Moral Equivalents?

This is as unnecessarily unpleasant as it was unfair. You are the one making bald, declarative pronouncements (“This is why Trump won”), only to angrily belittle me when I take you at your word. Perhaps if you took the time to express yourself with more precision (or less hyperbole), others wouldn’t misunderstand your meaning.

Have a good evening.

My apologies, no insult was intended - but my point is what you keep getting hung up on as “inaccurate” or “hyperbole” is simply shorthand. Same as it is in headlines everywhere:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.amp.html

I believe Thunder was quite precise, perhaps a little mean, but his insights were helpful to me to understand the folly of inferred intent.
I resent implications of racism and bigotry as factors in having things turn out the way one does not like. It’s a frivolous tool that is not only wrong, but can cut both ways.
Racism isn’t dead but it’s not the primary motivation for most people and most people aren’t racist, not even close. And people are not obligated to prove they are not bigots all the damn time. Hell, assuming a demographic is bigoted by default is in fact bigotry itself.

Going back and reading it, it came off as meaner than I intended. I had point to make, but wasn’t aiming to belittle. My fault again, @EyeDentist.

Maybe not mean, perhaps ‘terse’ or ‘direct’.
Nevertheless, you have made some really good points and explained them well.

Thank you.

I don’t know how you can be so certain of these claims. But regardless, racism need not be the “primary motivation for most people” in order for it to significantly impact the lives of individuals.

I agree. But I’m not sure why you felt the need to point this out.

I think you know what I meant, in terms of ‘primary motivation’ mincing words like ‘primary’. I meant it was probably not a motivation at all for many if not most people.
I can speak for myself. I voted for Trump. I voted for him to vote against HRC whom I could disagree more with if I came from Mars. I didn’t love trump, I didn’t care for his crass manner, but for all the faults of a trump, HRC matched and exceeded in all the wrong ways. Race, gender had zero to do with it. We had a ballot of garbage, I voted for the least bad.
Many felt as I did, keep the bitch out of office at all costs.
As it stands I hope we can replace Trump in 2020 if a viable candidate presents with policy I agree with.
I think people were done with Obama’s policies. He hit a lot of people hard with his ACA and tax increases. It cost me dearly, personally. His fuck up in Syria was epic in its failure, etc. I got a whole list of reasons why I wanted to stop the continuance of his policies. Race had zero influence. Had Connie Rice run, she would have probably gotten my vote. Does that count as non-racist or is she an Uncle Tom?

Right, I said his stance is dumb, lol… It solves nothing. Believe me, I am not going to bat for Trump on this one.

No, because like 13% of the population is black and at least part of the appeal of the dumb wall was to keep Americans (regardless of color) employed in jobs being supposedly taken by illegals:
image

So, again, while I think it’s really dumb, I don’t think it’s driven by some desire to appease “white-identity anxiety” but working-class anxiety.

I have never seen anyone be this deliberately obtuse. You are defending an essay with a failed premise and data that doesn’t even support the premise.

@thunderbolt23 posted an article by a democratic poster attributing 2/3 of Clinton’s loss to losing Obama voters to Trump. Obama voters cannot be enlightened in 2012 and then remember their racism in 2016. /argument.

I don’t know why you are so determined to defend this particular article. Unless it underpins your belief that Hillary was an okay candidate and the democrats made no tactical errors in 2016. Is racism the reason democrats lost across the board in 2016? According to democratic polsters: no.

These are two very different claims. The second is on much more solid ground, but is of much less utility vis a vis understanding the electoral dynamics generally.

Fair enough. We’re at that all-too-familiar ‘agree to disagree’ point.

Because I think it raises very important issues, and does so in a compelling way. The fact that it is likely not 100% correct in its conclusions doesn’t impact this.

You took my comments out of context, please use the whole breadth of the thought. And duh, on the different claims. But here’s the deal, you have a burden of proof problem. People don’t owe other people, who accuse them of various, nefarious intentions, an explanation on how they think. You are the one making the claim that racism was a factor in the election, so the burden of proof is on you. However the claim is un-provable. Especially, in regards to the ‘blue wall’ phenomenon which won it for Trump. Even if every white person voted for him, and only white people voted for him, you cannot know why. Maybe they like the same kind of food. Maybe they like leaders who cuss a lot.
It is also the case that more Blacks and Hispanics voted for Trump this time around than they did for Romney. Are you going to say, that the low turn out and the increase in the percentage of Black voters was because Obama was not running and they really wanted a Black guy?

This is what I like, facts. Not inferences on what those facts mean. Inferences, without scientific controls mean very little. Correlation rates are low, when determining intent over a large group where no controls were in place.

