CDZ POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

[JoeB131]

??? -- Given the margins that can effect a win and the electoral-college impact, the two to three million vote differences among the popular vote each man garnered is material, thus not qualitatively "about the same," even though in the abstract, the quantities would in many other situations and discussions be fairly considered "about the same."

GOP popular vote totals

• 2008 McCain popular vote --> 59,948,323
• 2012 Romney popular vote --> 60,933,504
• 2016 Trump popular vote --> 62,984,825

Yeah, but given the growth of the electorate, that isn't as big of a difference as you think.

The more probative number is percentages.
McCain got 45%
Romney got an ironic 47%
Trump got 46%.

So as a PERCENTAGE they stayed in the same range. The idea that we need to fight really hard to get one percent of the electorate that isn't going to change its mind, anyway, is silly, and this is the argument I have with Mac that he never, ever responds to.

MEANWHILE

Obama got 55% in 08
He got 52% in 12
and Hillary got 48% - you know, the people still voted for her, and she'd be president if we didn't have this awful system devised by Slave Owners.

so Trump didn't perform better than Romney, in percentages, Hillary performed a lot worse than Obama, about 4-7% worse. And where did those 4-7% go?

Well, Gary Johnson got 3.28% and Jill Stein got 1.07%. That accounts for 4% of it.

I don't know where the votes came from. I know from where they may have come and I haven't seen in your argument anything that indicates cogently they came from none of those sources. The first source for them and which folks wanting to argue for the conclusion you are is that they result from more people voting for someone for POTUS and Trump was the candidate for whom those "new voters" chose.

Except- again, he didn't get any improvement in raw numbers. If you drill down deeper into the numbers, he got 58% of the White vote compared to 59% for Romney, but he got 30% of the Hispanic Vote compared to 29% for Romney and 8% of the black vote compared to 6% for Romney.

In short, in terms of percentages, the needed didn't move for Trump. It moved quite a lot for Hillary, whether it be her general unlikability, the fact the media poured mud on her for years, all the way up until the election, or people thinking, "Well, this country can't possibly be stupid enough to elect Trump through an archaic system devised by guys who went home afterwards and had non-consensual sex with their slaves, so I'll vote for some weirdo who has promised me he won't smoke dope".

 

[JoeB131]

FWIW, I'd be surprised to learn that nobody has performed a rigorously comprehensive and sound/cogent analysis of the 2016 POTUS election outcome and, considering qualitative exit poll data, quantitative vote counts, and other information determined what factors/behaviors account for the incremental popular-vote increase Trump obtained.

Check out the Roper Center, they keep all sorts of data like this.

I don't have time to look for a link, I'm on my way out the door right now.

 

[Mac1958]

Except for when a person literally says another race is inherently inferior, racism is in the eye of the beholder. Either because they are hypersensitive to it, or because they are actively, dishonestly and cynically looking for it to use as an excuse.

When Is Racism Just Your Perception? | HuffPost

"Our minds get to choose how we see what we see. I believe in always taking the point of view that affirms our worth. This way, no matter how many rude, racist or otherwise unkind people we encounter, we do not have to let their bad behavior into our hearts.

"The elephant of racism is one we will be chewing on for years to come. But we can change our default tendency to see everything through the lens of racism"

Unless, of course, we have another agenda.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

if we didn't have this awful system devised by Slave Owners.

I'm quite willing and often able to engage substantively and with some rigor on any number of topics. That said, when I see/hear folks jaundice their remarks by using rhetoric in the way the clause does, my interest in further doing so with such a speaker ebbs considerably.

As I have the preceding paragraph described an aspect of a principle I apply to the conduct of substantive discourse, let me now explain the tactical application of that principle. A party to a conversation is always free to introduce whatever notion they want to, so don't think I'm of a mind to proscribe expression among adults, for I'm not; however, I will hold folks accountable for the reasonably-understood (as opposed to the far flung framing and conjecture which some folks try to impose) whole of what they do express. Thus, when one airs an idea, be it one I agree or disagree with, and colors it with inflammatory terms that don't add to the comprehension of the topic being discussed, I begin to think the person hasn't a desire to continue discussing the topic in a neutral, objective manner. One 's conclusion need not be neutral, but the nature of the argument that leads to it must be, or it must be if one expects to be taken completely seriously rather than as a "axe grinder," if you will.

To wit, "devised by slave owners" used as you did to refer to the Founders is a jaundiced way of phrasing identifying the Founders. It is jaundiced (and slightly inflammatory) not because the term is intrinsically so, but because you used it abstractly and did not establish the relevance to how many votes recent 21st century presidential candidates received to the fact that the Founders, who designed the electoral college, and subsequent 19th century elected leaders who modified the Founders' design of the electoral college, were slave owners.

Let me be clear, I not altogether opposed to sojourning occasionally/infrequently down a rhetorical "warren;" however, I'm not going to do so with someone whom I perceive as someone who'll confound the conversation with terms/language that contextually prejudices the conversation.

 

[usmbguest5318]

??? -- Given the margins that can effect a win and the electoral-college impact, the two to three million vote differences among the popular vote each man garnered is material, thus not qualitatively "about the same," even though in the abstract, the quantities would in many other situations and discussions be fairly considered "about the same."

GOP popular vote totals

• 2008 McCain popular vote --> 59,948,323
• 2012 Romney popular vote --> 60,933,504
• 2016 Trump popular vote --> 62,984,825

Yeah, but given the growth of the electorate, that isn't as big of a difference as you think.

The more probative number is percentages.
McCain got 45%
Romney got an ironic 47%
Trump got 46%.

So as a PERCENTAGE they stayed in the same range. The idea that we need to fight really hard to get one percent of the electorate that isn't going to change its mind, anyway, is silly, and this is the argument I have with Mac that he never, ever responds to.

MEANWHILE

Obama got 55% in 08
He got 52% in 12
and Hillary got 48% - you know, the people still voted for her, and she'd be president if we didn't have this awful system devised by Slave Owners.

so Trump didn't perform better than Romney, in percentages, Hillary performed a lot worse than Obama, about 4-7% worse. And where did those 4-7% go?

Well, Gary Johnson got 3.28% and Jill Stein got 1.07%. That accounts for 4% of it.

I don't know where the votes came from. I know from where they may have come and I haven't seen in your argument anything that indicates cogently they came from none of those sources. The first source for them and which folks wanting to argue for the conclusion you are is that they result from more people voting for someone for POTUS and Trump was the candidate for whom those "new voters" chose.

Except- again, he didn't get any improvement in raw numbers. If you drill down deeper into the numbers, he got 58% of the White vote compared to 59% for Romney, but he got 30% of the Hispanic Vote compared to 29% for Romney and 8% of the black vote compared to 6% for Romney.

In short, in terms of percentages, the needed didn't move for Trump. It moved quite a lot for Hillary, whether it be her general unlikability, the fact the media poured mud on her for years, all the way up until the election, or people thinking, "Well, this country can't possibly be stupid enough to elect Trump through an archaic system devised by guys who went home afterwards and had non-consensual sex with their slaves, so I'll vote for some weirdo who has promised me he won't smoke dope".

So as a PERCENTAGE they stayed in the same range.

So what? The nature of the question/behavior -- from whom individual votes that sum in the millions came -- we're discussing isn't well suited to percentage-based analysis.

• When is it appropriate to use counts and when is it appropriate to use percents?

Were we considering the question in terms of how various specifically identified blocs of voters voted or didn't vote, then yes, percentage-based analysis is appropriate. Maybe I missed pivotal remarks, ones in which you identified one or more voting blocs in your commentary prior to my engaging with you?

Percentage-based analysis informs us that certain behaviors did happen. Those percentages tell us a number of things, but do not, because they cannot, tell us whether more individuals than in prior elections voted. Knowing whether more people in total voted is critical to any sound/cogent analysis that aims to assert that "so and so" from whom/where came the votes that yield the percentages you've shared with us.

I take no exception with the percentages you've presented. What I'm saying, effectively for the second time now, is that the conclusion you're proponing when you asked and answered the question "where do you think those votes came from?" does not follow from the nature of the analysis/premises you've provided. In strict logical terms, I'm saying that you've thus far presented a valid argument that is yet unsound ("incogent," if one insists that I use parlance specifically appropriate to inductive arguments and one construes yours as such an argument). It is unsound/incogent because you've based your conclusion on an analytical method that does not support conclusions about the source(s) of units of anything, be it jellybeans or exhibited behaviors.

FWIW, were it so that 100% of the voting-eligible population to have voted in the three elections for which you've/we've considered, compared and contrasted voting behavior, then, yes, the percentage-based approach you've pursued would be perfectly acceptable/sound/cogent. That approach would be so because in such a situation, there'd be no question about whether more people voted. Moreover, if the quantity of voting-eligible individuals were materially different, the percentage approach would be a required component of the overall analysis.

 

[kwc57]

Agree look at his poll, Obama care? I don't think Obama was born in the US?


What kind of racist poll is this? And in the CDZ?????

That was his point man. People call it racism over the dumbest crap. Crap that isnt even CLOSE to being racist.

Bingo, thanks.

Hopefully we can keep the trolling to a minimum here.
.

Answer my question what does I hate Obama care have to do with racism?

Implication of the affirmative...

Seriously I want to know why would the OP put as choices Obama care and if obama was a natural born citizen in his poll..


What does those two have to deal with racism?

If you aren't up on politics and current events, you might want to move over to the sports forum. Liberals as in plural have in the past identified those topics as racist. That's the point of the OP. The term has been diluted by too many damn liberals calling anything and everything racist.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That was his point man. People call it racism over the dumbest crap. Crap that isnt even CLOSE to being racist.

Bingo, thanks.

Hopefully we can keep the trolling to a minimum here.
.

Answer my question what does I hate Obama care have to do with racism?

Implication of the affirmative...

Seriously I want to know why would the OP put as choices Obama care and if obama was a natural born citizen in his poll..


What does those two have to deal with racism?

If you aren't up on politics and current events, you might want to move over to the sports forum. Liberals as in plural have in the past identified those topics as racist. That's the point of the OP. The term has been diluted by too many damn liberals calling anything and everything racist.

Dont quote me if stuff goes over your head.



.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Except for when a person literally says another race is inherently inferior, racism is in the eye of the beholder. Either because they are hypersensitive to it, or because they are actively, dishonestly and cynically looking for it to use as an excuse.

When Is Racism Just Your Perception? | HuffPost

"Our minds get to choose how we see what we see. I believe in always taking the point of view that affirms our worth. This way, no matter how many rude, racist or otherwise unkind people we encounter, we do not have to let their bad behavior into our hearts.

"The elephant of racism is one we will be chewing on for years to come. But we can change our default tendency to see everything through the lens of racism"

Unless, of course, we have another agenda.
.

Except for when a person literally says another race is inherently inferior, racism is in the eye of the beholder. Either because they are hypersensitive to it, or because they are actively, dishonestly and cynically looking for it to use as an excuse.

In your mind, is there no room for an individual to levy the charge of racism because another has demonstrated enough behavior that is indicative of their being a racist?

In my mind, there comes a point where the preponderance of evidence, even absent an explicit attestation to being a racist, militates to increasingly strong degrees that the conclusion/charge of " 'so and so' is a racist" is indeed valid and sound/cogent. At that point, the only thing that makes such a charge debatable is the capacity for and exercise of cognitive rigor in the "eyes of beholders," as it were. Notions like "in the eye of the beholder" and "benefit of the doubt" do not exist to adumbrate intransigence. The tenor your remarks quoted just above seems to suggest you believe they do.

 

[Mac1958]

That was his point man. People call it racism over the dumbest crap. Crap that isnt even CLOSE to being racist.

Bingo, thanks.

Hopefully we can keep the trolling to a minimum here.
.

Answer my question what does I hate Obama care have to do with racism?

Implication of the affirmative...

