Why Donald Trump Won The 2016 Presidential Election

Before you start reading, I feel the need to advise you, the reader, that this article will be lengthy, in depth, and may require multiple sittings to read in its entirety. I will be covering a myriad of topics within this article. In particular, the main policies, controversies and 'fake news'. Furthermore, I am a conservative and that although I have my biases, I will try my best to be as objective as possible. Thank you.

Trump-bashing, i.e. hostility to an unnecessary degree, far exceeding the normal level that could then be considered satire, aimed towards Donald Trump appears to be the newest fad emerging from, and being popularised by late-night Left-wing TV shows. Bully techniques are also a well-known method that The Left espouses when interacting with anyone, particularly online, who disagrees with them. They can't sit down and engage in civil discussion; they bully, yell over, degrade and slander anyone they have political disagreements with. Everyone is sick of them doing this. This is also evident in the replies to all of Trump's tweets, they call him a baby and make fun of his hair and hands. Particularly, conservatives and libertarians, as their ideology and policies don't align. After they do so, friendships with those people are never amended, as they tend to think these friends (or even strangers) are now the worst people on Earth. Trust me, I know because it has happened to me personally. This isn't how conservatives handle disagreements though, we're civil, we try to really understand why they think the way they do, and how they got to think that way. To Left-wingers and Liberals though, if you even mention the fact you hold opinions that aren't the mainstream consensus, they yell in your face, call you names and tell others you're an awful person. They do this by mislabelling you, for example, the mainstream media has a habit of labelling Donald Trump, some of the most popular faces in Right-wing politics in America and all their supporters are labelled with misleading blanket terms Alt-Right, white supremacists, racists and anything else they can think of all the time, when most are harmless classical Liberals or Conservatives. In a way, it can also be a pathway to popularity, or being cool in the public eye, and helps one be accepted into mainstream society. It is almost like a "Hey, if you hate on this guy with us, we'll like you! If not, you're the enemy!" Celebrities in particular are taking the easy route by capitulating to society's demands by constantly apologising for stunts which I personally find to be funny and didn't think an apology was necessary for, as well as constantly conforming. The Left is ruining humour, and we need people like Donald Trump in charge to keep things funny and interesting. In a way, this is saving their career, because if they don't, they'll be exiled or their careers will turn ruinous. I find issue with this because it isn't being true to oneself. A vast majority of the time, the Trump-haters are doing it whilst being dangerously misinformed, perhaps having anti-Trump stances to be trendy. I wish to see more celebrities be brave and express their real political views, opinions and thoughts, and furthermore see a society that doesn't shun or shame people for their political stance. A major concern I have with these TV shows is rooted in their blending of 'fact' and entertainment. Many a viewer is oblivious to the fact that what they are consuming is treading a thin line between truths and falsehoods; those shows have a habit of flirting with that thin line for the sake of entertainment. TV entertainers have turned the public into docile and lazy zombies, not bothering to research if what they're hearing is true. Furthermore, are easily persuaded by media outlets who have histories of lying, and smear anyone who hold dissenting opinions.

I am reminded by a quote which I have fittingly interpreted to reflect the views and constant parroting of late-night entertainers and most Left-wing, mainstream celebrities who spout the same vacuous ideologies and beliefs as the entertainers, just to fit in. Which, by the way, there's nothing cool or edgy about conformity, and there's nothing avant-garde about group-think. Likewise, the entirety of the Clinton campaign was just constant pandering, and in particular, their goofy stunts. During 2016, there was a video uploaded onto YouTube that was essentially mocking Hillary's efforts to pander to young voters, but took it to a whole new level - and it was spot on. Every time I watch it, I cringe so hard. "How do you do, fellow kids?" is derived from a scene in an episode of 30 Rock, where Steve Buscemi appears as an undercover cop, part of a special task force of "very young-looking cops" who infiltrated a high school, aiming to fit in and obtain information. The gag behind it lays in the fact that, he doesn't look very young at all and doesn't fit in, and is rather an old man trying to maintain a facade. You could easily imagine someone like Mr. Burns from The Simpsons trying to act cool and fit in with young kids, and due to age difference and culture shift, the stunt failing. He enters into frame, where teenagers are sprawled throughout a locker area, with a skateboard slung over his right shoulder, a second under his left arm, a red hat, grey t-shirt with "music band" inscribed across the chest area in AC/DC font, a red jacket and blue jeans, with the entire operation backfiring. He clearly doesn't fit in, let alone, kids (or adults for that matter) typically don't talk to each other in such formal, archaic language; they are much more relaxed with their conversational language. Furthermore, the two look similar and would not hard to see straight through them and realise what is happening. You see the Trump-bashing in comedy routines all over the world, and yet none of those comedians know why he won. They are utterly clueless and I LOVE IT. I will admit, some Trump jokes are quite amusing, and I am positive Trump would also agree, but most are hostile attacks for the sole reason that he doesn't fit into the mainstream's open border, pro-choice, welfare system, anti-free speech and politically correct ideology. They often say something insulting and disguise it with a joke, only to continue constructing this Donald Trump smear sandwich which is fed to the masses. Not only is it grossly off-putting, but when a comedian becomes political, they lose their gift.

