4-Year Survival Plan

[Aliencommander1245]

You think half of Trump supporters are like the KKK? Bloody hell man, you're proving my point.

You're strawman-ing again, but no? Nothing at all i said even implied that? What're you even talking about?

It's funny. On one hand, Hands is telling me that by no means is the left calling Trump supporters racists. And here you are, calling Trump supporters racists.

Perhaps that's because you're distilling out points down to baselines like that rather than actually engaging them in any meaningful way, just boiling them down to the most base way to describe them and throwing them away isn't conductive to this debate at all.

But to actually answer your point; Are you literally saying to me that they have to be racist to justify supporting the racist candidate with racist policies as not racist? I proposed a question, and you've given the answer and become outraged at it.

If you think voting for Trump is racist in itself I'm pretty much done with this conversation. Please clarify so I can see if I need to end this discussion entirely.

Not really, it's supporting racism, homophobia, xenophobia and general bigotry though regardless of how you try to spin it. Whether that's the same thing is a question i've poised

Well I guess it's a good job that I never said "teh SJWs!!!", isn't it?

When you're complaining about "the left" and "political correctness" they're one in the same

I did. Guess what, it was unjustified nonsense. It was people saying "Well if you think that you must be racist". And you know, I'm not a racist. Unless you mean to say I am?

Think what? That Trump was better, or that Trump's policies were good?

How was it unjustified? Can you explain why it's not justifiable?

My support is not behind any such candidate. I'm British, dude.

Your support is behind Trump even if you can't vote in the US, you've said as much, but the points all still stand

I'm not the one who draws the line, I'm saying some have crossed that line wherever it is. Are you saying there haven't been riots?

If you don't draw the line, and don't know what the line is, then how can you say they've crossed it? Can you truly say there have been riots based on that metric? (But there really haven't, as far as i'm aware of, just incidents during protests. No protests completely consumed by rioting)

Yes, people have the democratic right to be anti-democracy. When did I say they didn't? Why are the two things (exercising your democratic right to protest and being anti-democracy) mutually exclusive?


Taking posts out of context is fun, isn't it? The person said I was calling specific protests anti-democracy, and he said that before I even made any similar claim. I wasn't accusing him of saying something unrepresentative of what I believe - I do believe anti-democracy protests are going on. I was accusing him of misrepresenting my previous posts. Taking something I said after the fact is useless.

What's the difference between saying protests in general and those specific protests are anti-democratic based on your original comment i was replying to?

How is exercising the democratic right to protest, in order to protest the election of a president the majority did not want as their president anti-democratic? Regardless of the democratic systems that led to that occurring, considering it doesn't even match up with what is the most basic tenant of democracy (Majority rules) can a protest against an election result that the majority of people didn't want be considered anti-democratic in the slightest?

"calling people stuff" vs "calling Trump supporters X" - I don't see much of a difference?

So..... your perceived culture of calling people bigots in areas they supposedly aren't is the same as calling Trump supporters bigoted in some fashion? And somehow calling Trump supporters "X" made them... multiply?

Not what I was talking about. Strawman.

I mean if you want to "take things out of context" like you were complaining about, sure, if you're talking about the wider paragraph on how trump "not being afraid to speak his mind" is not at all any kind of valid "main reason" he got elected- not so much.

Prove it..? I thought this was supposed to be a discussion. Your argument is "X was not the reason, for A, B and C other reasons. Y was the reason."

I need to prove... that his policies, many of which were impossible, that were made up on the spot to appeal for each audience he had, aren't a big reason for his election?

You want me to prove that a politician telling people that if he's elected he'll solve all their problems and do what they want him to is a main part of how he was elected

Huh.

The riots are still happening. Present tense.

Protests are, you mean. They're not riots just because you don't like them.

*Boop*

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Ha! He's already firing people! If the best NBC news can come up with is "As Trump Leaves Press Behind for Steak Dinner, Incoming Admin Already Showing Lack of Transparency" I'm not as concerned as they'd probably like me to be.

Steak dinner. National news guys.

Should be noted that Mike Pence is currently fighting to have his own emails be considered "private" and restricted from the public eye, and that Trump wasn't aware of the wide scope of the president's duties, and had to be lectured by Obama on some key aspects of which he was "surprised" by.

