President Elect Trump

dignin

Such a moron.

Trump Once (Wrongly) Criticized Obama for Not Attending Intel Briefings

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-once-wrongly-criticized-obama-not-attending-intel-briefings-n694631

BS44325

And yet Ledvedderman here you have a former CIA agent suggesting that there should be an election do-over

https://youtu.be/3Sa-LsLdQ10

Granted this guy makes his home in Telluride and everybody I met there in July was high as a kite....Myself included.

JC29856

Rex Tillerson Sec of State
33rd president of boys scouts of America
Recipient Russian order of friendship

vaggar99

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

As BS has stated (which you chose to ignore and rant over), this was an election for change. It is exclusively your assumption that people didn't weigh the upside potential of positive change alongside the downside potential of harmful social rhetoric, against the proven track record of Clinton's continuation of the status quo (complete with all the perceived lack of speaking for the people) without that social rhetoric. The mental math came out predominantly Trump for enough people in enough states, and any retroactive analysis of the psychology behind those votes can only be conjecture.

Also, name-calling won't get you anywhere: if you're opposed to Trump's words, why don't you practice what you preach and speak decently? For example, the term "cries like a bitch" is quite sexist - maybe you should resign from the Ten Club forums.

i will refrain from calling my fellow TC members names. I will not refrain from calling a falsely elected tyrant names. it's my civic duty

vaggar99

rustneversleeps said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay
what exactly makes Hillary such a disgusting liar? And why not just not vote or vote third party then vote for someone you despise so much?

can you point out where i said i "despise" her, or where i called her a "disgusting liar"? its this type of dramatic overreaction that makes radical liberals hard to stomach.

okay, i'll give you that. i suppose i was redirecting some of my frustration i've dealt with in my own circle of friends regarding the misinformation that they believe about her and perhaps government a whole.

i agree that she was a flawed candidate and i also agree that she was the best candidate for our country. Most people that have been in the public eye as long as she has are going to have some baggage. A lot of it really wasn't even her. It was her husband.

Obama spoiled us idealistic Democrats. I suppose Bernie was the next best thing. I can tell you I have a lot regret for not getting behind that guy.

vaggar99

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

i sort of had this discussion with my sister a few days after the election and I suppose I'm still frustrated by it. She basically said the same thing and in her case I am 100% certain she's getting her viewpoint from her husband. I suppose I expect a candidate to have a legitimate platform and then and only then can you spew the hopey changey stuff that I want to hear. A platform to me is not 'build a wall', 'lock her up', 'ban muslims' and 'make America great again'. i might have missed a few, i apologize ahead of time.

vaggar99

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

I never got excited about him but I never found anything he said to be particularly hateful. To repeat he was the terrible candidate with more potential upside for change. Your inability to process that is due to the fact that you are making the voter's decision way more complicated then it needs to be. Put the personalities aside and recognize that it was a "change" electorate. The party out of power only has to clear a small hurdle of competence for the electorate to turn. Most other details just don't matter.

A few responses. It wasn't a change electorate, first of all. The electorate actually went with Clinton. And you outline the magical thinking I was talking about earlier. There is absolutely no factual evidence that trump will make the "right decision" when he needs to. The evidence is the complete opposite. He is 100% narcissist. He makes decisions for himself only, and his history supports this. Any "upside" to trump needs to be fabricated in a trump voters head. He presented no upside in his policies or history. Airing grievances on stage has no upside. It means he appealed to you emotionally, not rationally. You're just trying to make sense of it rationally after the fact.

as you all know, i've posted dozens of links with news and video articles regarding this guys background. I have found almost no instances where this man did something genuinely good/non-selfserving for society. Not saying it hasn't happened. I just haven't found it.

benjs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

vaggar99 said:

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

As BS has stated (which you chose to ignore and rant over), this was an election for change. It is exclusively your assumption that people didn't weigh the upside potential of positive change alongside the downside potential of harmful social rhetoric, against the proven track record of Clinton's continuation of the status quo (complete with all the perceived lack of speaking for the people) without that social rhetoric. The mental math came out predominantly Trump for enough people in enough states, and any retroactive analysis of the psychology behind those votes can only be conjecture.

Also, name-calling won't get you anywhere: if you're opposed to Trump's words, why don't you practice what you preach and speak decently? For example, the term "cries like a bitch" is quite sexist - maybe you should resign from the Ten Club forums.

i will refrain from calling my fellow TC members names. I will not refrain from calling a falsely elected tyrant names. it's my civic duty

Falsely elected? Again - until you can quantify the scope of Russian intervention, you cannot make this statement. The same would have applied if Clinton had won. And the term tyrant is purely subjective.

vaggar99

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

yep, the piece of shit Birther Movement. Anyone who was a part of that can not ever be offended when called a racist. If there was ever proof of blatant racism, the Birther Movement was it.

vaggar99

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

vaggar99 said:

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

As BS has stated (which you chose to ignore and rant over), this was an election for change. It is exclusively your assumption that people didn't weigh the upside potential of positive change alongside the downside potential of harmful social rhetoric, against the proven track record of Clinton's continuation of the status quo (complete with all the perceived lack of speaking for the people) without that social rhetoric. The mental math came out predominantly Trump for enough people in enough states, and any retroactive analysis of the psychology behind those votes can only be conjecture.

