“What’s troubling is when biased people pretend to be unbiased to serve their agenda”
It’s funny how you point the finger, Blatant Digital, and yet your entire response is a series of opinions without one specific example of factual support. You claim I misquoted myself, but you fail to prove how. In addition, every adjective you use in your response indicates your own personal biases and judgment (troubling, biased, hypocrisy, disingenuous, rhetoric, anecdotes, sore loser syndrome, misguided activism).
With regard to the phrase “and/or”? it means one or both of two possibilities: of the total population of white Christians voters, an undetermined number are racists, misogynists and other assorted bigots. In no way does it imply that all or a majority of white Christian voters are racists, misogynists or other assorted bigots. And if that was your interpretation, you are reading something into my words that was not there.
With regard to the term uneducated, according to Pew Research, I should amend my statement to include the fact that Trump won 61% of white college educated men, while Clinton won 51% of white college educated women. Trump won 66% of white women without college degrees, and a whopping 72% of white men without college degrees. Here are all the breakdowns of all white voters.
According to the US Census Bureau report of 2007, 34% of Americans 18 or older hold a college degree. If we add 61% of 17% white college educated men (assuming equal numbers of men and women voters with equal participation in college) to 49% of the 17% of white college educated women, that means 18.7% of the total number of white voters who supported Trump were college educated. So my use of the word “predominantly” in my statement describing white Christian voters as either rich or uneducated is neither opinion or bias. It’s simple math.
As far as the electoral college, I’m not sure how any rational person who believes in democracy could argue that the people’s will is being served by a system in which the party with the most votes in six out of the last seven elections has been denied the White House 2 out of those 6 times.
Historically, this happened three times over a span of 112 years, and two more times in the span of 16 years. The increased frequency of these incidents is a serious issue that drains the public’s confidence in our election process.
Finally, if the party’s roles were reversed, you might hear someone say “the electoral college is a disaster.” And that’s exactly what Donald Trump said in 2012, even though Obama won by 5 million votes. So your argument about sore loser syndrome is completely misdirected.
As of this writing, Clinton has won the poplular vote by 947,579. In every election held in the world, for every office or post, from dog catcher to Pope, the person with the most votes wins. That is as close to a natural law as one can get. If you can’t understand the basic unfairness of the electoral college, you’re the one hiding your own personal agenda.
As far as your comment about studying the problem, if you were truly well informed on the issue, you would offer ideas on better ways to elect a president. Instead, you simply try to shift the burden of proof back to me.
I’m have tried to be objective and discuss the facts. It’s up to you whether you will respond in kind.