|
computer parts posted:Yes, I'm sure everyone is like your rapist Hispanic cousin that you made up. That's the point though, who knows the kind of people coming over the border? In San Francisco, police released an illegal immigrant with several felony convictions to prevent DHS from deporting him, and he promptly murdered a woman in cold blood in public. Cities like this are actively aiding and abetting the kind of immigrant Donald Trump is warning about, which is loving insane.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Honest question, She did better then Obama among minority voters in SC
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:She did better then Obama among minority voters in SC Well, that answers my question then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:She did better then Obama among minority voters in SC Well, that answers my question then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well you'd be wrong (especially among Hispanics), but it's good to know your opinion. Please source any of your posts in this thread. You've made alot of claims with no links or anything to back you up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Please source any of your posts in this thread. You've made alot of claims with no links or anything to back you up. Nevada is 26% Latino. The Nevada Republican Caucus was 8% Latino. Of that 8%, 40% voted for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:Tell that to the towns turned to rubble by offshoring, or to the people forced to train their foreign replacement workers to qualify for unemployment. The problem with this isn't that it is hyperbole, it is that it isn't true everywhere in the country. Some areas of the country have the exact opposite problems. I am in the Pacific Northwest, where the problem is that houses and businesses are getting bought and developed and rents are going up. There are very few empty storefronts or houses, and few empty lots, in the Pacific Northwest. There the problem is rents and evictions. Also, if rust belt problems are the driving factor, would we predict that Trump will do best in rust belt regions? What does it say that he did well in Nevada and New Hampshire, that don't fit that pattern?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:
This is no different than saying that a few minorities you know personally are "one of the good ones", prefacing a statement with "I'm not racist, but...", or that you can't be racist because some of your best friends are black. Doing a half-assed backpedal to try and turn blatant racism into merely dogwhistle racism never works, because anyone who doesn't already agree with the intent can see through it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:The problem with this isn't that it is hyperbole, it is that it isn't true everywhere in the country. Some areas of the country have the exact opposite problems. I am in the Pacific Northwest, where the problem is that houses and businesses are getting bought and developed and rents are going up. There are very few empty storefronts or houses, and few empty lots, in the Pacific Northwest. There the problem is rents and evictions. I'd say you're right- Trump will do better in the rust belt than in the Pac NW- but the Pac NW was never going to vote Republican on the national level anyhow. And doesn't that illustrate the point? Any growth we have experienced has been centered around a few fabulously successful hubs and has largely left the interior behind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
If we're using anecdotes, my sister and her fiancé are voting for Trump all the way.   My sister is firefighter/EMT, the fiancé a fire chief. There's a lot of sympathy (at least for Ohio) and echo chamber love in fire houses for Trump because they feel like "he's telling it like it is" and is willing to defend fire fighters and police officers where other politicians aren't going to bat for them.My sister and I aren't close, but I think she's at least a little racist given her reactions during the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown incidents. As for education, she got her associate's and certification before joining the fire service and is working on finishing her Bachelor's now. Politically, my parents are backing Hillary while I'm backing Sanders. We're, uh, a fragmented family. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nevada is 26% Latino. The Nevada Republican Caucus was 8% Latino. Of that 8%, 40% voted for Trump. The Nevada Democratic Caucus was 18% Latino. Of that 18%, 45% voted for Hillary. 12000 people turned out for the Democratic Caucus. 75000 turned out for the Republican Caucus. Nearly 35000 voted for Trump alone. If I've done the math right, that means 2400 Latinos voted for Trump and 972 voted for Hillary. source: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/NV How's that a gotcha about how all Latinos hate Trump because he (didn't) say "evict all the Mexicans, they're rapists anyway"? There's legitimate complains you can make about Trump, his polices and his rhetoric. Why don't you try using some of them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:The Nevada Democratic Caucus was 18% Latino. Of that 18%, 45% voted for Hillary. 