Bill Maher Blames PC Movement and Failure to Confront Islam

[Moonbeam]

poofyhairguy: Perception is different.

Perception is "what you the person sees/believes." For example- Many people have the perception Donald Trump is a racist based on his provable actions and words.

I'm having a bit of trouble here. If people perceive Trump to be a racist based on provable actions and words what does provable mean here. For example you go on to say:

p: Some don't agree with that perspective but either way the viewpoint is based on a collection of facts.

M: These two statements don't seem to jibe. If Trump is a racists based of provable facts in the sense that his actions and words are provably racist then does it not follow that he must be a racist. So if there are people who disagree how can that be based on a collection of facts when the collection of facts are condemnatory. People who disagree aren't disagreeing based on facts but must be constructing an altered reality of pretend facts, no?

p: Optics is "what it looks like to everyone." Example- Bill meeting Loretta and talking in private right before the Justice Department decided whether to go after Hillary had terrible optics. Maybe they said nothing about the situation, and we don't have facts either way. But pretty much anyone admits it looks bad. That is optics.

OK then why is it when Trump says and does things that are provably racist why is it that the optics universally that he is a racist?

It seems to me then that the real issue should be now what the perceptions or optics are, but why they are seen as they are seen. It seems to me then that what we see we see according to some need. If there is a need to see reality one way and not another, the perceptions and optics will follow and align and where the need is not there the same thing will happen but likely in an alternate direction, one that is real. Thus people with emotional needs surrounding various topics will live in altered realities and be completely unaware of that fact.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Aren't you the same poster who was complaining that Hillary supporters were mean and that's why she lost?

Lol fuck off

Looking to lose the next election too.

Everyone including white working men are having economic problems and they are real. When you pretty much tell them to piss up a rope that's too bad they have no reason to vote for your party. Hillary was the candidate who despised and that was a major screw up like Maher said. Better luck next time I guess. Try an inclusive, not a divisive candidate next time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And?

And it doesn't matter. As long as one side has disdain for people no matter their color or other trait, liberal or conservative doesn't matter. Who you would see harmed determines what side you are on? I'd like to be wrong but it seems that way.

Someone build a big tent please and let everyone find shelter in the storm.

 

[MrSquished]

Try an inclusive, not a divisive candidate next time.

Like Trump you mean?

 

[Zaap]

Lets take a look at this graph.

Well damn. It sure looks like Black people did not show up for Clinton. Its almost like your belief that Trump got out the race vote is not backed by the data. It sure looks more like Clinton was not popular with people who normally vote Democrat.

Dammit, stop with the facts already! There's no place for that. Let's just stick with the notion an entirely new (racist of course) electorate popped up in 4 years.

 

[poofyhairguy]

So if there are people who disagree how can that be based on a collection of facts when the collection of facts are condemnatory. People who disagree aren't disagreeing based on facts but must be constructing an altered reality of pretend facts, no?

Kinda. It is not pretend facts, but simply facts ignored or not given their full weight of impact. The framing of any story or situation is what defines the difference, as facts stay the same.

In the world of identity politics people's perceptions often get boiled down to a perspective for each demographic group (which are often inaccurate IMHO). We then expect effective politicians to be knowledgeable about each of the relevant perspective on any individual issue. Well at least we used to lol.

OK then why is it when Trump says and does things that are provably racist why is it that the optics universally that he is a racist?

Because the optics is the arbitrage between the provable reality and the story that people will assume with limited (due to a multitude of reasons) information. Optics is the most boiled down perception in a way, one that assumes the worst and does not consider all of the facts. Sometimes though the gap between what we perceive and what is doesn't really exist, but the act of abstraction is what defines the process.

It seems to me then that what we see we see according to some need. If there is a need to see reality one way and not another, the perceptions and optics will follow and align and where the need is not there the same thing will happen but likely in an alternate direction, one that is real. Thus people with emotional needs surrounding various topics will live in altered realities and be completely unaware of that fact.

You ask too much of people in my opinion. We are only human.

 

[ivwshane]

Like Trump you mean?

He's so fucking clueless sometimes.

 

[ivwshane]

Looking to lose the next election too.

Everyone including white working men are having economic problems and they are real. When you pretty much tell them to piss up a rope that's too bad they have no reason to vote for your party. Hillary was the candidate who despised and that was a major screw up like Maher said. Better luck next time I guess. Try an inclusive, not a divisive candidate next time.

