Are all Trump supporters racists?

Many folks say ALL Trump supporters are racists and bigots.

I disagree.

I think many of them are. But the majority are not.

However, EVERY Trump supporter I know or have encountered in person or on the internet, is a racist and a bigot.

Yep. They're all racists and bigots. Every single one. Including these ....

Cubans in Florida
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...half-of-cuban-voters-in-florida-backed-trump/

Rural Latinos
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-rural-voters-shifted-toward-trump-heres-why/

People of color
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ople-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/

College educated women
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...d-trumps-america-pennsylvania-women.html?_r=0

LGBT
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/11/14-lgbt-people-voted-donald-trump-loathsome-election-facts/
 
Last edited:
All of them? A rather broad brush you're using...
Anyway, I should just stay away from this subforum for a while. Ever since the election Americans appear to have gotten even more partisan, more divided, and angrier.
Good luck guys.

It's Eloi. I'm only saying because it was then adapted for one of the best German prog rock bands ever, Eloy!

Thanks for that, now I have something to listen to while I clean my kitchen.
 
All of them? A rather broad brush you're using...
Anyway, I should just stay away from this subforum for a while. Ever since the election Americans appear to have gotten even more partisan, more divided, and angrier.
Good luck guys.

Thanks for that, now I have something to listen to while I clean my kitchen.

If you were replying to my post, I apologise. I was being sarcastic.

If you were replying to the OP, then disregard, and well, yeah.
 
Every NRA member voted Trump.
90% of those owning a horse voted Trump
All those who own cattle or dairy cows voted Trump
All conspiracy theorists voted Trump :D
 
I've encountered several Trump voters outside these forums. The reasons that they stated to me were or were along the lines of "I like his family," "It's funny," "Hillary would be just as bad," and "We'd vote for anyone who promised to get rid of Obamacare, no matter how much we dislike them." I don't think that any of the ones that I encountered gave any indication of racism or bigotry playing a part
Often the reasons people give for their actions are not their real motivations.

"I like his family" = we should have a monarchy

"It's funny" = I want to see the world burn

"Hillary would be just as bad" = I am a dittohead

"We'd vote for anyone who promised to get rid of Obamacare" = I'm a republican

But anyone who voted for Trump knows they are supporting racism. Being racist isn't just about what you say.
 
The answer is: We don't know.

It appears, however, that Trump supporters don't care if Trump himself appears to be racist or espouses racist (and sexist) philosophy.
 
Here is a novel idea... trump got the majority of his votes from rural areas inclusive of the south and the midwest outside on metropolitan areas that themselves hold over half of the countrys population. Perhaps us city folks don't give a crap about the rural areas and brushing them all of as racists without prejudice is the easy escape out.

Trump could very well be bad news... i want to give him benefit of the doubt, but he did use hyper partisan rhetoric to help clinch his election. I cant forgive that... But if people here want to play the blame game using nothing but hyperbolic race bait then you all have time to blame 40 percent of the voting age population that didnt vote, and yourselves to blame for using the same cliche rhetoric without even bothering to have a decent conversation with people from the areas in which trump won his votes.

Everyone clamouring for a change to the EC needs to stop complaining about it. Its the rules of engagement the candidates have run by. It requires a constitutional amendment to drastically change. Start on it... but understand that its status as a "stupid rule" has swapped based on the winner in past elections. And your rule changes are subject to use by the other side.

I myself may take a break from this subforum given how crazy people's logic has gotten to the point where theres virtually no such thing as a decent conversation. Peoples positions are written like twitter posts.
 
Last edited:
The answer is: We don't know.

It appears, however, that Trump supporters don't care if Trump himself appears to be racist or espouses racist (and sexist) philosophy.

I think the answer is: almost certainly not. Even if a great number of Trump supporters are racist, it is almost certainly not the case that all of them are.
 
