How Trump Happened Part 1 of Whatever

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

1) Immigration
Supply and demand is very simple. When the supply for something goes up, the demand goes down. And when you have one product not only flooding the market, but flooding it at a much lower price, Brand X is not long for this world. Illegal Immigration is the practice of US businesses importing sub-minimum wage slave labor from outside the country, completely flouting existing immigration law and undercutting the working class job market in the process.

I sort of get this except for one thing, if they're so worried about losing their jobs, why vote for the anti-safety-net people?

1) Because they believe the safety net is being abused. They never vote for insane NO SAFETY NET AT ALL libertarian types. Its always framed as stopping people from taking advantage of the safety net, or being trapped in it. In particular look at Trumps "anti-welfare" comments. Theyre very mild, especially compared to insane 08 teabagger shit, and focuses mostly on the idea that people get economically trapped in the net.

2) Because they value not needing the safety net more than protecting it. Why would you vote for someone who is gong to destroy your job market just because they offer to give you foodstamps? Youd obviously vote for the guy whos going to let you keep your ability to feed yourself without foodstamps. Would you rather vote for the guy whos going to shoot you and then patch you up or the guy who isnt going to shoot you in the first place?

Theres something to be said about being trapped in the net. I know a schizophrenic guy, in and out of mental asylums most of his adult life. He recently got out after trying to hang himself with a belt. He was stuck in a halfway home, but was promised once he got out he would have housing assistance. Before all of this he was working full time minimum wage, and he managed to keep his job through the whole debacle. Well guess what, theres a limit on how much you can work while getting the housings assistance. So because, while he was in the halfway home and not the apartment mind you, he was working full time as soon as he moved into his new apartment he was kicked out. Now hes living with his mom and has to willingly make much less money if he wants any help at all.
  How is someone in that kind of situation supposed to get out of it? Its almost designed to make you dependent.

We need to go in the other direction. Above the limit it should continue at a reduced amount. In fact there should be no hard limit at all, just an amount of assistance that asymptotically approaches zero as income goes to infinity (but in practice reaches a point where it drops under half a penny and thus rounds to zero somewhere in the general neighborhood of middleclass income)

EDIT:
Or, if you don't want to muck about with asymptotic equations, they could reduce assistance by one cent for every two cents over the limit (or in general any setup of "reduce assistance by X cents for every Y cents over the limit" where Y>X) so that total income would always increase except in the case of raises totalling less than 2 cents (or whatever you sey Y to be)

[LMNO]

I thought it might be a good way for me to understand a few things by responding to the OP.  However, I'll be approaching it in a more abstract way. 

First off, while it's true a lot of people voted for Trump, and they have thoughts about why, I really can't buy that the majority of Trump voters used the links and logic the OP does.  I will acknowledge, though, that they have feelings that can be retconned by said logic.  Furthermore, the links provided have been... debated, if you will.  Debunked, possibly.  Either way, that path only leads to throwing links at each other, which doesn't resolve the main point: Despite whether it's true, a Trump voter may feel it's true.  And that, more than anything, can easily drive a person's choices.

Secondly, the OP uses a "typical" liberal's responses and/or arguments, and portrays them as simplistic, dismissive, and insulting; however, in doing so, the OP employs the same type of behavior and language decried in the post itself.  So, I will refrain from responding to them, as they are bait, as well as a strawman.

So, to business.  Let us assume that the Trump voter in question is at least of average intelligence.  Let us also assume that the Trump voter is not part of the KKK, or any openly racist organization. 

Point 1:  A trump voter feels that immigration has made it harder for them to find jobs, and they feel that illegal immigrants are using a welfare system they don't contribute to through taxes.

Put aside that the point conflates immigration with illegal immigration, since it seems obvious the point is about migrant illegal workers.  This feeling is expressed with the desire to end illegal migrant labor from coming into the country, and deporting any illegal migrant labor currently here.

There are many objections that can be raised to this plan of action: Some are economic (to raise the cost of labor to a living wage would come at significant cost to the farmer, and pass it on to the consumer, and to spend money in this country, even cash money, means some of that money is being collected by taxes); some logistical (the amount of resources and coordination to deport 11 million people or so would be in the hundreds of billions, and that doesn't address the increase of border patrols, not to mention the separate logistics of building a wall); some categorical (many illegal immigrants are not migrant laborers who take jobs away from workers, and therefore should not be part of the Point 1 objection... to include them is to make the assumption "all X are Y", which can often be defined as prejudiced); some moral (many of the ways proposed to identify illegal migrant workers involves profiling which, if not with an outright racist, quickly becomes racist when put into action).

