Bullshit there have always been racists and always will be. Don't justify this and stop trying to score points and instead try condemning this filth which is inexcusable :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Printable View
Bullshit there have always been racists and always will be. Don't justify this and stop trying to score points and instead try condemning this filth which is inexcusable :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
If anyone is justifying racism at the moment it is Remainers who have screamed "Racist!" at 17 million voters who have non racist reasons for thinking what they think. Your bullshit is making racism out to be mainstream. Being an independent nation like about 180 other independent UN nations is not fucking racist so if you want an honest discussion stop lying and making excuses for the racists.
Let me get this straight; you joined their cause and he is the one who should condemn it?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No you closed minded bigot. I joined the cause for independence. Not the cause for racism. Funnily enough you seem quite keen on the idea of Scottish independence; you also seem to be quite ok with the idea of about 180 other UN nations being independent. But the idea of British independence is "racism" in your eyes. Give me a non racist reasons you hate that so?
I think my opinion on Scottish independence is quite irrelevant. I think it's up to the Scottish people to decide if it's a wise thing. I am merely amused by the total shit storm you Brexiteers have to deal with. It being of your own making etc.
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformation...7-minister.jpg
nope, no problem here, no racism has been stoked up by the leave campaign
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36634786
nope
none
I do condemn it. I absolutely condemn it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I also see it as a truth that the bigots and racists in this land who did vote Brexit, did so because they don't want darkies and foreigners in their towns stealing their jobs/benefits.
They stupidly believe that Brexit means that all darkies and foreigners have no place on British soil, and can now legitimately be deported by magic or something.
And that's why we've seen this disgusting upsurge in racism, and foreigners being told to 'go back home'. They think that's what Brexit is; Britain for white Britons. This is, in their eyes, a victory for their bigoted cause. Brexit gives them a voice, like I said.
I know that isn't what Brexit is chiefly about. And I couldn't care less about scoring points.
I disagree. This is precisely what Brexit is about. 52% of Brexit voters said their chief concern was immigration.
I meant that Brexit isn't about racism. A racist Brexiter, however, can't tell the difference between curbing immigration and sending 'foreign-looking' British people 'home'.
Hence all of this awfulness directed at former parliamentary candidate Shazia Awan, born in Wales:
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cps...haziatweet.jpg
These idiots now feel that their voice is legitimate.
Who gets to decide what a Brexit is if not the people who vote for it? The politicians might have claimed otherwise, but they claimed plenty of things, many of them contradictory.
It's almost irrelevant what Brexit actually is or isn't. To these people it means only one thing; legitimacy to racially abuse people.
Agreed. Just like Trump has given voice to the white supremacists over here.
How I long for the good old days, the innocence of our youth, when people claimed that racism and xenophobia wouldn't be key to the success of the Brexiteers.
Okay look that's some bullshit right there. 17.4 million people voted to Leave. At least some of those people are overt racists and a larger number are closet-racists and xenophobes. By all accounts that should be more than 400k. I know you have some bizarre notion that British racists were evenly split between Leave and Remain but that's kinda ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Looks like the Spanish exit polls were off: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/wo...o-mandate.html Pollsters. :o
Hey, not everyone gets the benefit of working the softest polling market in the world, like those reporting on US elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm starting to wonder how much our polls are going to be off, especially in a Trumpist election.
I saw a really interesting discussion of this especially re: minorities, which typically are poorly sampled in these polls. Some of the recent polls have been pretty conservative on their assumptions on how minorities will break for Clinton (as well as turnout numbers) which has made Trump look like he's still competitive in some places where he really isn't. On the other hand, the standard corrections for e.g. Dem or GOP-leaning voters as part of the sample might underestimate Trump support among traditional Democrats (e.g. white males). Throw in the wild card of a potential 3rd party candidate picking up a lot of protest votes (e.g. Johnson) and I think it's going to be challenging to predict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That being said, the data I've seen so far doesn't look very good for Trump. He's going to have to work pretty hard to peel away any big prizes from Obama's 2012 haul (maybe Ohio or Iowa? Colorado?) and Clinton may be able to pick up a couple states to boot (NC, possibly AZ). Absent something really remarkable I don't see any big shifts happening in the electoral map - oh, if Trump really screws the pooch Texas is theoretically in play, but no other big prizes seem likely to be shifting. I think Trump would have to sweep much of the Midwest (Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin) and take Florida, Pennsylvania, and Colorado to have much of a chance - and I think it'd be hard to get that to happen. Clinton only needs to hold onto Florida and Pennsylvania, and she can afford to lose the aforementioned Midwestern states, Colorado, and Virginia. That gives her many more options for victory IMO.
Obviously polling is going to be very dicey, especially for corrections applied to smaller samples, and especially for the granular data you need for electoral college predictions. Even so I think Trump has a tricky few months ahead of him. Ground game and fundraising is going to start to tell in those few key states, and I don't think he has a good response to these issues.
Saw the article on minorities. It provided pretty compelling evidence. Which begs the question of why all the polling companies are getting these numbers so systematically wrong (in the same direction). You'd think with everyone making the same mistake, there would be an attempt to rectify it, but I'm not seeing that.
Combine that with Trump losing some conservative votes and getting some poor white votes, all-time highest unfavorability for both candidates, and several somewhat viable third parties, and it's hard to see how the polling can be remotely accurate. As you say, it probably won't matter in the presidential election; I'm expecting Trump to get 160-170 electoral votes, maybe fewer. But if this carries over to the lower ticket races, predictions about half a dozen senatorial elections can be off. Ditto for the House (though I doubt it matters there either). Maybe even the governor races.