P.S. I did get the message that this link was already posted. But it’s support for my post.

No, I took your comments at face value. Own them.

In light of your posts on the ‘atheists’ thread, the irony of this comment is unavoidable.

Further, ‘proof’ is not the standard by which non-mathematical/logical arguments are judged.

Just as I cannot ‘prove’ racism played a role, neither can anyone ‘prove’ that Blue-Wall turncoats were the reason Trump won. Just because you prefer that explanation doesn’t make it true.

Please. You have made all sorts of inferences based on the ‘facts’ in this very comment.

I don’t care how you took them, I said to quote to complete thought when you do quote

I guess you do not understand the subject matter. Not my problem. Or is this a shot because you are emotionally pissed?

You inferring racism in the vote is no small accusation. If you are going to claim that white Americans are generally racist, you better get off your ass and put some proof down or back off the accusation.
Go to anywhere and call a white Trump voter, who does not live in a KKK camp or neo-nazi head quarter, tell them they voted for Tump because deep down they are racists and see how you fare. Not well I’d guess. That is as insulting as can be.

The blue wall is the reason he won. The proof is that he could not have won without it. What those people were thinking I made no inference about. That’s simply counting the votes from whence they came.

What inference is that? I didn’t explain why the votes landed the way they did. Only that they landed the way they did. I didn’t delve into their psyches and call them racists, xenophobes, homophobes, or whatever *phobe.

The deep south is the reason he won. The proof is he could not have won without it.

If your logic is that something being the reason he won is because he couldn’t have won without it, it’s going to fall apart pretty quickly. Might be more accurate to say the blue wall is A reason he won.

Not a shot so much as an observation. And anyway, per you, what else is there to discuss? In one sentence you say the ‘burden of proof is on me,’ and in the next you say ‘the claim is un-provable.’ How am I supposed to respond to that?

I cited an article that presented a related argument in detail. (I say “related” because I don’t think Coates would sign off on the statement ‘white Americans are generally racist.’ To my reading, his views are more nuanced than that.) I did so not because I concur 100% with the author’s conclusions or opinions, but rather because I think he brings an important perspective to the discussion (one which obviously touches a nerve with you).

Again, I have to note two things;

  1. Neither I nor Coates made the argument ‘deep down, Trump voters are racists’; and
  2. how personally you’re taking this.

No, you mean he wouldn’t have won without it. That is not the same thing as ‘couldn’t.’ For example, it is also true that he wouldn’t have won without Texas, or any number of other states. It’s also true that he could have won without the Blue Wall states if he had won, say, NY and CA. There are lots of paths to the requisite number of electoral votes.

Now, you can argue that the failure of the Blue Wall to hold was one of the key differences between the 2012 and 2016 elections, and that would be true. But as noted above, there are other important differences between these election that also affected the outcome–the relatively low AA turnout in MI and FL, for example.

How about inferring that Trump won because of the Blue Wall turncoats?

Exactly.

Good point. It was a necessary event for his victory, but was the sole source of votes. As the Deep South is also part of the reason, but not in sum the only reason. Thanks for the correction.

It does sound like racism may have played a role.

@EyeDentist is basically doing the same thing, though. He’s saying Trump’s economic policy is white-centric and he’s basing this on voting data, ie, that AAs did not vote for Trump/The Republican in greater numbers than in previous elections; therefore, it must follow that his economic stance is white-centric.

It’s faulty logic at best.

What precisely are you asserting about the race factor in the election then? When you say racism doesn’t have to be a ‘primary’ motivation in order for it to ‘significantly impact the lives of individuals’ is to imply that a there are a lot of people who are racist at some level, does it not? After all, the concept of racism cannot act on anything alone without conscious creatures holding that concept to be true. So if you are not implying Trump voters have some sort of inherent racism at play, en masse, then what are you saying?

[quote]

It’s a matter of fact that without those votes, he would not have won. Obviously, we can reimagine the entire voting demographic of the country and he could have won without these states. But as the traditional voting demographic across the nation being what it has been the last 20 years indicate that ‘blue wall turncoats’ were vital to his victory. But I will concede, ‘the’ was the wrong term. It was ‘a’ vital voting block which if he lost, so would he have lost the election. I appreciate your concern for precision.

You’re way overstating the forcefulness with which I made my point. In fact, I ended it with the rather milquetoast “You may disagree, but I don’t think the leap is all that ‘mighty.’” I mos def didn’t include anything along the lines of “therefore, it must follow…”

There are many ways in which racial matters can (and do) manifest. It doesn’t have to be overt, conscious racism.