12000 people turned out for the Democratic Caucus. 75000 turned out for the Republican Caucus. Nearly 35000 voted for Trump alone. If I've done the math right, that means 2400 Latinos voted for Trump and 972 voted for Hillary. Right, but the GOP Primary is much more high stakes and there's no correlation whatsoever between the number of primary voters and the number of general election voters. In a jungle primary situation you would be more accurate in comparing the two. But your point would also evaporate, because Hispanics would overwhelming support the Democratic candidates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Right, but the GOP Primary is much more high stakes and there's no correlation whatsoever between the number of primary voters and the number of general election voters. So...why are you bringing it up as a gotcha?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:So...why are you bringing it up as a gotcha? You asked for a citation of Hispanics supporting Trump (or lack thereof). There's a citation. A much higher proportion of Hispanics not only voted in the Democratic primary, but voted for Clinton. Oh and your numbers are wrong about the Hispanic % that voted for Hillary. e: vvv Going based on these numbers, you (who I'm quoting) are even wrong about your citation. Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:The Nevada Democratic Caucus was 18% Latino. Of that 18%, 45% voted for Hillary. 12000 people turned out for the Democratic Caucus. 75000 turned out for the Republican Caucus. Nearly 35000 voted for Trump alone. If I've done the math right, that means 2400 Latinos voted for Trump and 972 voted for Hillary. This isn't true at all: 80 000 people turned out for the Democratic caucuses (Per CNN).
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Franco Potente posted:This isn't true at all: 80 000 people turned out for the Democratic caucuses (Per CNN). Weird, that nbcnews link I sourced says 12,000 with Latinos voting Sanders 53%, Clinton 45% and Uncommitted 2%
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Weird, that nbcnews link I sourced says 12,000 with Latinos voting Sanders 53%, Clinton 45% and Uncommitted 2% Those are precinct delegates, not the total number of voters. Caucuses count the county delegates selected, rather than raw numbers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Franco Potente posted:Those are precinct delegates, not the total number of voters. Caucuses count the county delegates selected, rather than raw numbers. Ah, that makes sense. I concede that point because I'm not an rear end in a top hat while also still pointing out that computer parts' posts are basically all assumptions and his opinions based off of misquoting Trump. - edit Now let him reply all smug that I'm a retard despite the fact he wasn't the one that pointed out the mistake. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:I'd say you're right- Trump will do better in the rust belt than in the Pac NW- but the Pac NW was never going to vote Republican on the national level anyhow. And doesn't that illustrate the point? Any growth we have experienced has been centered around a few fabulously successful hubs and has largely left the interior behind. For the primary, it makes a large difference. And Washington/Oregon/California are not like some little isolated outpost. There are lots of places, including but not limited to the West Coast, where the population and cities aren't in decline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Ah, that makes sense. I concede that point because I'm not an rear end in a top hat while also still pointing out that computer parts' posts are basically all assumptions and his opinions based off of misquoting Trump. Which is what the average Hispanic voter will also hear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:If we're using anecdotes, my sister and her fiancé are voting for Trump all the way. what politicians/activists attack fire fighters? Cops i understand, but all fire fighters do is save people. unless its the 60s in the south. My family split. My mom likes clinton and my dad likes kashich. he hates trump and dislikes cruz. he says he wont vote if either get the nom. hell most of the conservatives in my family hate trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Please source any of your posts in this thread. You've made alot of claims with no links or anything to back you up. He's very accurately paraphrasing Trump, you're just trying to weasel out of very obvious racism Source: I can actually read English
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:what politicians/activists attack fire fighters? Cops i understand, but all fire fighters do is save people. unless its the 60s in the south. The same people privatizing and shutting down fire departments, also the larger sentiment that Beyoncé et al don't respect public service members. Basically not getting respect from people as blue collar workers but then turn around to rely on them for help when their house is burning or someone's dying from an overdose/botched suicide. Resentment at being taken for granted, etc. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
