Originally posted by Lestov16
But clearly you do not view race with such equal standards, especially if you think that the population becoming increasingly darker skinned is a bad thing.
Serious question here: how would you feel if the reverse were true? If the population was becoming increasingly lighter? Would that be okay too?
Originally posted by Bardock42I'm looking the last 6 months as a trend, meaning Trump's final win a month ago isn't that meaningful in the grand scheme of things. Hilary's numbers have been continuously declining while Trump's have been increasing. No doubt the narrative is really "who is the lesser of two evils" here. Also in regards to what you're saying, I hope Sanders continues his delusional campaign. All of a sudden the Republican nomination is pretty clear while we have a mess with the Democrats, although it's also clear Hilary should win.
It's a bit too early to consider meaningful though. The biggest thing is that she is still currently running against Sanders. If she wins and Bernie endorses her, which seems likely, and she can focus on campaigning for the general election those numbers are almost certain to change in her favor again.
They're trying to find what could have been had Trump not ran.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Where are all the people who said Trump will never run, then he will never make it past a few weeks or month, and then he will never make the nomination, and then he will never beat Hilary? I really want to laugh in their ugly faces.
So when Rob said I don't think a business man will be good at running the economy?
Apparently She thinks different.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-mark-cuban-vp-2016-5
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
I'm looking the last 6 months as a trend, meaning Trump's final win a month ago isn't that meaningful in the grand scheme of things. Hilary's numbers have been continuously declining while Trump's have been increasing. No doubt the narrative is really "who is the lesser of two evils" here. Also in regards to what you're saying, I hope Sanders continues his delusional campaign. All of a sudden the Republican nomination is pretty clear while we have a mess with the Democrats, although it's also clear Hilary should win.
That's just not accurate though.
8 months ago Trump and Clinton were first head to head (Clinton ahead by 0.8 percentage points). Since then it's fluctuatng with Clinton always leading, but sometimes only very slightly. Now Trump was able to close the gap that Clinton had achieved in April (10 percentage points). But, it is very relevant that Clinton is still in a competitive nomination process, splitting her vote between Democrats somewhat and because of it has not been able to focus on general election campaigning and attacking Trump, while Trump has been pivoting like a tornado to a more agreeable general election position.
Originally posted by Bardock42MS's assertion that Clinton will continue to decline vs. Your apparent perception of some fluctuation that can only describe the polls prior to the primaries is clutching at straws.
That's just not accurate though.8 months ago Trump and Clinton were first head to head (Clinton ahead by 0.8 percentage points). Since then it's fluctuatng with Clinton always leading, but sometimes only very slightly. Now Trump was able to close the gap that Clinton had achieved in April (10 percentage points). But, it is very relevant that Clinton is still in a competitive nomination process, splitting her vote between Democrats somewhat and because of it has not been able to focus on general election campaigning and attacking Trump, while Trump has been pivoting like a tornado to a more agreeable general election position.
It is not relevant that Clinton is in a race, still. Bernie Sanders supporters are indeed not a majority of the population and most of them won't vote. This idea that Trump's rise is due to clinching the nomination is just odd to me since he's been the fore runner since as long as Clinton. This can only describe the last few weeks, not 6 months of Clinton decline, which you seem to ignore as the most important part of that chart.
I would also say Bernie is rising in popularity Moreso because Of Clintons decline in popularity, not because of anything Bernie has said or done.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's just not accurate though.8 months ago Trump and Clinton were first head to head (Clinton ahead by 0.8 percentage points). Since then it's fluctuatng with Clinton always leading, but sometimes only very slightly. Now Trump was able to close the gap that Clinton had achieved in April (10 percentage points). But, it is very relevant that Clinton is still in a competitive nomination process, splitting her vote between Democrats somewhat and because of it has not been able to focus on general election campaigning and attacking Trump, while Trump has been pivoting like a tornado to a more agreeable general election position.
This is wrong Bardock. Hilary has been trending down and Trump has been trending up long before he "won" the Republican nomination. This isn't a blip when he all of a sudden won, it's been a sudden progression for months.
Are you disputing the real clear polling averages you and others have earlier taken as evidence for your claim?
They clearly show that Clinton had only a 0.8 percentage point lead on Sept 13th 2015. She was then able to extend it to 4.5 by November 19th. Trump got it down to 0.6 p.p. on December 5th, it went up to 6.6 by the end of December, by mid January it was down to 0.6, went back up to 6.6, then down to 1.8. In fact it was end of March, just a mere 2 months ago that Clinton was able to get the largest margin of 11.4 p.p.
It is only in the last ten or so days (after both Kasich and Cruz dropped out) that Clinton has sharply declined (again) to the point that Trump now leads by 0.2 percentage points.
You get the picture. It's not been a steady downward trend for Clinton. It has gone up and down for 8 months now.
