Are all Trump supporters racists?

[Ziggurat]

Oh really? It's not possible to change the subject by misrepresentation?

Is there possible overlap between those? Yes. Is saying one the same thing as saying the other?

No.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Imagine my surprise when stumbling on a skeptics forum and it's mostly libs ruled by emotion pretending to be logical.

Then you might want to watch how you're stepping.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Gee, I'm going back and tell my HS Baseball team mates that we won those games when we got the most hits, but lost the game because we had less runs. We'll change that because some people believe in changing the way the winner is determined.

How convenient it is to distort reality when you don't get your way!

Does it make you feel better?

Correct. On a day the stars aligned, Dorf won against Tiger.

Now take away his handicap (gerrymandering, voter suppression, and urban votes that are counted as less than rural ones) and see how the final score tallies.

 

[WilliamSeger]

To the contrary. It just illustrates how stupid is it to repeat it over and over again.

Nope, it's to counter the "landslide win" BS with a dose of reality. If Republicans can't see the danger of forcing unpopular programs down people's throats just because "we won so screw you," then they will pay a price for that, eventually. The one good thing I see coming out of the impending disaster is that Trump will likely take the Republican Party down with him.

 

[The Don]

Nope, it's to counter the "landslide win" BS with a dose of reality. If Republicans can't see the danger of forcing unpopular programs down people's throats just because "we won so screw you," then they will pay a price for that, eventually. The one good thing I see coming out of the impending disaster is that Trump will likely take the Republican Party down with him.

Will they ?

Decades of Gerrymandering has ensured that the House is likely to remain Republican in perpetuity. The Senate isn't going to swing towards the Democratic Party any time soon.

Therefore if a Democratic Party candidate is elected President, the GOP can ensure that (s)he manages to achieve nothing of note.

 

[Ziggurat]

If Republicans can't see the danger of forcing unpopular programs down people's throats just because "we won so screw you," then they will pay a price for that, eventually.

You're right. Republicans might indeed make the same mistake that Democrats made with Obamacare, and suffer similar crippling electoral defeat as a result.

 

[Reheat]

Nope, it's to counter the "landslide win" BS with a dose of reality. If Republicans can't see the danger of forcing unpopular programs down people's throats just because "we won so screw you," then they will pay a price for that, eventually. The one good thing I see coming out of the impending disaster is that Trump will likely take the Republican Party down with him.

I guess we'll only see what happens. In the meantime don't forget the Republican controlled Congress and the vast majority of States with Republican Governors and State Legislatures.

We'll see what's unpopular in a couple of years. What's popular in this infested forum is not necessarily popular across the board. You need to wake up to reality.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Will they ?

Decades of Gerrymandering has ensured that the House is likely to remain Republican in perpetuity. The Senate isn't going to swing towards the Democratic Party any time soon.

Therefore if a Democratic Party candidate is elected President, the GOP can ensure that (s)he manages to achieve nothing of note.

I guess I have a bleaker outlook on how bad things will get, but I predict that it will be bad enough that even gerrymandering won't save them. If they piss enough people off pushing their rich-get-richer agenda which can never deliver on the empty trickle-down promises, while simultaneously ignoring the corruption, the lying, and the pathetic immaturity and vindictiveness in the White House, the turn-out patterns might change dramatically, which is all it would take.

 

[Reheat]

Now take away his handicap (gerrymandering, voter suppression, and urban votes that are counted as less than rural ones) and see how the final score tallies.

Are Dems not smart enough to gerrymander?

You have to prove voter suppression before it's a reality. I might add with more than a couple of anecdotes.

Ah, it's the fault is the EC. How unique.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are all Trump opponents racists?

Of course anyone who thinks any given behavior is racist is really the true racist.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I guess we'll only see what happens. In the meantime don't forget the Republican controlled Congress and the vast majority of States with Republican Governors ans State Legislatures.

We'll see what's unpopular in a couple of years. What's popular in this infested forum is not necessarily popular across the board. You need to wake up to reality.

You need to check some opinion polls.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But you didn't provide any rational criticism. Moreover, you missed the point completely. Whether or not Cainkane1's reasons for supporting Trump can withstand rational criticism, the question he was addressing is whether or not he's racist

I think most people are racist and if you are not willing to accept that unconscious biases based on race can and do influence your judgements you are not going to be doing anything to actively question your basic judgements of people.

