(11-14-2016, 03:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know a certain amount of women who hate men may have voted for Clinton also.  I think most blacks that hate whites didn't vote.  And why you through communists in there I have no idea but seems to be telling abut your point of view about politics.

None of that changes what I said about a certain segment of Trump supporters.

Well I haven't seen you talking about any of that.  Don't recall you ever saying black racists elected Obama twice.

LMAO at thinking blacks that hate whites didn't vote.  Not sure on what basis someone would arrive to that conclusion, although I suppose you'll argue that the racist blacks are the 8% that voted for Trump. 

But it is interesting with all these "racists" coming out of the woodwork to support Trump that somehow he gets less votes than Romney and barely more than McCain.

(11-14-2016, 03:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Because "communism" [a.k.a socialism] is to capitalism as "xenophobia" [a.k.a. nationalism] is to globalism.

Your definition of "discrimination" gets a bit vague, then.

A communist discriminates agains Capitalism, a Conservative discriminates against "liberals", a liberal discriminates against conservatives... that doesn't sound right. Having a political opinion does not equal "discrimination" against different opinions, but your examples seem to imply otherwise. Disagreement is not discrimination (and not a bad thing) - it just might lead to it.

Second, I take issue with your equalling communism with socialism. You Americans use these terms differently, I take that into account, but there are vast distinctions between those two that are not to be neglected. Simple example, a communist wants total equality amongst all citizens, a socialist has no such intent.

(11-14-2016, 03:36 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well I haven't seen you talking about any of that.  Don't recall you ever saying black racists elected Obama twice.

LMAO at thinking blacks that hate whites didn't vote.  Not sure on what basis someone would arrive to that conclusion, although I suppose you'll argue that the racist blacks are the 8% that voted for Trump. 

But it is interesting with all these "racists" coming out of the woodwork to support Trump that somehow he gets less votes than Romney and barely more than McCain.

Overall black voters were down this year.  I'm making an assumption that those would be people who only came out to vote for a black candidate.

Anyway:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Quote:Trump won white voters by a margin almost identical to that of Mitt Romney, who lost the popular vote to Barack Obama in 2012. (Trump appears likely to lose the popular vote, which would make him only the fifth elected president to do so and still win office.) White non-Hispanic voters preferred Trump over Clinton by 21 percentage points (58% to 37%), according to the exit poll conducted byEdison Research for the National Election Pool. Romney won whites by 20 percentage points in 2012 (59% to 39%).

However, although Trump fared little better among blacks and Hispanics than Romney did four years ago, Hillary Clinton did not run as strongly among these core Democratic groups as Obama did in 2012. Clinton held an 80-point advantage among blacks (88% to 8%) compared with Obama’s 87-point edge four years ago (93% to 6%). In 2008, Obama had a 91-point advantage among blacks.

So he did better with white, non-hispanic and she she did worse with blacks and they did come out in the same numbers as last election.

So let's go with your argument that "black racists" got Obama elected.  Can there be no truth in "white racists" came out for Trump?

(11-13-2016, 12:12 PM)PGMDino Wrote: What I think is it is funny to see all the people who voted for Trump get their panties in a wad over "less educated".

College education doesn't mean squat if you want to be a welder or a plumber.

Having a degree doesn't make anyone smarter or better than anyone else.

It's just  a simple truth that a vast majority of those without a degree or with less education voted for Trump.

That does not equate to "dumb people voted for Trump" but the people who did vote for him have taken it as an insult.  

I think that says more about them than it does the stat itself or the people reporting it.

I don't know what sort of factual reference terms like "smarter and better" can really have with regard to politics and voters, though I do have some idea of how they get deployed in US political discourse.

The very existence of politicians, pundits and other educated "elites" may create anxieties in some demographics who feel devalued for life choices that didn't include college, and may buy in when candidates from down home present opponents as members of that college-educated "smarter and better" elite.  (Then they may feel devalued again when pollsters point out that their candidate won with the non-college vote.)