Also, name-calling won't get you anywhere: if you're opposed to Trump's words, why don't you practice what you preach and speak decently? For example, the term "cries like a bitch" is quite sexist - maybe you should resign from the Ten Club forums.

i will refrain from calling my fellow TC members names. I will not refrain from calling a falsely elected tyrant names. it's my civic duty

Falsely elected? Again - until you can quantify the scope of Russian intervention, you cannot make this statement. The same would have applied if Clinton had won. And the term tyrant is purely subjective.

yes, it's my opinion and i'll stick to it until i see proof to the contrary. Right now, the little information I have suggests that not only did Russia spread misinformation regarding Clinton, someone(s) also committed voting fraud. Also, 'falsely elected' entails the blatant lies/manipulation perpetrated by T. and his campaign in an effort to get votes.

JC29856

vaggar99 said:

benjs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

vaggar99 said:

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i take that off, but the Superman Underoos stay

BS44325 said:

vaggar99 said:

^^^i wasn't looking for debate. i was looking for someone to actually defend a serial liar aka as Jesus Christ. No one has of course. Some will point to Hillary, others will say they voted for Hillary but never defend her.

I have explained it on here many times but you are one who chooses not to pay attention. His supporters understood and accepted that Trump was/is making it up as he goes along. They have gambled on a non-ideologue who when push comes to shove will make the right decision based on the data places before him. There were two candidates who had trouble with the truth but it was Trump who gave the voter more potential upside.

inexcusable. you have to look at yourself if you buy into the 'Well, he was saying that just to get elected. let's now give him a chance and see what he does.'

What the fuck man? So basically he gets up there and spews the hateful shit you want to hear and you get excited about him. Of course, I don't believe it, but he's saying the stuff that everyone is thinking. Really? Like telling Hillary she's 'going to jail' in the best man voice he can conjure up and then after the election goes on 60 minutes and cries like a little bitch at the thought of locking her up. what a fucking pu$$y

As BS has stated (which you chose to ignore and rant over), this was an election for change. It is exclusively your assumption that people didn't weigh the upside potential of positive change alongside the downside potential of harmful social rhetoric, against the proven track record of Clinton's continuation of the status quo (complete with all the perceived lack of speaking for the people) without that social rhetoric. The mental math came out predominantly Trump for enough people in enough states, and any retroactive analysis of the psychology behind those votes can only be conjecture.

Also, name-calling won't get you anywhere: if you're opposed to Trump's words, why don't you practice what you preach and speak decently? For example, the term "cries like a bitch" is quite sexist - maybe you should resign from the Ten Club forums.

i will refrain from calling my fellow TC members names. I will not refrain from calling a falsely elected tyrant names. it's my civic duty

Falsely elected? Again - until you can quantify the scope of Russian intervention, you cannot make this statement. The same would have applied if Clinton had won. And the term tyrant is purely subjective.

yes, it's my opinion and i'll stick to it until i see proof to the contrary. Right now, the little information I have suggests that not only did Russia spread misinformation regarding Clinton, someone(s) also committed voting fraud. Also, 'falsely elected' also entails the blatant lies/manipulation perpetrated by T. and his campaign in an effort to get votes.

Triggered: Russiarussiarussiaphobia

mace1229

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

Not really. Clinton did win the college educated vote by 5%, but when you consider the race margins it more than explains her 5% lead. Her votes from educated minority were less than the minority population total. In other words, she all but took all of the minority vote, but took a smaller percentage of the educated minority (albeit still more than Trump). Her lead decreased when comparing non-educated to educated minorities.
You see the reverse with educated whites though. Trump won the general white vote, and won by an even larger percentage of educated whites. His lead increased when comparing non-educated to educated whites.
When you consider the minority vote always goes to the dems, but she won a smaller percentage of educated minorities it can easily be argued the issues with minorities were the greater impact than the education. And with more education she actually got less votes. You see the reverse trend for whites. So it would not be accurate to say Trump had the uneducated, or "simple" vote.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

Not really. Clinton did win the college educated vote by 5%, but when you consider the race margins it more than explains her 5% lead. Her votes from educated minority were less than the minority population total. In other words, she all but took all of the minority vote, but took a smaller percentage of the educated minority (albeit still more than Trump). Her lead decreased when comparing non-educated to educated minorities.
You see the reverse with educated whites though. Trump won the general white vote, and won by an even larger percentage of educated whites. His lead increased when comparing non-educated to educated whites.
When you consider the minority vote always goes to the dems, but she won a smaller percentage of educated minorities it can easily be argued the issues with minorities were the greater impact than the education. And with more education she actually got less votes. You see the reverse trend for whites. So it would not be accurate to say Trump had the uneducated, or "simple" vote.

