Conservatives drinking themselves to death out of DESPAIR

[LV426]

What a racist you are to think "poor white trash" is any worse than poor black trash or poor brown trash

It's way worse, and here's why:

Unlike black or brown people, poor white trash has been given every institutional advantage possible in order to succeed.

So while black and brown people start from a societal disadvantage, poor white trash does not yet it squanders those advantages.

Poor white trash does not have to struggle against redlining, or profiling, or any of the institutional and discriminatory policies and practices that set a much higher bar for success for minorities. They've been given every institutional advantage to succeed and they are still failures.

Rather than blame themselves or the people who lied to them and told them they could coast by on privilege, poor white trash seeks to blame every minority/ethnic group possible for why they have been unable to achieve the American Dream the Conservatives they voted for promised them. And when that isn't accommodated, they then spew forth racist resentment while whining about how no one accommodates them even though the system does precisely that.

Nah bruh...not feeling your argument.

 

[Flash]

I don't understand why you are attacking me for binary thinking when you're the one championing the faulty "both sides" rhetoric.

You ignored the issue. Have you ever seen me write anything supporting or defending Trump? NO.

 

[Flash]

It's way worse, and here's why:

Unlike black or brown people, poor white trash has been given every institutional advantage possible in order to succeed.

So while black and brown people start from a societal disadvantage, poor white trash does not yet it squanders those advantages.

Poor white trash does not have to struggle against redlining, or profiling, or any of the institutional and discriminatory policies and practices that set a much higher bar for success for minorities. They've been given every institutional advantage to succeed and they are still failures..

Yet, you seem very prejudiced against them---that disproves your point. If they are poor they obviously didn't have much "privilege."

 

[LV426]

However, you are missing the point. Higher income voters were more likely to vote Trump than Clinton and Clinton got a larger share of the vote from lower income.

Really?

What's the racial breakdown?

Because you keep trying to argue in broad terms when the subjects we are discussing are not broad at all.

Do you think that because Clinton won a plurality of votes for incomes under $30K means she won the white votes in that group? <--- That's not a rhetorical question, either.

Because you're making a lie-by-omission, bad faith argument. You're deliberately obfuscating the racial breakdown of incomes because it will reveal that poor white trash, and really only poor white trash in that <$30K group, voted for Trump.

So you leave out exculpatory information because that way, you can make your shitty "both sides" argument.

Isn't that the truth?

 

[LV426]

Lower income is lower income, regardless of their race.

So in that lower-income group, what was the breakdown by race?

You're trying to lump all lower-income people together because that way, you don't have to account that the reason Clinton won only a plurality and not a majority of those votes was because poor white trash voted for Trump.

So now the quesiton becomes, why are you leaving that key piece of information out of your argument?

The only reason is because you don't want to admit to me that it was poor white trash who voted for Trump, and it is poor white trash drinking themselves to death out of despair like a bunch of whiny fucking snowflakey losers. And not wanting to admit it to me makes you a fucking loser and a coward.

 

[LV426]

Not me, I didn't tell anybody to shut up

No, no.

STOP.

You don't get to disassociate from the very argument and people you're making and defending now that you're realizing how fucking shitty it makes you look.

What a fucking coward.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

I never get tired of circulating this.

The Forces Driving Middle-Aged White People's 'Deaths Of Despair'
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...g-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair

 

[Flash]

So in that lower-income group, what was the breakdown by race?

You're trying to lump all lower-income people together because that way, you don't have to account that the reason Clinton won only a plurality and not a majority of those votes was because poor white trash voted for Trump.

So now the quesiton becomes, why are you leaving that key piece of information out of your argument?

The only reason is because you don't want to admit to me that it was poor white trash who voted for Trump, and it is poor white trash drinking themselves to death out of despair like a bunch of whiny fucking snowflakey losers. And not wanting to admit it to me makes you a fucking loser and a coward.

Poor white trash and poor black trash do not vote. Obviously, many people in each income category voted for both Clinton and Trump, so I am not trying to hide anything. The point you are refusing to acknowledge is that calling Trump voters "poor" is true of many, but not as many as voted for Clinton. You do not to admit that Hillary voters were the lowest income and least educated. I do not think that makes them "lesser" humans like you do.

 

[Flash]

No, no.

STOP.

You don't get to disassociate from the very argument and people you're making and defending now that you're realizing how fucking shitty it makes you look.

What a fucking coward.

You are so simple minded. I did not defend anybody--especially those who want to restrict free speech (although Dixie Chicks and Kapernick do not involve constitutional free speech since there was no governmental restrictions involved).

To think I am defending anybody is silly just because I prove that those claims about Trump voters being poor (with the implication that they are poorer than Clinton voters) is just made-up BS aimed at denigrating 46% of American voters.

Many of those whose candidate lost the election feel better if they can berate, denigrate, and stir up hatred toward the winners. My candidate did not win, either, but I think it is immoral and detrimental to society to hate others because of it.

 

[LV426]

You always attribute views to me I do not hold.

They are views you hold. You're arguing them. You're defending them. So fucking own them already.

Forget Nazis (who have the same free speech rights as anyone else)

Do they, though? Free speech doesn't cover incitement, and fascism and Nazism are strictly about incitement.

but look at colleges who had to cancel speakers or were shouted down

What speakers were cancelled?

And you're widening the parameters to include protests.

Who was "shouted down"?

Condoleeza Rice, Henry Kissinger, Nicholas Dirks, John Brennan, Janet Mock

Important distinction to make: NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WERE DENIED THEIR SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT.

You're pretending that people protesting them is somehow liberals being against free speech.

You scolding people for protesting would actually make you the one who is opposed to free speech, here.

 

[LV426]

You ignored the issue. Have you ever seen me write anything supporting or defending Trump? NO.

No, you do things way worse.

You seek moral equivalence which normalizes Trump and the GOP.

 

[LV426]

Yet, you seem very prejudiced against them---that disproves your point. If they are poor they obviously didn't have much "privilege."

I'm not pre-judging them, I'm simply judging them.

Poor white trash, who voted for Trump en masse, are killing themselves with drugs and alcohol because of the despair that life didn't turn out the way they had been promised.

 

[LV426]

Poor white trash and poor black trash do not vote

Of course they vote.

They might not vote in the same numbers as other groups, but to say they do not vote is completely wrong.

You even posted stats showing what percentage of Trump's vote came from the poor white trash.

So it's interesting how you're avoiding the detail here.

First you said Clinton won a pluarility of the poor vote, then you said the poor don't vote, and now you're actively hiding the demographic breakdown of the poor vote simply because you don't want to admit that poor white trash voted for Trump, and poor white trash is also the white trash killing itself with drugs and booze.

If I'm wrong, simply post the demographic breakdown of the lower income groups and how those demographic groups voted. Here, I'll even get you started:

__% of black voters with income below $30K voted for Trump
__% of white voters with income below $30K voted for Trump
__% of Latinx/Hispanic voters with income below $30K voted for Trump

All you have to do is fill in the number above.

If what you're saying is true, all those percentages should reflect the split Clinton had, right? After all, you're saying all poor people vote the same regardless of race...er um, wait, poor people don't vote, right? Isn't that the tactic you're using to shirk accountability for your thinking?

 

[LV426]

The point you are refusing to acknowledge is that calling Trump voters "poor" is true of many, but not as many as voted for Clinton.

I'm not calling them poor.

I'm calling them poor white trash.

You keep wanting to broaden out the group we're talking about here just so you don't have to admit that I'm right when I say that the poor white trash drinking itself to death out of despair is the same poor white trash that voted for Trump.

You said they weren't, and I asked what other poor white trash could we possibly be talking about?

That's when you unilaterally decided to broaden the parameters out to all poor people.

But the fucking OP is strictly about how poor, middle aged, white people are seeing their mortality rates spike solely because of drug and alcohol abuse as a result of their whiny despair.

ou do not to admit that Hillary voters were the lowest income and least educated. I do not think that makes them "lesser" humans like you do.

You keep trying to pretend that because Hillary won a plurality of the poor vote, that means she also won a pluarility of the poor white trash vote. But you know the moment you start looking at the demographic breakdown of that bloc of poor voters, you'll see that race weighs heavily on the vote.

Go ahead...prove me wrong by breaking down that poor voter demographic by race. See if your theory that Clinton won a plurality of poor voters translates to Clinton winning a majority -or a plurality even- of poor white voters, AKA the group we are talking about in the OP.

Or, you could just admit you've been talking out of your ass and are avoiding an admission that I'm right and that my OP makes sense.

 

[LV426]

You are so simple minded. I did not defend anybody--especially those who want to restrict free speech (although Dixie Chicks and Kapernick do not involve constitutional free speech since there was no governmental restrictions involved)

I love this:

"Sure my argument sucks if you actually put it in context"

 

[LV426]

To think I am defending anybody is silly just because I prove that those claims about Trump voters being poor (with the implication that they are poorer than Clinton voters) is just made-up BS aimed at denigrating 46% of American voters.

I never said all Trump voters were poor.

What I said was that poor white trash voted for Trump and constitute his base of support.

That is clear in the voter breakdown demos you provided earlier, and the ones you held back because otherwise you'd have to admit that poor white voters chose Trump over Clinton.

I also said these poor white trash voters are the same ones drinking themselves to death.

Poor white trash has seen its mortality rate increase due to deaths of despair, poor white trash voted for Trump. <--These are not mutually exclusive.

 

[LV426]

Many of those whose candidate lost the election feel better if they can berate, denigrate, and stir up hatred toward the winners. My candidate did not win, either, but I think it is immoral and detrimental to society to hate others because of it.

Fuck you.

This isn't about me feeling better, this is about all the white trash Trump voters who are trying to feel better by turning to the bottle or the needle.

 

[Flash]

They are views you hold. You're arguing them. You're defending them. So fucking own them already.

Do they, though? Free speech doesn't cover incitement, and fascism and Nazism are strictly about incitement.

What speakers were cancelled?

And you're widening the parameters to include protests.

Who was "shouted down"?

Important distinction to make: NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WERE DENIED THEIR SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT.

You're pretending that people protesting them is somehow liberals being against free speech.

You scolding people for protesting would actually make you the one who is opposed to free speech, here.

Some of those people had their speaking engagements cancelled because of threats to protest, others had their

 

[Flash]

They are views you hold. You're arguing them. You're defending them. So fucking own them already.

Do they, though? Free speech doesn't cover incitement, and fascism and Nazism are strictly about incitement.

What speakers were cancelled?

And you're widening the parameters to include protests.

Who was "shouted down"?

Important distinction to make: NONE OF THESE PEOPLE WERE DENIED THEIR SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT.

You're pretending that people protesting them is somehow liberals being against free speech.

You scolding people for protesting would actually make you the one who is opposed to free speech, here.

Some had their speaking engagements cancelled and some were unable to speak because they were shouted down. I have no problem with protesting a speaker they dislike, but I do have a problem when they will not let that person speak. Free speech does not include incitement (although that is a vague and hard to prosecute charge) by Nazis or any other group. But any constitutional free speech applies to Nazis, communists, BLM, anti-fa, white supremacists, and every other person in the U. S.

The information about voter income are not "views" I hold, they are the widely accepted results of the election. I am just repeating facts to counter those who state otherwise. A fact is not a "view" unless it is contested by reliable sources.

 

[Flash]

No, you do things way worse.

You seek moral equivalence which normalizes Trump and the GOP.

Well, it got 46% of the American vote against 48% from Hillary. That normalizes both Dems and Reps. Your idea of morality is distorted by your partisan bigotry.