He wasn't aware he'd have to hire new whitehouse staff, and refused to prepare for doing so before he was elected because he didn't want to "jinx" it. This means he must hire entirely new staff, thousands of which must be vetted by the senate before they can start work, all before he takes office in a few months.

Something important in that first link about how he didn't know how much the president earned but said he'd only take a dollar- His kids are intricately involved in his take-over process and this 100% means they're not blind trustees anymore (Although they never really were, considering the huge hand he'd still have as their father and the company's face and founder)

This just makes his conflicts of interest even worse, and more worrying overall

 

[Adore]

Speaking of his appointments, here's another gem he's considering for the Supreme Court: Alabama Attorney General William Pryor.

In a legal brief by Pryor that you can read here, he wrote in favor of bans on homosexuality itself in the US which would ultimately be struck down with Lawrence V. Texas.

A noteworthy quote:

This Court [the Supreme Court] has never recognized a fundamental right to engage in sexual activity outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage, let alone to engage in homosexual sodomy. Such a right would be antithetical to the 'traditional relation of the family' that is 'as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization. Texas is hardly alone in concluding that homosexual sodomy may have severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences, which do not necessarily attend heterosexual sodomy, and from which Texas's citizens need to be protected. [There is] no fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy just because it is done behind closed doors… Because homosexual sodomy has not historically been recognized in this country as a right — to the contrary, it has historically been recognized as a wrong — it is not a fundamental right."

So to reiterate, Trump does not care about LGBT people. Especially not if this is the kind of person he would consider for the Supreme Court.

 

[Caaethil]

If you have no ties or connection with American politics then why are you even coming into a discussion centered around American policies and politics that is aimed AT American people who are concerned with their own well being lmao

this really isn't the thread for flexing your debate skills as a person observing, millions of people living here will be affected negatively both by a great portion of Trump's policies, not to mention the spike in white nationalism and fascists

but thanks man, i'm so glad you have no inclination to listen to literally anyone on this thread who, you know, LIVES in America
like we don't know what the hell is going on in our own country lmao



If that's the only premise you wish to judge the discussion on, then sure, you're correct, but connotations and context don't exist in a void outside of language and meaning
I could say more but I think at this point we'll just argue in circles and not actually reach an agreement or compromise (which is fine)

Wait... The presidential election of the most powerful country in the world doesn't affect people outside of that country? No, it affects me and therefore I am entitled to an opinion on the matter. I'm allowed to post on threads about other countries - and I'm not the only one doing it. Off the top of my head, Hands has been posting on my Brexit thread.

 

[Hands]

Wait... The presidential election of the most powerful country in the world doesn't affect people outside of that country? No, it affects me and therefore I am entitled to an opinion on the matter. I'm allowed to post on threads about other countries - and I'm not the only one doing it. Off the top of my head, Hands has been posting on my Brexit thread.

Oh this is something else. I'm English, born and bred in East Anglia and still there.

 

[Caaethil]

So you can provide an accurate number to disprove me then?

The burden of proof does not lie on me to disprove your claims.

Or perhaps you can provide the over 50% (that means over a half, not under a third, just so we don't end up in the same embarrassing boat as you put us in in the Brexit thread) who voted Trump because they were tired of this apparent shaming that you have provided zero evidence of? I understand that at this point splitting hairs is about all you have left but come along, the phrase "a bulk" doesn't specify anything other than a large portion. I could link a thousand images and videos and it still wouldn't give us a set number.

Obviously I can't prove it and you can't disprove it. It was just my opinion on why Trump won. You're the one who decided to make a debate out of the post.

And on the Brexit thing... Geez, you don't let these things go, do you?

I'm not a religious man my friend, faith from me is earned, not donated. So when you claim "Your post has not presented an argument as to why it is other than claiming it is." to a fairly robust list of numerous observable factors that got Trump elected there really isn't much of a case to put even a remote amount of faith in you.

A list of factors does not prove that any one of those factors is more important than the one I proposed. Your list was very nice and was rather extensive, but it didn't prove the point you think it did.