Seriously I want to know why would the OP put as choices Obama care and if obama was a natural born citizen in his poll..


What does those two have to deal with racism?

If you aren't up on politics and current events, you might want to move over to the sports forum. Liberals as in plural have in the past identified those topics as racist. That's the point of the OP. The term has been diluted by too many damn liberals calling anything and everything racist.

He never did get it.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Except for when a person literally says another race is inherently inferior, racism is in the eye of the beholder. Either because they are hypersensitive to it, or because they are actively, dishonestly and cynically looking for it to use as an excuse.

When Is Racism Just Your Perception? | HuffPost

"Our minds get to choose how we see what we see. I believe in always taking the point of view that affirms our worth. This way, no matter how many rude, racist or otherwise unkind people we encounter, we do not have to let their bad behavior into our hearts.

"The elephant of racism is one we will be chewing on for years to come. But we can change our default tendency to see everything through the lens of racism"

Unless, of course, we have another agenda.
.

Except for when a person literally says another race is inherently inferior, racism is in the eye of the beholder. Either because they are hypersensitive to it, or because they are actively, dishonestly and cynically looking for it to use as an excuse.

In your mind, is there no room for an individual to levy the charge of racism because another has demonstrated enough behavior that is indicative of their being a racist?

In my mind, there comes a point where the preponderance of evidence, even absent an explicit attestation to being a racist, militates to increasingly strong degrees that the conclusion/charge of " 'so and so' is a racist" is indeed valid and sound/cogent. At that point, only thing that makes such a charge debatable the capacity for and exercise of cognitive rigor in the "eyes of beholders," as it were. Notions like "in the eye of the beholder" and "benefit of the doubt" do not exist to adumbrate intransigence. The tenor your remarks quoted just above seems to suggest you believe they do.

It depends entirely on the context.

If a person has a known history of racist or quasi-racist comments (and once again, we go back to perceptions and definitions for that), then sure, certain assumptions can be made.

But if someone offers a legitimate point about a person or group - for example, discussing the alarmingly high rate of fatherless black children - and they're automatically called a racist, then it's clear to me that the person levying the charge is not an honest broker. I have seen that happen so many times - to myself and others - that I have long since lost count.

As I said in the OP, I take this word damn seriously, and I hate seeing it diluted and trivialized like this. The same as I don't like seeing words like "slave" or "Nazi" tossed around for effect. It is an insult to those who have suffered, and those who suffer today.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Except for when a person literally says another race is inherently inferior, racism is in the eye of the beholder. Either because they are hypersensitive to it, or because they are actively, dishonestly and cynically looking for it to use as an excuse.

When Is Racism Just Your Perception? | HuffPost

"Our minds get to choose how we see what we see. I believe in always taking the point of view that affirms our worth. This way, no matter how many rude, racist or otherwise unkind people we encounter, we do not have to let their bad behavior into our hearts.

"The elephant of racism is one we will be chewing on for years to come. But we can change our default tendency to see everything through the lens of racism"

Unless, of course, we have another agenda.
.

Except for when a person literally says another race is inherently inferior, racism is in the eye of the beholder. Either because they are hypersensitive to it, or because they are actively, dishonestly and cynically looking for it to use as an excuse.

In your mind, is there no room for an individual to levy the charge of racism because another has demonstrated enough behavior that is indicative of their being a racist?

In my mind, there comes a point where the preponderance of evidence, even absent an explicit attestation to being a racist, militates to increasingly strong degrees that the conclusion/charge of " 'so and so' is a racist" is indeed valid and sound/cogent. At that point, only thing that makes such a charge debatable the capacity for and exercise of cognitive rigor in the "eyes of beholders," as it were. Notions like "in the eye of the beholder" and "benefit of the doubt" do not exist to adumbrate intransigence. The tenor your remarks quoted just above seems to suggest you believe they do.

It depends entirely on the context.

If a person has a known history of racist or quasi-racist comments (and once again, we go back to perceptions and definitions for that), then sure, certain assumptions can be made.

