-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
- Um ok. What vital role did she play in killing him? I'll bet he'd still be alive if it wasn't for her. Yep, she probably led the SEAL team.
- Is that literally the deal is it? Just a bunch of racists and misogynists? That's just as stupid as arguing that all of Clinton's supporters are poor, welfare dependent dopes who bleed the gummint.
1, ok so yes, you have no idea what a Sec of State does, it was a rogue seal team acting by themselves, like the A-Team apparently, no generals, no intelligence officials, Obama, they all had zero hand in it.
- No, its not. Clinton called a big chunk of his supprters rascists & bigots. Outrage! Only thing is, every impartial poll supports that.
*Nearly half of Trump's supporters described African Americans as more "violent" than whites. The same proportion described African Americans as more "criminal" than whites, while 40 percent described them as more "lazy" than whites.
In smaller, but still significant, numbers, Clinton backers also viewed blacks more critically than whites with regard to certain personality traits. Nearly one-third of Clinton supporters described blacks as more "violent" and "criminal" than whites, and one-quarter described them as more "lazy" than whites.
Clinton is relying heavily on black voters to help her win the White House, and her victory over Sanders in the early state nominating contests was due in part to her overwhelming lead among African Americans.
When asked about where they wanted to live, 36 percent of Trump supporters said, "I prefer to live in a community with people who come from diverse cultures," compared with 46 percent of Cruz supporters, 55 percent of Kasich supporters and 70 percent of Clinton supporters.
Trump's supporters were more likely to be critical of affirmative action policies that favor minorities in school admissions or in hiring.
Some 31 percent of Trump supporters said they "strongly agree" that "social policies, such as affirmative action, discriminate unfairly against white people," compared with 21 percent of Cruz supporters, 17 percent of Kasich supporters and 16 percent of Clinton supporters.
To be sure, not all Trump supporters expressed negative attitudes about blacks. No more than 50 percent of his supporters rated blacks negatively, relative to whites, on any of the six character traits in the poll.
Yet when their answers to the poll questions were compared with responses from supporters of other candidates, Trump supporters were always more critical of blacks on personality traits, analysis of the results showed.*
So no, its not "just as stupid" its a fucking backed up fact, unlike everything you've argued the last few posts.
-
When working class whites support Trump, it must be racism not the sense that the elites don't give fuck about them and that under Clinton it will certainly get worse.
In the last election, approximately 93% of blacks voted for Obama. Were they called racist or just looking out for their interests?
-
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
When working class whites support Trump, it must be racism not the sense that the elites don't give fuck about them and that under Clinton it will certainly get worse.
In the last election, approximately 93% of blacks voted for Obama. Were they called racist or just looking out for their interests?
Read the link above, or any of the ones in 538, Economist, Pew, Atlantic, Washpo, NYT, regarding that deplorables quote. No, you don't HAVE to be racist to support him - and at least half of his supporters are NOT, but close to half are.
-
Sorry to bust your PC bubble, crime rates, rates of violence, domestic abuse, number of single mothers are all way worse for blacks than for whites in the US. This is FACT.
I know, I know, whites can't say it. Because that would mean they are racist. And the establishment media are knee deep in this PC muck. Even conservatives are terrified of being labeled with the dreaded label
RACIST!!!!!!!
-
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
Sorry to bust your PC bubble, crime rates, rates of violence, domestic abuse, number of single mothers are all way worse for blacks than for whites in the US. This is FACT.
I know, I know, whites can't say it. Because that would mean they are racist. And the establishment media are knee deep in this PC muck. Even conservatives are terrified of being labeled with the dreaded label
RACIST!!!!!!!
Undeniably true stats Frank but this of course ignores the causality of those problems. Statistically there is a higher percentage of blacks that live in poverty than whites. A more relevant comparison would be between poor black people and poor white people. I have no idea if such stats are available but it would be an interesting read one way or another.
-
@Catogrande said in US Election Thread 2016:
Undeniably true stats Frank but this of course ignores the causality of those problems. Statistically there is a higher percentage of blacks that live in poverty than whites. A more relevant comparison would be between poor black people and poor white people. I have no idea if such stats are available but it would be an interesting read one way or another.
The current "must read" book in the states is Hillbilly Elegy,
Its a book by a guy from the "white Trash" side of America, its huge in the states right now because its a very frank look at where its gone wrong for the white under class & what needs to be done to fix it. And yes Cato, poor white is certainly no better than poor black on all of those scales.
Atlantic did a good write up of it, I've been getting that on the KIndle the last few months, its £1.79 an issue on Amazon, good read in the election cycle
As to the "FACTS" making Franks view right, "while 40 percent described them as more "lazy" than whites." Not sure what fact would back that up?