What? Let's talk numbers then because this mess is legitimately starting to wear thin now. Trump only wrangled half a million more votes than McCain did in 2008, a similar amount more than Romney too. Clinton lost over a million. Trump didn't smash some massive record because everyone was so butthurt that people were targeting them, he won essentially because the working class abandoned the Dems over globalisation, the destruction of US industry and the perceived threats of war and terrorism. He won because she was a bad pick. This is beyond observable if you take the trends from every post Bill Clinton election. It's the same as why the North and Scotland abandoned the Labour party here. Because they no longer done their job. Clinton done a laughably low amount of campaigning in traditional blue working class areas and as a result she lost those voters. People consistently cited Clinton's constant scandals and globalisation as core reasons they were voting Trump. Many cited that he'd be tough on Terrorism, on China, on immigration. Some even said they were voting for him simply because he wasn't Hillary.

I'll think on this, interesting.

I don't know if you're just trolling by being deliberately dense right now.

I'm not a troll. I think you're making this a lot more confrontational than this needs to be.

I directly referenced some of your posts from a day or to ago thus making the posts I was referring to PAST TENSE

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=p.....69i57j0l5.1449j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Here, that might be of help. What you are trying to say here is the correct sentence on my part would have been "Earlier you are suggesting the left en masse caused Trump, that the left were rioting." Do you not see how nonsensical that statement is?

No. The correct sentence would be "Earlier you were suggesting the left en masse caused Trump, that the left are rioting."

I wasn't saying to change the first 'were', I was saying to change the second. Hence why I just said: "The riots are still happening. Present tense."

I would say you've got a pretty fragile idea of what a riot is, but if its anything like your ideas of why people voted then I'm almost certain a man crossing the road without looking would constitute as a riot in your eyes.

To give one example, what happened in Portland a week ago was a riot.

Oh this is something else. I'm English, born and bred in East Anglia and still there.

I wasn't exactly sure whether you were British, American or from somewhere else entirely. The point was that I'm not the only person posting on political threads about other countries. I could have worded that better.

At least we agree that foreigners are entitled to opinions on American politics then, right? :D

Trying to be a little positive, this is getting a bit too heated.

 

[Hands]

The burden of proof does not lie on me to disprove your claims.

I was responding to your initial claim, the one you have still yet to provide any proof for.

Obviously I can't prove it and you can't disprove it. It was just my opinion on why Trump won. You're the one who decided to make a debate out of the post.

But of course, isn't this the de facto debate section?

And on the Brexit thing... Geez, you don't let these things go, do you?

Absolutely not, only a fool would throw away gold.

A list of factors does not prove that any one of those factors is more important than the one I proposed. Your list was very nice and was rather extensive, but it didn't prove the point you think it did.

No, my sharing of voting trends heavily bolstered my argument though.

I'll think on this, interesting.

Worth noting also is that both the big third parties increased their votes by twofold each. We don't know how many spoiled their ballot with a write in for Sanders either, although judging by social media the number was in the tens-hundreds of thousands. 10,000 even wrote in Harambe. An element of the left calling people who defended Trump's more damaging comments racists/sexists etc didn't cost Hillary a million votes.

I'm not a troll. I think you're making this a lot more confrontational than this needs to be.

Sorry, I thought you were trying to have me on a bit of a wind up. My mistake.

No. The correct sentence would be "Earlier you were suggesting the left en masse caused Trump, that the left are rioting."

I wasn't saying to change the first 'were', I was saying to change the second. Hence why I just said: "The riots are still happening. Present tense."

Then I believe this is simply a case of misunderstanding. I was referring specifically to your older posts and the content within them as such.

At least we agree that foreigners are entitled to opinions on American politics then, right? :D

Absolutely, I don;t think a lot of Americans understand how much this effects us too.

Trying to be a little positive, this is getting a bit too heated.

Sorry, I don;'t mean to seem heated, this is just how I type

 

[Caaethil]

I was responding to your initial claim, the one you have still yet to provide any proof for.

It's unprovable, it was just an observation. Entirely anecdotal. I don't think it's the main reason he succeeded, but I think it may have tipped the scales.

But of course, isn't this the de facto debate section?

It is, but that doesn't mean you can make any kind of worthwhile debate out of every comment.

Absolutely not, only a fool would throw away gold.

You come off as much more concerned with winning imaginary debate points than you are sharing perspectives.

No, my sharing of voting trends heavily bolstered my argument though.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about your list of reasons people voted for Trump, which you claimed bolstered your argument, despite not doing so at all.