That's why US politicians schizophrenically strive to appear competent, confident and knowledgeable--but no way no how "smarter and better."  They can openly brag about most anything--being rich or athletic or beautiful or great with the ladies--but not smarter and better, at least due to education.

It is relatively non-controversial to claim that people trained as plumbers know plumbing better than people not so trained. And it would be an odd plumber who was extremely careful to avoid appearing smarter and better because he was a plumber (though a very rich plumber might indeed put on smarter-and-better airs for being rich.) And it would sound very odd to hear someone arguing that just because you are a plumber, that doesn't make you smarter or better.  

Similarly, it might be relatively non-controversial to claim that people who study US/World history, foreign policy, government and the economy beyond high school know more about such subjects than people who don't study those things. And it may even be non-controversial to add that studying those subjects might better help one assess a presidential candidate's policy proposals than, say, plumbing.

And yet, it appears to be somewhat, or very, controversial to suggest that folks with post high school degrees may, as a group, have more resources for evaluating many presidential policy proposals than people who don't have such degrees. 

The just-concluded presidential campaign has probably heightened already existing anxieties about "smarter and better" educated folks, since the high school demographic broke so strongly in Trump's direction and that was widely reported.





   

(11-13-2016, 01:49 PM)GodFather Wrote: A college degree is nothing more than a piece of paper to give you opportunities professionally that the door would normally be closed.

I know plenty of college grads who can't write a professional email.

Why do so many employers prefer hiring someone with just a piece of paper then? 

Why should those professional opportunities be open or closed just for a piece of paper?

(11-13-2016, 01:49 PM)GodFather Wrote: A college degree is nothing more than a piece of paper to give you opportunities professionally that the door would normally be closed.

I know plenty of college grads who can't write a professional email.

A Ranger tab is nothing more than a piece of cloth . . . which signifies the person wearing it has completed all the requirements and is a graduate of Ranger School.

(11-13-2016, 10:27 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: I have an MS in physics and I've worked professionally in my field and I've been published in my field -- and I'm a Trump voter.

This country was founded for everyone, not just the educated.  Talk to a dairy farmer in Wisconsin or an electrician in North Carolina then talk to a hedge fund manager in New York and you'll see who really knows more about the lives and hopes of normal Americans.

Donald Trump was inspiring and he's an outsider which is who we need.  I'm sure Hillary Clinton is intelligent but she's as inspiring as watching paint dry with the charisma of spackling compound.  Bernie Sanders is a crotchety old man but at least he's interesting.

Some also voted Trump because they simply didnt like being called racist and/or homophobe by many of the elitist left because they may have wanted less immigration or did not agree with trans students using same bathrooms as their kids (for examples). In other words, they voted for the party that was not as condescending towards those that dont agree. There is a reason the term elitist left exists, where as I dont know if I ever heard of the elitist right. Idiotic right, sure as they do exist lol, but not elitist tho. 

(11-14-2016, 04:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can there be no truth in "white racists" came out for Trump?

Not according to the data you posted, where he got basically the same percentage of white and non-white voters as that great Mormon Klan Leader, Mitt Romney.

Again, the point about black racists electing Obama is the same logic you're using...but I never saw you make that claim or assumption. And you're trying to defend and argue it. You're blind to your own hypocrisy.

(11-14-2016, 03:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: Having a political opinion does not equal "discrimination" against different opinions

Being biased, or even bigoted, does not equal discrimination either until acted upon in a harmful way.  And voting for a bigot certainly doesn't make someone a racist.

(11-14-2016, 07:45 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Being biased, or even bigoted, does not equal discrimination either until acted upon in a harmful way.  And voting for a bigot certainly doesn't make someone a racist.

I agree.

