That's politics in a nutshell.  The primary job of a politician is getting elected.  Everything after is secondary.  Most of the people in high office aren't there because they are the best choices, they're in power because they're really good at politics and playing the game.

Eventually, that means we end up with a bunch of shallow, manipulative, power-mongers.

To paraphrase Plato, the skills to be the best leader and the skills to convince everyone else you'd be the best best leader are different things.

Sadly that is not how politics are these days. Economic/foreign/ect policies tke a back seat to whether the person running is pro/anti-gay, pro/anti-choice, pro/anti-immigation, racists, sexist, ect.

I am right on my policies, yet saying that peopel assume that means I'm against immigration, anti-gay, anti-choice, die hard christian and whatever else social issues are out there. Sadly this election also tossed in that I'm a racist, bigot and sexist.

That is what is annoying. Regarding policies, most democrats are of one mind, and same for republicans. Regarding social issues, people are split all over the place. Someone may be pro-gay and anti-choice. Someone may be racists and pro-choice/pro-gay. Democrats lost because they lumped half teh country all together into as Hillary said "deplorables"

So are you saying that no racists voted for Clinton?

The problem is that these debates, with the rise of social media has been very polarized. Most liberals I know here think Trump voters are all just "dumb people". As a Marxist, I often have to defend the American electorate. Most people didn't vote for Trump for his racist or sexist talk, but for what he stood for economically and in some cases socially (I can't see conservative people in the US voting for Hillary anyway). That's why the Democrats needed Sanders. Someone who's really on the left and who runs on an economical platform. But they persisted in Hillary and they lost.

nah, Repulicans/conservative media simply correctly predicted decades in advance that Hillary would eventually be the candidate to beat (and dems played right into their hand by having that mock primary) and did everything they could to throw dirt at her and as it was repeated often/long enough it stuck

having the FBI as a willing ally obviously helped a lot with that

The only thing to blame is how the US still manages to prance around democracy and liberty when they don't have a democratic system and throw completely appauling notions like "tiranny of the majority" to justify it. You know what tiranny of the majority is called? Democracy. And it's the fairest governing system there is.

While the US doesn't adopt it and keeps using outdated electoral systems created with a whole different reality in mind (aka how it was impossible to get results in just one day and different states would have to send news of their results by horse) these situations will keep happening. And i don't care wether it's left or right. It's downright shameful for the so called bastion of freedom to not even have a working democracy.

This is very simple. More votes = the will of the people. Not those guys voting over there are worth more than the ones voting over here. It completely ludicrous and the fact that it's still around is proof of the damage it has already done. The US is in a spiral of degradation due to that system and with presidents like Bush and Trump benefitting from it, it is very likely progress won't happen and even more americans are raised without proper educations, wich in turn lead to more of said president's getting elected and more lack of progress.

First, we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. Always have been.

Second, more votes does not equal the will of the people. The U.S. is huge. It is spread out. Yet the majority live in a FEW clustered cities. If we were a pure democracy and went vote majority wins, the presidential canidates woudl spend their entire time sitting in New York, LA, Houston and Chicago. They would "buy" their votes with campaign promises that woudl solely benefit the people who live in those cities.

Can't say but I can tell you an objective, neutral person would have a much easier time identifying a racist among Trump supporters than he would a crowd of Hilary supporters.

This is also ignoring the fact that Trump's team (with Russian aid) are more concerned with spreading misinformation in an attempt to relagate reputable news sources as fake news.  Then the fact that a lot of Trump supporters voted against their own self-interest. Take this report VOX did on a town in Kentucky, that benfitted greatly from the ACA but all voted for Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0FvLkXDKIs

Wrong.  I know first hand blacks who are anti-white and typically vote Democratic for similar reasons why a group such as the KKK would vote Republican.  And I know black pastors who are racist who intentionally exclude whites from their churches.  And your impled definintion of "objective" is VERY subjective since I know objective people who knows that there are racists on ALL sides and DO NOT use is as a false means of justification.  Don't be so gulible. 

Clinton won the overall vote by a huge margin. More people in the United States wanted her as president than Trump.

It was basically just a swing of 80,000 votes (a tiny amount) in three swing states that gave the electoral college to Trump.

If you want to blame "liberals" for that instead of people who either voted Trump or chose to stay home, go ahead, lol.

No one wins every election either. It's not like there was never ever going to be another Republican president, just as there will be another Democratic president at some point. 

Some people are stupid and basically just vote on a "I'm tired of this party, so this time I'll vote for the other party" logic and flip flop on that every 4-8 years. Basically they don't really vote on any general issue, they just change parties like they change socks.