Given our above assumptions, we can conclude the Trump voter has either heard these objections and rejected them, they have not heard them and/or have been given false information, or they accept the consequences that the objections raise.

Also given the assumptions, the second conclusion is self-correcting.  Our assumed Trump voter is not ignorant.  So, we are left with the first and third possible conclusions.  To reject the objections and accept the consequences of deporting illegal immigrants, they are accepting potentially destructive policies, as well as functionally racist methods to fulfill the policies. 

So, while the Trump voter is question "isn't" racist, they are making choices whose outcomes are.  Again, given our assumptions, the Trump voter is comfortable with this.

It should also be noted that farmers who own land and use migrant workers [/i]also[/i] voted for Trump, which raises its own questions about the scope and accuracy of Point 1.

Point 2: The Affordable Care Act is a disaster.

This is a bit harder to parse, both given our assumptions about the Trump Voter, and also because many liberals also oppose it, for many of the same reasons stated.  However, the point in the OP only touches the surface: If the goal of the ACA is to make sure people get better healthcare in the system as it exists (insurance companies), then either the ACA must work within the scope of the system (involve for-profit insurance companies), the ACA must break the system (single payer), or the goal should be abandoned (leave millions of Americans without health care).

The GOP and the insurance companies absolutely refused to get on board with single payer, and the DNC refused to abandon the goal.  So, how would a plan to build the ACA work inside the system?  Since the insurance company would be the one to pay the bulk of the bills (after co-pays), the only way to insure the sick affordably is to have people who aren't sick to be paying premiums as well.  This is how it normally works, and for small populations (i.e. the ones previously with healthcare insurance), there is a balance of sick and healthy people, leaving the companies with a profit.  The very healthy and the very sick were outside the system, as the very healthy didn't need it, and the very sick were rejected and/or couldn't afford the insurance.

But if the goal is for everyone to have health insurance, then everyone must have health insurance, whether they want to or not.  It must be a mandate.  The ACA didn't do it because they wanted it that way, they did it because it had to be that way.

Now, given our assumptions of the Trump voter, and going through the same analysis, they must accept that this is the way the ACA has to work within the for-profit insurance system.  To then object to the ACA means the Trump voter either wants single payer, or they want very sick people not to have access to healthcare.

Since the Trump voter obviously voted for Trump with full knowledge of his proposed health plan, we can look to that to see what the answer is.  Trump's plan allows insurance companies to deny coverage based upon the health of the applicant.  Therefore, the Trump voter wants very sick people not to have access to healthcare.

Now, as it turns out, black and hispanics had a very low rate of being insured prior to the ACA, and they also had higher rates of illness.  Given our assumptions of the Trump voter, this means that the Trump voter's choice will disproportionately affect minorities.  Which may not be racist in itself, but it really, really looks racist.

Point 3: Syrian refugees are coming to this country to exact revenge.

This one is surprisingly difficult to answer.  Not because I agree with the OP, but given the assumptions about the Trump voter, it's hard to come to the same conclusion.  The Trump voter as described will have read articles about who these refugees are, have a basic understanding of the conflict in Syria, understand the long and arduous vetting process already in place, and understand that the refugees we have already accepted under the program have a lower crime rate than American-born citizens.  They may even have an understanding of the concept of "acceptable risk". 

The only way I can get to the same conclusion as the point is trying to make is by assuming the Trump voter's tolerance of risk is so low as to be approaching zero; which if true, almost certainly is the only risk they have at such a low level (if you're more likely to die in a car crash than by a Syrian refugee terror attack, your risk tolerance for driving a car must be substantially higher).

A risk tolerance that singular, and that low, will naturally present itself as making a universal judgement about Syrians, refugees, and Muslims.  Again, even if that conclusion is not necessarily racist, it sure looks it.



So, I've shown that the Trump voter can claim not to be racist, while simultaneously exhibiting racist behavior, given the assumptions about who this voter is.  What if we change those assumptions?

If the Trump voter is below average intelligence, then their arguments are subject to faulty reasoning, and can be show to be wrong.