(11-14-2016, 07:22 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Some also voted Trump because they simply didnt like being called racist and/or homophobe by many of the elitist left because they may have wanted less immigration or did not agree with trans students using same bathrooms as their kids (for examples). In other words, they voted for the party that was not as condescending towards those that dont agree. There is a reason the term elitist left exists, where as I dont know if I ever heard of the elitist right. Idiotic right, sure as they do exist lol, but not elitist tho. 

Yes, to divert attention away from the economy and on to white identity issues. But what goes around comes around.

"Washington insiders" and "the Establishment" who pioneered the tactic are now the right elite that Trump supposedly opposes.

(11-13-2016, 10:27 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: I have an MS in physics and I've worked professionally in my field and I've been published in my field -- and I'm a Trump voter.

This country was founded for everyone, not just the educated.  Talk to a dairy farmer in Wisconsin or an electrician in North Carolina then talk to a hedge fund manager in New York and you'll see who really knows more about the lives and hopes of normal Americans.

Donald Trump was inspiring and he's an outsider which is who we need.  I'm sure Hillary Clinton is intelligent but she's as inspiring as watching paint dry with the charisma of spackling compound.  Bernie Sanders is a crotchety old man but at least he's interesting.

I am sure that a dairy farmer in Wisconsin knows more about the lives and hopes of other dairy farmers in Wisconsin, than a hedge fund manager in New York.  And an electrician in North Carolina could certainly tell me something of the lives and hopes of people there.

But why does "normal" stop at the borders of New York? Sounds like it doesn't matter if the dairy farmer knows nothing of the hopes and dreams of the manager.

I think that we need especially competent people in the president's office. Why do you think we need "outsiders"?

I am not a hedge fund manager and maybe you are not a dairy farmer. Why do you find Trump inspiring? Which features of his life, his business, his public performances, his campaign decisions uplift you?

(11-14-2016, 07:45 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote:   And voting for a bigot certainly doesn't make someone a racist.

Still, it doesn't look good on your resume.  Or at least that used to be the case.

(11-14-2016, 10:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Still, it doesn't look good on your resume.  Or at least that used to be the case.

Well, if people can vote for someone mainly because they're a woman, or because they're black....

Identity politics really sucks when you're on the losing end of it, huh? Unfortunately that's not the message the Democratic party is going to take away from this election.

Trump won because the American people didn't like how our government was moving to the Left really fast.

Hillary said a baby has no rights while in the womb...this brought out the Christians to vote for Trump who said he would put Justices on the Supreme Court that were anti-abortion.

Hillary said that she would like to use the Australian model when dealing with the Second Amendment...this brought out everyone else to vote for Trump because he said he would put right leaning Justices on the Supreme Court.

Hillary lost because America doesn't want her Liberal Policies and her nominating far left Justices for the Supreme Court. They came out to vote to keep the Senate in Republican control and the Left didn't come out to vote because everyone and everywhere they listen to told them Hillary is going to win and win big.

(11-14-2016, 07:45 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Being biased, or even bigoted, does not equal discrimination either until acted upon in a harmful way.  And voting for a bigot certainly doesn't make someone a racist.

Yeah, and riding in the back of the bus or a whites only water fountain never harmed anyone therefore it can't be discrimination nor racism. 

(11-15-2016, 03:52 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yeah, and riding in the back of the bus or a whites only water fountain never harmed anyone therefore it can't be discrimination nor racism. 

Or the current requests for segregated dorms.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

(11-15-2016, 03:52 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Yeah, and riding in the back of the bus or a whites only water fountain never harmed anyone therefore it can't be discrimination nor racism. 

Ummm, riding in the back of the bus or a whites only water fountian would be examples of ACTING upon one's bias or bigotry and would be considered discrimination according to JustWin's post.

(11-13-2016, 10:59 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Current number is 574,064.  Since you were keeping count, I figured you'd at least like to be right.

Its up over 1 million now. 

(11-16-2016, 10:47 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Its up over 1 million now. 

Guess what happens if it reaches 2 million.