poor students who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford college. This money grants these 1000 kids the freedom to pursue what they want in life, to try to get an education and a job that maximizes their potential. Their freedom to pursue the American dream was limited by a circumstance of their birth: how much money their family makes. This $50 million has "unlocked" these 1000 students, and granted them the freedom to pursue life how they wish.

Meanwhile, for that one rich person, maybe now they can't buy that resort that they wanted. Substantively, however, with their remaining income of $50 million a year, they can still buy pretty much whatever they want without worrying about it. In terms of what they are and are not able to do in life, their freedoms really haven't been restricted.

Anyway, I know that was a long tangent. Continuing on...

Some in the media have indeed said that they were an arm of the Hillary campaign (hi, Buzzfeed), but in general, though the media has a definite liberal bias, a lot of what was considered being "harsh" or "unfair" to Trump was in reality just parroting exactly what he said. Trump would say something that contradicted a previous statement, or would be blatantly false, the media would call him out on it, and he'd get mad and say they were out to get him. Again, that's not to say that the media was compeltely impartial on Trump; they certainly weren't, but let's not pretend that they were particlarly soft on Hillary. In my opinion, in order to look more unbiased, they over-compensated on covering her.

The email scandal is the best example. She was cleared by the FBI not once but twice. No charges. She was irresponsible, and she lied about, but she wasn't a criminal. End of story. But the media kept bringing it up again and again, partially because it's actually fairly tough to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton. Benghazi? Multiple Republican-led investigations cleared her of any wrongdoing, and she took responsibility anyway. Ties to Wall-Street? Ummm, yeah I guess, but there's no evidence that this "corrupted" her. Not much of a news story there. Clinton Foundation donations while Secretary of State? Again, not much evidence actually linking her to any wrongdoing, and considering the Clinton Foundation's mostly-excellent (mostly) reputation, again, not much of a story there.

And yes, Clinton did and does lie. You gave some excellent examples yourself, especially in regards to the email scandal. But when stacked up against Trump, both the number and the scale of the lies seem inconsequential. Trump was able to convince the country, for example, that our economy is in shambles and that crime is rampant, when in reality the economy is doing alright and crime has been on the decline. He was able to convince people that his inauguration had massive attendance, when there are actual ariel photos showing the opposite to be true. He was able to look facts and statistics in the face and say "No," and people believed him.

But you're right. Hillary had the "liar" reputation on her shoulders before she even began. She had the Clinton name and the robotic persona, the DNC scandal, and, most importantly, the image of the rehearsed inauthentic career politician in a political climate where we (both sides) favor the exact opposite. As you said, she was the only possible person who could lose to Trump.

As for promises unfulfilled, you're older and wiser, and obviously I can't and don't disagree with you on that. I can see why the older population, who's had experience with a system that doesn't seem to work, would want to shake it up. But it seems to me that people were so interested in a change that they didn't care how it changed. Instead of voting for the status quo (which, let's be honest, does work on a basic level; we are still the world superpower after all) and waiting four years for a better option, decided to throw a wrench into the gears of the machine and hope that, at the very least, the gears flying off in every which-way would be something different. This is tragic to me because, in their interest for pure change, a lot of Trump supporters voted a man into office who would change things against their interests, and whose policies are projected to make their lives worse.

And that's because there are some hard truths that many in his constituency didn't want to hear, and that no politician was willing to tell them. Those manufacturing jobs that supplied dignified, well-paying labor in the past? They aren't coming back. No matter what you do. A developed nation simply cannot compete in any meaningful way with a labor force willing to work for a dollar a day in squalid conditions. So out of desperation they voted for a person who said "I can fix it" and it saddens me that I think they'll be disappointed.

There are jobs in this country. But they don't exist in rural America anymore. They exist in Silicon Valley, they exist in hospitals and doctor's offices, and they exist on the internet. But the ideal of the hardworking down-to-earth American isn't sustainable in a modern economy. I can't help but think that many Americans voted for Trump out of nostalgia for that dream, to make America great (for them) like it used to be.

Don't know where I was going with this. Doesn't matter at this point, just part of the discussion. Sorry about the length of this reply, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.