But if someone offers a legitimate point about a person or group - for example, discussing the alarmingly high rate of fatherless black children - and they're automatically called a racist, then it's clear to me that the person levying the charge is not an honest broker. I have seen that happen so many times - to myself and others - that I have long since lost count.

As I said in the OP, I take this word damn seriously, and I hate seeing it diluted and trivialized like this. The same as I don't like seeing words like "slave" or "Nazi" tossed around for effect. It is an insult to those who have suffered, and those who suffer today.
.

It depends entirely on the context.

I fully agree. It does.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Except for when a person literally says another race is inherently inferior, racism is in the eye of the beholder. Either because they are hypersensitive to it, or because they are actively, dishonestly and cynically looking for it to use as an excuse.

When Is Racism Just Your Perception? | HuffPost

"Our minds get to choose how we see what we see. I believe in always taking the point of view that affirms our worth. This way, no matter how many rude, racist or otherwise unkind people we encounter, we do not have to let their bad behavior into our hearts.

"The elephant of racism is one we will be chewing on for years to come. But we can change our default tendency to see everything through the lens of racism"

Unless, of course, we have another agenda.
.

Except for when a person literally says another race is inherently inferior, racism is in the eye of the beholder. Either because they are hypersensitive to it, or because they are actively, dishonestly and cynically looking for it to use as an excuse.

In your mind, is there no room for an individual to levy the charge of racism because another has demonstrated enough behavior that is indicative of their being a racist?

In my mind, there comes a point where the preponderance of evidence, even absent an explicit attestation to being a racist, militates to increasingly strong degrees that the conclusion/charge of " 'so and so' is a racist" is indeed valid and sound/cogent. At that point, only thing that makes such a charge debatable the capacity for and exercise of cognitive rigor in the "eyes of beholders," as it were. Notions like "in the eye of the beholder" and "benefit of the doubt" do not exist to adumbrate intransigence. The tenor your remarks quoted just above seems to suggest you believe they do.

It depends entirely on the context.

If a person has a known history of racist or quasi-racist comments (and once again, we go back to perceptions and definitions for that), then sure, certain assumptions can be made.

But if someone offers a legitimate point about a person or group - for example, discussing the alarmingly high rate of fatherless black children - and they're automatically called a racist, then it's clear to me that the person levying the charge is not an honest broker. I have seen that happen so many times - to myself and others - that I have long since lost count.

As I said in the OP, I take this word damn seriously, and I hate seeing it diluted and trivialized like this. The same as I don't like seeing words like "slave" or "Nazi" tossed around for effect. It is an insult to those who have suffered, and those who suffer today.
.

if someone offers a legitimate point about a person or group - for example, discussing the alarmingly high rate of fatherless black children - and they're automatically called a racist, then it's clear to me that the person levying the charge is not an honest broker.

Agree.

I take this word damn seriously, and I hate seeing it diluted and trivialized like this.

Ditto.

 

[JoeB131]

To wit, "devised by slave owners" used as you did to refer to the Founders is a jaundiced way of phrasing identifying the Founders. It is jaundiced (and slightly inflammatory) not because the term is intrinsically so, but because you used it abstractly and did not establish the relevance to how many votes recent 21st century presidential candidates received to the fact that the Founders, who designed the electoral college, and subsequent 19th century elected leaders who modified the Founders' design of the electoral college, were slave owners.

It's only inflammetory or jaundiced if you don't want to address the underlying racism that exists in this country. It was specifically designed to keep the power in the hands of white men. And yes, it has a lot to do with the disaster of 2016. If we had one person, one vote, everyone's vote counting equally, the ongoing horror show that is Trump would not be happening right now.

A bad system designed by bad people for bad reasons (their mistrust of common people) produced a truly bad result.

Percentage-based analysis informs us that certain behaviors did happen. Those percentages tell us a number of things, but do not, because they cannot, tell us whether more individuals than in prior elections voted. Knowing whether more people in total voted is critical to any sound/cogent analysis that aims to assert that "so and so" from whom/where came the votes that yield the percentages you've shared with us.

Not really. The number of people grows every election because the population continues to grow. Let me get back to this because I have to take a meeting.