Its no different to the idea Maori are over represented in jail so must therefore be "worse" than Pakehas & its PC to not be able to say that. I mean the "stats" back that up. They are also terrible parents apparently.
Poor people are very very similar no matter the race, but race often dictates which ones are poor.
There's any number of things skewing it eg America's war on drugs hit inner cities - where poor blacks live & smoke crack, but skipped the countryside where poor whites live & do oxy, heroin or meth. So you have black crime rates up, but in contrast white deaths by heroin are at an all time high.
-
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
2, yep, thats literally the deal for 50% of his supporters. Hell, look at his supporters on here, they are the same guys posting re Islam on other threads or ranting about PC eroding their rights
Trump doesn't have any supporters on here. Saying Hilary is just as bad doesn't make you a Trump supporter. They are both fucking awful candidates.
And calling Islam out at as a fucking shitty ideology has nothing to do with race.
-
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
- Um ok. What vital role did she play in killing him? I'll bet he'd still be alive if it wasn't for her. Yep, she probably led the SEAL team.
- Is that literally the deal is it? Just a bunch of racists and misogynists? That's just as stupid as arguing that all of Clinton's supporters are poor, welfare dependent dopes who bleed the gummint.
1, ok so yes, you have no idea what a Sec of State does, it was a rogue seal team acting by themselves, like the A-Team apparently, no generals, no intelligence officials, Obama, they all had zero hand in it.
- No, its not. Clinton called a big chunk of his supprters rascists & bigots. Outrage! Only thing is, every impartial poll supports that.
*Nearly half of Trump's supporters described African Americans as more "violent" than whites. The same proportion described African Americans as more "criminal" than whites, while 40 percent described them as more "lazy" than whites.
In smaller, but still significant, numbers, Clinton backers also viewed blacks more critically than whites with regard to certain personality traits. Nearly one-third of Clinton supporters described blacks as more "violent" and "criminal" than whites, and one-quarter described them as more "lazy" than whites.
Clinton is relying heavily on black voters to help her win the White House, and her victory over Sanders in the early state nominating contests was due in part to her overwhelming lead among African Americans.
When asked about where they wanted to live, 36 percent of Trump supporters said, "I prefer to live in a community with people who come from diverse cultures," compared with 46 percent of Cruz supporters, 55 percent of Kasich supporters and 70 percent of Clinton supporters.
Trump's supporters were more likely to be critical of affirmative action policies that favor minorities in school admissions or in hiring.
Some 31 percent of Trump supporters said they "strongly agree" that "social policies, such as affirmative action, discriminate unfairly against white people," compared with 21 percent of Cruz supporters, 17 percent of Kasich supporters and 16 percent of Clinton supporters.
To be sure, not all Trump supporters expressed negative attitudes about blacks. No more than 50 percent of his supporters rated blacks negatively, relative to whites, on any of the six character traits in the poll.
Yet when their answers to the poll questions were compared with responses from supporters of other candidates, Trump supporters were always more critical of blacks on personality traits, analysis of the results showed.*
So no, its not "just as stupid" its a fucking backed up fact, unlike everything you've argued the last few posts.
- Again what vital role did she play in killing Bin Laden? I'll bet that if had happened under a Republican you'd be ridiculing the notion that the SoS could be credited for a military and intelligence operation like this.
- Mitt Romney got 60 odd million votes in 2012. Lets be conservative and say that Trump gets 50 million. Do you seriously think that he has 25 million voters who are motivated by nothing more than racism?
Simple yes or no question. If 1370 black Clinton supporters were surveyed with exactly the same (rather loaded) questions about whites and the feedback was similar or worse would you then argue that black Clinton supporters were racists? You'd probably argue that the sample size was too small or something.
Now lets get a few things clear. Unlike yourself I am not supporting a particular candidate in this election. Trump is a professional bullshit artist tapping into a huge well of pissed off people right across the country. People fed up and disgusted with their elected representatives. Saying racism is the reason for that is simplistic and insulting. Ultimately the choice is between one of the entrenched elite with a shady as fuck history and highly questionable abilities and decison-making vs a Washington outsider, but a buffoonish orange property tycoon who is probably worth much less than he claims and is happy to insult pretty much everyone. Not an enviable choice, and both candidates have far more cons that pros. I happen to think that Clinton shades Trump in the cons department. Other people have a different view and I respect that. If you want I'll go through the pros and cons sometime but I won't bother if you're just going to continue to believe the only opinion that matters is your own and that everyone that doesn't share your world view or your opinions isn't worthy of your genius. In other words, if you want a logical exchange of ideas then fine. But if you're just going to ( often incorrectly) seize upon something you don't like then spray insults everywhere then don't fucking bother.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
Saying racism is the reason for that is simplistic and insulting.
And yet... thats exactly what pew, reuters, economist, 538 etc polls are saying. Everyone who fact checked her speech in fact.
I get you don't buy it. But that doesn't make it so. IE I'm saying racism is a huge factor, backing that up with any number of polls you want. You are saying its not, and backing that up with nothing. And then calling it "insulting"?
I'm not having a go at someone disagreeing with me, I'm having a go at someone disagreeing with half the more centrist news sites covering election - even more so if they back that up with nothing. This point isn't my opinion v yours, its yours v Pew, Reuters, 538, etc. Trying to turn it into "my" opinion would make yours seem equally valid - and no question, your opinion is as equally valid as mine, but that not what is being debated here.
Thats the core issue facing modern democracy the idea that opinions are as valid as facts. Its how we get anti-vax lobbies or climate change denial, or birthers.
As for who is supporting who, this thread is 100 pages long, a core of posters have posted a LOT & you'd have to be blind to not be able to work out that theres some supporting Trump & some Hillary simply by what they post, a few I think probably are impartial, but most are not, even if they don't come out & say it as Frank & I have, 100+ posts leaning hard one way spells it out.
-
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
Saying racism is the reason for that is simplistic and insulting.
And yet... thats exactly what pew, reuters, economist, 538 etc polls are saying. Everyone who fact checked her speech in fact.
I get you don't buy it. But that doesn't make it so. IE I'm saying racism is a huge factor, backing that up with any number of polls you want. You are saying its not, and backing that up with nothing. And then calling it "insulting"?
I'm not having a go at someone disagreeing with me, I'm having a go at someone disagreeing with half the more centrist news sites covering election - even more so if they back that up with nothing. This point isn't my opinion v yours, its yours v Pew, Reuters, 538, etc. Trying to turn it into "my" opinion would make yours seem equally valid - and no question, your opinion is as equally valid as mine, but that not what is being debated here.
Thats the core issue facing modern democracy the idea that opinions are as valid as facts. Its how we get anti-vax lobbies or climate change denial, or birthers.
As for who is supporting who, this thread is 100 pages long, a core of posters have posted a LOT & you'd have to be blind to not be able to work out that theres some supporting Trump & some Hillary simply by what they post, a few I think probably are impartial, but most are not, even if they don't come out & say it as Frank & I have, 100+ posts leaning hard one way spells it out.
They fact checked her claim and found that 25 million Trump supporters are voting for him because they're racist? Really? IIRC correctly exactly the same poll was conducted in 2012 and found that more than 50% of the entire country was racist. Which is pretty interesting considering that a black guy won 2 presidential elections very easily.
But you didn't answer my question. If these polls were conducted on 1370 black voters and received the same results would you then label them racists and their votes purely motivated by racism? Would those then be undisputable facts and therefore not open to any form of discussion?
-
@NTA said in US Election Thread 2016:
I say we get to 2000 posts for this thread, then lock it.
Only if we agree that the ones I don't agree with don't count.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
They fact checked her claim and found that 25 million Trump supporters are voting for him because they're racist? Really? IIRC correctly exactly the same poll was conducted in 2012 and found that more than 50% of the entire country was racist. Which is pretty interesting considering that a black guy won 2 presidential elections very easily.
But you didn't answer my question. If these polls were conducted on 1370 black voters and received the same results would you then label them racists and their votes purely motivated by racism? Would those then be undisputable facts and therefore not open to any form of discussion?
They fact checked it & found roughly 50% of his voters fell into racist yes. Seriousl;y, how hard is that to google?
No they didn't poll 25m people. Do you not understand how polls work? Thats one of the stupidest things I've read on here, you are actually asking if they polled 25m people & that the poll is invalid if they didn't?
And yes, if they polled & found Hillary's voters were voting Hillary because they hated white people yes, that would imply her voters are racist. Tho' I'm not sure how that would work, what with her being white... they did actually find a share of her vote IS racist (against blacks), just not such a massive share, they looked for both sets of voters being racist against whites and found nothing. Does that answer your question?
Re Obama, he won because he got an unprecendented % of the non white vote. Not because he got a 51% share of all Americans. His white share was WAY down on other Dem nominations. FFS thats a huge fucking straw you are grasping at there... and one you could have dodged by just knowing.. well, anything at all really about the last 2 votes
@NTA said in US Election Thread 2016:
I say we get to 2000 posts for this thread, then lock it.
Oh come on, the debate is Monday, the hilarity is just about to start.
-
Nah. This us where I get my election news from.
BTW. Declaring my position: I'm with Hils. Not ideal perhaps but I don't think she's as bad as some make out. I thought about describing her as the "least worst" option, but I think that's a little harsh.
Trump scares me silly.
-
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
They fact checked it & found roughly 50% of his voters fell into racist yes. Seriousl;y, how hard is that to google?Huh? Racism in many cases - particularly this one is a highly subjective one.
Using the notion that being against affirmative action programs as a marker for racism is absolutely embarrassing. Similarly securing the borders.
No wonder civil debate is so difficult in the states where everything has to be a binary option.
They should be asking people to self identify if they are racist like they would a democrat/republican, male/female. That would get a result that means just as much.
-
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Election Thread 2016:
They fact checked her claim and found that 25 million Trump supporters are voting for him because they're racist? Really? IIRC correctly exactly the same poll was conducted in 2012 and found that more than 50% of the entire country was racist. Which is pretty interesting considering that a black guy won 2 presidential elections very easily.
But you didn't answer my question. If these polls were conducted on 1370 black voters and received the same results would you then label them racists and their votes purely motivated by racism? Would those then be undisputable facts and therefore not open to any form of discussion?
They fact checked it & found roughly 50% of his voters fell into racist yes. Seriousl;y, how hard is that to google?
No they didn't poll 25m people. Do you not understand how polls work? Thats one of the stupidest things I've read on here, you are actually asking if they polled 25m people & that the poll is invalid if they didn't?
And yes, if they polled & found Hillary's voters were voting Hillary because they hated white people yes, that would imply her voters are racist. Tho' I'm not sure how that would work, what with her being white... they did actually find a share of her vote IS racist (against blacks), just not such a massive share, they looked for both sets of voters being racist against whites and found nothing. Does that answer your question?
Re Obama, he won because he got an unprecendented % of the non white vote. Not because he got a 51% share of all Americans. His white share was WAY down on other Dem nominations. FFS thats a huge fucking straw you are grasping at there... and one you could have dodged by just knowing.. well, anything at all really about the last 2 votes
@NTA said in US Election Thread 2016:
I say we get to 2000 posts for this thread, then lock it.
Oh come on, the debate is Monday, the hilarity is just about to start.
- Bullshit. In any case, nothing in that poll says anything about them voting for Trump because want to persecute everyone that isn't white, which is the claim this discussion is based on. Another one of your "facts".
- WTF? Point out where I asked if 25 million people were polled. You talk about facts and logic then spray more bullshit like that? Do you ever read what other people write?
- Wait a minute. You're now saying this poll means that Trump supporters are voting for him because they hate black people? What were the demographics in that poll btw? Where were they from? If the vast majority were white it would be rather odd if they were racist against themselves don't you think?
- What do Dem nominations have to do with it? In the 2008 election he got more whites (43%)than both Kerry and Gore. I assume that means pretty much every white Rep voter is racist?
-
This might explain how we see what we want to see................
Scott Adams
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150816666991/blowing-your-mind-as-promisedhttps://www.periscope.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1vOxwRoYDOrJB?t=55
Blowing Your Mind – as Promised
About a year ago I told you that Donald Trump would change far more than politics. I predicted that he would change your understanding of the human condition and your role in reality.
Back then, I couldn’t explain what I meant. You didn’t have the mental framework to hold this new idea – unless you were a trained hypnotist or a cognitive scientist. The ideas were too radical.
Until now.
I saw this situation developing last year. The Master Persuader opened a crack in the universe so we mortals could – for the first time – understand the nature of reality. At the end of this short blog post I will link to an article that will blow your mind.
But first I will describe the mental framework you need to accept this new vision of reality. The framework goes like this:
-
Smart, well-informed people disagree on nearly all major issues. So being smart and well-informed doesn’t help you grasp reality as much as you would hope. If it did, all of the smart, well-informed people would agree. They don’t.
-
Trump says lots of things that don’t pass the fact-checkers’ tests. His supporters don’t care because facts don’t influence decisions. Humans decide first, then rationalize their irrational choices with cherry-picked data. You see this all the time with the people who disagree with your brilliance. Just remember that they see the same irrationality in you that you see in them.
-
So-called “news” outlets are literally inventing news and peddling it as truth.
-
We learned that voters don’t actually pick the Democratic candidate. The party picks the candidate. Democracy in the United States is largely an illusion.
-
Every candidate looks good until we learn more about that person’s past. Then every candidate looks terrible. But is it possible that only terrible people run for president and get to the final rounds?
-
We all noticed – this year more than ever – that political polls are skewed by bias.
-
You watched as I used the Master Persuader filter to accurately predict the outcome of the presidential election up to this point. In so doing, I ignored forecasts from all the “experts.” I also ignored policies, experience, and facts. None of those things help you predict the future.
-
Many of you have started reading from my Persuasion Reading List, and by now you understand that humans are not rational creatures. We are creatures who believe we are rational.
Now you are ready.
Read this to forever alter your understanding of reality.
Welcome to the third dimension. The Master Persuader has been waiting for you.
-
US Politics