• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why People Voted For Trump – For Those Who Don't Get It

The Big Dog said:
W.T.F.

"discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s)."

At this point, I can only assume that I am getting punked. This is so unbelievably simple, I have explained it as one would do with a young person and in response we get this pig's breakfast of a sentence?

The definition addresses asserting the falsity of the conclusion nor questioning the consistency of the argument.
I mean, you gotta be kidding
Click to expand...

TBD: I'm thinking of getting a dog.
Someone else: You should buy a German Shepherd.
TBD: No, it's too big. I'll go for a Great Dane.
Someone else: But that's an even bigger breed?
TBD: TU QUOQUE!! Textbook definition!111!!! FACEPALM
 
WilliamSeger said:
The problem is that "stop and frisk" is really a euphemism for racial profiling, explicit or implicit, because police don't need any special policy to stop and frisk someone, provided they have a good reason. Back in 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless searches are constitutional provided they aren't discriminatory.
Click to expand...

Is that really the problem?

To me, I would think the problem is that, as Mumbles noted, people are being harassed, abused, beaten, etc. Some people are wiling to ignore that because it isn't likely to happen to them. They think it is because they are fine, upstanding, not so suspicious characters, although a careful view of the evidence suggests that they might be free of such harassment because they are white.

I don't want to go too far down this path of debating whether or not stop and frisk is a good idea, or even whether it is or is not racist. I want to relate it to the OP, and specifically to why calling it racist might end up with people voting for Trump.

When there is a problem, people want someone to do something. I love the saying, "We had to do something. This is something." i.e. a lot of "somethings" don't really address the problem, but people demand action even if it is ineffective. Crime is a problem. Maybe it isn't as big of a problem as it was 20 or 30 years ago, but it is a problem. People want something done about it.

What happens all too often is that any measure intended to fight crime is automatically called racist. Why? Because it disproportionately affects black people. That's just reality. The causes for that are rooted in history and are not going to be solved in our lifetime, but the reality is that a disproportionate share of criminals in our society are black. (Aside: disproportionate share. Not majority, but disprpoportionate share.) Any anti-crime program will necessarily end up targeting black people more than white people. You can't avoid it. As a result, all anti-crime programs end up being called racist.

Here's where Bill Clinton was a lot smarter than his wife, and why he got elected twice, but she didn't. He didn't play the racist card. He went for tough on crime policies. If Trump were running against Bill, Trump would have lost, because Bill had his "Sister Solja" moment, and that reassured angry white males that he wasn't against them. Hillary really needed one of those moments, but she didn't provide one.
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=888

Bzzzzzzt. Game over.
Wrong, thanks for playing. Poor Democrats and minorities only show up for two reasons
1 an awful Republican finished their second term
2 their candidate is a hope and change guy, not "more of the same" as she was.

All the fake news and accusations did not help. But due tobthe electoral college, any Democrat has to win by 10 million popular vote.
 
Hevneren said:
TBD: I'm thinking of getting a dog.
Someone else: You should buy a German Shepherd.
TBD: No, it's too big. I'll go for a Great Dane.
Someone else: But that's an even bigger breed?
TBD: TU QUOQUE!! Textbook definition!111!!! FACEPALM
Click to expand...

HA! Dear lord that is awful, nice!

OP: Hillary is untrustworthy
Response: B-b-b-But Bush, you hypocrite!
TBD: Tu quoque
Response: We wuz just insulting him!

And all of us: LOLZ!
 
Meadmaker said:
What happens all too often is that any measure intended to fight crime is automatically called racist. Why? Because it disproportionately affects black people. That's just reality. The causes for that are rooted in history and are not going to be solved in our lifetime, but the reality is that a disproportionate share of criminals in our society are black. (Aside: disproportionate share. Not majority, but disprpoportionate share.) Any anti-crime program will necessarily end up targeting black people more than white people. You can't avoid it. As a result, all anti-crime programs end up being called racist.
Click to expand...

This is where the Trump supporters in my personal life miss the point entirely. They insist on these anti-crime measures without acknowledging the root problems that lead to disproportionately high levels of black crime. Namely, things like systemic racism in the justice system, poor public school systems, and weak social support systems for poor families. That is not an exhaustive list, either.

