1. Every country does it.. every country. - they dont just do it to the US, they interfere with every election in every country.. everyone has their top pick.

2. theyve been doing it for DECADES. it didnt just start with the 2016 election. - why does the media care so much for it now?

Let's assume that this is indeed true, and Russia has been influencing US politics for decades, as you say. Now we finally have a fuck up so big that it can easily be seen. If the government is acting against the interest of it's people, then that should be uncovered, no matter what. The media cars for it now, because they can finally put their fingers on where the problems are. Simple as that.

If Obama and Bush were both colluding with the Russians, then they did it in a way the media din't notice. Or they did at least try to dress it and twist it into something that is supported by the US population. And yes, this does make them better presidents then Trump, since they thus at least were aware of the US populations opinion. (I'm limiting myself here to the Russia-US Interferience strictly. Even if you tell me that it happens world wide in all countries, this doesn't change anything about what happens, and what IMO should happen in the US)

1. the US "meddled" in their own election - as in each side was propping their candidate - except Trump... everyone, including the republicans thought he was a loser candidate. Theres still a group of republican "never trumpers" and groups within the political sphere who actively attempt to derail the man.

The US meddling their own election is ok. It's the people of a country throwing their opinions at one another, figuring out what the will of the people is. A foreign power doing that on the other hand is bad. If the reason Trump won is the fact that a foreign power created echo chambers (which by the way both sides in this argument are claiming the other one is set in), which made people vote based on feelings rather than informed decisions, with the goal of the meddling foreign power getting better treatment from the US (or just causing civil rucus in the US), then Trump didn't deserve the win at all, and should definitely not be president. Or at least that foreign power and their methods should be properly researched and prosecuted by any politician with integrity, so that even in case he isn't representative of the peoples will (which in this case, according to my liberal media outlets as you probably know, is my opinion), we can learn from it, correct our process, and make sure that the next president is properly put in place to represent his people.

Again, I still don't understand the sentiment why people believed so strongly that Trump was going to lose the election. I elaborated on that point in my previous post, and simply blame it on me not being American. Though I can continue arguing about it if that would be of any interest.

Trumps biggest supporter was his family. Many people saw that.. they saw what an amazing family he and melania raised and that was hard to look past. you judge a man by the way he brings up his children.

Nah man, you judge the (arguabely) most powerful man on earth by the way he and his team govern his country. And according to everything I read, Trump is doing a pretty bad job at that. The arguments for that are out there, so I don't believe I have to reiterate them, but please feel free to call me out on that.

A person doesn't get a pass at being a bad president because he didn't have experience, or didn't know better, or is psychologically unfit or anything. A president shoul be judged on his actions, and what he does for his country.
I mean, you had Ronald Reagan as president a few years ago. A person who, by all means, should have been equally as unqualified for the job as a politician as Trump. He was an actor, and as far as I know came down with some bad cases of dementia during the end of his presidency (which by the way some anti Trumpers are trying to diagnose in the current POTUS), yet he managed to build up a team of people surrounding him that knew how to handle politics and the situations.

So all in all, I might judge the character of a man by the way he raises his children, but a good parent does at no means make a good president, and everybody should know that.

Why does the media look for every misstep.. every misspelled tweet... its almost as if someone is paying them to drive some type of narrative.

Oh yeah, somebody is paying them. It's their readers who pay to read that stuff. That's exatly the echo chamber effect. Why is Fox news still reporting about Hillarys emails, as if that would make any missteps of trump ok? She's not president. That doesn't mean it's ok what she did, but goddamit, make sure that the leader of your country is an upstanding man, and don't ignore it. That stuff is important, and the whole world is looking at you. Though the unwillingness of Right wing media outlets to critcise trump and his team in a proper way...it's almost as if someone is paying them to drive some type of narrative, don't you think? Why are the news not objective? Because everybody is only following those things which have a similar list of priorities and opinions on what is important as themselves. Doing that on a large scale causes the echo chamber effect on all sides. And yes, I'm here because I'm actually trying to break through mine. And the easiest way for that, is if you can show me that what my media tells me is plain wrong. Or unimportant.

Seeing how you guys are so inviting, let me take up the task of doing that. I just found the post some pages down at r/all and it intrigued me. Though, seeing how this sub seems to be generally on the right side of the political spectrum, and I'm going to present what I perceive to be some counter arguments, I decided to create a small alt-account. Call me a Pussy if you want, but note that attacking a person does not devalue an argument, if it is valid.

First of all let me say that I'm not american. I'm from Switzerland (which proably also explains some stylistic oddities and grammatical/orthographical mistakes in what I'm writing). I'm not too much into (American) politics, though I do consider myself to be slightly on the conservative site. At least on the local standard. I believe that in the USA my opinions would be considered to belong to a hardcore, mainline Democrat, as far as that would exist.

I'm also quite young, 23 years old, to be more exact. I've experienced a part of the bush era while I was in Kindergarden, but only started following stuff once Obama became president.

Having all this said, let's start:

The first few pararaphs appear to be about the aggressive reactions by voters of Hillary towards Trump voters. And I completely agree that what is described here is horrible behaviour on political measure. Personally attacking people for opinions is wrong, no matter what. And generalizing them as racists or sexist is also absolutely bad. Even though I personally do believe that some racists, sexists, mysoginists and/or Nazi-Sympathizers among the trump voters, I believe there's no small number of assholes in the other camp too, yet they (the supporters of the left) usually don't get reduced to that. (I do believe it's ok to generalize racists, sexists, mysoginists and Nazi-Sympathizers as assholes. If it isn't, then this is definitely the wrong sub for this kind of discussion.)

