Does Anyone On The Left Actually Understand Trump Won Because of Them?

[Gimmesometruth]

So you get to narrow down the scope to claim an overall argument.\

I have a posting history replete with supporting argument of how the GOP creates of all kind of policy that favor the wealthy and business while creating all kinds of anti-union laws. We did not get back to Gilded Age wealth disparities in the US by increasing the the top marginal rate. Perhaps instead of avoiding my posts like you have done in the past, you just might become aware, Ive only been here for 13 years.

My statement was broad and vague.

Is that supposed to be something to brag about? You have to be vague to avoid understanding that the GOP, especially now, is run by billionaires for billionaires.

The reply is irrational.

You said its scope was "narrowed", the opposite of vague and broad, which means specific.
How does discussing the GOP restrictions on workers rights make anything "irrational"? You said earlier "both sides do it". Being vague is rational?

Weird.

 

[Grand Mal]

Statistically, blacks commit more crime than any other minority. That's fact, not racist.

Crime is a poverty thing, not a race thing. If black people are over-represented in crime stats it's because they're over-represented in poverty.
If you go to Dublin or Helsinki you'll find that the highest crime rate is among the pasty-faced residents of the poorest sections of town.

Latin illegal aliens being detained are committing felonies if they were already deported once. First offense is indeed a misdemeanor.
Also, illegals that have committed crimes while being here can be considered felonies.

Being in the US illegally isn't a crime. Crossing illegally is but most illegal immigrants crossed legally.

I agree wholeheartedly about names. That actually IS racist and excellent point.


Have you taken a moment to read (or watch) Kirk's whole argument on civil rights act?

 

[Gozaburo]

Crime is a poverty thing, not a race thing. If black people are over-represented in crime stats it's because they're over-represented in poverty.

Well this is just demonstrably false because blacks in the middle-upper middle class commit more crime than whites in the lower classes. There are other considerations - which may not explicitly be tied to race - like geography and population density, however.

If you go to Dublin or Helsinki you'll find that the highest crime rate is among the pasty-faced residents of the poorest sections of town.

Even major cities in Europe are pretty diverse at this point so this probably isn't true, but even if it were, even the most criminal "pasty" folks in Europe seem to have very low rates of crime.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Well this is just demonstrably false because blacks in the middle-upper middle class commit more crime than whites in the lower classes.

Where in the hell did you get this from? How does a population that only makes up 12% of the total have a MUCH smaller segment (middle-upper middle class, what ever the **** that means) that creates more "crime" than a population multiple times larger ?( I have to guess at the ratio because of the middle middle crap)

You are arguing that this tiny population of home-owning, $65K (?) black households are creating more crime than all lower class whites?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

POVERTY, NOT RACE, TIED TO HIGH CRIME RATES IN URBAN COMMUNITIES

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Violent crime rates have more to do with poverty levels in a neighborhood than with the race of local residents, new research has found.

A study of Columbus neighborhoods found that violent crime rates in extremely disadvantaged white neighborhoods were very similar to rates in comparable Black neighborhoods.

The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities.

There are still many people who mistakenly believe there is something about Black neighborhoods that make them more violent and prone to crime, said Lauren Krivo, co-author of the study and associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University.

Our research shows that neighborhoods with the most crime tend to be those with the highest rates of poverty and other types of disadvantage -- regardless of whether they are predominantly Black or white.

In this study, overall rates of violence were nearly three times as high in Black neighborhoods as in white neighborhoods. But thats because Black neighborhoods are much more likely than white ones to be highly disadvantaged, she said.



Krivo conducted the study with Ruth Peterson, a professor of sociology at Ohio State. Their study was published in the current issue of the journal Social Forces.



The researchers examined crime rates for 1989 to 1991 in 177 census tracts in Columbus. They separated the census tracts -- which are the units researchers use to approximate neighborhoods -- into those with low poverty rates (less than 20 percent), high rates (20 to 40 percent) and extreme rates (more than 40 percent). They also separated the census tracts into those that were predominantly white or Black (at least 70 percent of one race).



Along with poverty rates, the researchers also compared neighborhoods on other measures of disadvantage: levels of male joblessness, female-headed families, and professionals living in the community. They then calculated a disadvantage index that combined all of these measures.