Except for the fact that a majority of those making under $50k voted for Hillary.

Oops, it looks like you still don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11


Oh, and I have no doubt the dems will lose in 2018 because dems simply don't show up to vote.

 

[agent00f]

First, I will point out that your argument is that people are racist enough to vote for Trump over white Hillary, but not racist enough so that Obama could win...twice. You actually believe that Obama was so amazing that he was able to get over racism twice but Hillary could not get the same whites to vote for her. Lets take a look at the exit polls.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Lets see how Trump did with White educated voters.


Man, that is a big gap eh. What was it like for Obama?

Wow, so Obama lost by only 26 points vs Clinton who lost by 39 points. But wait, Romney got 62% of that demo, and trump got 67%. But you said he flipped 14% of the uneducated white vote. He did not flip them, he flipped 5% of that demo. But, if Obama lost by 26 points, and Clinton lost by 39 points (13% difference) then what happened.

If this were race more so than last time, how did white voters vote last time?



Wait, so if Trump stirred the race pot, then what did Romney do, because those numbers are almost the same. It sure looks like Trump lost a few votes, but Clinton lost a lot more. The race demographics seem to be pretty stable vs the last election.

Lets take a look at this graph.

Well damn. It sure looks like Black people did not show up for Clinton. Its almost like your belief that Trump got out the race vote is not backed by the data. It sure looks more like Clinton was not popular with people who normally vote Democrat.

You're not exactly known for math skills, so fortunately here you only have to read the number to the right of "White without a college degree":
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

To be upfront I didn't read the rest of the post.

 

[agent00f]

Looking to lose the next election too.

Everyone including white working men are having economic problems and they are real. When you pretty much tell them to piss up a rope that's too bad they have no reason to vote for your party. Hillary was the candidate who despised and that was a major screw up like Maher said. Better luck next time I guess. Try an inclusive, not a divisive candidate next time.

Low education white men in the US are some of the most privileged people in the world. There's almost nowhere else other than a few euro socialist paradises where they can earn nearly as much with their limited skillset. It's only by the virtue of being born white in merica that they have such fortune.

To be more specific, their lifestyle is greatly subsidized by the rest of america taxpayers. As just one example: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...briefs/2014/12/federal-spending-in-the-states. Notice that a great percentile of gdp in many of those red states are millitary industry, well >20% in many cases, and I suspect if the map can be zoomed with demo info the most subsided places are the most white. Without this white welfare, at the expense of actually productive endeavors, it's almost certain those areas will suffer economic collapse.

So there you have it, a breed of spoiled brats taking handouts away from minorities, cheering for war every few years to justify their trust fund income by bombing some hapless politically expendable brownies. Taken from an objective viewpoint, it's nearly impossible to argue they aren't some of worst people in the world. Always trying to play the victim while victimizing everyone else, and american liberals deserve some credit for coddling them into this form.

The question being asked here is basically how to placate these sorts to limit the destruction they always seem to be threatening.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Except for the fact that a majority of those making under $50k voted for Hillary.

Oops, it looks like you still don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11


Oh, and I have no doubt the dems will lose in 2018 because dems simply don't show up to vote.

Low education white men in the US are some of the most privileged people in the world. There's almost nowhere else other than a few euro socialist paradises where they can earn nearly as much with their limited skillset. It's only by the virtue of being born white in merica that they have such fortune.

To be more specific, their lifestyle is greatly subsidized by the rest of america taxpayers. As just one example: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...briefs/2014/12/federal-spending-in-the-states. Notice that a great percentile of gdp in many of those red states are millitary industry, well >20% in many cases, and I suspect if the map can be zoomed with demo info the most subsided places are the most white. Without this white welfare, at the expense of actually productive endeavors, it's almost certain those areas will suffer economic collapse.

So there you have it, a breed of spoiled brats taking handouts away from minorities, cheering for war every few years to justify their trust fund income by bombing some hapless politically expendable brownies. Taken from an objective viewpoint, it's nearly impossible to argue they aren't some of worst people in the world. Always trying to play the victim while victimizing everyone else, and american liberals deserve some credit for coddling them into this form.

The question being asked here is basically how to placate these sorts to limit the destruction they always seem to be threatening.