Within this article, I plan to reveal the fundamental reasons for his victory and debunk some of the most common beliefs about him. Additionally, this article wasn't written with the intention of swaying or persuading the reader to change their attitude towards him. I am completely okay with you still finding him inviting or utterly repulsive, where the cause is from his politics or basis in character. I will only be displaying facts and reasons for why we are currently in a Trump-Pence presidency. I welcome you to agree or disagree with me. Firstly, we will discuss the main campaign policies that each candidate espoused, and detail the stances the two held to create a distinguishable contrast between them, which was evident throughout the election cycle. Secondly, we will discuss the controversies which clung ever so tightly to their respective campaigns.

The first and perhaps most focal policy was regarding immigration. Trump and Clinton battled on this issue the most as Trump was in favour of building a wall to curb illegal immigration from Mexico to America, and Clinton wasn't (although, at one stage also was in favour of "physical barriers if necessary"). Because of Trump's pragmatic approach, being if they keep pouring into America, then put something in the way so they can't, he started to be called racist and xenophobic. This policy became quite the controversial topic during the election, as evident in how pivotal a stance it is now during political discourse. A positive aspect was how this policy elevated public consciousness of illegal immigration. The focus was placed particularly on illegal immigration (that is, entering and living in a new country without paperwork) and migration from countries that are havens of terrorism. Many would agree that Islam is a major problem that the world beholds today, due to the incompatible nature of their law system and culture, others not so much. Those people are also more favourable of open border policies. This is most evident in Europe, wherein migration from Muslim-majority countries have contributed to rising numbers in sexual assault and instances of terrorism. By enacting restrictions, and realistically, enforcing the law, Trump is not matching the mainstream, globalist agenda. Trump was in favour of a stricter vetting process and a three-month halt on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. A critical component that fails to be included into discussion regarding this somewhat controversial revelation is that for it to be a 'Muslim ban' as the media liked to label it (which coupled a negative connotation), a further 43 Muslim-majority countries would need to be added to the list. Casually labelling the travel ban, which is its real name, as a 'Muslim ban', makes as much sense as if they prohibited migration from six European countries out of the fifty-one existing independent states and called it a European ban. Or better yet, an example closer to home soil; temporarily banning travel from only two Australian states and labelling it an Australian ban. The media was being intellectually dishonest. If it isn't the totality of a country or religion, you cannot correctly label it a Muslim ban, European ban, or Australian ban. I personally think the media will do anything to smear Trump's image with all their devastating influence, and that they used Islam and Muslims as leverage to do so. Regarding the wall and illegal immigration from Mexico, I completely support him on this controversial issue. I cannot side with someone migrating illegally, despite the chance of them potentially having a better life. What if they're terrible with money? They'll be in the same situation, just in a different country. What if they arrive with cultural values that are incompatible with the culture of their new country? A physical barrier needs to be constructed to keep them out, because the fencing that is in place at the moment is doing nothing, and morality is a non-argument for the desperate. Additionally, those illegal immigrants are breaking the law and deserve no rights to vote or access to healthcare. If you wish to obtain said rights, then arrive legally and become a citizen like everyone else. How is Trump going to pay for the wall? It's obviously not going to be a written check. Well, Senator Ted Cruz proposes that we use the $14 Billion Seized from ‘El Chapo’ to fund the wall. Other than that, Trump could instate a border tax or by cutting off Mexico's number #1 export, remittances from illegals in the U.S. Makes sense, right? Furthermore, he was right about Mexico not sending their best people. Almost 50% of federal crimes are committed near the Mexico border, and nearly 22% of that crime was drug related. Illegals comprise a disproportionate percentage of the population of state prisons, compared to legals. For every 100,000 people, illegals made up 68.57 people compared to the legal 54.06 citizens in Arizona. In California, illegals made up 97.2 per 100,000 compared with the 74.1 legals. In Florida though, the positions flipped where legals composed 67.8 people per 100,000 imprisoned people, compared to 54.85 illegals. I personally think if you migrate legally and commit a felony, you ought to be deported. It may seem like a tough and cruel statement to make but following the law is not hard. It is in the best interests for American citizens' safety for their government to improve their immigration and protection policies to ensure illegals and criminals stay out, model citizens arrive and the future of America under Trump and his predecessors to be prosperous. In accordance to the Podesta email leaks released by WikiLeaks, Clinton delivered a paid speech on May 16th, 2013, for Brazilian bankers and divulged her vision of "a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” That's a stark contrast from Trump's stricter immigration policies involving extreme vetting procedures. Hillary's open border policies which could endanger the American way of life, as evident in Germany, and America isn't taking one bit of it, in fear of amnesty. A country without safety is a country which cannot function properly. This is essentially amnesty; opening the flood gates to all those who 'dream of being an American citizen'. Americans can't allow such recklessness; being careful of who enters, being critical of their intentions and allowing only those who will assimilate is paramount. At the end of the day, it's all about your perspective on the matter. One stance is there shouldn't be borders at all and that people should be able to roam the Earth freely, the second is valuing a nation's sovereignty and respecting that there should exist countries that are harder to enter because the opportunity for prosperity is more readily obtainable. It's not just Americans that feel this strongly about illegal immigration from Mexico. Hispanic and Latinos that migrated legally also feel this way. To them, it's not right for people to arrive illegally and possibly bring crime and not assimilate into the new culture. The legals stood in line with ticket in hand and entered through the front door. Migrants should move to countries legally and help that country's economy and way of life, not be a burden and leach off the welfare system.

Secondly, Americans love their guns, everyone knows it at this stage. But, the idea of compiling a gun registry list and/or enacting gun control laws, makes the American people feel very uneasy. This is due to the easy nature of a government to, one they know who has guns and how many, it'd be much easier to disarm the people from there onward. The second amendment, the right to bear arms, is designed to protect the rights of the people, in the event of a totalitarian government takeover. And no, it was not specifically written for hunting purposes, as so many people believe it to be. This is evident in Adolf Hitler's firearms law and the disarming of German Jews and political dissidents, through use of a gun registry list. Gun control is public enemy number one, but also an aspect of American life that Clinton feels strongly about. Hillary was in favour of enacting gun control laws, Donald was not. I believe that guns don't kill people, people do. While it's a good idea to enact stricter vetting procedures so mentally ill people cannot possess weapons, I disagree with Hillary's plan to ban “some of the most popular” firearms if elected. She then “reassures law-abiding Americans their firearms won’t be targeted”. Also, calling “for a reinstatement of the national assault weapons ban and a prohibition on high-capacity magazines.” This is a contradictory statement because the assault weapons ban would deprive citizens of arms, the very thing Clinton said she wouldn't do, as well as the high-capacity magazine ban would force law-abiding citizens to surrender their high capacity magazines. Who's to say that if Hillary became president and enacted these gun control laws, that she wouldn't go any further and completely disarm the American people? We don't know that she would or wouldn't, and I personally feel uneasy with that thought in mind considering how free a country America is. Furthermore, in the states where gun ownership is the lowest, the rate for gun murders are the highest.

