>
>2) Trump did not, by any definition, have a landslide, despite his claims of one. I'm arguing about this because we're about to have a President who regularly lies and expects to be believed and who wants to use those lies to advance his agenda. For example, his speeches for quite a while have talked about how the US has the highest murder rate in 40 years. It's a total lie, but if he gets people to believe it, then down the road, he can use the real statistics to claim that whatever he has done has lowered the murder rate. Similarly, if he convinces people that he had a landslide (and already a majority of Republicans believe he won the popular vote), he gains political capital. Since I think virtually everything he wants to do is bad for the US and the world, I want him to have as little political capital as possible.

>>who regularly lies and expects to be believed

Take a deep breath and look at what happened.
Forget for a moment that he's a liar- of course he is and he really doesn't pretend otherwise.
The reality is that more than 62 million of your fellow citizens voted for that liar.
OK, some of them might be dumb, but 62 million dunces?
If we don't figure out why that happened, we're doomed to have more elections like this one.

Here are a couple of facts:
Today the DJIA is flirting with 20K - about 2.5 times its value when Obama took office.
Do you know many people whose annual income or net worth has increased 2.5 times during the past 8 years?
2 times?
1 times?
.5 times?
You get my point.
The recovery- and there has been one- has been all at the top.
That's why we have a Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street and Feel the Bern.
The candidate we ran - herself a world class liar- offered no credible answer for the people who have been shut out of that recovery.
62 million people voted for a flim-flam artist because we weren't talking to them.