Well I guess you can blame them and the blacks as crminals and Muslims as terrorists. You then have the wonderful state of things that now exist going on forever.

Not a fan.

 

[agent00f]

Well I guess you can blame them and the blacks as crminals and Muslims as terrorists. You then have the wonderful state of things that now exist going on forever.

Not a fan.

I'm sure you've made the same excuse for the klan or nazis. Think for a while on that if you feel compelled to reply.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm sure you've made the same excuse for the klan or nazis. Think for a while on that if you feel compelled to reply.

Been here the better part of two decades so it should be easy for you to demonstrate your claim. You will find you can't even if you went through every single comment I've made.

I have thought on your post and it was helpful in understanding your mindset better. Ahh well, such is life.

 

[agent00f]

Been here the better part of two decades so it should be easy for you to demonstrate your claim. You will find you can't even if you went through every single comment I've made.

I have thought on your post and it was helpful in understanding your mindset better. Ahh well, such is life.

Take note I was being optimistic you could figure out the difference between voluntary behavior and ethnic group.

 

[realibrad]

You're not exactly known for math skills, so fortunately here you only have to read the number to the right of "White without a college degree":
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

To be upfront I didn't read the rest of the post.

Literally the same numbers. I see why you did not read the full post. I sourced all of my figures from reputable sources.

It's much easier to make your claim when you ignore facts. I'm sure you will continue to ignore them. It appears to be your thing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Take note I was being optimistic you could figure out the difference between voluntary behavior and ethnic group.

I had hoped that you would have recognized generally people want stability and security in their lives and that's independent of anything else and that includes ethnic group. Too many dismiss break down people into demographics and say "they are (insert your negative comment here)", and unless you were being sarcastic decided that a group of white people were the ones you would look down on. I simply flipped the coin and made the same statement about blacks as an illustration. Blacks as a group commit more violent crime than whites. Today that can land one in "you must support the nazis and Klan" territory in what winds up effectively silencing any discussion remarking on the fact. Well it's true. Blacks as a group do commit more violent crimes in proportion to their numbers. The real problem is the simplistic argument of that fact coupled with the realization that isn't inherent inferiority. It's a complex situation which has created this as a result, not some genetic predisposition. Living in the inner city sucks and that discussion is a whole other thing in itself. Blacks would not be criminals if their situation changes over a long enough timeframe. They would be like everyone else statistically.

The problem is going beyond that and labeling them savages or ignorant or inferior. Why don't they just get a job? I could say that except statistics are shit. They provide crude data and it is up to the consumer to provide context and causation. It isn't laziness, it's lack of opportunity. Well when opportunity decreases for everyone including whites then that's not a good thing. I could say that we've coddled a particular group and make an argument for it. Not rationally objective nor would it properly explain the situation an any useful way, but I can do it. The criminal blacks and the lazy coddled whites.

"Unfortunately" my brain doesn't see the world this way. I see more people in more trouble and a trend towards a two class society based on wealth. It is a very small minority of people and I don't care if they are rich. I do care about those who are losing ground or have already lost it. My monochromatic vision doesn't work well in these conditions. If I see people in need I don't look to check their "privilege", their color, their gender or whatever. I see people first. The other factors such as race is relevant to the context of their need, but need it is.

Both parties seem to have forgotten this, being people who are different based on who they regard as crap under their boot. Black or white, male or female. resident or immigrant does not matter to me. You might read and try to understand in context the "Parable of the Good Samaritan" and decide if you are the Priest, Levite or Samaritan, because we are all one of them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Low education white men in the US are some of the most privileged people in the world. There's almost nowhere else other than a few euro socialist paradises where they can earn nearly as much with their limited skillset. It's only by the virtue of being born white in merica that they have such fortune.

To be more specific, their lifestyle is greatly subsidized by the rest of america taxpayers. As just one example: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...briefs/2014/12/federal-spending-in-the-states. Notice that a great percentile of gdp in many of those red states are millitary industry, well >20% in many cases, and I suspect if the map can be zoomed with demo info the most subsided places are the most white. Without this white welfare, at the expense of actually productive endeavors, it's almost certain those areas will suffer economic collapse.