Violent crime rates were lowest in those neighborhoods with low disadvantage, regardless of whether they were predominantly Black or white. Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods had violent crime rates that were 16.3 per 1000 higher than rates in low disadvantage neighborhoods.

The results showed that extremely disadvantaged Black neighborhoods still had slightly higher violent crime rates than did similar white neighborhoods. One possible reason may be that the Black neighborhoods in this study are still more disadvantaged than the comparable white neighborhoods, Krivo said.

In addition, the highly disadvantaged Black neighborhoods were more likely than the white neighborhoods to be grouped together, which may intensify the negative effects.


The researchers also looked at property crimes in the study. The results were similar in that extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods -- both white and Black -- had comparable rates of crime. However, in the case of property crimes, white neighborhoods had slightly higher rates than did Black communities.

This may be because residents in the Black neighborhoods are more impoverished, and there is less to steal, Krivo said.

Krivo said this study was conducted in Columbus because it has relatively large numbers of both white and Black high-poverty neighborhoods, which made comparisons possible. Many large cities have very few impoverished white neighborhoods, she said.

The results show a clear connection between poverty and crime, according to Krivo.

Disadvantage has the same patterns of effects on crime in white and Black neighborhoods. Black urban neighborhoods tend to have higher crime rates than the typical white city neighborhood, but this is largely because there are more Black communities that are highly disadvantaged.

http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/courses/587/readings/Krivo Peterson 1996.pdf

 

[Jay Falcon]

I often wonder how many on the left have some level of understanding that Trump would have never been president, ever, if it hadn't been for all they and their bought and paid for media did against Trump. Anyone on the left here actually realize it was the left who elected Trump? Did you just go too far, with everything? Or, is it just an Ostrich with their heads in the sand thing?

Trump won because there are a lot of gullible idiots in the US.

 

[Tangmo]

How many votes did The Economist cast in the election?

Can't say but The Economist has more subscribers in the USA than the rest of the world combined. Of its 1.4m global subscribers 54% are in the USA. 70% are male and two of every three earn more than $100,000 annually in earned income.

This zene sometimes describes itself as "radical centrist" which is as good a self description as any of the others it gets assigned.

I was a more financially modest subscriber from 1970 to 1996 before I went to live and work abroad where I bought it at newsstands when I had the time -- I'm one who always read it from cover to cover. I still remember the essayist who wrote about God and religion and who concluded with the line "With each man who arrives at the Pearly Gates God meets his maker." That's classic Economist saliency and writing style.

I think the demographic profile of the "newspaper's" American subscribers indicate how they voted until Trump became the Republican nominee. Indeed, Economist subscribers know tariffs, they know the Fed and the USD and they know who the insane leaders throughout the world are. Orban isn't their guy either and the same is true about Bolsonaro, AfD and so on. The journal also no longer endorses only the UK Conservatives each time.

Overall centrist shading right, yes.

 

[Tangmo]

You're not getting it. Who's going to pick up the mantle of MAGA Führer then?

Vance is the least charismatic man ever known - hell, that's why he was picked, he posed no threat to Trump.

Indeed it's going to be a wild brawl.

 

[Tangmo]

You’re never going to get a honest response from most of this crowd. It’s always someone else’s fault, never their own. Throw in a bunch of whataboutisms and they circle the wagons. That’s why most arguments go no where on this forum.

Amen.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Amen.

You do know he was responding to the OP.....that was blaming dems for Don.....yes?

 

[bomberfox]

Statistically, blacks commit more crime than any other minority. That's fact, not racist.

Latin illegal aliens being detained are committing felonies if they were already deported once. First offense is indeed a misdemeanor.
Also, illegals that have committed crimes while being here can be considered felonies.

I agree wholeheartedly about names. That actually IS racist and excellent point.


Have you taken a moment to read (or watch) Kirk's whole argument on civil rights act?

The fact that i dont have to constantly prove that i live where i live and others dont is a privilege.
Umm no we already know several that were detained committed no crimes. Well we are getting somewhere at least.

I have watched many of the rights arguments, including kirk’s and they seem to view civil rights as (well hey if it didnt meet our expectations lets can it.)

