• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

deplorables - alt perspective

PhDeac said:
Is it now bigotry to call out bigotry?
Click to expand...

Is it not bigotry to refer to a large group of people that you do not know but disagree with politically as deplorable?

I think it may be the dictionary definition of bigotry.
 
What a baffling discussion.

So you think bigots are people who call out racism, sexism, etc. not the people who hold those beliefs.
 
PhDeac said:
Hillary separated Trump supporters into three groups.

1. Hard working people who are frustrated.
2. Hateful people who do deplorable things.
3. #2 who are also irredeemable.

The conservative messaging machine excelled at getting #1 to believe she called them #3.
Click to expand...

Which itself is pretty incredible, isn't it? She was nominated by the Party of Nuance, right?
 
PhDeac said:
What a baffling discussion.

So you think bigots are people who call out racism, sexism, etc. not the people who hold those beliefs.
Click to expand...

They can both be bigots. If someone paints a large group of people that they do not personally know with the broad brush of bigotry, that is itself bigotry.
 
knowell said:
They can both be bigots. If someone paints a large group of people that they do not personally know with the broad brush of bigotry, that is itself bigotry.
Click to expand...

So you have to personally know someone to call out their bigotry?
 
MysteryMen said:
It's arrogant to think that you should have a reason for voting for someone?
Click to expand...

Surely you're not dense enough to think people who voted for trump didn't have their own reasoning for doing so, do you? You think they were a bunch of vegetables with no thoughts? You just fundamentally disagree with their reasons. Ergo, what you were really saying in that post is that they need to justify their vote to you. Because obviously, everyone has a reason for doing anything that they do.
 
tintinisahottie said:
Surely you're not dense enough to think people who voted for trump didn't have their own reasoning for doing so, do you? You think they were a bunch of vegetables with no thoughts? You just fundamentally disagree with their reasons. Ergo, what you were really saying in that post is that they need to justify their vote to you. Because obviously, everyone has a reason for doing anything that they do.
Click to expand...

Well said...and it looks like a hotshot WF grad could figure out something that simple on his own without having to have it explained to him.
 
tintinisahottie said:
Surely you're not dense enough to think people who voted for trump didn't have their own reasoning for doing so, do you? You think they were a bunch of vegetables with no thoughts? You just fundamentally disagree with their reasons. Ergo, what you were really saying in that post is that they need to justify their vote to you. Because obviously, everyone has a reason for doing anything that they do.
Click to expand...

No, I was saying that the article didn't explain their reasoning. Which it didn't.

Stop twisting my words
 
bobknightfan said:
She said "half of Trump's supporters", PH. I will ask you the same question that I asked Uncle Frank....do you think that half of the people who voted for Trump are "irredeemable deplorables"? That's more than 31 million people, if Hillary is to be taken at her word.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Hillary and her team were way off on the total number of Trump supporters. She used the wrong denominator when she did the calculation to come up with 50%.
 
aocs3281 said:
To be fair, Hillary and her team were way off on the total number of Trump supporters. She used the wrong denominator when she did the calculation to come up with 50%.
Click to expand...

She was off on where not how many.
 
aocs3281 said:
To be fair, Hillary and her team were way off on the total number of Trump supporters. She used the wrong denominator when she did the calculation to come up with 50%.
Click to expand...

Trump was farther from 50% than Hillary was. She beat Trump by almost 3M votes. But her arrogance and the incompetence of her campaign staff blew an election that was almost impossible to lose.
 
aocs3281 said:
To be fair, Hillary and her team were way off on the total number of Trump supporters. She used the wrong denominator when she did the calculation to come up with 50%.
Click to expand...

she was trying to hold back, she and many of her supporters really think that about 90% of the Trump voters were deplorables
 
Show me anyone here who said that...nah, like usual you simply pull things out of your ass and post them...
 
MysteryMen said:
No, I was saying that the article didn't explain their reasoning. Which it didn't.

Stop twisting my words
Click to expand...

Right. Unless the reasoning is just "I live in and visit rural America rather than traveling abroad or to big cities outside the Midwest. I liked American Sniper and watched it more than once."
 
538 published something useful to this conversation, as well, though trigger warning: it's #facts, not #feelings.