 

[toomuchtime_]

To wit, "devised by slave owners" used as you did to refer to the Founders is a jaundiced way of phrasing identifying the Founders. It is jaundiced (and slightly inflammatory) not because the term is intrinsically so, but because you used it abstractly and did not establish the relevance to how many votes recent 21st century presidential candidates received to the fact that the Founders, who designed the electoral college, and subsequent 19th century elected leaders who modified the Founders' design of the electoral college, were slave owners.

It's only inflammetory or jaundiced if you don't want to address the underlying racism that exists in this country. It was specifically designed to keep the power in the hands of white men. And yes, it has a lot to do with the disaster of 2016. If we had one person, one vote, everyone's vote counting equally, the ongoing horror show that is Trump would not be happening right now.

A bad system designed by bad people for bad reasons (their mistrust of common people) produced a truly bad result.

Percentage-based analysis informs us that certain behaviors did happen. Those percentages tell us a number of things, but do not, because they cannot, tell us whether more individuals than in prior elections voted. Knowing whether more people in total voted is critical to any sound/cogent analysis that aims to assert that "so and so" from whom/where came the votes that yield the percentages you've shared with us.

Not really. The number of people grows every election because the population continues to grow. Let me get back to this because I have to take a meeting.

So that would explain why America can never have a black president.

 

[JoeB131]

take no exception with the percentages you've presented. What I'm saying, effectively for the second time now, is that the conclusion you're proponing when you asked and answered the question "where do you think those votes came from?" does not follow from the nature of the analysis/premises you've provided. In strict logical terms, I'm saying that you've thus far presented a valid argument that is yet unsound ("incogent," if one insists that I use parlance specifically appropriate to inductive arguments and one construes yours as such an argument). It is unsound/incogent because you've based your conclusion on an analytical method that does not support conclusions about the source(s) of units of anything, be it jellybeans or exhibited behaviors.

1) I think you are trying too hard.

2) Nobody votes for Obama and then votes for a racist reality TV Clown four years later. Frankly, I have yet to meet the guy who said "I voted for Obama in 2012, but I voted for Trump this time." So the logical conclusion is when that 4-7% that Hillary lost compared to Obama, is that they either voted for third parties or they stayed home, and given the total electorate increased, I don't think that many folks stayed home.

So either Trump grabbed a bunch of Obama voters, but lost a bunch of Romney voters to Johnson, or Hillary lost a bunch of Obama voters to Johnson because they thought she was just as bad because emails, or maybe they were just misogynistic. and couldnt vote for a woman.

And, yes, I really do think Misogyny was a factor in 2016.

 

[usmbguest5318]

To wit, "devised by slave owners" used as you did to refer to the Founders is a jaundiced way of phrasing identifying the Founders. It is jaundiced (and slightly inflammatory) not because the term is intrinsically so, but because you used it abstractly and did not establish the relevance to how many votes recent 21st century presidential candidates received to the fact that the Founders, who designed the electoral college, and subsequent 19th century elected leaders who modified the Founders' design of the electoral college, were slave owners.

It's only inflammetory or jaundiced if you don't want to address the underlying racism that exists in this country. It was specifically designed to keep the power in the hands of white men. And yes, it has a lot to do with the disaster of 2016. If we had one person, one vote, everyone's vote counting equally, the ongoing horror show that is Trump would not be happening right now.

A bad system designed by bad people for bad reasons (their mistrust of common people) produced a truly bad result.

Percentage-based analysis informs us that certain behaviors did happen. Those percentages tell us a number of things, but do not, because they cannot, tell us whether more individuals than in prior elections voted. Knowing whether more people in total voted is critical to any sound/cogent analysis that aims to assert that "so and so" from whom/where came the votes that yield the percentages you've shared with us.

Not really. The number of people grows every election because the population continues to grow. Let me get back to this because I have to take a meeting.

It's only inflammetory or jaundiced if you don't want to address the underlying racism that exists in this country.

There it is, the "tell." How droll. Above is bared the ugly and tender entrails of your character. Now begins to emerge its inclination for dissemblance and disingenuousness aimed only at having one's way rather than pursuing the truth. Upon seeing the static-to gradually-deteriorating (rather than constant or constant-to-increasing) rigor in your arguments, followed by that jaundiced phrasing of which I wrote -- precisely the rhetorical tactic Martin referred to as "interposition and nullification" -- I began to suspect those qualities were there even though earlier in the conversation your remarks have the genteel veneer of seeming objectivity.

• Gradually deteriorating rigor:
  1. You made a simple though slightly incoherent assertion about why Trump defeated Clinton in 2016.
  2. I expressed uncertainty about the soundness and legitimacy of your assertion and I presented a rough outline of the quantitative basis for why I doubted the soundness of your assertion.
  3. You responded with an incomplete quantitative attempt at supporting your initial assertion. (Undertaking a quantitative rebuttal was the right move. The problem is that the quantitative analysis you offered was incomplete, thus insufficient to move the merit of your assertion from merely plausible to preponderantly or very probable, or better yet, indubitable.
  4. I showed the analytical gaps in the support you provided for your assertion, thereby "opening the door," as it were, for you to fill them and remove the analytical weaknesses I'd identified in your argument.
     
     Strategic explication:
     That was a freely given opportunity for you to earn your argumentative "win." You may wonder why I left open that opportunity. I did so because broadly speaking I agree with your stance on racism; however, even agreeing on principle, such concurrence is insufficient garnering my approbation of a weak argument in support of the/those principle(s).
     
     If I sought to try to force you into a rhetorical loss as goes the soundness of your initial assertion, I would have obtained the information needed to fill the gaps in your argument and myself performed the quantitative analysis to determine whether your assertion indeed be true. If after performing the analysis, I found that your assertion is not true, I'd have presented it in all it's detail and used it to, on mere points of fact, annihilate your initial assertion's plausibility. (Mind, an argument doesn't gain in probability merely because nobody obliterates it.)
     • People who have shown to me a pattern of reckless dissemblance and disingenuousness in advancement of their partisan ends are the people to whom I don't offer rhetorical "outs" and opportunities. To wit and most ecently: How JPMorgan Will Spend a Big Chunk of Its Tax Windfall . You'll notice in that thread that my very first post is a withering empirically based refutation. I gave no rhetorical quarter from square-one of my involvement in the discussion.
  5. You essentially repeated the same weak argument rather than addressing the gaps I specifically had identified.
  6. I chided your use of a bald and jaundiced non sequitur, given the topic being then discussed, term. Who designed the system has nothing to do with how 2016's candidates won/lost.
     

     she'd be president if we didn't have this awful system devised by Slave Owners.

     If so pivotal as you here imply be the fact that the system's initial architects were slave owners, neither Obama nor any black candidates for political office would, in the 20th and 21st centuries, ever have won elected office.
     
  7. You responded by framing my criticism of your non sequitur. You also completed the abandonment of your quantitative approach to bolstering your initial assertion, which struck me as strange seeing as the empirical tack you'd started to take offered the most promising path to a rhetorically objective victory. In abandoning what may have proven to yield a rhetorical win, you subsequently shifted to a purely subjective line having to do with the intentions of men who've been dead for some 200 years. Readers likely got whiplash from the abruptness of your turning away from and abdicating the further development of what started as a reasonable approach to strongly supporting your initial assertion about why Trump defeated Clinton.
     

     It was specifically designed to keep the power in the hands of white men.

     A bad system designed by bad people for bad reasons

     
     That any of those things be true provides not even a tangentially germane explanation for why Trump defeated Clinton in 2016.

In any case, I didn't know for sure; however, I was pretty confident a tiny test would reveal whether my suspicions were on target and to what measure. No sooner did I "poke" ever so slightly, the very first sentence you post in response is the a two-pronged rhetorical defense of framing, be it via red herrings or straw men or any other technique, used as a springboard for a rhetorical "bow shot" of thinly veiled personal derogation, which is the precursor to the all-out the ad hominem "artillery" attack.

How much longer 'til off come the veil? I don't know, but I suspect not long.

FWIW, what are the rhetorically non-telling responses to "pokes" of the sort I used? Well, there are several options -- not dignifying it with a response being the best one, though careful study of the theory and practice of the dialectic (Hegelian or Socratic, either will do) will inform one of others -- but none of them entail framing and none of them entail accusing one's discursive/rhetorical partner(s) of that which is patently untrue.

Of what did you accuse me that is patently untrue? You tacitly accused me of being unwilling "to address the underlying racism that exists in this country." Any quick perusal of my USMB remarks on racism will show that accusation hasn't in it an iota of truth.

 

[JoeB131]

There it is, the "tell." How droll. Above is bared the ugly and tender entrails of your character. Now begins to emerge its inclination for dissemblance and disingenuousness aimed only at having one's way rather than pursuing the truth. Upon seeing the static-to gradually-deteriorating (rather than constant or constant-to-increasing) rigor in your arguments, followed by that jaundiced phrasing of which I wrote -- precisely the rhetorical tactic Martin referred to as "interposition and nullification" -- I began to suspect those qualities were there even though earlier in the conversation your remarks have the genteel veneer of seeming objectivity.

Again, buddy, you are trying too hard to sound smart.

Only a complete fool would try to claim that racism in this country isn't pervasive in hiring, law enforcement and even the culture.

Essentially, we elected a black man, and half the country lost its mind. Sadly, that half lost it's mind and were saved by a racist system produced by slave-owners 200 years ago.

But you are giving Mac a run for his money in the "I'm totally self-important"

You made a simple though slightly incoherent assertion about why Trump defeated Clinton in 2016.

Dude, you're not writing a graduate thesis. I gave you a completely valid theory based ON THE NUMBERS. Your answer is, "Well, they didn't interview every single voter to see how many Romney voters went to clinton and how many Obama voters went to Trump.

- spoiler alert - almost none. I have yet to talk to ANYONE who fell into those to categories.

So the ONLY Logical conclusion is because trump DID NOT GET ANY MORE VOTES than Romney did in terms of percentages, then one can only conclude that due to a combination of factors (misogyny, the media overhyping fake scandals, or her general unlikability) that people who voted for Obama previously voted for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, figuring that the rest of the country couldn't possibly be stupid enough to elect Trump.

So you spent a lot of time sounding self-important, but really didn't bring anything to the table.

FWIW, what are the rhetorically non-telling responses to "pokes" of the sort I used? Well, there are several options -- not dignifying it with a response being the best one, though careful study of the theory and practice of the dialectic (Hegelian or Socratic, either will do) will inform one of others -- but none of them entail framing and none of them entail accusing one's discursive/rhetorical partner(s) of that which is patently untrue.

Buddy, that dime store philosophy and $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

This really isn't complicated.

The Same 45% of uneducated, mostly white people, who voted for McCain even though they thought he was a liberal, and the same 47% who voted for Romney even though they were all evangelicals who hate the Mormons, are the very same 46% who voted for Trump, despite his being a womanizer who pretty much insulted them at every opportunity..

Who sadly won because too many of the decent people who voted for Obama twice decided to get self-righteous and show how hip they were by voting for characters like Johnson and Stein, who had NO CHANCE of winning, were not capable of governing if they did.

Now, I will grant one aspect of Trump's win. The establishment on both sides were keen on 2016 being Bush vs. Clinton II, even though a lot of people on both sides were pretty sick of both families at this point.

But the numbers really haven't moved that much in the last 20 years. The GOP candidate gets between 45-51% of the electorate and the Democrat gets between 48-55%. So the notion that there are these HUGE SWATHS of moderates out there who are just waiting for the totally moderate guy to lead them out of the desert of partisanship is just.... silly.

 

[MizMolly]

I don't see how the first four could be considered racist

 

[Mac1958]

I don't see how the first four could be considered racist

Some do, because they're looking for any excuse to "see" it. Even if they have to make something up.
.

 

[saveliberty]

6 through 8, 5 may be an indicator of possible tendencies.