So there you have it, a breed of spoiled brats taking handouts away from minorities, cheering for war every few years to justify their trust fund income by bombing some hapless politically expendable brownies. Taken from an objective viewpoint, it's nearly impossible to argue they aren't some of worst people in the world. Always trying to play the victim while victimizing everyone else, and american liberals deserve some credit for coddling them into this form.

The question being asked here is basically how to placate these sorts to limit the destruction they always seem to be threatening.

I don't think that is the question, actually, because it involves us the knowledgeable managing them the ignorant takers and the complacent enablers. I think you are asking the question, what makes a watch tick as if its ticking was a problem. There is no part of a watch that isn't in some way related to and thus responsible for its ticking and it is crazy for any part of a machine to blame some other part for being a machine. The answer to the mechanical is consciousness and nobody can be made to be conscious when they prefer to sleep or have no idea that they are. One may suggest to people that some third way exists but nobody but themselves can create it. It can happen only with a deep curiosity or a deep need a need that transcends another need, the will to stay asleep.

I suggest to you that humanity sleeps because we are filled with self hate and the solution to self hate is self love. Self hate makes people disgusting and to awaken means facing how disgusting one is. What you are saying is that people are disgusting without taking into account that they are only disgusting because they feel that way. Of what help can you be telling them they are disgusting if you yourself believe they are because you can't forgive yourself.

You seem to me to be pointing to a problem out there when I see that the problem is me. There is only love and I can't do it. I can't help you or them because I can't help me. I can't help anybody because I am blind to the way, but I can see that much at least. I can't help anybody. I can only surrender.

 

[LegendKiller]

People keep focusing on the white working man. They forget that Trump got higher hispanics, blacks, and didn't do that poorly among women.

The democrats have lost everything. Every. Fucking. Thing. They only control 13 state legislatures and 18 governorships. Their entire party is emblematic of Detroit, a bunch of corrupt fucks running around taking as much as they can while they watch the whole city go to shit.

Look at how this race was run. A bunch of old corrupt "progressives" spending fuck-tons of money, for little gain, being propped up by faux liberal shitheads. That's all your party has left. Bernie 3-Dacha communist Sanders, the ultra left wing Muslim Brotherhood/Nation of Islam lover, and Fauxahontas. That's it. How do you think those 3 will play to middle class women, or even uppermiddle/upper moderates. It won't. Not at all. You'll have the progressive college idiots, the cucks, but thats about it.

That tells you a lot.

 

[agent00f]

Literally the same numbers. I see why you did not read the full post. I sourced all of my figures from reputable sources.

It's much easier to make your claim when you ignore facts. I'm sure you will continue to ignore them. It appears to be your thing.

If you have trouble reading what a 1 and a 4 means, ask your math professor for help. It implies 10 and 4 together, not 1 plus 4 a la 2+2=22.

I had hoped that you would have recognized generally people want stability and security in their lives and that's independent of anything else and that includes ethnic group. Too many dismiss break down people into demographics and say "they are (insert your negative comment here)", and unless you were being sarcastic decided that a group of white people were the ones you would look down on. I simply flipped the coin and made the same statement about blacks as an illustration. Blacks as a group commit more violent crime than whites. Today that can land one in "you must support the nazis and Klan" territory in what winds up effectively silencing any discussion remarking on the fact. Well it's true. Blacks as a group do commit more violent crimes in proportion to their numbers. The real problem is the simplistic argument of that fact coupled with the realization that isn't inherent inferiority. It's a complex situation which has created this as a result, not some genetic predisposition. Living in the inner city sucks and that discussion is a whole other thing in itself. Blacks would not be criminals if their situation changes over a long enough timeframe. They would be like everyone else statistically.

The problem is going beyond that and labeling them savages or ignorant or inferior. Why don't they just get a job? I could say that except statistics are shit. They provide crude data and it is up to the consumer to provide context and causation. It isn't laziness, it's lack of opportunity. Well when opportunity decreases for everyone including whites then that's not a good thing. I could say that we've coddled a particular group and make an argument for it. Not rationally objective nor would it properly explain the situation an any useful way, but I can do it. The criminal blacks and the lazy coddled whites.

I recognize that people are self-interested, and that's why the privileged feel entitled to keep it that way. That's why they choose to conflate being black and supporting klan ideals as part of its rationalization, because otherwise the reality of it looks pretty grim.