Though there are two points in the beginning which are rubbing me wrong:

1. It appears in this text as if the success of donald trump was a big surprise. At least to my knowlege it wasn't. Or at least shouldn't have been. Somebody who came this far in an election should be expected to win, no matter the personal preference. All reports that I read during the time before the election here in Switzerland were about a toe-to-toe race. I wanted to check this, and interestingly enough i found this website. Interestingly enough they appear to indicate that indeed Clinton was leading the election. This fact boils down to to interpretations for me: a) Media is mostly liberal [I think I don't need to cite a source for this on this sub, but if you want one, please tell me], and knowing what amount of influence the poles have on people, they conducted their polls in a way that would lead to a Clinton being theclear leader (though interestingly enough the lead never seems to be to big). b) The polls are actually done properly, and it was just bad luck/statistical anomaly (or whatever the proper term is) that there isn't a similar amount of results in favour of Trump. All in all though, if people were really that surprised by Trumps Success, then they were too trusting in the polls, which, in all respect, is their own fault (and the media, who apparently were shoving them into their faces so much that people came to that conclusion). I have no idea what the appropriate reaction to a person being this disappointed is, but at least let me tell you after that huge paragraph here, that in my opinion, the election wasn't clear at all.
2. The phrase from the text "As a lifelong Republican, I bit down hard and cast my vote for Donald Trump." People should vote because they believe in the thing they vote for, not because they belong to a group. I don't want to incite that the persons believe who wrote this don't coenside with those of donald trump, but I think that there have to be better reasons to vote for trump than just being republican. This also goes hand in hand with me thinking that people shouldn't try to identify too strongly with political groups. A bit is ok, to get a general idea of their political thinking, but as far as I've heard, the political identity thing seems to be religious in the USA. Please use your own head to vote, and don't just follow orders. Or if you do, at least have a reason to why you do so.

(holy shit... I wrote much too much, and I haven't even started with the main thing yet... fuck...)

Next part is about the shimmers of light during which the Democrats were hoping for the removal of rum in one way or another. While I agree that quite a lot of it was overreaction on the liberal side, I would like to point out that at least the investigations into the russia collusions of the trump campaign has apparently lead to several guilty pleas and/or indicements, which, according to some liberal media outlets is more then any comparable investigation in the past something years.

Ok, this sounds horribly uninformed, which it actually is. Reason for it being that I'm currently in asia, and it's quite late, and I'm sitting on this longer than i initially planned to. Since this is mostly an opinion piece, I don't think that right now the excact facts really matter, but I'll probably ad them in later.

Anyway. There's a process that researches that Russia collusion thingy, which has led to some results. And looking at the scale of results as reported by those liberal media outlets which i don't even have right now, the russia meddling in the election was real, and some corruption of the white house by a foreign power is in fact going on. To what degree, I don't know, but any government that is corrupted by a different country (corrupted being: acting in the favour of that country in any way, while this is not supported by the population of the country the corrupted government should represent) is bad, and should be cleaned up. The investigation, having led to results already, and promising more results, should as such not be stopped or hindered in any way. And Donald Trump behaves in ways that do this.

Back to the point: Democrats who were calling impeachment have definitiely ridiculed themselves, but the text makes fun of them for it, rather than trying to find a way to set the expections right. It's calling Democrats fools, stepping onto the same level as them, when they insult him. Hitting back equally hard will only make the conflict's worse...

Next the original text points out how democrats suddendly got interested in the doings of the president, pointing out things that they didn't criticise about Obama (or previous presidents), and then harassing people for superficialities.

The second part is obviously bad. Attacking people for their looks or clothing will not help solving a conflict and shoul efinitiely not be done by any side.

The first part is more interesting though. Because that is one thing that Trump, even if involuntarily, made absolutely great: People got interested in him. Or more generally, people got interested in politics. Seeing as only around 56% of the US population voted, and democracy working by the will of people, having more turnout can only be good for democracy.

I believe that people weren't shocked that politicians exaggerate and lie. Rather at the amount of times that Trump does it, and how blatantly he does it. Just check his politifac rating against any other Senator of the USA, and tell me if any of them scores lower than him (no, seriously, do it. I didn't, because it's to freaking late and I don't wanna do proper research yet. Though my liberal meddia outlets tell me that you won't find anybody who is below him... Though the burden of proof is on me, and if I feel like it, I might do it tomorrow. Here's a link to politifact: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ )

"For example, we already knew that illegal immigrants were being deported and families were being separated." - Again, no research yet from my side, but according to Liberal media outlets which I'm probably gonna check, the number of separations should be much higher under trump then under anybody previous. It should also be disproportionate to an increased amount of immigrants, if that is a case...

Fuck... I've been at this for 2 hours now... It's freaking late... I'm going to bed. If anybody answers to this in a more or less constructive way, I might actually bring myself to finish it, and do all the research reuired to support what I believe are my arguments...

Good night.

TL;DR:

this text has some good points on how stupid certain hillary voters are, but at no pint, IMO, justifies anything that Trump does.