Worth noting also is that both the big third parties increased their votes by twofold each. We don't know how many spoiled their ballot with a write in for Sanders either, although judging by social media the number was in the tens-hundreds of thousands. 10,000 even wrote in Harambe. An element of the left calling people who defended Trump's more damaging comments racists/sexists etc didn't cost Hillary a million votes.

I don't think it's so much the individual case of Hillary's comments as it is the general attitude towards being right wing in 2016. But no, it probably didn't cost her a million votes. I think listening to her constant "at least I'm not Trump" rhetoric probably lost her quite a lot though, while Trump was at least suggesting that he would make America great again.

 

[Hands]

It's unprovable, it was just an observation. Entirely anecdotal. I don't think it's the main reason he succeeded, but I think it may have tipped the scales.

Earlier you suggested it was the reason. Now that you are saying its only one of many reasons i think it's fair to say my job here is done.

It is, but that doesn't mean you can make any kind of worthwhile debate out of every comment.

If you posted something in a debate environment you should really expect someone to argue against it.

You come off as much more concerned with winning imaginary debate points than you are sharing perspectives.

Of course, overpowering someone you perceive to be wrong is the exact reason we really debate. I'm always happy to learn something new, but that simply isn't likely in this discussion, as such, winning is all that holds importance now.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about your list of reasons people voted for Trump, which you claimed bolstered your argument, despite not doing so at all.

My argument was those reasons, the bolstering factor came from observable voting trends that directly correspond with my initial argument that Trump's victory came from several key points, not because people told elements of the right wing off for being human trash.

I don't think it's so much the individual case of Hillary's comments as it is the general attitude towards being right wing in 2016. But no, it probably didn't cost her a million votes. I think listening to her constant "at least I'm not Trump" rhetoric probably lost her quite a lot though, while Trump was at least suggesting that he would make America great again.

No, it really wasn't that either. Her chastising the right in any capacity would not of cost her over a million left wing voters, nor would it have caused Stein's support to double. I doubt you move in many left wing circles, if you did, especially American ones, you'd of seen that Clinton was generally disliked by socialists, communists, pacifists, greens and a good bulk of liberals who saw her as a corrupt and untrustworthy war hawk and the face of the establishment. Triggered Alt Righties would never of caused so many of us on the left to abandon the Democrats.

 

[Margaery Tyrell]

Wait... The presidential election of the most powerful country in the world doesn't affect people outside of that country? No, it affects me and therefore I am entitled to an opinion on the matter. I'm allowed to post on threads about other countries - and I'm not the only one doing it. Off the top of my head, Hands has been posting on my Brexit thread.

Lmao after what I just said are you seriously going to sit there and imply that I'm unaware of how significant this election is

Nowhere in my post did I say "you shouldn't be posting in threads about other countries" - I was clearly focusing on the fact that you're approaching the matter from an outside POV and from what I've read, you don't seem to know that much on the nuanced nature of the setting that made Trump's election possible

Hands already seems to be addressing your points anyway, I have little else to add - but it should be duly noted that Trump didn't win just because of attitudes towards the right wing, Hillary, as Hands said, is one of the most unpopular and corrupt presidential candidates the Democratic party could have possibly put up front and they suffered harshly for it. The DNC actively sabotaged Bernie Sander's campaign (I'm not going to make this a blame fest because that's worthless and a distraction, this is merely hypothetical) when he likely could have defeated Trump, whilst raising up Hillary AND the media gave Trump a ridiculous amount of free coverage and attention treating him with views that he was "unlike anything else before".

Like this really wasn't related to how the right has been treated this year whatsoever, if anything the right has gained an even bigger voice and crowd (if this election is anything to go by).

 

[Sektor]

Just recently saw this article about Saudi Arabia threatening repercussions against the US if an oil embargo is levied against them. What does everyone think of that?

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Just recently saw this article about Saudi Arabia threatening repercussions against the US if an oil embargo is levied against them. What does everyone think of that?

Uh, I don't think they threatened anything? They've said "The oil industry will be telling him not to do this" because it's impractical and difficult to do, and also a general bad idea from the oil industry's perspective and a foreign diplomacy perspective

 

[Sektor]

Uh, I don't think they threatened anything? They've said "The oil industry will be telling him not to do this" because it's impractical and difficult to do, and also a general bad idea from the oil industry's perspective and a foreign diplomacy perspective

It's a figure of speech I suppose. What are your thoughts on Saudi Arabia?

