Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[Johnny Canuck3]

What's a racist?.

rac·ist
ˈrāsəst/
noun
noun: racist; plural noun: racists

1. 1.
   a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
   synonyms: racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist More
   "he was exposed as a racist"
   (racially) discriminatory, racialist, prejudiced, bigoted
   "a racist society"

adjective
noun: racist; plural noun: racists; adjective: racist

1. 1.
   having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
   "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"

 

[bimble]

And your point is.. people who are demonstrating against Trump are silly moustachiod hipsters ?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

these 'racist' voters who have voted for explicitly anti-racist, black political candidates in the past?

Now that we know what a racist is - where is the evidence that racists have voted for black candidates in the past?

 

[emanymton]

No, not without knowing how many people out of the whole sample said immigrants and terrorists were the biggest concerns, and how many said the economy and foreign policy. It could be that only 10% picked each of the first two and 40% the latter two (although that probably wouldn't tally with the overall result of a Trump win).

It's also dangerous to automatically assume a causality which says that people voted Trump simply because they thought terrorism was the biggest single issue.

And finally, remember that people are likely to have had to choose between a short list when deciding their most important issue, so it's a slightly artificial question.

Worth noting these bits from the exit poll as well. although the sane problem exist, we don't know how big eaxh group is, although it should be possible to make a decent guess.

Sorry I cant post prerty pictures


Family financial situation

Better today
72% Clinton
24% Trump
Worse today
19% Clinton
78% Trump
About the same
46% Clinton
46% Trump

What do you expect for the next generation of Americans?

Better than life today
59% Clinton
38% Trump
Worse than life today
31% Clinton
63% Trump
About the same
54% Clinton
39% Trump

 

[andysays]

Now that we know what a racist is - where is the evidence that racists have voted for black candidates in the past?

And where is the evidence that everyone who voted for Trump, especially the crucial voters who supported Obama previously but didn't support Clinton and therefore enabled Trump to win, was "racist", however you attempt to define that?

It's the logic of everyone, including you, who claims that Trump won because "racists" which is being shown to be at fault here, if only you could see it.

 

[butchersapron]

It's simple Andy. Trump voters are racists. Obama voters couldn't be. Therefore no one voted for trump who also voted for Obama. Therefore there's no problem with Clinton or wider liberal democratic politics or perspective.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And where is the evidence that everyone who voted for Trump, especially the crucial voters who supported Obama previously but didn't support Clinton and therefore enabled Trump to win, was "racist", however you attempt to define that?

It's the logic of everyone, including you, who claims that Trump won because "racists" which is being shown to be at fault here, if only you could see it.

I asked my question first: answer it, then I'll have a go at yours.

 

[andysays]

...Sorry I cant post prerty pictures..

Family financial situation

What do you expect for the next generation of Americans?


Use Snipping Tool to capture screenshots

 

[emanymton]

Family financial situation
View attachment 95423
What do you expect for the next generation of Americans?
View attachment 95424

Use Snipping Tool to capture screenshots

Can't do that on my mobile though.

There probably is a way but i didn’t have the energy to try and find it.

 

[andysays]

It's simple Andy. Trump voters are racists. Obama voters couldn't be. Therefore no one voted for trump who also voted for Obama. Therefore there's no problem with Clinton or wider liberal democratic politics or perspective.

 

[andysays]

I asked my question first: answer it, then I'll have a go at yours.

People have been asking you (and others) to justify the ridiculous assertion "Trump won because Racism" ever since it was made.

It doesn't surprise me that you (or they) haven't attempted to answer, because it's a nonsense.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

People have been asking you (and others) to justify the ridiculous assertion "Trump won because Racism" ever since it was made.

It doesn't surprise me that you (or they) haven't attempted to answer, because it's a nonsense.

If you don't want to answer, that's fine.

 

[bimble]

People have been asking you (and others) to justify the ridiculous assertion "Trump won because Racism" ever since it was made.

It doesn't surprise me that you (or they) haven't attempted to answer, because it's a nonsense.

Is it possible to figure out (or make a good guess at) how much of the result was due to people enthusiastically supporting Trump and how much of it was Clinton losing because people did not want her?
The people who bought the baseball cap and cheered at his rallies, it's hard for me to not feel frightened of them, because of the nature of his campaign and the kinds of people who actively spoke in his favour etc.
But for all their noise and all the mountains of publicity they got, it does look like it's the people who didn't vote for Clinton rather than those who loved Trump who actually made the difference.
eg) only 13% of voters said that the idea of Trump for president made them feel excited, and that's not a lot.

Who the 2% are who said the idea scared them but went and voted for him anyway is a proper mystery though.

 

[killer b]

People have been asking you (and others) to justify the ridiculous assertion "Trump won because Racism" ever since it was made.

it isn't a ridiculous assertion - racism was one of the forces in play.

 

[killer b]

telling the black guy his worries about racism are ridiculous isn't a great look btw.

 

[bimble]

Meanwhile, yesterday evening,

 

[andysays]

it isn't a ridiculous assertion - racism was one of the forces in play.

Of course racism was one of the forces in play, just as it is in every US presidential election, just as it is in British election. Some voters are motivated, at least in part, by their own racism or by racist campaigning.

