Fear of diversity, not economic anxiety, caused Obama voters to switch to Trump

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Model controls for too much.

Diversity is diverse. That's its benefit and its problem.

Also, notice that the first two paragraphs are about marginal Trump voters, while the latter are about average Trump voters.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Now that is what scares me because you can't really counter that as a democrat cause it's either openly condem it an you enter "basket of deplorables" territory or we don't adress it at all an let any racial/white identity politics move by Trump go unaddressed an minorities in this country feel we abandon them

-How about not explicitly claiming America belongs to young illegal migrants?:
https://medium.com/hillary-for-america/to-young-people-who-are-undocumented-this-is-your-country-too-e0184e858b40

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Damn I love how so many progressives don't want to think about the fact the that maybe many Obama voters were racist, and only voted for him so as to not get called racist. 

-How does that make any sense?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

No, they voted twice for liberalism over conservatism (2008 and 2012), but when given the opportunity to pick white nationalism over liberalism (2016), they did so.

I corrected it for you.

That's why Trump is so tough on Putin, eh?

What does Putin have to do with this?

It's not very nationalistic to allow a foreign country to attack Americans without punishment, to denigrate American intelligence agents who risk their lives for this country, or praise a dictator whose government is run contrary to the values of the US Constitution.

-The U.S. government has released no evidence demonstrating Russian govt involvement in the Podesta phishing and DNC hacks (neither of which were attacks). And how is a country punished? Such words are entirely meaningless. Use language clearly. Putin is not a dictator, though there are, indeed, fewer checks and balances in the Russian system than in the U.S. one. He is, indeed, however, very praiseworthy.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Damn I love how so many progressives don't want to think about the fact the that maybe many Obama voters were racist, and only voted for him so as to not get called racist. 

-How does that make any sense?

Progressives don't want to think that the country is much more racist and bigoted than what they had believed.

-What percent of HRC 2016 voters were racist? What percent of Trump 2016 voters?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

No, they voted twice for liberalism over conservatism (2008 and 2012), but when given the opportunity to pick white nationalism over liberalism (2016), they did so.

I corrected it for you.

That's why Trump is so tough on Putin, eh?

What does Putin have to do with this?

It's not very nationalistic to allow a foreign country to attack Americans without punishment, to denigrate American intelligence agents who risk their lives for this country, or praise a dictator whose government is run contrary to the values of the US Constitution.

To Attack Americans-Putin didn't hit us with a nuclear bomb.

Praise a Dictator-Trump said Putin is a strong leader. Trump didn't exactly go into with wether he agreed with Putin on issues.

Hacking is a crime, that if an American did it he would go to jail; it is digital breaking and entering and theft, no different than the burglars who broke into the DNC in 1972, in this case carried out by an arm of the Russian military, the GRU. So it was literally an attack by a military arm of a foreign power against American civilians. Trump mocked a whole class of US civil servants who offered their opinion on the attack, and then went on to praise the attacker. Regardless of how reasonable you think what he did was, it was by no means anything resembling "nationalistic." To side with foreigners over fellow Americans is the opposite of nationalism.

-To side with foreigners against a nation-wrecking candidate is nationalism; try again. Also, are the Democrats the xenophobic party nowadays? Appears so.

Also, Jerry, as expected, did not answer my question, given how ridiculous his answer would show his views to be. What percent of HRC 2016 voters were racist? What percent of Trump 2016 voters?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

EHarding, my ideal situation is a liberal, democratic and prosperous Russia with strong U.S. ties. Wanting one's own president not to hand a foreign military more rights in one's own country than our own citizens have hardly makes one a xenophobe, even moreso when said president claims to be a nationalist, as opposed to a white nationalist.

-Check out the approval ratings for the Baltic governments sometime.

Again, why do you believe the intelligence agency claims regarding the origin of the hacking? They haven't exactly shown their trustworthiness over the years.

And nobody's talking about handing foreign militaries any rights in the U.S.; don't make stuff up.

The sooner you realize Russia did nothing wrong, the better.