No one is dumb enough to actually attack public service workers openly but their unions are still targets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Whitecloak posted:What is the solution then? If it is racist to defend working class interests and demand trade policy that encourages domestic growth then what would you offer these people? Our GDP per capita keeps going up, so neither trade nor immigration (legal or otherwise) are causing us to be poorer. We just need to spend more of that money on ourselves. I say tax capital gains and dividends at ordinary rates and use that money to rebuild/maintain our water pipes, etc... That would equal real jobs, and the things we could build would help real people. Also stop all the military interventions and decrease military spending (so, again, we can spend it on ourselves). Eisenhower posted:Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. nelson fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
nelson posted:Our GDP per capita keeps going up, so neither trade nor immigration (legal or otherwise) are causing us to be poorer. We just need to spend more of that money on ourselves. I say tax capital gains and dividends at ordinary rates and use that money to rebuild/maintain our water pipes, etc... That would equal real jobs, and the things we could build would help real people. Yeah GDP/GDP per capita isn't a great way to describe what is going on in a society, if anything stagnant wages and underemployment tell you much more. Also, looking at especially the Midwest, it is hard not see how devastating free trade has been. That part of what is going on isn't made up and in many ways infrastructure spending probably isn't going to be enough on its own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:He's very accurately paraphrasing Trump, you're just trying to weasel out of very obvious racism No, see, he didn't literally say all Mexicans are rapists and thieves, ergo it cannot by definition be racist. It's only racist if you hate literally all of them, or use a racial slur.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:He's very accurately paraphrasing Trump, you're just trying to weasel out of very obvious racism I'm a racist for pointing out that paraphrasing 'mexico is encouraging their criminals and rapists to go to america' to 'evict all the Mexicans, they're rapists anyway' isn't right? It's already a nutty quote. Why paraphrase it into something different? I guess you could paraphrase it as 'evict all the illegal Mexicans, they're (mostly) rapists anyway' but that would have to ignore the later quote where he said that his big wall would have a big door for people to immigrate legally. I don't think you'd put a door on it if you thought that all mexicans are rapists. But you do bring up an interesting point. Will the disillusioned Bernie supporters that get called racist shitlords for not toeing the democratic line plus the 20% extra turnout for Republicans in the primaries (according to The New Yorker) cancel out the Latinos that will show up for Hillary because they think Trump said they're all rapists that should get deported back to tacoland (paraphrasing) I'll drop it because this isn't really the thread for it but I think a Mitt Romney type of shock is coming this November for the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I'm a racist for pointing out that paraphrasing 'mexico is encouraging their criminals and rapists to go to america' to 'evict all the Mexicans, they're rapists anyway'? You're enabling a racist: Donald Trump. Also keep in mind this is the same person who said that Muslim US citizens who leave the country shouldn't be allowed back in, so I think assuming he would want to evict Mexican US citizens isn't that far of a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You're enabling a racist: Donald Trump. Let me instead enable, not a racist: Hillary Clinton. (Just forget everything prior to 2008) computer parts posted:Also keep in mind this is the same person who said that Muslim US citizens who leave the country shouldn't be allowed back in, so I think assuming he would want to evict Mexican US citizens isn't that far of a stretch. Why are you assuming? Read the words he says and take them with a grain of salt since he's a giant abrasive blowhard. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Will the disillusioned Bernie supporters that get called racist shitlords for not toeing the democratic line plus the 20% extra turnout for Republicans in the primaries (according to The New Yorker) cancel out the Latinos that will show up for Hillary They won't. No one in this thread has offered any kind of proof that this will happen beyond anecdotal evidence and pure speculation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Why are you assuming? Because most people don't come out and say "I am a racist." The process of assumption is needed if they don't outright say "I am a racist." Saying that illegal immigrants are rapists shipped by the Mexican government is incredibly racist. That is an assumption, because he doesn't say "I am a racist, and the Mexican government ships rapists to the US".