But the assertion that it was simply down to racism (or misogyny, or stupidity, or even some combination of those factors) on the part of Trump voters, which we've seen repeatedly asserted here by some posters, is the sort of simplistic and dangerous twaddle which will enable Trump or Trump-like wankers to continue winning, and that's not a prospect which fills me with enthusiasm

 

[andysays]

Is it possible to figure out (or make a good guess at) how much of the result was due to people enthusiastically supporting Trump and how much of it was Clinton losing because people did not want her?
The people who bought the baseball cap and cheered at his rallies, it's hard for me to not feel frightened of them, because of the nature of his campaign and the kinds of people who actively spoke in his favour etc.
But for all their noise and all the mountains of publicity they got, it does look like it's the people who didn't vote for Clinton rather than those who loved Trump who actually made the difference.
eg) only 13% of voters said that the idea of Trump for president made them feel excited, and that's not a lot.
View attachment 95427

There are doubtless others here who are better at interpreting statistics than I am, so I will leave it to them to do so, but yes, knowing what the proportion of each of those groups are makes it far more meaningful than not knowing.

Who the 2% are who said the idea scared them but went and voted for him anyway is a proper mystery though

Some people obviously like a good scare now and again...

 

[killer b]

I think some people are still shocked and horrified right now Andy, and trying to make sense of it all. Perhaps dismissing their legitimate concerns as simplistic and dangerous twaddle is a bit counterproductive.

Racism was an important factor in this election, and for some people that's going to loom above everything else. I don't think that by highlighting the racism and wanting to talk about it they're saying that's all there was to it.

 

[killer b]

As chilango says over on the other thread, telling people they're stupid and wrong isn't a very effective tactic. That remains true whoever it is you're telling they're stupid & wrong.

 

[Pickman's model]

As chilango says over on the other thread, telling people they're stupid and wrong isn't a very effective tactic. That remains true whoever it is you're telling they're stupid & wrong.

How about just wrong?

 

[Pickman's model]

As chilango says over on the other thread, telling people they're stupid and wrong isn't a very effective tactic. That remains true whoever it is you're telling they're stupid & wrong.

Er it's privileged people telling less privileged people they're stupid not effective. so not saying you're stupid but you're wrong.

 

[bimble]

I think some people are still shocked and horrified right now Andy, and trying to make sense of it all. Perhaps dismissing their legitimate concerns as simplistic and dangerous twaddle is a bit counterproductive.

Racism was an important factor in this election, and for some people that's going to loom above everything else. I don't think that by highlighting the racism and wanting to talk about it they're saying that's all there was to it.

The fact that I felt really grateful for your post just shows how emotional it all is, think i've been pretending reasonableness when actually still really upset and scared.
Godwins's law notwithstanding: On top of people seeming to argue that the racism was not really an important factor, there's all this stuff going around about how a) he didn't really mean those things he said and b) he'll be unable to do much damage anyway.
None of which is helping yet either.
Please understand - I'm not saying Trump is the new Hitler, or all trump voters are nazis etc, just that it's not ok to demand that everyone to get on board with the idea that racism isn't an important part of what's happening with the rise of Nationalism that seems everywhere at the moment.

 

[two sheds]

Er it's privileged people telling less privileged people they're stupid not effective. so not saying you're stupid but you're wrong.

The version Left wing people calling people-they-consider-less-left-wing "stupid" doesn't seem to be working ... works too.

 

[Pickman's model]

The fact that I felt really grateful for your post just shows how emotional it all is, think i've been pretending reasonableness when actually still really upset and scared.
Godwins's law notwithstanding: On top of people seeming to argue that the racism was not really an important factor, there's all this stuff going around about how a) he didn't really mean those things he said and b) he'll be unable to do much damage anyway.
None of which is helping yet either.
Please understand - I'm not saying Trump is the new Hitler, or all trump voters are nazis etc, just that it's not ok to demand that everyone to get on board with the idea that racism isn't an important part of what's happening with the rise of Nationalism that seems everywhere at the moment.


View attachment 95429
View attachment 95431

1922?

 

[butchersapron]

If you can't nail them on it's all about class, have a try with they say it's nothing to do with racism.

 

[Pickman's model]

The version Left wing people calling people-they-consider-less-left-wing "stupid" doesn't seem to be working ... works too.

Not calling anyone stupid. but occasionally wrong.

 

[andysays]

I think some people are still shocked and horrified right now Andy, and trying to make sense of it all. Perhaps dismissing their legitimate concerns as simplistic and dangerous twaddle is a bit counterproductive.

Racism was an important factor in this election, and for some people that's going to loom above everything else. I don't think that by highlighting the racism and wanting to talk about it they're saying that's all there was to it.

As far as I can see, you're falling back into your all-too-typical habit of distorting what someone has said, and then attacking them for saying what they haven't said.

I'm not dismissing anyone's concerns, and I'm not saying people shouldn't talk about racism. And I'm certainly not saying that racism isn't a factor, one amongst many.

There have been a number of people here saying that Trump's win was entirely down to the ignorance/racism/misogyny of those who supported him, including those mainly working class voters who previously voted for and ensured the election of Obama.

It may cathartic for people to express their fears and concerns in that way, but when it comes to understanding, explaining and learning from what happened, I don't think it's particularly helpful, which is why I've been trying to argue that there is more to the Trump victory than that. Not denying the racism, but saying that it's not the whole story.

This is particularly important, IMO, because so much of the Clinton campaign focussed on monstering Trump and his views, and so little was done about giving potential Democrat voters something positive to vote for. And we've all seen how well that worked.

As chilango says over on the other thread, telling people they're stupid and wrong isn't a very effective tactic. That remains true whoever it is you're telling they're stupid & wrong.

So are you telling me I'm stupid and wrong for supposedly telling other people they're stupid and wrong?

That's not a very effective tactic, especially when it's based on a dishonest misrepresentation of wht I'm actually saying.

 

[bimble]

1922?

apparently so - the first article on him in the new york times.
http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/02/10/1922-hitler-in-bavaria/?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

[Pickman's model]

apparently so - the first article on him in the new york times.
http://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/02/10/1922-hitler-in-bavaria/?smid=tw-share&_r=0

When's the second article from?