Lucky Trump is fortunate that only half of the population voted with people over 65 making up a large portion of the voters. If more younger people voted, the result will have been a big win for Clinton. When young people do not vote you end up with bad results like Brexit or Trump as US President. It is the young people to blame for this election outcome.

It won me a bet people voting like this... But really some people should not be allowed to do a lot of things, voting being one of the higher of those, breeding is up there too.

Still though, happy with my bet!

So essentially "Vote for change as long as I agree with it"?

How charming.

I think you miss the 4th paragraph completely

4 years time more Americans will be in need of another change to Dump Trump as President and vote in the Democrat candidate as the next President.

I did. The issues I care about are healthcare, and Obama fucked it up harder than I thought anyone could. 

At some level, I do think that voting for change is acceptable, although that shouldn't consistently be your practice. The desire for change that has largely carried Obama and Trump over the past few elections stems from a belief that the government simply is no longer working, at least at a federal level, and a change that at least makes it work is better than leaving things in the broken state that they are. Obama's and Trump's supporters have both fed off the sense that they have largely been ignored by the opposing party, and they would rather have just about anything but that.

If you truly feel that your government is broken with the current state of affairs, then I think it's completely acceptable to vote for change. This isn't to say that voting Trump was or wasn't a good idea, but I think the notion of dismissing a "change" vote outright is a little naive.

Voting for change is a good thing ...

The people have spoken and they don't like the direction the country is headed in so the establishment must be corrected once more if they fall astray like Clinton ...

Obama and Clinton along with the rest of the democrats should've done a better job of maintaining the confidence in the status quo ...

It's not hard to see why people transferred their stocks from the democrats to someone like Trump ...

This isn't only about US-elections. But looking at Trump he didn't have 'the best' rethorics but rethorics for more, well, simple minded people. He more or less owned Twitter. And for some strange reason people think of him as anti establishment. Which is a bit weird if you think about it.

He promised basically everything. Like going back to US-coal. But, like german coal, that one is way more expensive. Economic interests. Now, if Trump was honest he could tell people about economic interests. But if you want to get the (unemployed) miners then tell them they get their job back.

Promising more or less everything is what poulists do. And right now we see populists being very successful, especially loudmouths.

At the same time, most politicians seem to have lost their ground. Politicians should finally start to really explain what they are doing and why.

Probably that played a role. Mostly people voted for him, because he is the lesser evil. As people voted for Clinton, because she is the lesser evil. This election wasn't a question about who is the better candidate, but one about who is the less worse candidate. That's depressing, but it is what it is. Trump would never have won against Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden.

Also, you insinuate people should vote based on rational decisions. They do not. Party identification is extremely high. Do you think someone who votes every time for democrats looks at the policy proposals of each candidate?