If the Trump voter is a racist, then all arguments are an a priori fallacy.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

I thought it might be a good way for me to understand a few things by responding to the OP.  However, I'll be approaching it in a more abstract way. 

First off, while it's true a lot of people voted for Trump, and they have thoughts about why, I really can't buy that the majority of Trump voters used the links and logic the OP does.  I will acknowledge, though, that they have feelings that can be retconned by said logic.  Furthermore, the links provided have been... debated, if you will.  Debunked, possibly.  Either way, that path only leads to throwing links at each other, which doesn't resolve the main point: Despite whether it's true, a Trump voter may feel it's true.  And that, more than anything, can easily drive a person's choices.

Secondly, the OP uses a "typical" liberal's responses and/or arguments, and portrays them as simplistic, dismissive, and insulting; however, in doing so, the OP employs the same type of behavior and language decried in the post itself.  So, I will refrain from responding to them, as they are bait, as well as a strawman.

If you think my typical liberal responses are strawmen I can link you to a shitload of people in the previous thread being simplistic, dismissive and insulting towards me. I also linked to actual articles making these points in most of them. Linking to what people have actually said isnt exactly a strawman.

So, to business.  Let us assume that the Trump voter in question is at least of average intelligence.  Let us also assume that the Trump voter is not part of the KKK, or any openly racist organization. 

Point 1:  A trump voter feels that immigration has made it harder for them to find jobs, and they feel that illegal immigrants are using a welfare system they don't contribute to through taxes.

Put aside that the point conflates immigration with illegal immigration, since it seems obvious the point is about migrant illegal workers.  This feeling is expressed with the desire to end illegal migrant labor from coming into the country, and deporting any illegal migrant labor currently here.

There are many objections that can be raised to this plan of action: Some are economic (to raise the cost of labor to a living wage would come at significant cost to the farmer, and pass it on to the consumer, and to spend money in this country, even cash money, means some of that money is being collected by taxes); some logistical (the amount of resources and coordination to deport 11 million people or so would be in the hundreds of billions, and that doesn't address the increase of border patrols, not to mention the separate logistics of building a wall); some categorical (many illegal immigrants are not migrant laborers who take jobs away from workers, and therefore should not be part of the Point 1 objection... to include them is to make the assumption "all X are Y", which can often be defined as prejudiced); some moral (many of the ways proposed to identify illegal migrant workers involves profiling which, if not with an outright racist, quickly becomes racist when put into action).

Given our above assumptions, we can conclude the Trump voter has either heard these objections and rejected them, they have not heard them and/or have been given false information, or they accept the consequences that the objections raise.

Also given the assumptions, the second conclusion is self-correcting.  Our assumed Trump voter is not ignorant.  So, we are left with the first and third possible conclusions.  To reject the objections and accept the consequences of deporting illegal immigrants, they are accepting potentially destructive policies, as well as functionally racist methods to fulfill the policies. 

So, while the Trump voter is question "isn't" racist, they are making choices whose outcomes are.  Again, given our assumptions, the Trump voter is comfortable with this.

It should also be noted that farmers who own land and use migrant workers [/i]also[/i] voted for Trump, which raises its own questions about the scope and accuracy of Point 1.

First, Im just going to say this was my bad to avoid a semantic argument that goes nowhere, when I said Immigration I meant illegal immigratiion. No one wants to kick out people who went through the system and became citizens the legal way.

"We know this illegal activity is hurting you economically but its so out of hand that we cant even do anything about it" probably isnt going to convince anyone who thinks Illegal Immigration us a problem that we shouldnt crack down on it. Rephrase this "Rape/Theft/Murder/Literally Anything is so widespread and pervasive we dont even have the resources to effectively fight it" isnt really an argument against taking drastic action, its an argument FOR it. Likewise "the only way we can stop this pressing problem you care deeply about is racist" isnt an argument against being racist.

Your post DOES come close to touching on a solution that I personally support, that would be almost universally supported except by Ayn Rand fucks and which Clinton even briefly dabbled with to try and win anti-illegal immigration votes from Trump far far too late in her campaign. Go after the people that hire them. Make the penalties so steep that no one will risk it. Make an example of a big company.

This will sadly, NEVER happen because we live in an Employer-ocracy. Whatever anti-immigration policies Trump pursues Im guessing will just be War on Drugs 2.0. One big giant federal spending boondoggle that will create and monopolize a new blackmarket in one fell swoop.