‘Normal America’ Is Not A Small Town Of White People

Earlier this week, Jim VandeHei, a former executive editor of Politico, wrote an op-ed article for The Wall Street Journal accusing the Washington political establishment of being out of touch with “normal America.”

“Normal America is right that Establishment America has grown fat, lazy, conventional and deserving of radical disruption,” he wrote, citing his regular visits to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and Lincoln, Maine, as his credentials of normality.

It’s a familiar accusation in a year in which most presidential candidates are trying to pretend they have nothing to do with the coastal elite, and after one — Ted Cruz — spent weeks attacking “New York values.” Even PBS, a standard-bearer of the media elite, recently featured a quiz designed to assess in-touchness with “mainstream American culture” with questions about fishing, pickup trucks and living in a small town.

But that sense that the normal America is out there somewhere in a hamlet where they can’t pronounce “Acela” is misplaced. In fact, it’s not in a small town at all.

I calculated how demographically similar each U.S. metropolitan area is to the U.S. overall, based on age, educational attainment, and race and ethnicity.1 The index equals 100 if a metro’s demographic mix were identical to that of the U.S. overall.2

By this measure, the metropolitan area that looks most like the U.S. is New Haven, Connecticut, followed by Tampa, Florida, and Hartford, Connecticut. All of the 10 large metros that are demographically most similar to the U.S. overall are in the Northeast, Midwest or center of the country, with the exception of Tampa. Two of them — New Haven and Philadelphia — are even on Amtrak’s Acela (that’s “uh-SELL-ah”) line. None is in the West, though Sacramento, California, comes close at No. 12.

The large metros least demographically similar to the U.S. include McAllen-Edinburg-Mission and El Paso, both in Texas, both of which are younger, less educated and more Latino than the U.S. overall, and Honolulu, where Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders together are the majority.

Oshkosh, by the way, clocks in with a score of 71, and Maine’s Penobscot County, where Lincoln is, has a score of 67: both places deserve less of a claim to “normal America” than the majority of large metros do. 3
Click to expand...

Looking across metros of all sizes, the places that look most like America tend to be larger metros, though not the largest ones. The similarity index is highest, on average, for metros with between 1 million and 2 million people. The metros that look least like America are those with fewer than 100,000 people.

We all, of course, have our own notions of what real America looks like. Those notions might be based on our own nostalgia or our hopes for the future. If your image of the real America is a small town, you might be thinking of an America that no longer exists. I used the same method to measure which places in America today are most similar demographically to America in 1950, when the country was much whiter, younger and less-educated than today. Of course, nearly every place in the U.S. today looks more like 2014 America than 1950 America. But the large metros that today come closest to looking like 1950 America are Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Ogden and Provo, in Utah; and several in the Midwest and South.

But the places that look today most like 1950 America are not large metros but rather smaller metros and rural areas. Looking across all of America, including the rural areas, the regions that today look most demographically similar to 1950 America are the portion of eastern Ohio around the towns of Cambridge and Coshocton and the Cumberland Valley district in southeastern Kentucky.

These misconceptions affect our politics: an outdated view of “normal America” is baked into the presidential election process. Iowa and New Hampshire, which vote first in the primary season and therefore have disproportionate influence, rank 37th and 41st, respectively, in their similarity to the U.S. overall. The states that look demographically most similar to America are Illinois and New York, followed by New Jersey, Connecticut and Virginia. (Downstate Illinois and upstate New York are worlds apart from Chicago and New York City, as native Rochesterians like me know well.) The states that look least like America are Hawaii, New Mexico, West Virginia, Maine and Vermont, along with the District of Columbia.
Click to expand...

Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s places of honor would make more sense if we were electing a president in the 1950s. They rank 11th and 20th, respectively, in how similar their demographics today are to those of 1950 America, though Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana are the states whose demographics today look most like 1950 America.

There are lots of reasons to care deeply about places that are demographically different from today’s America: Some of those places may turn out to be bellwethers for a future America that will be older, more educated and more racially and ethnically diverse than today; and some of those places are especially deserving of public attention and investment because they worse off than most other places.

But if you’re trying to get outside of your bubble and get in touch with “normal America,” skip the small towns of your actual or imagined past and instead start with New Haven or Tampa.

CORRECTION (7:10 p.m., April 28): An earlier version of this article omitted Tampa when describing the regions of the country containing metro areas demographically similar to the U.S. overall.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top