What happens next?

It's been called, if these reports are true, Joseph Biden will be the 46th president of the United States of America.

There has been much discussion even here, what will the Democrats do now that they have the office? Was the election a fraud and should the Republicans take it to court? Will it be exactly how it was 4 years ago? So many questions and no solid answers, I can't hope to provide those answers, but I ask one that's a little more topical and broad. What happens next?

What happens next for America? 

Most likely this.

nothing, it will be more partisan divide for an indefinite amount of time

So.... a partisan divide in the middle? Towards either side? Is there any way to help stop the divide? Can we bridge the gap without compromising values? Or will something need to be sacrificed? I just want to hear your thoughts, you seem to have a unique enough perspective to give me some insight.

probably in the middle, demographics and where people live/culture determines ones political views over anything and determines house seats for example

Interesting, what would you, in particular,  want to happen next?

good question, ideally trumpism becomes the face of the GOP and america first ideology is presented in the party, policy is centered around bringing home and discipline the military and bringing back the nuclear family, the government debt also needs to be addressed.

I am not quite sure that will happen, although the playing field has been layed down, social issues are more important than economic ones. This is our chance to come back with a new and improved ideology.

of course this might not happen  but to many, including me, the west is in decline-us purchasing power down, the social values down, the culture degraded, etc.  The country is in ruins to many. Trumpists and the far left realize this but have drastic solutions to the problem, i prefer the first way

To clarify, Trumpism, as in the ideology that Donald Trump holds? Do you believe the entire republican party should hold his positions or extrapolations of his positions?

In the nuclear family, there is rough: A father, a mother, 2 children or so, or some small variation of that: what of homosexual individuals? Do you believe we should exclude them from having a family model? Do you believe that the father should hold "rule" over the house and collect income to support the family and that women should stay home and take care of children? 

yes trumpism or paleoconservatism should be the future, not mainstream neocon GOP values

homosexual individuals should not raise kids, it would be a bad environment for the children who are built upon their mother and father

And what of the numerous studies that demonstrate that children do just as well if not better in homosexual raised households, and of the fact that most studies that say otherwise are based on an inherent misunderstanding of gender roles throughout society and attributing it to one parent in general?

Edit: Child at the end should be parent, my bad.

school performance is mostly on poverty or wealth of the family

many incidents arise like this that killed the boy scouts

Now you are making a claim and implying one:

1. That school performance is based on poverty/wealth of the family

2. That homosexuals are pedophiles or a pressing amount of them

First off, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the first claim, but I require further evidence to support it as the main indicator of academic success. Second, you only address one study, and third of all, rainn.org notes:

Therefore if I were to use your logic, we shouldn't allow heterosexuals to raise children because the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.

adjusted for opulation, homosexuals commit far morehttps://www.educationdive.com/spons/exploring-the-relationship-between-poverty-and-school-performance/562240/ abuse crime

I would have to disagree again: firstly; this is ignoring the fact that many experts on the matter have dismissed the connection: explaining that pedophiles develop their sexuality differently than one of the usual occurrence, as this study reports:

This study further indicates this truth:

You might point out that my own study supports your position but I would like to direct your attention to the word: suggests. Notice how it is the verbiage used to support your claim, and how "Of course" is used to support mine. Because one is saying: Based on the research of how this works (Of course), while the other is saying: As far as we know.. (suggests) 

This is due to the fact of a large unaccounted teenage population that is homosexual as well as non-reported abuse and sexual harm cases. This isn't bringing up the adult population which hides their true sexuality. All of these factors combined puts extreme doubt that these numbers are corrolary. 

What's been called, and by whom? Last I checked, the MSM does not declare the President-Elect; theirs is just opinion, too. In this multi-media age, and your youth, you forget the old b&w photo of Truman holding a newspaper headline in Nov. 1948: "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN"

Only he didn't. Truman defeated Dewey. That's media for you. They've learned nothing in 72 years.

Take a guess what happens next? You're still with Hillaryous Balloon Girl trying to figure out what happened. What happens next?

On the second Tuesday of December [the 8th, this year]: States' last day to submit their certified election results. [FL failed to do that in 2000]

On the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December [the 14th this year]: Electoral College votes. Then you know what happened, just like Hillaryous found out. [but still wondered what happened in 2016.]

That's the law, unless the Democrats want to try to undermine that one, as well, like they've tried for the last 40 years to amend the Constitution [that's what has to happen] to eliminate the Electoral College.

i still think its unatural for children to be raised by same sex parents

Okay, and that's your belief, and you can reflect that in your life, but in order to justify a claim to say: in general, homosexuals should not raise children, requires evidence to support or justify that proposition. Whereas I have given you evidence to the contrary.

Further on, an appeal to nature would imply that rape would be perfectly acceptable, that murder would be acceptable so long as you were doing it to consume my flesh because you were hungry. That life saving medical treatments should not be used because they are not natural, etc, etc...

more prone to

also, no rape and murder is not natural

First of all this is based on an outdated, biased, and simple factually incorrect article 

Second of all it leads to polygamy, not cheating, second of all - it ignores the fact that there are gay men too and not just lesbian women, as well as the fact that a large proportion of the abuse that bisexual people report is most likely due to their relationships with males, who are statistically much more likely to abuse than women. Third of all this is again based on uncomprehensive data, instead of relying on data that only supports their position while wildly extrapolated. 

Finally - Cats rape other cats to breed, Wolves kill deer to eat. 

how so?

Do you remember my point of the massive unaccounted teenage population? As well as adults who are still in the closet of being homosexual or the like? And my point there was like the lesbian example, they are using that single statistic to support their claim that homosexual marriage is more likely to end in abuse, whenever that doesn't at all look at the issue more in depth.

Such as the fact that people who are abused are more likely to be abusive than your average person, and people who are homosexual are more likely to be abused, the issue then would be helping gay people be less abused, not arbitrarily shifting the blame to the homosexual person.

how would that change the conclusion?

Everything is natural.

First of all - if there is  a massive uncounted homosexual population then the abuse rates would not scale to heterosexual rates like you think it does, Second of all - they are only looking at a literal single study, that is again: biased, un-comprehensive, etc

What that changes is why people are abusive. This study implies that people are just naturally more abusive because they are gay, whenever that does not seem to be the case, gay people are abused more than heterosexual people, and therefore become abusers themselves more often. That doesn't mean that its their fault for being gay. you don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.
The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

Also, a new study, which attempts to correct for problems with current survey methodology (even when anonymous we don't always answer honestly), finds that 19 percent of Americans don't consider themselves heterosexual. Also about 60 per cent of  pre-adolescent boys engage in homosexual activities, and there is an additional group of adult males who avoid overt contacts but who are quite aware of their potentialities for reacting to other males.

Huh that's some interesting research I hadn't looked into, thanks for the source start, I'm definitely going to look into that.

that doesnt address much

again why would that change anything and how was the study biased

not everything

What do you mean, "Doesn't explain." I literally explained it to you: First of all - if there was a large amount unaccounted homosexual's then the proportions would be lower, the fact that  it's a catholic organization makes it inherently biased against homosexual people, etc, etc

Actually provide a counter-argument or concede please, because at this point you are just in denial that you're wrong.