• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Measure of Xenophobia

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Here is a breakdown of the claims of this more in-depth study of the Trump voter from...

The Five Types of Trump Voters | Democracy Fund Voter Study Group

Based on this information and on a scoring system where being pro-immigration restrictions is considered at half (50%) scoring in the event that these people think that anything having to do with actual national security is involved in these policies (and I think I am being highly generous here), I calculate:

Staunch Conservatives 31% + American Preservationists 20% + Anti-Elites 12% * 50% + The Disengaged 5% * 50% =

60%
of Trump supporters have strong to moderate xenophobic attitudes towards non-white, non-Christians.

Staunch Conservatives (31%)
While not as hardline on immigration as the American Preservationists, they are deeply skeptical of it—both legal and illegal—and worry particularly about Muslim immigration. They feel that having lived in the U.S. for most of one’s life and being Christian are very or fairly important components of being a real American. Although their attitudes toward racial minorities are similar to the attitudes of non-Trump voter groups, they are more worried that discrimination against whites is a major problem.

Free Marketeers (25%)
They are more cosmopolitan, the most likely group to know LGBT people...

American Preservationists (20%)
American Preservationists appear more likely to desire being around people like themselves, who have similar backgrounds and cultural experiences. They are far more likely to have a strong sense of their own racial identity and to say their Christian identity is very important to them. They take the most restrictionist approach to immigration— staunchly opposing not just illegal but legal immigration as well, and intensely supporting a temporary Muslim travel ban. They feel the greatest amount of angst over race relations: they believe that anti-white discrimination is as pervasive as other forms of discrimination, and they have cooler feelings (as measured on a feeling thermometer scale) toward minorities.(2) They agree in overwhelming numbers that real Americans need to have been born in America or have lived here most of their lives and be Christian.

Anti-Elites (12%)
Compared to the American Preservationists, they take more moderate positions on immigration, race, American identity, religious traditionalism including gay marriage, and the environment. Why are they not Democrats? Perhaps because they take less liberal positions on legal immigration and the temporary Muslim travel ban.

The Disengaged (5%)
The Disengaged do not reveal many strong preferences on surveys, but what they do reveal is they are concerned about immigration and support the temporary Muslim travel ban.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Here is a breakdown of the claims of this more in-depth study of the Trump voter from...

The Five Types of Trump Voters | Democracy Fund Voter Study Group

Based on this information and on a scoring system where being pro-immigration restrictions is considered at half (50%) scoring in the event that these people think that anything having to do with actual national security is involved in these policies (and I think I am being highly generous here), I calculate:

Staunch Conservatives 31% + American Preservationists 20% + Anti-Elites 12% * 50% + The Disengaged 5% * 50% =

60%
of Trump supporters have strong to moderate xenophobic attitudes towards non-white, non-Christians.

Staunch Conservatives (31%)
While not as hardline on immigration as the American Preservationists, they are deeply skeptical of it—both legal and illegal—and worry particularly about Muslim immigration. They feel that having lived in the U.S. for most of one’s life and being Christian are very or fairly important components of being a real American. Although their attitudes toward racial minorities are similar to the attitudes of non-Trump voter groups, they are more worried that discrimination against whites is a major problem.

Free Marketeers (25%)
They are more cosmopolitan, the most likely group to know LGBT people...

American Preservationists (20%)
American Preservationists appear more likely to desire being around people like themselves, who have similar backgrounds and cultural experiences. They are far more likely to have a strong sense of their own racial identity and to say their Christian identity is very important to them. They take the most restrictionist approach to immigration— staunchly opposing not just illegal but legal immigration as well, and intensely supporting a temporary Muslim travel ban. They feel the greatest amount of angst over race relations: they believe that anti-white discrimination is as pervasive as other forms of discrimination, and they have cooler feelings (as measured on a feeling thermometer scale) toward minorities.(2) They agree in overwhelming numbers that real Americans need to have been born in America or have lived here most of their lives and be Christian.

Anti-Elites (12%)
Compared to the American Preservationists, they take more moderate positions on immigration, race, American identity, religious traditionalism including gay marriage, and the environment. Why are they not Democrats? Perhaps because they take less liberal positions on legal immigration and the temporary Muslim travel ban.

The Disengaged (5%)
The Disengaged do not reveal many strong preferences on surveys, but what they do reveal is they are concerned about immigration and support the temporary Muslim travel ban.
Yeah, that little study is well over a year old. (June of 2017) As of September of 2018 I'm betting they all funnel into one category: The fearful, ignorant, brain dead.

.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Yeah, that little study is well over a year old. (June of 2017) As of September of 2018 I'm betting they all funnel into one category: The fearful, ignorant, brain dead.

Well, I do think that if the Democrats got a "bad egg" of a president they would feel mighty compelled to keep up pretenses (aka President Clinton). But Clinton was at least qualified as a leader and aside from his personal behavior could reflect diverse American values and call to mind actual facts about history.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Here is a breakdown of the claims of this more in-depth study of the Trump voter from...

The Five Types of Trump Voters | Democracy Fund Voter Study Group

Based on this information and on a scoring system where being pro-immigration restrictions is considered at half (50%) scoring in the event that these people think that anything having to do with actual national security is involved in these policies (and I think I am being highly generous here), I calculate:

Staunch Conservatives 31% + American Preservationists 20% + Anti-Elites 12% * 50% + The Disengaged 5% * 50% =

60%
of Trump supporters have strong to moderate xenophobic attitudes towards non-white, non-Christians.

Staunch Conservatives (31%)
While not as hardline on immigration as the American Preservationists, they are deeply skeptical of it—both legal and illegal—and worry particularly about Muslim immigration. They feel that having lived in the U.S. for most of one’s life and being Christian are very or fairly important components of being a real American. Although their attitudes toward racial minorities are similar to the attitudes of non-Trump voter groups, they are more worried that discrimination against whites is a major problem.

Free Marketeers (25%)
They are more cosmopolitan, the most likely group to know LGBT people...

American Preservationists (20%)
American Preservationists appear more likely to desire being around people like themselves, who have similar backgrounds and cultural experiences. They are far more likely to have a strong sense of their own racial identity and to say their Christian identity is very important to them. They take the most restrictionist approach to immigration— staunchly opposing not just illegal but legal immigration as well, and intensely supporting a temporary Muslim travel ban. They feel the greatest amount of angst over race relations: they believe that anti-white discrimination is as pervasive as other forms of discrimination, and they have cooler feelings (as measured on a feeling thermometer scale) toward minorities.(2) They agree in overwhelming numbers that real Americans need to have been born in America or have lived here most of their lives and be Christian.

Anti-Elites (12%)
Compared to the American Preservationists, they take more moderate positions on immigration, race, American identity, religious traditionalism including gay marriage, and the environment. Why are they not Democrats? Perhaps because they take less liberal positions on legal immigration and the temporary Muslim travel ban.

The Disengaged (5%)
The Disengaged do not reveal many strong preferences on surveys, but what they do reveal is they are concerned about immigration and support the temporary Muslim travel ban.
Definitely racist. They don't realize what they say is racist though. It's normal to them. Very paranoid, fearful and low income.

In my area Trump voters are easy to spot. Usually a beat up truck pulling a landscaping trailer competing with the experts in the area.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It sounds like Canada has a better healthcare system and they are tired of Americans wanting to move to their country so that they can escape the injustice of covereage discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. Maybe our country should fix that...again.
I was wondering about emulating their immigration policy.
Health care reform here would be for another thread.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
I hope you understand that our country does not have enough resources to support the population increases that would occur due to unrestricted immigration. Not all who oppose immigration are "xenophobic."
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yeah, that little study is well over a year old. (June of 2017) As of September of 2018 I'm betting they all funnel into one category: The fearful, ignorant, brain dead.

.

Jimmies have been rustled....

Praise KEK!

Of course, insulting those that disagree with you is always the way to make them see your way. (NOT) Maybe the fault lies with the liberal lunatic media, not the pro-Trump people since they fail to provide compelling arguments? Not everyone is riding an emotional roller coaster and motivated by constant outrage and whining. You mad, bro? Me too, that we ever had to have this conversation, and that the population has been hoodwinked to the point where we forget we're all people and someone has to be an enemy. Those whom are vested in making the divisions are the real enemy, not the Trump supporters.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Definitely racist. They don't realize what they say is racist though. It's normal to them. Very paranoid, fearful and low income.

Repeat after me: "Everyone I don't understand is a racist!"

Yeah, that argument is weak, unproven, and old. Just pandering to your own confirmation bias here, hope you are having fun. False equivalence, etc. Being a Trump supporter doesn't mean you're a racist.

In my area Trump voters are easy to spot. Usually a beat up truck pulling a landscaping trailer competing with the experts in the area.

Or they could just be a bunch of Democratic rednecks... Hmm...
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
["Mindmaster, ]Jimmies have been rustled....

Praise KEK!

Of course, insulting those that disagree with you is always the way to make them see your way. (NOT) And I've been here long enough to know that no hardly anyone ever changes their mind. Maybe the fault lies with the liberal lunatic media, not the pro-Trump people since they fail to provide compelling arguments? Well, the pro-Trump people never did have decent arguments, so none is expected. Not everyone is riding an emotional roller coaster and motivated by constant outrage and whining. You mad, bro? Nope. Getting mad on RF is silly. Me too, that we ever had to have this conversation, and that the population has been hoodwinked to the point where we forget we're all people and someone has to be an enemy. Those whom are vested in making the divisions are the real enemy, not the Trump supporters. As if Trump supporters aren't divisive. :rolleyes:
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
As if Trump supporters aren't divisive. :rolleyes:

This is certainly hyperbole, most are just middle American working Joe's. However, they are not the types to take assaults without retaliation. (Generally, non-beta.) If you know that and provoke them then you're at fault really. Can't make a point when you've already become the *******, so to speak.

Also, Trump supporters are not really aligned with the Republican party, just him. Trying to shoe-horn them into a staunch conservative suit is simply disingenuous. Most are really middle-of-the-road and probably voted for Obama before Trump. So, after one election all these guys are evil even though they backed your man. The hypocrisy is just comedy at this point. If you don't like Trump have at it, but realize who the voters are who backed him and stop selling out the folks that largely agree with you anyway.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Ignorant people tend to follow the crowd.
Opioniated ignoramuses tend to lead the crowd.

Lynching were done by the upright citizens, back in the day.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I was wondering about emulating their immigration policy.
Health care reform here would be for another thread.

So what you linked to was about a family with one or more members having autism and they rejected their entry because of the net cost to the country.

In a story like that I would be interested to know if that is stated policy or if it was a less formal government mandate or even a specific government employees decision and what was guiding and motivating that. I would also like to see data that demonstrates changes over time in government health care costs and funding as a measure of immigration of individuals with healthcare needs.

In a system all the parts work together for an outcome. If we measure only one instance or even one systemic pattern over time (people coming to Canada to get subsidized healthcare (if that is a thing)), then we likely miss out on greater impacts.

I've seen the case made that even illegal immigrants who come to the U.S. to work pay a substantial amount of taxes and that this could offset the healthcare costs they cause. If this is true, this counters the argument against immigration due to cost. And of course what is the cost of finding all these people and escorting them out of the country? In this case a cost-benefit analysis would be interesting with real data and not only focusing on the moral value of the individual policy of decision.

Now there are other pieces as well and we do not want an unsecured border where criminal elements can come and go at will. So there needs to be a filtering of immigrants.

We also want our neighbors to have a good economic environment so we must demonstrate fair competition and reward them for the products and services they can provide the U.S. even as they reward us for the same.

There are many considerations and they are complex and require making decisions with the whole context in mind. Part of the wisdom of this is recognizing the money flow...we only have so much. How do we manipulate what is happening effectively and not poor money into simplistic solutions that will be contravened by public effort?
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Repeat after me: "Everyone I don't understand is a racist!"

Yeah, that argument is weak, unproven, and old. Just pandering to your own confirmation bias here, hope you are having fun. False equivalence, etc. Being a Trump supporter doesn't mean you're a racist.
That's such a tired talking point. As a white person myself, I can see the racist tendencies of a good amount of people. You're gonna tell me conservatives aren't racists and 'libruls' are the real racists right? Then you'll point to brown/black people as if they represent any majority in the democratic party.

Or they could just be a bunch of Democratic rednecks... Hmm...
Could be, but the ones I see are definitely not democrats. Lot's of the old confederate flag license plates around here. It's common to see Trump stickers.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So what you linked to was about a family with one or more members having autism and they rejected their entry because of the net cost to the country.
Actually, I linked a Wikipedia article about the whole system.
In a story like that I would be interested to know if that is stated policy or if it was a less formal government mandate or even a specific government employees decision and what was guiding and motivating that. I would also like to see data that demonstrates changes over time in government health care costs and funding as a measure of immigration of individuals with healthcare needs.

In a system all the parts work together for an outcome. If we measure only one instance or even one systemic pattern over time (people coming to Canada to get subsidized healthcare (if that is a thing)), then we likely miss out on greater impacts.

I've seen the case made that even illegal immigrants who come to the U.S. to work pay a substantial amount of taxes and that this could offset the healthcare costs they cause. If this is true, this counters the argument against immigration due to cost. And of course what is the cost of finding all these people and escorting them out of the country? In this case a cost-benefit analysis would be interesting with real data and not only focusing on the moral value of the individual policy of decision.

Now there are other pieces as well and we do not want an unsecured border where criminal elements can come and go at will. So there needs to be a filtering of immigrants.

We also want our neighbors to have a good economic environment so we must demonstrate fair competition and reward them for the products and services they can provide the U.S. even as they reward us for the same.

There are many considerations and they are complex and require making decisions with the whole context in mind. Part of the wisdom of this is recognizing the money flow...we only have so much. How do we manipulate what is happening effectively and not poor money into simplistic solutions that will be contravened by public effort?
What do you think of their system as a whole?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Actually, I linked a Wikipedia article about the whole system.

What do you think of their system as a whole?

Should I read the whole article? If so I will do it. I just read the introductory part on the top...I will keep reading until I get your answer.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Should I read the whole article? If so I will do it. I just read the introductory part on the top...I will keep reading until I get your answer.
I don't want to address a single family.
That would be a distraction.
A problem with public discourse on immigration is that there is
much objection to this or that aspect, but no real discussion of
a systematic approach. Canuckistan has one, & I think it would
be good starting point for considering a new one for Americastan.
 
Top