Like I said, if your analysis for not listening to 62m people stops at putting them in a bucket of "They're are white supremacists", then all you get is Trump.

Like I said, if your analysis for not listening to 62m people stops at putting them in a bucket of "They're are white supremacists", then all you get is Trump. Which you got. So it might be time to change your approach. Haven't we been fighting for 20 years against prejudices? Is it time we stop having prejudices about 62m people who just elected the president, and start seeing them as individuals with a reasoning? Is your analysis complete about those people? How will politics evolve if one side closes ears and eyes to the facts brought up by the other side, just because it leads them to conclusions they don't like? Is it scientific not to acknowledge facts when they lead you to conclusions you don't like? "If Earth were heliocentric that would mean the center of the universe isn't the Earth, but that doesn't match with my interpretation of the Bible, therefore heliocentrism doesn't exist" ? Galileo went to jail for this. James Damore was also fired for digging up scientific facts people didn't like. And the Left reject facts when it doesn't match the conclusions they like. If your analysis stops with a big prejudice against 62m people, it's time to change analysis. NB: I'd like to acknowledge the other comment which debunks Sweden as not-the-European-capital-of-rape. Thank you for the facts.