 

[Tangmo]

"Does Anyone On The Left Actually Understand Trump Won Because of Them?"
Short answer: Nope.

This is classic convoluted and absurd MAGA nonsense. It's just thinking up plotty and serpentine tripe to run with to keep Trump going. And to keep opponents scrambling and explaining the obvious. This is just another instance of the MAGAs long having had their hands on the liberal's strings.

 

[Gozaburo]

Where in the hell did you get this from? How does a population that only makes up 12% of the total have a MUCH smaller segment (middle-upper middle class, what ever the **** that means) that creates more "crime" than a population multiple times larger ?( I have to guess at the ratio because of the middle middle crap)

You are arguing that this tiny population of home-owning, $65K (?) black households are creating more crime than all lower class whites?

I suppose my language wasn't precise, but it should be obvious I'm speaking on a per capita basis here.

IF the claim is that poverty causes crime, then we should control for that variable and see what happens. It turns out that if we do, middle to upper middle class blacks still commit more crime than poor whites. This suggests there are other variables - perhaps even more important ones - than just poverty to consider.

 

[j brown's body]

I suppose my language wasn't precise, but it should be obvious I'm speaking on a per capita basis here.

IF the claim is that poverty causes crime, then we should control for that variable and see what happens. It turns out that if we do, middle to upper middle class blacks still commit more crime than poor whites. This suggests there are other variables - perhaps even more important ones - than just poverty to consider.

Eugenics on the table?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I suppose my language wasn't precise, but it should be obvious I'm speaking on a per capita basis here.

IF the claim is that poverty causes crime, then we should control for that variable and see what happens. It turns out that if we do, middle to upper middle class blacks still commit more crime than poor whites. This suggests there are other variables - perhaps even more important ones - than just poverty to consider.

I asked you where you got your bs from, you still will not answer.

I just posted Krivo/Peterson specifically holding income levels constant.

 

[j brown's body]

How many votes did The Economist cast in the election?

Distance often offers a more balanced perspective.

 

[Tangmo]

I just asked a simple question. Does anyone on the left have an effin clue that they were the ones who actually catapulted Trump to the presidency?

There you go again pulling those liberal strings. It's so easy even you can do it. Watching 'em do your dance.

 

[CLAX1911]

I often wonder how many on the left have some level of understanding that Trump would have never been president, ever, if it hadn't been for all they and their bought and paid for media did against Trump. Anyone on the left here actually realize it was the left who elected Trump? Did you just go too far, with everything? Or, is it just an Ostrich with their heads in the sand thing?

No they don't know why that's why they're making the same mistake.

What they think is everyone but them is stupid and their viewpoints are righteous.

When your enemy no matter how much of a clown they are is making a mistake don't interrupt them.

 

[TobyOne]

Lol. Good point. I've said before......they just had to be normal. Only for a little while. Couldn't do it.

I often wonder how many on the left have some level of understanding that Trump would have never been president, ever, if it hadn't been for all they and their bought and paid for media did against Trump. Anyone on the left here actually realize it was the left who elected Trump? Did you just go too far, with everything? Or, is it just an Ostrich with their heads in the sand thing?

 

[Tangmo]

Oh yes they are. The constant anti-Trump stuff both by them and their media, and the constant lawfare against Trump motivated Americans to go out and vote for Trump. Without all of that, Trump would have been a nobody and never elected president.

Thx for that because now I know what a baloney salesman sounds like.

 

[bomberfox]

Ive heard most of the right wing arguments, even from Kirk. They mostly amount to “hey this seems to contradict that ONE quote from MLK jr” but the right has pretty much suppressed all of his radicalism so they can act like he would be a republican today lol gimme a break. The man was a radical.

Then you get Thomas Sowell to ride on that “forced bussing” train republicans tried to push after desegregation.

It really amounts to an extreme ignorance about the conditions that brought about the civil rights act and affirmative action

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The origin of Trump's rise began when the Dems chose to nominate Clinton instead of Sanders.

Oh, thats what caused republicans to choose Donny, it was the nomination of Hillary.....again, not the strength of Donny as a candidate but a reaction resulting from what dems did.

Thats so sad.