... and 'racist'. People that knew 'Make America Great Again' was a crock of shit liked the potential idea of a wall and the persecution of Muslims.

dignin

mace1229

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

Not really. Clinton did win the college educated vote by 5%, but when you consider the race margins it more than explains her 5% lead. Her votes from educated minority were less than the minority population total. In other words, she all but took all of the minority vote, but took a smaller percentage of the educated minority (albeit still more than Trump). Her lead decreased when comparing non-educated to educated minorities.
You see the reverse with educated whites though. Trump won the general white vote, and won by an even larger percentage of educated whites. His lead increased when comparing non-educated to educated whites.
When you consider the minority vote always goes to the dems, but she won a smaller percentage of educated minorities it can easily be argued the issues with minorities were the greater impact than the education. And with more education she actually got less votes. You see the reverse trend for whites. So it would not be accurate to say Trump had the uneducated, or "simple" vote.

... and 'racist'. People that knew 'Make America Great Again' was a crock of shit liked the potential idea of a wall and the persecution of Muslims.

So you'd have you believe half of America is racist then. I don't believe that.
Racism does exist, but its not the majority that has been spread around the last month. Whites are no more racist than any other group.

eddiec

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

Not really. Clinton did win the college educated vote by 5%, but when you consider the race margins it more than explains her 5% lead. Her votes from educated minority were less than the minority population total. In other words, she all but took all of the minority vote, but took a smaller percentage of the educated minority (albeit still more than Trump). Her lead decreased when comparing non-educated to educated minorities.
You see the reverse with educated whites though. Trump won the general white vote, and won by an even larger percentage of educated whites. His lead increased when comparing non-educated to educated whites.
When you consider the minority vote always goes to the dems, but she won a smaller percentage of educated minorities it can easily be argued the issues with minorities were the greater impact than the education. And with more education she actually got less votes. You see the reverse trend for whites. So it would not be accurate to say Trump had the uneducated, or "simple" vote.

... and 'racist'. People that knew 'Make America Great Again' was a crock of shit liked the potential idea of a wall and the persecution of Muslims.

So you'd have you believe half of America is racist then. I don't believe that.
Racism does exist, but its not the majority that has been spread around the last month. Whites are no more racist than any other group.

Probably not but as the largest percentage in the country they are the group with the most racists. If we agree with your statement that a % of all races are racists then the largest number of racists in the US are white people.

mace1229

eddiec said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

Not really. Clinton did win the college educated vote by 5%, but when you consider the race margins it more than explains her 5% lead. Her votes from educated minority were less than the minority population total. In other words, she all but took all of the minority vote, but took a smaller percentage of the educated minority (albeit still more than Trump). Her lead decreased when comparing non-educated to educated minorities.
You see the reverse with educated whites though. Trump won the general white vote, and won by an even larger percentage of educated whites. His lead increased when comparing non-educated to educated whites.
When you consider the minority vote always goes to the dems, but she won a smaller percentage of educated minorities it can easily be argued the issues with minorities were the greater impact than the education. And with more education she actually got less votes. You see the reverse trend for whites. So it would not be accurate to say Trump had the uneducated, or "simple" vote.

... and 'racist'. People that knew 'Make America Great Again' was a crock of shit liked the potential idea of a wall and the persecution of Muslims.

So you'd have you believe half of America is racist then. I don't believe that.
Racism does exist, but its not the majority that has been spread around the last month. Whites are no more racist than any other group.

Probably not but as the largest percentage in the country they are the group with the most racists. If we agree with your statement that a % of all races are racists then the largest number of racists in the US are white people.

Sure, I could agree with that as long as we can agree it is an insignificant population.
And I'm not talking about someone who uses the word "thug" to describe a black kid dressed like a gangbanger and that offends someone else. I'm talking about those who truly believe they are better because of their color, or that someone us less because of their color.

eddiec

mace1229 said:

eddiec said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

Not really. Clinton did win the college educated vote by 5%, but when you consider the race margins it more than explains her 5% lead. Her votes from educated minority were less than the minority population total. In other words, she all but took all of the minority vote, but took a smaller percentage of the educated minority (albeit still more than Trump). Her lead decreased when comparing non-educated to educated minorities.
You see the reverse with educated whites though. Trump won the general white vote, and won by an even larger percentage of educated whites. His lead increased when comparing non-educated to educated whites.
When you consider the minority vote always goes to the dems, but she won a smaller percentage of educated minorities it can easily be argued the issues with minorities were the greater impact than the education. And with more education she actually got less votes. You see the reverse trend for whites. So it would not be accurate to say Trump had the uneducated, or "simple" vote.