 

[Aliencommander1245]

It's a figure of speech I suppose. What are your thoughts on Saudi Arabia?

Beyond that they're a government basically run by blood, with an entire parliament of relatives, I don't know a huge lot about them, at least not enough to discuss "my thoughts" in a more or less unrelated thread.

I'd be interested in if Trump supports that weird court case people are trying to do, to sue them for 9/11 but i'm not super interested in the faucets of his bad ideas on foreign policy and trade like this one

 

[Sektor]

I'd be interested in if Trump supports that weird court case people are trying to do, to sue them for 9/11 but i'm not super interested in the faucets of his bad ideas on foreign policy and trade like this one

I don't think it's all that strange. Considering terrorists used charity The Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina to train and launder money to terrorists and it just so happened that the currant king Salman of Saudi Arabia presided over the charity group is a bit suspicious. Several terrorists have been linked to the Saudis and of that note, Osama Bin Laden was part of the royal hierarchy.

I don't have much sympathy for the government but its people are a different story. I feel that living in Saudi Arabia is worse than North Korea, and that says something. I would offer you to research the country a bit more and then make up your mind. Personally, I hope the Saudi Arabian hierarchy crumbles. Saudi Arabia is . . . a bad place.

 

[Hands]

It's a figure of speech I suppose. What are your thoughts on Saudi Arabia?

I think they're absolutely awful. Horrific country with awful human rights views both internally and externally, literally a worse version of ISIS. What they're doing to Yemen and their own people is unforgivable. But money talks. So we call them an ally.

 

[0]

Lol, you guys have such interesting views. But they are repetitive, and I don't see why you all fight over them so hard. Breaking bonds it seems to me. Especially Aliencommander seems to be the most stubborn in their opinions, hahaha.

But, why did this turn into a political discussion? Is this not a survival thread?

Who else was kind of amazed when Trump won? Who thinks that he'll do a good job? Who thinks they need a real survival plan at all?

I think he'll do a great job tbh. He seems like a decent person to me, and I await what his presidency has in store. As for a survival plan, well, I don't really need one. All I will be doing is watching what laws get passed to see how things change.

 

[Hands]

Lol, you guys have such interesting views. But they are repetitive, and I don't see why you all fight over them so hard. Breaking bonds it seems to me. Especially Aliencommander seems to be the most stubborn in their opinions, hahaha.

But, why did this turn into a political discussion? Is this not a survival thread?

Who else was kind of amazed when Trump won? Who thinks that he'll do a good job? Who thinks they need a real survival plan at all?

I think he'll do a great job tbh. He seems like a decent person to me, and I await what his presidency has in store. As for a survival plan, well, I don't really need one. All I will be doing is watching what laws get passed to see how things change.

"why did you turn this into a political discussion?"

"Do you think Trump will be a good president?"

Your second question kind of answers your first, this was always going to turn political, even you couldn't avoid it.

My survival plan is being a straight white male, I don't have to worry about all the awful crap like internment camps or Muslim Star of David badges or whatever horrid ideas we might end up facing. But for anyone in America who wasn't as fortunate in the genetic lottery as I was then a survival plan makes perfect sense and we should stop downplaying the panic and potential danger they're facing.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

I don't think it's all that strange. Considering terrorists used charity The Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina to train and launder money to terrorists and it just so happened that the currant king Salman of Saudi Arabia presided over the charity group is a bit suspicious. Several terrorists have been linked to the Saudis and of that note, Osama Bin Laden was part of the royal hierarchy.

Bin Laden came from a wealthy saudi family with connections to the royalty, not part of the royalty itself, and i'm fairly sure there's no credible sources i can find linking that charity to "training and money laundering to terrorists" but i'm open to any credible sources you may have on this.
But thusfar no evidence has been found linking any part of 9/11 to the saudi government and i'm more inclined to believe investigators than the angry families of victims of a tragedy. When something like that happens, people are always looking for someone to blame as will fight hard against any suggestion otherwise, it really does seem like their targets are misplaced here.

I don't have much sympathy for the government but its people are a different story. I feel that living in Saudi Arabia is worse than North Korea, and that says something. I would offer you to research the country a bit more and then make up your mind. Personally, I hope the Saudi Arabian hierarchy crumbles. Saudi Arabia is . . . a bad place.

I wouldn't go as far as the comparison with North Korea or go as far to hope it crumbles but it's definitely got a lot of problems and human rights issues shouldn't be swept under the carpet in the name of good business interaction

I think he'll do a great job tbh. He seems like a decent person to me, and I await what his presidency has in store. As for a survival plan, well, I don't really need one. All I will be doing is watching what laws get passed to see how things change.

I think you have to ignore his current actions, plans, policies laid out during the elections, previous actions and words and just.... all around not pay attention to anything about the man to think he'll do any kind of good job, or is doing one now.

Obviously I think everyone wants him to defy expectations but with how much of a mess he's made of the transition of power here it's very hard to realistically expect that.

I don't think you'll have much to worry about specifically because you don't seem to be of any minority he's targeted or plans to target, but I imagine his poor actions aren't going to go without consequence to the other people in his country

 

[Caaethil]

Earlier you suggested it was the reason. Now that you are saying its only one of many reasons i think it's fair to say my job here is done.

The reason that he won in the end, yeah. I think Hillary would have had a much better shot had she not started spewing nonsense about Trump supporters.

If you posted something in a debate environment you should really expect someone to argue against it.

I have never expressed any problem with people arguing against my points. The point I was making was that you began complaining that my completely anecdotal, outside perspective was unfalsifiable. But, with it being completely entirely an opinion, it could never have been falsifiable in the first place, therefore if you decide that the debate is pointless upon realising that, that's your fault for deciding to turn it into a debate in the first place, right?

Of course, overpowering someone you perceive to be wrong is the exact reason we really debate. I'm always happy to learn something new, but that simply isn't likely in this discussion, as such, winning is all that holds importance now.

I'm not sure what is achieved by winning when the path to winning is regurgitating points which I've already conceded. It's a waste of everyone's time.

My argument was those reasons, the bolstering factor came from observable voting trends that directly correspond with my initial argument that Trump's victory came from several key points, not because people told elements of the right wing off for being human trash.

As far as I remember, you didn't mention any voting trends until a later post, so my point that your list proves nothing stands, as I made it before that post ever appeared.

No, it really wasn't that either. Her chastising the right in any capacity would not of cost her over a million left wing voters, nor would it have caused Stein's support to double. I doubt you move in many left wing circles, if you did, especially American ones, you'd of seen that Clinton was generally disliked by socialists, communists, pacifists, greens and a good bulk of liberals who saw her as a corrupt and untrustworthy war hawk and the face of the establishment. Triggered Alt Righties would never of caused so many of us on the left to abandon the Democrats.

For the second time in a row: it's not just what Hillary said.

 

[Hands]

The reason that he won in the end, yeah. I think Hillary would have had a much better shot had she not started spewing nonsense about Trump supporters.

Yeah, I'm sure that was what turned off traditional left wing groups, not all the other crap she came with. Come on, wise up. No one on the right was going to vote Clinton anyway.

I have never expressed any problem with people arguing against my points. The point I was making was that you began complaining that my completely anecdotal, outside perspective was unfalsifiable. But, with it being completely entirely an opinion, it could never have been falsifiable in the first place, therefore if you decide that the debate is pointless upon realising that, that's your fault for deciding to turn it into a debate in the first place, right?

What? You outright stated it was the key factor earlier then proceeded to argue against my list of actual key factors before finally conceding that your key factor was actually just a fairly baseless opinion that doesn't hold water in the wider picture.

I'm not sure what is achieved by winning when the path to winning is regurgitating points which I've already conceded. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Tell that to Field Marshal Haig.

As far as I remember, you didn't mention any voting trends until a later post, so my point that your list proves nothing stands, as I made it before that post ever appeared.

Correctumundo, I provided the voting trends post to bolster and back the reasoning behind my list. The voter trend posts was a direct response to you claiming my list was baseless and had no factual backing. You have made a post criticising the list since I provided, and further explained, the voter trend data. As such, i am really at a loss to why you're so transfixed on this.

For the second time in a row: it's not just what Hillary said.

I'm not even sure where to go with this one. It isn't what anybody said because only somebody with the fiber and fortitude of a child would allow their vote to be swayed because somebody called them out for being racist.