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Let me instead enable, not a racist: Hillary Clinton. We did take them with a grain of salt, which is how he know that he lied when he said "And some, I assume, are good people". He isn't assuming that at all, he's outright stating the opposite. But that line lets him, and people like you, to try and give a "well technically he didn't say all Mexicans are rapists" excuse for what he actually intended. The literal words out his mouth were not "All Browns are evil and should be forced out of the country", no, but that is what he intended. And this was heard loud and clear by the people who support him, and by everyone else who isn't Drax the Destroyer and can pick up on non-literal interpretations and intent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Franco Potente posted:They won't. Doesn't it have to be speculation simply because the Democratic primary is actually still going on even if Sanders has bee written off? The actual proof has to wait if/when Sanders concedes but that said, a lot of what Hillary has done has rubbed Sanders supporters the wrong way and this is second time there has been a "rebellion" against Hillary's nomination. There is an element of unpredictability there. Also, it really depends on how interested Sanders himself is in backing Hillary, if it just does the bare minimum, it is going to leave quite a political void. I am not sure Sanders would take a VP or cabinet spot if it was offered either (he might be better off as a senator anyway). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah GDP/GDP per capita isn't a great way to describe what is going on in a society, if anything stagnant wages and underemployment tell you much more. Also, looking at especially the Midwest, it is hard not see how devastating free trade has been. That part of what is going on isn't made up and in many ways infrastructure spending probably isn't going to be enough on its own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
nelson posted:But if per capita GDP is going up, that means each person in this country could be better off economically. The pie is bigger than ever before. The problem is in the slicing. Yeah, maybe they could, it is just that free trade and most policies from Washington haven't done that in the slightest. Much of the public is anger and bitter about the "slicing" and it isn't going away. Trump in many ways is cynically using this to his advantage, but that said, he has a relatively free hand in doing so at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Doesn't it have to be speculation simply because the Democratic primary is actually still going on even if Sanders has bee written off? The actual proof has to wait if/when Sanders concedes but that said, a lot of what Hillary has done has rubbed Sanders supporters the wrong way and this is second time there has been a "rebellion" against Hillary's nomination. There is an element of unpredictability there. I don't think so: is there historical evidence of primary voters switching to support another party? Outside of the echo chambers of the Internet, I don't see any evidence of a statistically significant contingent bolting/staying home. As far as Sanders' support in the general, I don't see why he would tank Clinton out of spite. And he certainly won't be offered a cabinet post from the Clinton camp, nor would he accept (as you say: he's much better situated as a Senator: he's currently ranking member of the Budget Committee, which means he could quite possibly become chair if the Dems take the Senate back this cycle).
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
The whole Sanders vs Hillary and Trump vs everybody seems to suggest that populism is en vogue right now. Right wing populism has been a big deal for a while, why is it surprising that someone pandering to them would do well? Bush pandered like hell in 2000 and 2004.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Franco Potente posted:I don't think so: is there historical evidence of primary voters switching to support another party? Outside of the echo chambers of the Internet, I don't see any evidence of a statistically significant contingent bolting/staying home. Isn't the Nader 2000 campaign arguably like this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 15:54 |
|
|
Franco Potente posted:I don't think so: is there historical evidence of primary voters switching to support another party? Outside of the echo chambers of the Internet, I don't see any evidence of a statistically significant contingent bolting/staying home. He wouldn't tank her out of spite, but rather just be disinterested in carrying water for her. If there isn't really anything in it for him, he might make a minimal effort then go back to Vermont. I think the 68 election is a good illustration of when things go "wrong" and the effect that had and to be honest, a fair few Sanders supporters I have talked in public seem pretty disinterested if not bitter about the possibility of supporting Hillary. I think you are really discounting how much animosity she has built up though the campaign along with how many people just don't like her or what she stands for. As for Trump, the poo poo he says is of course dog whistle racism or worse, but that said Trump is only down 3% in the polls and either way it is going to be quite tight. In many ways, the Democrats have largely already expected to get the minority vote and even if Trump forces away more minorities he very well may pick up enough disaffected working class whites and others to make up for it. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 02:05
|
|