The third issue was women's reproductive rights. This is one of those topics where people often tread lightly with, as any disagreements can be fatal for friendships. I'm personally not this way inclined, I tell people what I think without fear for losing them as a friend - if someone ends a friendship over something as trivial as an abortion stance, they're not the kind of friend you want to have. Donald Trump's stance on abortion is pro-life, with exceptions. Those being in the case of rape and incest and if the health of the mother or the child is at risk. This coincides with Ben Shapiro's and my own stance. I think abortion should only be performed if either the mother was suicidal, and not mentally fit to give birth, or if the baby will be born with a serious birth deformity or illness such as Downs Syndrome. Furthermore, if the mother is a victim or rape or incest, which statistically, is a very low percentage of all abortions, at less than 1%. Donald's stance didn't persuade or influence mine, as I had been influenced by Ben's stance during a talk he did at an American college. I had only found out Donald's stance on this turbulent issue upon doing research for this article. The conservative viewpoint on abortion is that abortion is murder, I would agree. I believe that life starts at conception, when the sperm and egg meet, forming the zygote; science dictates this. You have the choice and ability to be personally responsible when you have sex; whether you use protection or don't. I would argue most pro-life people hold this stance because abortion seems to be a new method of birth control, which in doing so, teaches couples that they don't need to be responsible for their actions. Almost like a "Fuck it, let's have unprotected sex. If I get pregnant I can just abort it." To them, a foetus isn't a life; but rather a clump of cells. If this is the case, then let me ask you, the reader, this, aren't you just a clump of cells too? The foetus may as well just be a kidney to them, where they can do away with it as they please. In 2016, Gallup polling conducted a poll regarding abortion. They found that a measly 1% more of people were pro-choice, at 47%. Furthermore, 50% of Americans in 2015 said that they think abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. The two major polarising stances on abortion, that it should either be legal or illegal under all circumstances concluded at 19% for illegal, and 29% for legal; the majority believe it is necessary under certain conditions. Additionally, I support Donald Trump's executive order regarding abortion. This executive order gives the power of de-funding abortion clinics such as Planned Parenthood, to the individual states, allowing more freedom of control. This means that, if there's a state that is heavily pro-life, that state can then reduce the number of abortions performed. I heavily oppose abortion because, realistically, it's killing and ripping apart babies. I don't like that concept; it's quite repulsive and inhumane. If you have never seen the visual component to an abortion procedure, I urge you to click these links, wherein contain explanatory and educational videos by Dr. Anthony Levatino, a practising obstetrician-gynaecologist, who has performed over 1,200 abortions, on how abortions are performed during each trimester. I must warn you though, the scenes described in each are utterly violent, ugly and disgusting.

A normal, full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks, and can range from 37 to 42 weeks. It’s divided into three trimesters. Each trimester lasts between 12 and 14 weeks, or three months. During the First Trimester Surgical Abortion, called Suction (Aspiration) D & C, (Dilatation and Curettage), abortion is performed most frequently, and between 5 and 13 weeks of pregnancy. The baby at 11 weeks has a heartbeat, fingers, toes, arms and legs, but it's bones are still weak and fragile. After administrating anaesthesia, the abortionist uses a speculum and places it inside the vagina and opened it using the screw on the side. This allows the abortionist to see the cervix, the entrance to the uterus. The cervix acts as a gate that stays closed during pregnancy, protecting the baby until it is ready for birth. The abortionist uses a series of metal rods which increase in thickness, and inserts them into the cervix to dilate it, gaining access to the uterus, where the baby resides. The abortionist takes a suction catheter, which is clear plastic, about nine inches long and has a hole through the centre. It is then inserted through the cervix and into the uterus. The suction machine is then turned on and with a force 10 to 20 times more powerful than a household vacuum; the baby is rapidly torn apart by the force of the suction, and squeezed through the tubing into the suction machine, followed by the placenta. Although the suction is complete, one of the risks is an incomplete abortion, where pieces of the baby or placenta are left behind. This can lead to infection or bleeding. To prevent this, a curette is used to scrape the lining of the uterus. A curette is basically a long-handled curved blade. Once the uterus is empty, the speculum is removed and the abortion is complete. The risks of Suction D & C include perforation or laceration of the uterus or cervix, potentially damaging intestine, bladder, and nearby blood vessels, haemorrhage, infection, and in rare instances, even death. Future pregnancies are also at greater risk for loss or premature delivery, due to abortion-related trauma and injury to the cervix. In the Second Trimester Surgical Abortion, called Dilation and Evacuation (D & E). A D & E is performed between 13 and 24 weeks of pregnancy, and in my opinion, is the most gruesome. A baby at 20 weeks is as big as the length of a fully-grown man's hand, from head to rump, not including legs. A suction machine is turned on, and pale yellow amniotic fluid surrounding the baby is suctioned out through the catheters. But, at that time in pregnancy, babies don't fit through catheters. The baby's bones and skull are too strong to be torn apart by suction alone. A sopher clamp is used to perform the procedure. This clamp is made from stainless steel, is thirteen inches in length, and contains a 'business end', which is two inches long and a half inch wide, with rows of sharp teeth. It's a grasping instrument; when it grabs hold, it won't let go. The abortionist uses this instrument to grasp an arm or leg, with a firm grip they then pull hard and rip that limb off. One by one, the rest of the limbs are removed, along with the intestines, spine, heart and lungs. The hardest part is extracting the baby’s head which is the size of a large plum at 20 weeks. The head of the baby is grasped and crushed; the abortionist knows this has happened when a white substance comes out of the cervix - that is the baby’s brains. The abortionist then removes skull pieces, the placent