Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Another Day, Another Study Showing Trump Fans Are Racist…" video.

  1. The West Winger, the problem is that this study is poorly done and is bias from the beginning. I wrote a short analysis on it to where I feel this should not get published at all. However, looking at the journal I see no impact factor meaning it is about as low as you can go in academic publications.
    3
  2. Tonko Kesier, the study is biased and flawed. TYT is reporting on it because it fits their narrative of Trump and his supporters are racist when they aren't. They have no legit argument against Trump and his supporters so they just call them racists.
    3
  3. MomoTheBellyDancer, it is flawed. Here is my short analysis on it. I took the time to read the study. At the start they display their bias with this "Trump’s lack of support among people of color and his popularity among white subgroups with less tolerant attitudes (such as whites without college degrees)" Just because you do not have a college degree does not mean you have a "less tolerant attitude". They make that claim but do not link any psychological or sociological study to it. "Moreover, Trump’s call for law and order in the context of discussing urban unrest" How is this race related? Urban is not a race. "While previous work has shown that racial attitudes predict support for Donald Trump" Again, none listed. As someone who writes peer reviewed work in academics this is a perfect time to list such work. "Given the unusually racialized nature of Trump’s campaign" How was his campaign racialized? "Given his clear racial and ethno-nationalist appeals—for example, about President Obama’s country of origin, his support for a Muslim ban, the state of the African American community, and negative comments about Mexicans" I agree, Trump pushing the birther idea was asinine, but not racist. There wasn't a Muslim ban. The "state of the African American community" is nothing on him. And his "negative comments about Mexicans" were towards illegal immigrants. The fact they used only 764 people makes for a small sample size. They failed to include the ages, income level, education attainment (even though they mentioned it as a variable in the introduction), geographical location, etc. of the people sampled. This is coming from mainly the first half of the "study". I find this to be bias and poorly done.
    2
  4. Listenbuddy1, it is a flawed study. Why were they not citing any of their claims? That is incredibly careless. However, the journal they are publishing in has not impact factor making it about as low as you can go.
    2
  5. I took the time to read the study. At the start they display their bias with this "Trump’s lack of support among people of color and his popularity among white subgroups with less tolerant attitudes (such as whites without college degrees)" Just because you do not have a college degree does not mean you have a "less tolerant attitude". They make that claim but do not link any psychological or sociological study to it. "Moreover, Trump’s call for law and order in the context of discussing urban unrest" How is this race related? Urban is not a race. "While previous work has shown that racial attitudes predict support for Donald Trump" Again, none listed. As someone who writes peer reviewed work in academics this is a perfect time to list such work. "Given the unusually racialized nature of Trump’s campaign" How was his campaign racialized? "Given his clear racial and ethno-nationalist appeals—for example, about President Obama’s country of origin, his support for a Muslim ban, the state of the African American community, and negative comments about Mexicans" I agree, Trump pushing the birther idea was asinine, but not racist. There wasn't a Muslim ban. The "state of the African American community" is nothing on him. And his "negative comments about Mexicans" were towards illegal immigrants. The fact they used only 764 people makes for a small sample size. They failed to include the ages, income level, education attainment (even though they mentioned it as a variable in the introduction), geographical location, etc. of the people sampled. This is coming from mainly the first half of the "study". I find this to be bias and poorly done.
    2
  6. ZoommaiR, it is a flawed study. Here is a short analysis I wrote on it. I took the time to read the study. At the start they display their bias with this "Trump’s lack of support among people of color and his popularity among white subgroups with less tolerant attitudes (such as whites without college degrees)" Just because you do not have a college degree does not mean you have a "less tolerant attitude". They make that claim but do not link any psychological or sociological study to it. "Moreover, Trump’s call for law and order in the context of discussing urban unrest" How is this race related? Urban is not a race. "While previous work has shown that racial attitudes predict support for Donald Trump" Again, none listed. As someone who writes peer reviewed work in academics this is a perfect time to list such work. "Given the unusually racialized nature of Trump’s campaign" How was his campaign racialized? "Given his clear racial and ethno-nationalist appeals—for example, about President Obama’s country of origin, his support for a Muslim ban, the state of the African American community, and negative comments about Mexicans" I agree, Trump pushing the birther idea was asinine, but not racist. There wasn't a Muslim ban. The "state of the African American community" is nothing on him. And his "negative comments about Mexicans" were towards illegal immigrants. The fact they used only 764 people makes for a small sample size. They failed to include the ages, income level, education attainment (even though they mentioned it as a variable in the introduction), geographical location, etc. of the people sampled. This is coming from mainly the first half of the "study". I find this to be bias and poorly done.
    1
  7. I am surprised three doctorates can write such crap. Read the people, it is bias and poorly done.
    1
  8. Ste H, Antifa pulled down a confederate statue recently. Even TYT reported on it.
    1