Originally posted by Bardock42im going by the last 6 months when the primaries began, Bardock. What the hell are you talking about?
Are you disputing the real clear polling averages you and others have earlier taken as evidence for your claim?They clearly show that Clinton had only a 0.8 percentage point lead on Sept 13th 2015. She was then able to extend it to 4.5 by November 19th. Trump got it down to 0.6 p.p. on December 5th, it went up to 6.6 by the end of December, by mid January it was down to 0.6, went back up to 6.6, then down to 1.8. In fact it was end of March, just a mere 2 months ago that Clinton was able to get the largest margin of 11.4 p.p.
It is only in the last ten or so days (after both Kasich and Cruz dropped out) that Clinton has sharply declined (again) to the point that Trump now leads by 0.2 percentage points.
You get the picture. It's not been a steady downward trend for Clinton. It has gone up and down for 8 months now.
Early 2016 Hasnt fluctuated, it was a steady lead for Clinton until a Clinton rise in March. It's declined ever since.
MS is arguing Clinton has declined and Trump has rose. Your graph proves that.
Originally posted by Surtur
Serious question here: how would you feel if the reverse were true? If the population was becoming increasingly lighter? Would that be okay too?
Yeah. Race is only a measurement of melanin in the skin. Nothing more. Only reason I would care is if their status as a "majority' was used to oppress "minorities". As long as they treated minorities equal, no, I would not be worried about living in an increasingly more light skinned country.
During my anthropology course, the irrelevance of racial classification as an obsolete social construct was rather heavily discussed.
As I stated before, in these past few months, the status of Democrats and Republicans have done a complete 180.
When the primaries began, it seemed as though Democrats had a definite candidate, whereas Republicans were stuck making a tough decision between an establishment candidate or a radical one.
Now the roles are reversed. Trump is the definite GOP candidate, and Democrats are stuck choosing between the establishment candidate and the radical one.
Perhaps most ironic, conservatives, a group that normally represents the establishment, went with the radical Trump, whereas liberals, which usually represent the progressive radicals, are going with the establishment's Hillary. As stated before, we liberals REALLY should have followed the republicans example and went with the radical Sanders. The fact that we did not massively damages the ideology of the party.
So ill admit it. The liberals phucked up. MASSIVELY. If Trump wins, it will be because democrats choose a candidate they didn't really support to begin with. Hillary goes against everything the modern liberal stand for. She is the very epitome of corrupt politics that liberal democrats hate. And yet they chose her to be the nominee over the actual progressive candidate.
I used to say I was ashamed of the GOP for electing Trump, but honestly Trump was probably the best out of the GOP candidates. With Hillary though, we had a far better choice with Sanders and yet Democrats went with her anyways.
I think this is why republicans hate us. We claim we want progress against corrupt politicians yet we are knowingly choosing a corrupt politician over an honest one. We seem like complete hypocrites.
Originally posted by Lestov16Their status as a majority was used to oppress minorities.....
Yeah. Race is only a measurement of melanin in the skin. Nothing more. Only reason I would care is if their status as a "majority' was used to oppress "minorities". As long as they treated minorities equal, no, I would not be worried about living in an increasingly more light skinned country.During my anthropology course, the irrelevance of racial classification as an obsolete social construct was rather heavily discussed.
http://www.jewfaq.org/m/gentiles.htm
Read upon goyim and how it quickly says "no u". However, Jews are not a majority, so they can't oppress people, and you should be okay with this argument.
http://rense.com/general86/talmd.htm
Here are Talmudic quotes specifically relating to the dangers of goyim and how they are slaves to the Jews who do not deserve to understand Judaism.
You must have a problem with this kind of oppression, right?
I'm also willing to wager your anthropology class was nothing more than feminists and young adults circle jerking each other about how race is only skin deep and colonial history is absolutely irrelevant when discussing genetics, which you also didn't do because it was more about taking quotes out of context, (lol, hitter and ford were racist), and how black people can get jobs so everything else is irrelevant.
I'm not trying to insult black people here, I'm saying white liberals don't understand how brainwashed thy really are and will not think when it comes to race issues.
500 delegates in front and not a communist.
Yeah, you really ****ed up, but Trumps success was not why.
Originally posted by Lestov16
As I stated before, in these past few months, the status of Democrats and Republicans have done a complete 180.When the primaries began, it seemed as though Democrats had a definite candidate, whereas Republicans were stuck making a tough decision between an establishment candidate or a radical one.
Now the roles are reversed. Trump is the definite GOP candidate, and Democrats are stuck choosing between the establishment candidate and the radical one.
Perhaps most ironic, conservatives, a group that normally represents the establishment, went with the radical Trump, whereas liberals, which usually represent the progressive radicals, are going with the establishment's Hillary. As stated before, we liberals REALLY should have followed the republicans example and went with the radical Sanders. The fact that we did not massively damages the ideology of the party.