... and 'racist'. People that knew 'Make America Great Again' was a crock of shit liked the potential idea of a wall and the persecution of Muslims.

So you'd have you believe half of America is racist then. I don't believe that.
Racism does exist, but its not the majority that has been spread around the last month. Whites are no more racist than any other group.

Probably not but as the largest percentage in the country they are the group with the most racists. If we agree with your statement that a % of all races are racists then the largest number of racists in the US are white people.

Sure, I could agree with that as long as we can agree it is an insignificant population.
And I'm not talking about someone who uses the word "thug" to describe a black kid dressed like a gangbanger and that offends someone else. I'm talking about those who truly believe they are better because of their color, or that someone us less because of their color.

And then you must include the number who were indifferent that racists were attracted to Trump. Indifferent doesn't make them racist but turning a blind eye has its problems as well.

Go Beavers

mace1229 said:

eddiec said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

Not really. Clinton did win the college educated vote by 5%, but when you consider the race margins it more than explains her 5% lead. Her votes from educated minority were less than the minority population total. In other words, she all but took all of the minority vote, but took a smaller percentage of the educated minority (albeit still more than Trump). Her lead decreased when comparing non-educated to educated minorities.
You see the reverse with educated whites though. Trump won the general white vote, and won by an even larger percentage of educated whites. His lead increased when comparing non-educated to educated whites.
When you consider the minority vote always goes to the dems, but she won a smaller percentage of educated minorities it can easily be argued the issues with minorities were the greater impact than the education. And with more education she actually got less votes. You see the reverse trend for whites. So it would not be accurate to say Trump had the uneducated, or "simple" vote.

... and 'racist'. People that knew 'Make America Great Again' was a crock of shit liked the potential idea of a wall and the persecution of Muslims.

So you'd have you believe half of America is racist then. I don't believe that.
Racism does exist, but its not the majority that has been spread around the last month. Whites are no more racist than any other group.

Probably not but as the largest percentage in the country they are the group with the most racists. If we agree with your statement that a % of all races are racists then the largest number of racists in the US are white people.

Sure, I could agree with that as long as we can agree it is an insignificant population.
And I'm not talking about someone who uses the word "thug" to describe a black kid dressed like a gangbanger and that offends someone else. I'm talking about those who truly believe they are better because of their color, or that someone us less because of their color.

You're focusing on blatant racists. Instead, think about the group that has less self awareness about their own prejudice. Trumps message was built around fear and ignorance, and fear and ignorance is the foundation of prejudice. So that's the connection between trump and racism that conservatives aren't really picking up on.

JC29856

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

eddiec said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

And BS again lending credibility to the majority of Trump voters.

Nobody (outside of benjs apparently) is buying that. Of course there was a bloc of voters that we can a knowlege being intelligent, but the reality is Trump appealed to the simple portion of the population and the racist portion of the population.

Not really. Clinton did win the college educated vote by 5%, but when you consider the race margins it more than explains her 5% lead. Her votes from educated minority were less than the minority population total. In other words, she all but took all of the minority vote, but took a smaller percentage of the educated minority (albeit still more than Trump). Her lead decreased when comparing non-educated to educated minorities.
You see the reverse with educated whites though. Trump won the general white vote, and won by an even larger percentage of educated whites. His lead increased when comparing non-educated to educated whites.
When you consider the minority vote always goes to the dems, but she won a smaller percentage of educated minorities it can easily be argued the issues with minorities were the greater impact than the education. And with more education she actually got less votes. You see the reverse trend for whites. So it would not be accurate to say Trump had the uneducated, or "simple" vote.

... and 'racist'. People that knew 'Make America Great Again' was a crock of shit liked the potential idea of a wall and the persecution of Muslims.

So you'd have you believe half of America is racist then. I don't believe that.
Racism does exist, but its not the majority that has been spread around the last month. Whites are no more racist than any other group.

Probably not but as the largest percentage in the country they are the group with the most racists. If we agree with your statement that a % of all races are racists then the largest number of racists in the US are white people.

Sure, I could agree with that as long as we can agree it is an insignificant population.
And I'm not talking about someone who uses the word "thug" to describe a black kid dressed like a gangbanger and that offends someone else. I'm talking about those who truly believe they are better because of their color, or that someone us less because of their color.

You're focusing on blatant racists. Instead, think about the group that has less self awareness about their own prejudice. Trumps message was built around fear and ignorance, and fear and ignorance is the foundation of prejudice. So that's the connection between trump and racism that conservatives aren't really picking up on.

What was the message of fear?