If one really wanted to fight crime, one should be working on those problems rather getting even tougher on people who already have it tough.
 
WilliamSeger said:
So, you're saying Trump was elected because of voter ignorance and gullibility?
Click to expand...

Hungry81 said:
Are you trying to say that people voted for trump because they lacked education and critical thinking skills about the values he was espousing?

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


uke2se said:
The point is, it was a stupid risk to take. For one, it was very clear what would happen. Secondly, the status quo isn't as bad as people imagine. Thirdly, I very much doubt most Trump voters reasoned as you do. It was an emotional vote to "stick it to the libs", and/or "the uppity *******".
Click to expand...

I'm starting to get an idea of why people may have voted for Trump.
 
Upchurch said:
This is where the Trump supporters in my personal life miss the point entirely. They insist on these anti-crime measures without acknowledging the root problems that lead to disproportionately high levels of black crime. Namely, things like systemic racism in the justice system, poor public school systems, and weak social support systems for poor families. That is not an exhaustive list, either.

If one really wanted to fight crime, one should be working on those problems rather getting even tougher on people who already have it tough.
Click to expand...

Oy, the usual liberal nostrums. We've been "fighting" crime in the inner cities by doing that for 50 years. But the only thing that really works is more aggressive policing and longer prison sentences. For how many decades have we been trying to fix the public schools? Since the early 1970s, we've tripled the spending per pupil, inflation adjusted, and nothing tangible (e.g. test scores and graduation rates) has really changed.

Admittedly, crime has come down over the last 25 years (ignoring the uptick in the last 2), but that probably is due to the aging of the population, improved policing, and the increasing prevalence of security cameras and other security systems (perhaps even, paradoxically, the rising number of available guns).
 
sunmaster14 said:
Oy, the usual liberal nostrums. We've been "fighting" crime in the inner cities by doing that for 50 years. But the only thing that really works is more aggressive policing and longer prison sentences. For how many decades have we been trying to fix the public schools? Since the early 1970s, we've tripled the spending per pupil, inflation adjusted, and nothing tangible (e.g. test scores and graduation rates) has really changed.

Admittedly, crime has come down over the last 25 years (ignoring the uptick in the last 2), but that probably is due to the aging of the population, improved policing, and the increasing prevalence of security cameras and other security systems (perhaps even, paradoxically, the rising number of available guns).
Click to expand...

True. Even if you think the imprisonment lengths were excessive and unjust, a bunch of excessiveand unjust sentences will reduce crime. Liberals are often too scared to admit it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
True. Even if you think the imprisonment lengths were excessive and unjust, a bunch of excessiveand unjust sentences will reduce crime. Liberals are often too scared to admit it.
Click to expand...

Yet, it is still "excessive and unjust", which ruins lives and destroys families. As it disproportionately does this to black families, this perpetuates the problem. Thus, we have systemic racism in our justice system.

If I were to follow your approach, I might conclude that conservatives are often too scared to admit it.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Yet, it is still "excessive and unjust", which ruins lives and destroys families. As it disproportionately does this to black families, this perpetuates the problem. Thus, we have systemic racism in our justice system.

If I were to follow your approach, I would conclude that conservatives are often too scared to admit it.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are. I think they see it as an implicit feature.
 
Upchurch said:
Yet, it is still "excessive and unjust", which ruins lives and destroys families. As it disproportionately does this to black families, this perpetuates the problem.
Click to expand...

I doubt you have any evidence for this. High crime rates and a welfare system which provides perverse family and employment incentives ruins lives and perpetuates the problem. Aggressive policing appears to ameliorate the problem.

These things run in cycles though. Aggressive policing brings down crime rates and improves standards of living in historically crime-ridden neighborhoods, but that leads to complacency (or, at least a reversal of the perceived proper balance of costs and benefits). Social activists then seize the opportunity to force the police to back off. Crime rates rise again, and eventually the law-abiding residents cry out for more aggressive policing. Etc.
 