 

[Reheat]

You need to check some opinion polls.

I did just prior to the election. How did that turn out?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I personally like all the ones who finally voted to strip themselves of their own healthcare. Finally taking a proud stand against their own entitlement culture. West virginia needs much higher rates of being uninsured it is immoral to give them healthcare they do not deserve. And those people voted that way.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think most people are racist

Then it's meaningless to call Trump supporters racist, since under that standard every major candidate's supporters are racist.

But I'm pretty sure that's not the standard Hercules56 was trying to use.

 

[Reheat]

I think most people are racist and if you are not willing to accept that unconscious biases based on race can and do influence your judgements you are not going to be doing anything to actively question your basic judgements of people.

This is an example of a bunch of junk thought that has lead to your demise. I truly hope you continue to believe this for a long time as it will keep your side out of power for a long time... You're welcome!

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're right. Republicans might indeed make the same mistake that Democrats made with Obamacare, and suffer similar crippling electoral defeat as a result.

And we are going to finally strip those millions of americans of their immoral health care, why do you think so many of the people who got health care through it voted trump? Because they know they don't deserve healthcare.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then it's meaningless to call Trump supporters racist, since under that standard every major candidate's supporters are racist.

But I'm pretty sure that's not the standard Hercules56 was trying to use.

And the standard he uses would mean that as long as you don't consciously say stop and frisk the black guy because he is black, but rather because he just doesn't look right, which you happen to feel that way because he is black it isn't racist. And so it can't be racism no matter how disproportionate the effect is on black people.

Are the people who are more likely to call back a white felon than a black non felon for a job interview racist or not? The vast majority of they would also take umbrage at the notion that they are racist, so it must not be racism that leads to it being easier for white felons to get jobs than black non felons.

 

[Mumbles]

I don't give a damn what Holder's Justice cronies found. What I give a damn about is if it works.

This is, of course, not a discussion of what "Holder's Justice Cronies" desire, but rather federal court ruling. And by all measure, it was also ineffective - NYC's murder rate has continued to fall even after the policy was rolled back by Bill De Blasio, which is likely why Commissioner Bratton declared as such to Trump's proposal.

How in the hell can you justify the murder rate in Chicago with no resolution in sight. So do you maybe suspect that stop and frisk might have saved a few lives or do you just not give a **** about that.

First, Trump was not discussing Chicago, he was discussing a nation-wide policy based on Michael Bloomberg's policy of mass harassment - apparently he was unaware of the fact that the president does not control all police - nor of the fact that black neighborhoods are not all hellholes where nobody has a job or education, and where random gunshots fly throughout the air.

Second, Chicago's issues are clearly local - they may have to do with gross understaffing of police, a mixing of older gangs caused by the recent shutdown of many schools, the decrease in anti-violence community programs, or many other factors Emmanuel's been pretty dismal overall. But I see no reason to think that a failed policy from NYC, applied by a badly crippled and rather corrupt Chicago PD, would do much of anything.

But none of this answers the original question, now does it? Again, when Trump advocated a policy of stop-and-frisk, which has been found to be both racist and unconstitutional, was it because the 90% of black and hispanic men harassed under this policy that were left go without further action were terrorists, or criminals?

(Or, as was found by a federal judge, was it simply that NYC police were targeting according to skin color - ie, applying the policy in a racist manner?)

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response

Regardless, "racist" is a description - and a rather obvious one, when it comes to a policy that is applied according to race (yes, fine - sickle-cell or Tay-Sachs testing, and other ones where we could apply broad, medical tests).

The incidence of white on black crime is minuscule compared to black on black crime. You ought to know that.

I've said as much many times. Are you sure you've been following my posts?

Yet I've seen you support the Black Lives Matter criminal organization based on a false narrative from the very beginning.

"Support" is a strong term, although "Usually agree with" is accurate. I'd reserve the term "support" for groups like 300 Black Men, or the NAACP, groups I actually contribute to.

I see no evidence at all that they're somehow criminal", though - and what "false narrative" do you think they're based off of?

To warn you - this is a trap.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response

 

[logger]

No. You're wrong on almost every sentence here, but especially the last one.

Then it should easy for you to show where I'm wrong. So prove it!