I agree with @charlie15. It is not that they are clueless, it is that they are okay with it because, fundamentally, they really do want to return to the 1950s when things like racism, police brutality, abortion, and sexism/misogyny were not discussed as they were deemed not all that important.
I'm not sure of your context, but in general there are three sets of standards: 1 - Regular classroom students, which is state 2 - Advanced Placement (AP) which is national, but meets all state standards 3 - International Baccalaureate (IB) which is international, but meets all state standards But when it comes to funding, the federal government can have a say in standards. They put out Common Core, which all states need to meet to get any federal money. And the Obama Admin put out a program to encourage focus on standardized testing by providing money to states which develop a program. (I really hate the latter, as standardized testing is a false metric.)
I think good education prevents alot of bigotry, not all of it but more than enough to see it dwindle to levels far below we see now. But that's just my believe, not a fact.
I've got a 360 degrees high resolution picture of the 2016 repulsive party convention. And an AI program to remove all pink people from the image. Kcing
Anyway, https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr...ople-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ The numbers tell another story than what's being suggested here in the thread. Those 65 million voters in 2016 by no means are all WS.
No.Trump Org functions outside the RNC and has now co-opted it.The RNC could put some black members in the 2016 convention. Of course,any random Herman Cain or Candace Owens gets stuck front and center in any Trump rally.
From your second article “However, although Trump fared little better among blacks and Hispanics than Romney did four years ago, Hillary Clinton did not run as strongly among these core Democratic groups as Obama did in 2012. Clinton held an 80-point advantage among blacks (88% to 8%) compared with Obama’s 87-point edge four years ago (93% to 6%). In 2008, Obama had a 91-point advantage among blacks.” Clinton held an 80 point advantage among blacks. Is this a translation issue?
The point I doubted was that the Trvmp voters are all WS. The articles indicate a substantial part of those voters arenot white (not all of them are WS too I guess) and then we're not talking about couple of hundreds of non whites.
Semantics. The vast majority of Trump’s support is white. I don’t think anyone said not one single black person supports Trump.
That would be a mighty dumb thing to say, wouldn't it? He has some black supporters (a few of whom aren't even making money off their support) as well as Latino, Asian, and Indian Americans. None of those groups are monolithic.
I know you don't really like Aristotle, and I am straight up too lazy right now to hunt down a cool reference to like the Politics or Nicomachean Ethics, but... His idea of "hos epi to polu" relations and how ethical and political rules can both be demonstrable yet not universal nor merely chance has had this shit covered for millennia. It's not so much that the exception proves the rule, but that the exception doesn't disprove the rule. Blah blah etc etc. Qualified universals and dispositional particularism is the funny name I give it.