Point 2: The Affordable Care Act is a disaster.

This is a bit harder to parse, both given our assumptions about the Trump Voter, and also because many liberals also oppose it, for many of the same reasons stated.  However, the point in the OP only touches the surface: If the goal of the ACA is to make sure people get better healthcare in the system as it exists (insurance companies), then either the ACA must work within the scope of the system (involve for-profit insurance companies), the ACA must break the system (single payer), or the goal should be abandoned (leave millions of Americans without health care).

The GOP and the insurance companies absolutely refused to get on board with single payer, and the DNC refused to abandon the goal.  So, how would a plan to build the ACA work inside the system?  Since the insurance company would be the one to pay the bulk of the bills (after co-pays), the only way to insure the sick affordably is to have people who aren't sick to be paying premiums as well.  This is how it normally works, and for small populations (i.e. the ones previously with healthcare insurance), there is a balance of sick and healthy people, leaving the companies with a profit.  The very healthy and the very sick were outside the system, as the very healthy didn't need it, and the very sick were rejected and/or couldn't afford the insurance.

But if the goal is for everyone to have health insurance, then everyone must have health insurance, whether they want to or not.  It must be a mandate.  The ACA didn't do it because they wanted it that way, they did it because it had to be that way.

Now, given our assumptions of the Trump voter, and going through the same analysis, they must accept that this is the way the ACA has to work within the for-profit insurance system.  To then object to the ACA means the Trump voter either wants single payer, or they want very sick people not to have access to healthcare.

Since the Trump voter obviously voted for Trump with full knowledge of his proposed health plan, we can look to that to see what the answer is.  Trump's plan allows insurance companies to deny coverage based upon the health of the applicant.  Therefore, the Trump voter wants very sick people not to have access to healthcare.

Now, as it turns out, black and hispanics had a very low rate of being insured prior to the ACA, and they also had higher rates of illness.  Given our assumptions of the Trump voter, this means that the Trump voter's choice will disproportionately affect minorities.  Which may not be racist in itself, but it really, really looks racist.

"The GOP and Insurance Companies" Do you remember when we had a Democratic President AND a Democratic majority in congress? The GOP and Insurance Companies should have gotten blown out of the god damn water. Also you have successfully outlined why the ACA to work had to have mandatory health care, but you fail to explain why this is a good thing. Of course more blacks and hispanics are now insured under the ACA, so are whites. Thats what happens when you make it illegal to not be insured. Theyre also all paying premiums that have been going up since it was implemented and continue to skyrocket.

Again, do you honestly believe the 51% of Americans who want Obamacare repealed simply cant stand to see black people get medicine?

Point 3: Syrian refugees are coming to this country to exact revenge.

This one is surprisingly difficult to answer.  Not because I agree with the OP, but given the assumptions about the Trump voter, it's hard to come to the same conclusion.  The Trump voter as described will have read articles about who these refugees are, have a basic understanding of the conflict in Syria, understand the long and arduous vetting process already in place, and understand that the refugees we have already accepted under the program have a lower crime rate than American-born citizens.  They may even have an understanding of the concept of "acceptable risk". 

The only way I can get to the same conclusion as the point is trying to make is by assuming the Trump voter's tolerance of risk is so low as to be approaching zero; which if true, almost certainly is the only risk they have at such a low level (if you're more likely to die in a car crash than by a Syrian refugee terror attack, your risk tolerance for driving a car must be substantially higher).

A risk tolerance that singular, and that low, will naturally present itself as making a universal judgement about Syrians, refugees, and Muslims.  Again, even if that conclusion is not necessarily racist, it sure looks it.

Have YOU read articles about who these refugees are? Can you honestly look at the Migrant crisis and in Germany and say you want that here? Even Merkel regrets it. And Yes, I am making a near universal judgement about Syrians. They probably hate the people who are murdering their families en mass to get some stupid pipeline built. In most cases Id assume this would not need proving, but if you want proof, look at whats happening in Europe. Even SWEDEN, is trying to backtrack on this now. If you really feel bad for them how about you push to stop the wars that are creating the refugees in the first place. It is absolutely insane to vote for someone who by their own admission was "going to kill a lot of Syrians" and then lecture people for voting for someone because he doesnt want to import them here.

So, I've shown that the Trump voter can claim not to be racist, while simultaneously exhibiting racist behavior, given the assumptions about who this voter is.  What if we change those assumptions?