The one thing that does worry me about Trump polling is that polls seem to consistently underestimate right wing votes, and there's reason to believe that people won't admit to supporting Trump (not talking about his core supporters here).
What's crazy is that with Clinton's negatives the Republicans could have put pretty much almost anyone up against her and have a great chance. Instead... we get Trump.
My guess? Cost. I'm betting it's a lot more expensive to do the bilingual polling and followup that e.g. the specialty Latino polling organizations use. I would assume that the current polling uses a correction factor of some sort to fill in the holes in their models (instead of relying on more expensive but accurate methodlogy), but it appears that the effect size is being underestimated - likely due to older data being used for the correction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's certainly complex. I don't know how many races are really that competitive this year, though, so it might not matter - we're likely looking at a split Congress and a Dem POTUS absent something really dramatic taking place - reversion to the mean combined with the hangover from the marginal GOP victories in 2010 likely mean the Senate isn't so hard to predict. Statewide races might be a bit dicier - it's likely some Dems will pick up a few governor spots but I don't really have a good handle on how many are genuinely competitive this year. Ditto for state legislatures. So I expect to see some shifting but nothing major.Quote:
Combine that with Trump losing some conservative votes and getting some poor white votes, all-time highest unfavorability for both candidates, and several somewhat viable third parties, and it's hard to see how the polling can be remotely accurate. As you say, it probably won't matter in the presidential election; I'm expecting Trump to get 160-170 electoral votes, maybe fewer. But if this carries over to the lower ticket races, predictions about half a dozen senatorial elections can be off. Ditto for the House (though I doubt it matters there either). Maybe even the governor races.
The one thing that does worry me about Trump polling is that polls seem to consistently underestimate right wing votes, and there's reason to believe that people won't admit to supporting Trump (not talking about his core supporters here).
I do think that there are some shy Trump supporters, probably more than Clinton supporters. Most of the people voting for Clinton despite her unfavorables aren't ashamed of it, but there's a lot of heat attached to Trump support, and a lot of conservatives will probably hold their noses and vote for him come November. It's hard to disentangle shy voters from people who just won't show up at the ballot box at all, though - I think turnout numbers are going to be some of the hardest to predict, especially in purple country.
That being said, in the critical states I think we're going to get much better and more detailed polling as we get closer to November and this might help clarify things. These nationwide polls are nearly useless, but good targeted polling in a dozen crucial states might help address some of these issues. Remember that despite a few well publicized mistakes (e.g. Michigan D primary) a lot of the polling for the primaries has actually been reasonably accurate given the quality of the data.
From your own link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/c...81abd1e8bf.jpg
Such racism needs to be tackled not justified and excused for blatant pointscoring. Same as last week.
People like this always feel their voice is legitimate. That guy is a fascist in a group calling itself North East Infidels, I've just perused the last few months of his Twitter profile and its always been full of hate like that? So what's changed other than that the media is now highlighting what people like this have always said?Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
400k racists is about 80 times the amount of BNP voters last year and is less than a third of the Leave side's winning margin. Remove the 400k Leave votes and Leave would have still won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The treatment of the comments regarding pigs and horses, demonstrates a decidedly bigoted approach towards pigs by the participants of this forum which I find regretful.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-27/r...-in-four-days/Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7104191.htmlQuote:
The National Police Chiefs' Council revealed there was a 54% increase in hate crimes reported from Thursday to Sunday last week, compared to the corresponding period last month
Quote:
Many of the alleged perpetrators cited the decision to leave the EU explicitly.
With respect, you can't let the fact that morons and dumbfucks are going to grab an excuse to act out to decide whether a piece of public policy is the right path for the country or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I'm sure that if Trump wins, there will be a rise in racist incidents in the US. That's not a reason to oppose Trump. His horrible policies and politics are. I expect there were pieces of "black power" crime after Obama was elected. Not a good reason to regret supporting him or to justify opposing him. To do otherwise is to. . . well to oppose Manchester United because of football hooligans identifying with the team.
Exactly Fuzzy.
There is a big number of immigrants in the UK who declare that last thursday they still felt welcome in the UK who didn't feel welcome any longer on the day after. Telling stories how they are suddenly subjected to very open xenophobic abuse. Now, you can claim that's nothing new, but appearantly the victims experience it as something very new in their UK life.
The tone of the Brexit campaign has obviously brought out something in the UK that you may find very hard to get under control again.
With even more respect, you can't make barely concealed dog-whistles about immigrants, or even outright racism, a central part of your campaign to enact a piece of policy, then act like it's nothing to do with you when hate crimes suddenly jump 50% immediately after your victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The fact that Trump has been deliberately stirring up and playing to the feelings and resentments that leads to such actions isn't also a part of the picture?Quote:
I'm sure that if Trump wins, there will be a rise in racist incidents in the US. That's not a reason to oppose Trump. His horrible policies and politics are.
No one will notice that you just conflated one or two hypothetical isolated instances of something that may never even have happened with a statistically significant rise that actually happened.Quote:
I expect there were pieces of "black power" crime after Obama was elected. Not a good reason to regret supporting him or to justify opposing him.
Or cite the fact that you don't like the arguments presented by Remain as a reason you're voting leave, despite having been involved in an intense running debate about the EU for over a decade, and being easily informed enough to make up your own mind?Quote:
To do otherwise is to. . . well to oppose Manchester United because of football hooligans identifying with the team.
If a vast majority of hooligans were United supporters, it would make me rethink my support for the team. Just like seeing all the racists and white supremacists back Trump make me more willing to abandon the GOP than would otherwise be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy