3 ms·
To say it has nothing to do with race, you'd need to prove race has no effect on whether you go to college and become a member of the elite. Or am I misunderst
by rdiddly 10y ago
To say it has nothing to do with race, you'd need to prove race has no effect on whether you go to college and become a member of the elite.
Or am I misunderstanding the "it"? Do you mean "taking the country back" has nothing to do with race? For you, it sounds like that's true, so that's good. That's all I can conclude however. I can conclude nothing about Trump. Literally nobody has any idea what Trump's really about. He's juuuust incoherent enough that he never manages to actually, successfully say anything. In that way he succeeds at being all things to all people. Anyone can project anything onto him without fear of being contradicted. Including his opponents. You say he's about SOCIAL EQUALITY. His opponents say he's about RACISM. Who's right? Nobody knows.
Edit: Same is true of Clinton, for different reasons. The words are more coherent, but they're so vague and full of platitudes you can't really say what she's about either.
- wyager 10y agoIt's possible that incidental racial correlations exist. He obviously meant "race is not a driving factor". By your logic, it would also be anti-male, because fewer men go to college than women.
- rdiddly 10y ago"Nothing to do with" means no correlation. Edit: And note that "by my logic" you cannot conclude any thing is anti- any other thing. That was your logic.