If the Trump voter is below average intelligence, then their arguments are subject to faulty reasoning, and can be show to be wrong.

If the Trump voter is a racist, then all arguments are an a priori fallacy.

But youre still not getting it. Youre arguing over if these people are racists or not, or if the policies they support are racist or not, none of that is ever going to convince them away from these policies. If you want to actually WIN the next time around you need to address these things. The rising premiums, the flood of illegals, migrant violence. You cant just handwave these problems away as racist and then expect people to stop being worried about them. You have to provide an attractive alternative.

[LMNO]

1.  There is no viable alternative offered.  You even admit your proposed solution would not be implemented.

2.  You treat all Democrats as being progressives.  This is not true.  You also are asking why sick people being able to afford health care is a good thing.  That question is... morally dubious.

3.  Germany is not equivalent to the US.  The analogy does not hold.  You also are admitting to racism ("Yes, I am making a near universal judgement about Syrians").


In short, 2/3 of your responses are admitted, not perceived stances that many progressives and Democrats would, and do, abhor.  And you are asking why they would call you racist and amoral?

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

1.  There is no viable alternative offered.  You even admit your proposed solution would not be implemented.

Yeah but it could be part of a 2020 platform. And bear in mind Trumps solution is better than the current democrat position of "there is no solution."

2.  You treat all Democrats as being progressives.  This is not true.  You also are asking why sick people being able to afford health care is a good thing.  That question is... morally dubious.

And youre acting like its ACA or nothing. Trump is proposing a system of forcibly negotiating lower drug prices(which are price gouged to hell), making premiums tax deductible, greater price transparency and increasing the supply of generics. All things which will actually make healthcare affordable, rather than putting a gun to peoples heads and forcing them to buy increasingly more expensive care. Which has decreased the number of uninsured Americans but also driven into poverty because of it. Again, when you cannot afford something forcing you to buy it, is not a solution. And "well we WANTED a single payer system but our own party turned against us and forced us to force this mess on you" does not make me want to put a Democrat near healthcare for the next hundred years.

3.  Germany is not equivalent to the US.  The analogy does not hold.  You also are admitting to racism ("Yes, I am making a near universal judgement about Syrians").

Ok, you are correct. Germany is in fact, an entirely different country on an entirely different landmass and ocean away than the US. They are in fact different countries. I concede this point. I dont see what makes it so different that a policy that is catastrophically failing in both it and every European nation its been implemented in would somehow magically turn out alright in America though. And yes, if making the assumption that people who you are currently fighting a war that openly targets civilians hate you is racist, I am guilty as charged.

In short, 2/3 of your responses are admitted, not perceived stances that many progressives and Democrats would, and do, abhor.  And you are asking why they would call you racist and amoral?

I dont ask why. Im not offended at "reverse-racism" or whatever. Im asking you, why should people you openly abhor vote for you? Do you just concede that these people run everything now and go home? Are you going to overthrow the government? How do you plan on actually changing peoples minds?

[LMNO]

Oh, is that what the OP was?  It read as if you were explaining why calling a Trump voter "racist" was an incorrect description.

Anyway, the post was more me thinking things through than trying to engage you. 

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

Oh, is that what the OP was?  It read as if you were explaining why calling a Trump voter "racist" was an incorrect description.

More like a useless strategy that directly aided his rise to power.

Anyway, the post was more me thinking things through than trying to engage you.

Oh so you were just pretending to be retarded.

[LMNO]

Keep fucking that chicken, pal.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

Keep fucking that chicken, pal.

Keep being too SMART^tm to just admit you wrote a gazillion words based on a misreading. "Yeah I just prematurely ejaculated but this was more me masturbating that actually trying to have sex with you anyways."

[LMNO]

Keep fucking that chicken, pal.

Keep being too SMART^tm to just admit you wrote a gazillion words based on a misreading. "Yeah I just prematurely ejaculated but this was more me masturbating that actually trying to have sex with you anyways."

Keep fucking that chicken, pal.

[The Wizard Joseph]

1.  There is no viable alternative offered.  You even admit your proposed solution would not be implemented.

2.  You treat all Democrats as being progressives.  This is not true.  You also are asking why sick people being able to afford health care is a good thing.  That question is... morally dubious.

3.  Germany is not equivalent to the US.  The analogy does not hold.  You also are admitting to racism ("Yes, I am making a near universal judgement about Syrians").


In short, 2/3 of your responses are admitted, not perceived stances that many progressives and Democrats would, and do, abhor.  And you are asking why they would call you racist and amoral?

He's not here to reason. Remember not to play checkers with pidgeons. Win or lose they simply strut around and shit on the board. This one also happens to be QUITE the little pecker as well.

Put simply he's a more polite version of Brother Nihil, in that he doesn't outright use slurs, but polite shit is still shit. He's probably nowhere near so evasive with his REAL friends getting their "Kuk"fix over on 4chan.

[xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed)]

1.  There is no viable alternative offered.  You even admit your proposed solution would not be implemented.

2.  You treat all Democrats as being progressives.  This is not true.  You also are asking why sick people being able to afford health care is a good thing.  That question is... morally dubious.

3.  Germany is not equivalent to the US.  The analogy does not hold.  You also are admitting to racism ("Yes, I am making a near universal judgement about Syrians").


In short, 2/3 of your responses are admitted, not perceived stances that many progressives and Democrats would, and do, abhor.  And you are asking why they would call you racist and amoral?

He's not here to reason. Remember not to play checkers with pidgeons. Win or lose they simply strut around and shit on the board. This one also happens to be QUITE the little pecker as well.

But you see I didnt lose, I just won. Youre the ones who lost. I dont think you understand how the election works.

Put simply he's a more polite version of Brother Nihil, in that he doesn't outright use slurs, but polite shit is still shit. He's probably nowhere near so evasive with his REAL friends getting their "Kuk"fix over on 4chan.

My views with my Alt-Right friends are roughly the same as they are here but with more memes. I dont know what you think Im being evasive about since Ive outright said I was a fascist. If you want me to clarify something about my beliefs Im more than willing.

[Faust]

The Germany example isn't a very good one. I can't stand Merkel but to the Germans credit, despite saying they should have regulated the flow of refugees into Europe,  Germany increased the amount of people it was taking in. Even in the wake of several terrorist attacks, they accept that people are dying trying to escape their country and need help, it is the worst humanitarian disaster facing the world at the moment.

This year 4000 people have drowned trying to cross the Med sea. 10k have drowned since 2012. Of the millions of displaced people, only a handful have been involved in any attacks.

I can understand why America wouldn't want to take them in, what with bombing civilians from said country, (And accidentally bombing the Kurds based on false information from the Turks), a strict filtering process on people from Syria would be necessary, that still leaves 2B Muslims from Malaysia, India Sri Lanka who should have freedom of movement like any other nation or race. So fine, let America neglect a humanitarian crises, the best we can really ask right now is to stop the bombings and making things worse.
But that doesn't mean no country should be aiding Syrian people trying to escape murder from ISIS or their own government. Neglect them, marginalise them, make them feel like the world has abandoned them and we WILL create terrorists.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Also the immigration taking jobs thing is only relevant in the short term anyway because in a few years they're all gonna be replaced with robots anyway

[Vanadium Gryllz]

I think RP's point could be rephrased as:

Whether you think Trump's policies are racist or not, and whether you think his supporters are, by association, all massive racists... Trump's still won the election and is gonna be President.

So from here you can either dig in and hold onto your position of 'racists and terrible people did this' or you can at least try and understand why.

I think that recently ( and I mean further back than this election... maybe around 2010) 'racist' has been increasingly used to shut down discussion. What we are seeing here is that people who have been on the receiving end of being called racist - are no longer dissuaded from thinking whatever thoughts have been branded as such by the other side (in this case, democrats/liberals/whatever).

So are all of these people racist for supporting a man who says racist things and will implement policies that are likely to negatively affect people of non-white pigmentation? Maybe some are. But I think it's uncharitable and definitely unproductive to brand them all as racist.

These people are people who have seen the system of the past 8 years fail to improve their lives in appreciable ways. And humans are short-sighted creatures at the end of the day. When there's not enough keeping you satisfied in your own life then your levels of compassion for 'others' is going to drop right? So maybe these people are disenfranchised and yes, perhaps not basing their actions on what is best for 'humanity', the nebulous ideal that that holds. But instead they are basing their decisions on what will be immediately best for them and theirs.

While you may disagree with their decision I think it's futile and somewhat shameful to carry on dismissing what's going on.