Everyone clamouring for a change to the EC needs to stop complaining about it. Its the rules of engagement the candidates have run by. It requires a constitutional amendment to drastically change. Start on it... but understand that its status as a "stupid rule" has swapped based on the winner in past elections. And your rule changes are subject to use by the other side.

This is the point in your post most worth challenging. Over the past 200 years, the electoral college has apparently been challenged more than 700 times and a majority of the public, sometimes a very significant majority (81% in 1968, for example), seems to have been opposed to it for a long time. At best, I could agree with the sentiment that people who are only asking for change because they're being poor losers should shut up. A lot of it likely is, though, that Trump getting elected against the majority's will serves more as a spark that's lighting the fuel of dissatisfaction with the system and is serving far more as motivation and focal point than direct cause. Living with something that one doesn't like, but changes nothing, tends to be notably less noteworthy and worthy of challenge than something that something that one doesn't like and is perceived to be causing things to get worse.
 
I think the answer is: almost certainly not. Even if a great number of Trump supporters are racist, it is almost certainly not the case that all of them are.

'Almost certainly not' and 'we don't know' aren't mutually exclusive.
 
This is the point in your post most worth challenging. Over the past 200 years, the electoral college has apparently been challenged more than 700 times and a majority of the public, sometimes a very significant majority (81% in 1968, for example), seems to have been opposed to it for a long time. At best, I could agree with the sentiment that people who are only asking for change because they're being poor losers should shut up. A lot of it likely is, though, that Trump getting elected against the majority's will serves more as a spark that's lighting the fuel of dissatisfaction with the system and is serving far more as motivation and focal point than direct cause. Living with something that one doesn't like, but changes nothing, tends to be notably less noteworthy and worthy of challenge than something that something that one doesn't like and is perceived to be causing things to get worse.

This is a claim for which there is insufficient evidence. We don't know how the people who didn't vote for President would have voted if the winner were based on popular vote rather than electoral college vote. For example, California had no statewide election (except for President of the US), so there was little incentive for Republicans there to vote given that the vote for President was a foregone conclusion. California represents a big chunk of Hillary's outperformance right there. In a popular vote contest, both candidates would have spent more time and money carrying their message (and tailoring it) to high population areas, so the results could have been dramatically different.
 
Probably not, but they voted for one. They need to own that.
 
No, they are not all racist. But they are all terrible people. It just happens there are many ways to be terrible.
 
No, not all Trump supporters are racist. But for every last one of them, Trump's racism was not a deal-breaker.
 
This is a claim for which there is insufficient evidence. We don't know how the people who didn't vote for President would have voted if the winner were based on popular vote rather than electoral college vote. For example, California had no statewide election (except for President of the US), so there was little incentive for Republicans there to vote given that the vote for President was a foregone conclusion. California represents a big chunk of Hillary's outperformance right there. In a popular vote contest, both candidates would have spent more time and money carrying their message (and tailoring it) to high population areas, so the results could have been dramatically different.

*sigh* My apologies. I should have likely specifically said that I was speaking of the majority of voters who actually voted. You are quite right that there's no good way to generalize the stance of the potential voters who didn't vote in the first place, for whatever reasons. Lack of data is lack of data, after all. A little bit more in line with the larger point though, you're also pointing out that the electoral college can be reasonably seen to be suppressing the votes of the members a less dominant party and to add to that a bit on similar lines, thus also reducing the motivation for members of a dominant party to vote. The "outperformance" caused by the suppression is likely smaller than you're suggesting.

That it suppresses votes is one of the long time reasons for opposition to the Electoral College, though, I think.

No, not all Trump supporters are racist. But for every last one of them, Trump's racism was not a deal-breaker.

Assuming that they were even notably aware of it. I'm not especially convinced that a person who voted for Trump because he likes Trump's family was informed enough in the first place that it's even fair to bring racism into the picture. Nor for people who ignored politics fairly completely before going to vote and just voting straight Republican party.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom