Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the statistics-or-lies? dept.

Scott Alexander gives a great breakdown of Trump and how the portrayal of him as being "openly white supremacist" is probably (likely) wrong.

I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he's "the candidate of the KKK" and "the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement" is made up. It's a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But you are still crying wolf.

I avoided pushing this point any more since last October because I didn't want to look like I was supporting Trump, or accidentally convince anyone else to support Trump. But since we're past the point where that matters any more, I want to present my case.

He further states: "I realize that all of this is going to make me sound like a crazy person and put me completely at odds with every respectable thinker in the media, but luckily, being a crazy person at odds with every respectable thinker in the media has been a pretty good ticket to predictive accuracy lately, so whatever."

So do his claims hold up under scrutiny, is he manipulating the figures, or is he just a 'crazy person' ?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:16PM (#429473)

    That's a nice strawman you got there... where did you get it from?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:22PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:22PM (#429476) Homepage Journal

    The proposed wall is to keep illegal Mexicans out. Illegal is not a race. Mexican is not a race. Thus the wall is not racist. The comment I replied to said the wall was a racist argument. I refuted that.

    Do please go look up the definition of a strawman.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:34PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:34PM (#429482) Homepage

      The wall is to keep out not only illegal Mexicans but also illegal Guatemalans, El Salvadorians, Nicaraguans, as well as illegal aliens from places other than South America who seek to enter the United States illegally though the Mexican-American border -- including terrorists of Middle-Eastern origin.

      Personally, I agree that a wall is a nonsensical and excessively expensive method of border control -- I believe we should use existing resources, such as the National Guard, to shoot on sight anybody crossing the border illegally. It's a win-win situation because our Guard is better utilized and receives combat training, and our borders are controlled. What's not to like about that?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:02PM (#429546)

        why pay the National Guard when there are Minutemen, Patriots, Freemen, Bundistas et al who seem chomping at the bit to do it for free?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @04:24AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @04:24AM (#429797)

        The wall is to keep out not only illegal Mexicans but also illegal Guatemalans, El Salvadorians, Nicaraguans, as well as illegal aliens from places other than South America who seek to enter the United States illegally though the Mexican-American border -- including terrorists of Middle-Eastern origin.

        You and the Buzzard honestly can't see a common theme to those you want to keep out? Really? Let me help you out: none of the people groups you identified is white Anglo-Saxon.

        Personally, I agree that a wall is a nonsensical and excessively expensive method of border control -- I believe we should use existing resources, such as the National Guard, to shoot on sight anybody crossing the border illegally. It's a win-win situation because our Guard is better utilized and receives combat training, and our borders are controlled. What's not to like about that?

        <sarc>Umm, yeah. Let's just turn the border into an active war zone. That will certainly calm things down.</sarc>

        Actually, there's plenty not to like about that. We need less violence at our southern border, not more. Hoo boy! You alt-right types really need to get a clue!

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 18 2016, @04:56PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 18 2016, @04:56PM (#442710) Journal

        "Personally, I agree that a wall is a nonsensical and excessively expensive method of border control -- I believe we should use existing resources, such as the National Guard,"

        Existing resources? We have millions of welfare recipients with nothing to do with their time. Tens of millions, even. Load them onto trains, and ship them to the border to build the wall.