"Unfortunately" my brain doesn't see the world this way. I see more people in more trouble and a trend towards a two class society based on wealth. It is a very small minority of people and I don't care if they are rich. I do care about those who are losing ground or have already lost it. My monochromatic vision doesn't work well in these conditions. If I see people in need I don't look to check their "privilege", their color, their gender or whatever. I see people first. The other factors such as race is relevant to the context of their need, but need it is.

Both parties seem to have forgotten this, being people who are different based on who they regard as crap under their boot. Black or white, male or female. resident or immigrant does not matter to me. You might read and try to understand in context the "Parable of the Good Samaritan" and decide if you are the Priest, Levite or Samaritan, because we are all one of them.

I think you're smart enough to understand what I'm saying, that people looking to keep Miguel and Mohammed on the other side of a wall think of themselves as the better class. The only question here is why you choose to attempt obfuscating this instead of addressing it.

 

[ivwshane]

People keep focusing on the white working man. They forget that Trump got higher hispanics, blacks, and didn't do that poorly among women.

The democrats have lost everything. Every. Fucking. Thing. They only control 13 state legislatures and 18 governorships. Their entire party is emblematic of Detroit, a bunch of corrupt fucks running around taking as much as they can while they watch the whole city go to shit.

Look at how this race was run. A bunch of old corrupt "progressives" spending fuck-tons of money, for little gain, being propped up by faux liberal shitheads. That's all your party has left. Bernie 3-Dacha communist Sanders, the ultra left wing Muslim Brotherhood/Nation of Islam lover, and Fauxahontas. That's it. How do you think those 3 will play to middle class women, or even uppermiddle/upper moderates. It won't. Not at all. You'll have the progressive college idiots, the cucks, but thats about it.

That tells you a lot.

He didn't get a higher percentage of blacks or Latinos than Hillary. He may not have done as bad as predicted but that's quite a difference from what you said.

The rest of your post is just garbage and not worth the time.

 

[agent00f]

I don't think that is the question, actually, because it involves us the knowledgeable managing them the ignorant takers and the complacent enablers. I think you are asking the question, what makes a watch tick as if its ticking was a problem. There is no part of a watch that isn't in some way related to and thus responsible for its ticking and it is crazy for any part of a machine to blame some other part for being a machine. The answer to the mechanical is consciousness and nobody can be made to be conscious when they prefer to sleep or have no idea that they are. One may suggest to people that some third way exists but nobody but themselves can create it. It can happen only with a deep curiosity or a deep need a need that transcends another need, the will to stay asleep.

I suggest to you that humanity sleeps because we are filled with self hate and the solution to self hate is self love. Self hate makes people disgusting and to awaken means facing how disgusting one is. What you are saying is that people are disgusting without taking into account that they are only disgusting because they feel that way. Of what help can you be telling them they are disgusting if you yourself believe they are because you can't forgive yourself.

You seem to me to be pointing to a problem out there when I see that the problem is me. There is only love and I can't do it. I can't help you or them because I can't help me. I can't help anybody because I am blind to the way, but I can see that much at least. I can't help anybody. I can only surrender.

However I may feel about this or them unfortunately doesn't change the reality outside of me anymore than how I feel about the orbit of the earth. You have a point in that accepting reality for what is can be a comforting experience, and another in that many do lack a (self)critical judgement thus may act a certain predictable way in response to how they "really" feel.

However, in the end you're still selling a marketing message, that love overcomes self-interest in the natural order of things. That may be true if someone wills it to be so, but certainly not the way nature intended unless nature documentaries are a conspiracy.

People keep focusing on the white working man. They forget that Trump got higher hispanics, blacks, and didn't do that poorly among women.

The democrats have lost everything. Every. Fucking. Thing. They only control 13 state legislatures and 18 governorships. Their entire party is emblematic of Detroit, a bunch of corrupt fucks running around taking as much as they can while they watch the whole city go to shit.

Look at how this race was run. A bunch of old corrupt "progressives" spending fuck-tons of money, for little gain, being propped up by faux liberal shitheads. That's all your party has left. Bernie 3-Dacha communist Sanders, the ultra left wing Muslim Brotherhood/Nation of Islam lover, and Fauxahontas. That's it. How do you think those 3 will play to middle class women, or even uppermiddle/upper moderates. It won't. Not at all. You'll have the progressive college idiots, the cucks, but thats about it.