Upchurch said:
This is where the Trump supporters in my personal life miss the point entirely. They insist on these anti-crime measures without acknowledging the root problems that lead to disproportionately high levels of black crime. Namely, things like systemic racism in the justice system, poor public school systems, and weak social support systems for poor families. That is not an exhaustive list, either.

If one really wanted to fight crime, one should be working on those problems rather getting even tougher on people who already have it tough.
Click to expand...

Without getting too deep into whether or not one approach or another "works", your explanation ends up sounding like, "That guy just robbed a liquor store. We really need to spend more money on schools."

It doesn't play well in rural America.
 
Meadmaker said:
Is that really the problem?
Click to expand...

It's certainly a part of the problem, yes. And that's in large part because many people are perfectly fine with it, *because* it attacks black and brown people. Much like when Ferguson police were plundering the black residents, and then acted like me a group of grieving black people with military equipment, it allows many people to say "Well, what's the problem? They're all criminals anyway." And yes, many people express exactly this.

I don't want to go too far down this path of debating whether or not stop and frisk is a good idea, or even whether it is or is not racist. I want to relate it to the OP, and specifically to why calling it racist might end up with people voting for Trump.
Click to expand...

And in that case, they are simply confirming suspicions. "What?! How dare you call this policy racist?! I'm so mad, I'm voting for the white supremacist!" The OP was right, I absolutely do not get that - except as the concept of "white fragility", which posits that many white people react to criticism of any systemic racial issue as though they are personally being attacked and insulted. And in that case, the only answer I have is "get over it."

What happens all too often is that any measure intended to fight crime is automatically called racist. Why? Because it disproportionately affects black people. That's just reality. The causes for that are rooted in history and are not going to be solved in our lifetime, but the reality is that a disproportionate share of criminals in our society are black. (Aside: disproportionate share. Not majority, but disprpoportionate share.) Any anti-crime program will necessarily end up targeting black people more than white people. You can't avoid it. As a result, all anti-crime programs end up being called racist.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is that the people who are not affected by this sort of crime at all, respond as though *all* black people are "black brutes", which is a long-running stereotype that dates back to Reconstruction (black men especially transformed from docile, stupid, and child-like, to superpowered violent rapists within a single generation.) The end result is that we end up with police that ignore theft, rape, and most non-fatal violence, and are unequipped to deal with even murders, but will spend their time chasing down weed smokers, or harassing two black guys chatting outside and then arresting them for "manner of walking" or "resisting arrest".

And in this case, the police become no better than any other street gang.

And yet, we have many people who claim to be anti-crime, yet support exactly this sort of ridiculous and counter-productive standard of policing. I don't have time to coddle them, particularly since they won't listen to me regardless. Again, this is an issue for white people to solve, not us black folks.

Here's where Bill Clinton was a lot smarter than his wife, and why he got elected twice, but she didn't. He didn't play the racist card. He went for tough on crime policies. If Trump were running against Bill, Trump would have lost, because Bill had his "Sister Solja" moment, and that reassured angry white males that he wasn't against them. Hillary really needed one of those moments, but she didn't provide one.
Click to expand...

And here's where we get to the heart of the problem. Clinton *did* strike me as somewhat hostile to black people, and we all knew that it was about telling racists "hey, I'll keep the black people on a short leash." The crime bill was deeply flawed as it was, but could have been far worse given GOP hostility to basic community programs (remember the caterwauling over "midnight basketball"?). And Sista Souljah was, in reality, a C-list rapper who few people cared about. And then there was the time he flew to Arkansas to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector...

A white person who thinks that appearing with Beyonce, or proposing better training and standards for police so that they don't just rush up and shoot black people, is against white people is a racist, period.

If you wish to claim that Hillary calling someone a racist is giving up on them, then sure, I agree. But I'm not a part of any political campaign, and will never run for president, so I'm free to say as I please without much concern for that. And while I'm angry at those on the left who tossed out the candidate who was far and away the best at speaking against racism in my lifetime (and this includes Obama), I'm simply speaking truth when I note Trump's obvious white supremacism. All his victory means to me is more racism, more violence, and potentially more wars. And I've long decided to double my efforts against him and his hateful ilk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom