How much money might I expect in the royalty checks that will be sent to me by the community of mental health providers and Big Phrama?

Let my position be known: this 2016 US presidential election provided the American people with two extremely bad nominees from whom to choose, but the final analysis is that one of two evils was going to prevail.  I have long considered Hillary Clinton to be the worst of the two, merely making Donald Trump the lesser of those two evils.  I am not enamored with Trump, I am extremely surprised that he won, and had the outcome been Clinton's win, I would have been quite downcast but not surprised.  I would have had to resign myself to the results, but I would not, however, have contemplated shedding tears, swooning for the smelling-salt crowd, burning police cars or blocking public roadways.

You have the right to predict that Trump will ruin the country.  Had Hillary Clinton won, I would have thought the same thing about her.  I consider her to be dangerous.  You consider Trump to be dangerous.  I'm not a 100% Trump-Chump, but I do think that his presidency may be better than a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been.  In short, he's nowhere near perfect, but he's still better than she would have been.
~

@RandyD -- I think there is a crucial asymmetry you are overlooking and why a Clinton presidency, while far from ideal, would still have been much less of a danger than Trump poses.

I will stipulate HRC was a deeply flawed candidate. I would much rather almost any other major Democratic figure (Biden, Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and so forth) won the nomination. But her flaws are flaws common to our political system, ones for which we have a framework for understanding and coping with the damage.

Yes, her use of a private e-mail server was unwise and pontentially dangerous. But she did THE EXACT SAME THING dozens of other political figures have done: used private e-mail to avoid having those e-mails subject to FOIA requests. Colin Powell did it, many members of Congress do it, the RNC did it during the Bush adminstration, and so forth. It's a known issue. We have ways of dealing with it.

Yes, Hillary was too much of a war hawk for my taste. But we've had war hawk Presidents since 2000 (arguably since 1980). We KNOW that Presidents will intervene militarily around the world to pursue American geopolitical goals. HRC would NOT have been fundamentally different.

Trump, however, IS (unless he's been trolling us his whole campaign) fundamentally different. Typical US politicians will pound the podium about respect for the Rule of Law and desires for peace...then go and commit war crimes in secret. Trump isn't bothering. He's openly admitting he WANTS to commit war crimes.

If a typical President had problems with some European countries not living up to their NATO committments, he or she would publicly state how strong the NATO alliance is and how rock-solid America's committment to it is...and work out any issues out of the public eye. Not Trump, if the Baltic countries aren't paying like they promised, he's gonna use the Mafia tactic of extorting "protection money" from them ("Nice country ya got there. It'd be a shame if you didn't pay your "protection money" and NATO wasn't around to make sure nuttin' happened to it...").

There are NOT minor differences in policy. These are MAJOR changes in how the United States government typically functions, and there is NOTHING in Trump's background to indicate he has ANY clue how to handle this without majorly f***ing it up.

THAT'S why some of us (yours truly included) are struggling to believe people were reckless enough to vote for Trump, and why we are more despondent than after other GOP victories in the past.

Yes, I want major dramatic change to our system of government. But I want it to be INTELLIGENT change, based upon a realistic understanding of how the world works. Trump lacks the background and the temperament for INTELLIGENT change, so were (most likely) going to end up with reckless ego-driven change instead.

If you're OK with that, then fine. But don't complain if other people end up resorting to reckless violent stupid actions in an attempt to institue social change. You proved your willing to do it with your vote for a reckless narcissistic egomaniac.

Holy Cow! 

LOL  That was Oscar-worthy.   As in too good for me to try and add a thing.  Thanks OS for this answer and thanks Randy for understanding why I don't have to say anything after that one.  It is hard to shut me up.  I have been shut.  In a good way. 

Old School, you wrote in your conclusion: "If you're OK with that, then fine. But don't complain if other people end up resorting to reckless violent stupid actions in an attempt to institute social change. You proved your willing to do it with your vote for a reckless narcissistic egomaniac."

You had me until your conclusion, which is where it went personal, and where it went off the rails.  I don't mind you getting personal, but at least do so without making incorrect assumptions.

First of all, you truly speculate as to what I am ok with.  I stated above what I thought, and no matter how I vote or what I think about the choices, one of two bad choices eventually takes the prize.  I have no real, true, tangible choice as to being ok with it or not being ok with it because that won't change the fact that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump takes the presidency.  The entire country was between a rock and a hard place with two nominees that will each have his or her own negative effect as president.  Neither choice bodes well for the country.  Trump having won is what has to be accepted, even by Hillary Clinton's own words upon concession.  Those who are protesting may claim that they're seeking social change, and they are doing so in the same path along the slippery slope that assassins do when pulling a trigger.

Secondly, I haven't proven anything of the kind, because I haven't shared with anyone how I voted or even whether or not I voted.  (By the way, it's "you're", not "your willing".  But I digress; I know it was merely an error that anyone would have made, myself included.)

Struggling to believe describes me also.  I thought that Hillary Clinton might take 75% of the electoral vote.  I was as shocked as many of her supporters were, but unlike them, my shock has worn off.  Had Hillary Clinton won, I can guarantee you that I would not be protesting, rioting, etc.

Thank you for your well-written, well thought-out analysis.

~