That tells you a lot.

It's so funny when his own supporter now want to pretend his campaign message specifically targeted at the uneducated whites at his rallies didn't work. Look, everyone knows Clinton has no political charisma, which is ironically why people think she's just a politician, but your guy won on some of his own merits, too.

 

[realibrad]

If you have trouble reading what a 1 and a 4 means, ask your math professor for help. It implies 10 and 4 together, not 1 plus 4 a la 2+2=22.

Aww, poor thing. See, had you read my post from before, you would not look so dumb now. I mean hell, had you actually looked at the poll from your very source, you could have seen it.

2016
Clinton got 28% whites without a college degree
Trump got 67% whites without a college degree

2012
Romney got 61% whites without a college degree
Obama got 36% whites without a college degree

The 14 that you are seeing is not a flipping of the voters. You would only think that if you did not understand what you were reading. See, what they did was measure the change in the difference.

So this...

Trump simply managed to engage with/bring out that resentment, which flipped uneducated whites an unprecedented +14% to his side, which turned out rather important in key states.

is wrong. English is not your first language, but you are using words you do not understand the meaning of here. To flip is to say that last time, those people voted left, but this time they voted right. That is not what happened. What happened is that the Left person relative to the Right person had a delta change of 14%. That is very different than flipping. Very clearly, you can see that Trump gained 6% of that demographic. They are not measuring the relative votes of Clinton to Trump, they are measuring the share of the votes from that demo for that person.

But hey, you don't give up kiddo. You keep pushing your wish and beliefs that are not backed by data. I know its pretty sad that you literally provided data to counter your own point, but you will get em next time kid.

 

[agent00f]

He didn't get a higher percentage of blacks or Latinos than Hillary. He may not have done as bad as predicted but that's quite a difference from what you said.

Actually he did. Turns out the spanish hispanics hate the indigenous ones more than they like themselves, too.

Aww, poor thing. See, had you read my post from before, you would not look so dumb now. I mean hell, had you actually looked at the poll from your very source, you could have seen it.

2012
Obama got 28% whites without a college degree
Romney got 67% whites without a college degree

2016
Trump got 61% whites without a college degree
Clinton got 36% whites without a college degree

The 14 that you are seeing is not a flipping of the voters. You would only think that if you did not understand what you were reading. See, what they did was measure the change in the difference.

So this...

is wrong. English is not your first language, but you are using words you do not understand the meaning of here. To flip is to say that last time, those people voted left, but this time they voted right. That is not what happened. What happened is that the Left person relative to the Right person had a delta change of 14%. That is very different than flipping. Very clearly, you can see that Trump lost 6% of that demographic. They are not measuring the relative votes of Clinton to Trump, they are measuring the share of the votes from that demo for that person.

But hey, you don't give up kiddo. You keep pushing your wish and beliefs that are not backed by data. I know its pretty sad that you literally provided data to counter your own point, but you will get em next time kid.

LOL, so trump won by losing 6% of that demo. This is the funniest part:

2012
Obama got 28% whites without a college degree
Romney got 67% whites without a college degree

When the page literary puts 28 on the blue Clinton bar, and 67 on the red Trump one. I'll be looking forward to why your math professor thinks you're right.

Worth noting these are the people who think they deserve high paying jobs.

 

[ivwshane]

Actually he did. Turns out the spanish hispanics hate the indigenous ones more than they like themselves, too.



LOL, so trump won by losing 6% of that demo. This is the funniest part:

2012
Obama got 28% whites without a college degree
Romney got 67% whites without a college degree

When the page literary puts 28 on the blue Clinton bar, and 67 on the red Trump one. I'll be looking forward to why your math professor thinks you're right.

Worth noting these are the people who think they deserve high paying jobs.

I'm sorry, are you now disputing the findings in this report that you yourself provided?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=2

Votes % by race
Hillary/trump
White 37/58
Black 89/8
Hispanic/Latino 65/29
Asian 65/29
Other 56/37

 

[agent00f]

I'm sorry, are you now disputing the findings in this report that you yourself provided?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?_r=2

Votes % by race
Hillary/trump
White 37/58
Black 89/8
Hispanic/Latino 65/29
Asian 65/29
Other 56/37

Legendkiller meant more than Romney not Clinton. I misread your reply.