And still you don’t get the difference between left-wing and liberal.
Look it up.
So you agree with me on the main point.
But then you ascribe something to me that I never said.
I never said all Trump supporters were racist.
I said that Trump’s message was at its heart based on an appeal to race and an appeal to vilifying the “other”. Which it plainly is.
Studies have consistently shown that race matters to Trump supporters more than it does it to other candidates, which is perfectly logical given his message.
The first part of that is gibberish.
This is a discussion forum. If you see such little point in discussing anything here, you might be better off not posting.
The Trump camp are only too happy to tar others as Nazis. He did it himself about his intelligence services and John McCain. Lord Haw Haw here and other nuts are obsessed with the notion of feminists as “feminazis”. “Liberal fascists” is another beauty he regularly comes out with.
Louis CK is the only person I’ve heard say “Trump is Hitler”. He’s a comedian.
What people have done is to point out the undoubted similarities between the way Trump campaigns and uses propaganda and rhetoric to vilify others and the way Hitler whipped up support for himself and used propaganda and rhetoric to vilify others.
Those comparisons are obvious to anybody with a basic knowledge of history.
Trump’s modus operandi is distinctly fascist, and when somebody campaigns in a distinctly fascist manner, Godwin’s Law goes out the window. The comparison of methods, propaganda and rhetoric is an entirely legitimate one.
Instead yourself and hysterical nuts like @anon7035031 go for the extremely lazy “they’re saying Trump is Hitler!” line. I would have hoped for a bit more insight and less hysterics on that score.
The figures blow your narrative out of the water. But it’s great that Republicans are so complacent about their supposed “greater popularity”, all the same. Keep it up.
[quote=“alf_stewart, post:369, topic:23862, full:true”]
Anyway i will not being going down the Sidney rabbit hole. Enjoy feeling outraged 24/7 and keep fighting the good fight batman.[/quote]
If you need any further evidence of following your own advise, just keep looking at his latest post. The results of the November election across the country, relative to Democratic expectations going in, can only be described by a rational person as a bloodbath. The irrational point to the popular vote, as if that amounted to anything.
The population of California is over 37million, 12% of the US population. If all of them could vote, and all voted Democrat, it would make no difference to the presidential election, or the key senate and house elections across the country. As long as Democrats cling to popular vote victories, as many here are, they will continue to drift into irrelevance.
It’s a simple enough issue, but an indication of the deeper problem of not having any understanding of the US political system.
If getting nearly 13 million more votes across the three elections is a “bloodbath” for the Democrats, I bet you’d hate to see what happens on a good day for them.
Sidney’s basic error is in confusing data and facts with knowledge. He places a lot of importance on facts, when facts are merely someone’s interpretation of data, which may be completely wrong if based on a false premise. His preoccupation with the popular vote and that Democrats secured more votes than Republicans in the 2016 elections is a classic example.
His fact claim is that Democrats secured 13 million more votes across three elections and this is somehow important in the context of the results of said elections. He posts up the data completely oblivious as to why his conclusion is a gross error. First of all, what the data shows is that roughly half the population vote Republican and half Democrat, if you are average out the Presidential and House elections. It’s been this way since 1828, when presidential campaigns began to resemble those of today. The difference amounts to a hill of beans of course, as the only fact that matters is who won more electoral votes and house seats.
The significant difference in the vote count is in Senate races, with Democrats securing 11 million more votes than Republicans. Rather than interpreting this for Sidney, it would probably be best if he tried to interpret it for himself to gain knowledge of US politics. A few clues to help him on his way:
Each state has 2 senators, so California (a heavily Democratic leaning state with 2 Democratic senators) with a population of 37 million has the same number (2) as Wyoming (a heavily Republican leaning state with 2 Republican senators) with a population of less than a million.
Only 34 of 100 Senate seats were up for election in 2016. Most of the states that did not have a senate race are red states.
He’s not a details kind of guy, and there’s nothing wrong with that. His skills seem to lie in dumping vasts amounts of links onto threads to push his agenda (and he has the audacity to call @ProjectX “spambot”) and ranting about “data”, when in fact he struggles to understand even simple hypotheses that explain the data. It’s a classic case of force fitting to suit what he’s trying to prove.
It’s probably a good thing that he’s unemployed and spends his days spamming online forums. He’s a dangerous idiot.
Sidney reduced to random selection of prior posts to support not even a semblance of an argument. I’m not even sure an upgrade of meds would solve this one.
Trump is no Reagan though, not a great orator. Did well tonight though, a smart guy who, as an entrepreneur, knows what’s involved in solving problems.
I can officially say now that I am embracing him as my president. Fuck you Sidney and fuck all other begrudgers.