I don't know if that's a strawman, because you're butthurt about what I said, or if you just didn't understand

false choices, it is not strawman, it is an attempt to get the debate back to what caused the GOP to vote for Don, the argument at hand is the dems caused it. your first comment is placing the blame on dems.

No, they didn't choose Trump because of Hillary. The Republicans had a chip on their shoulder with Hillary which motivated them to go to the polls,

Y'know, to me, when you say that the GOP was motivated by Hillary....it sounds like Hillary caused voters to go to Donny.......but maybe I'm just "confused" again.

and she only had lukewarm support amongst Democrats and Independents.

According to CNN, she captured 88% of dem votes compared to Don getting 87% of GOP votes, the difference in capturing Ind votes was 3%.

I just don't understand you.....

Whereas Sanders had a huge groundswell of grassroots support, and could have easily beaten Trump

Now that sounds like butt-hurt, squared.

 

[Tangmo]

Sure, I am at fault for your reaction, that is the classic reactionary move, to blame the other, to not take responsibility, to be embarrassed during the walk of shame.

Stop regretting your choice, stop trying to shift blame for your own actions.

Alas, so called Independent and every third party voter never accept criticism. It's impossible for them to be wrong. Everything is the fault of the libs and the Dems. Just ask 'em and they'll tell you. Don't ask 'em and they'll you. And that certain Independent voters and each third party voter is pure and spiffy. It's a definite personality type that is holier than thou and is thereby beyond criticism.

 

[CLAX1911]

Trump won because foolish resentful people bought into right wing propaganda which is bitterly dividing our nation. Without 'bad people' to resent and hate, Trump would have lost badly.

So no you don't get it.

This bitter hatred is fomented on purpose by big money funded right wing 'think tanks' which work at coming up with a constant stream of 'supposed indignities' for conservatives to 'be angry about.' These are dumped into the right wing rumor mill echo chamber where they are immediately picked up by the thoughtless followers in the maga cult of deplorables.

Naturally, the entire effort is geared toward putting Republicans in power where they will reward their big money backers by giving them tax breaks and slashing any socially beneficial regulation which might impact big corporate profits.

America is almost hopelessly corrupt. Big money has bought our government.

If we had an actively engaged well informed populace this would not be possible. That is why Republicans attack education and even disparage college. Republicans want a stupid nation they can more easily take advantage of by adeptly brain-washing them to hate the perceived 'enemies' so they will be motivated to place in power the very people who will reduce their own standards of living, all so they will take action against the boogie-man objects of this manufactured hatred.

This is not a logical path towards creating a good government and making America great.

It is using emotions to enact greed at the detriment of the United States of America.

It can't go on forever. It's going to end one way or another. If we don't step up our efforts to turn it around through peaceful and Constitutional means, the predictable end will be very unpleasant on a wide scale.

We must end this legalized corruption. Most people understand there is too much big money influence in government. They also falsely think nothing can be done about it. It can. There are links in my signature for the plan to make government functional again. MGFA recognizes there is a political left and a political right, and utilizes the best of both sides. It is not partisan. It is American in virtue. It is a badly needed continuation of the work of the founders of this nation. Sometimes you have to actually do something for your nation. This is one of those times.

Still not getting it.

 

[CLAX1911]

false choices, it is not strawman, it is an attempt to get the debate back to what caused the GOP to vote for Don, the argument at hand is the dems caused it. your first comment is placing the blame on dems.

I think what caused Republicans to vote for Donald Trump was the fact that Trump didn't do that standard Republican thing post Reagan where they kind of apologize for being terrible. Trump came out of the gate saying that he was great.

Y'know, to me, when you say that the GOP was motivated by Hillary....it sounds like Hillary caused voters to go to Donny.......but maybe I'm just "confused" again.

Yeah I don't think that the GOP was motivated by Hillary I agree with you is Republicans didn't go vote for Trump because of Hillary. They didn't choose him over Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz or any of those because of Hillary.

They chose him because he was the casting off of the shackles that George Bush mitt Romney and John McCain all seem to happily succumb to

According to CNN, she captured 88% of dem votes compared to Don getting 87% of GOP votes, the difference in capturing Ind votes was 3%.

I just don't understand you.....

Now that sounds like butt-hurt, squared.