Wrong again.
According to the data provided, only 16% of Donald Trump supported said - categorically - that they believe that whites are the superior race, with 14% replying as unsure. Although that 14% didn't disagree with the statement, they also didn't agree with it, either. Nevertheless, 69% of Trump supporters stated that they do not believe that the white race is superior, which represents an overwhelming majority of his supporters and the 16% - or the 31% at an absolute push - still only accounts for a minority of his overall campaign. The reason the ill-sides of the Trump campaign cannot be compared to Islam is because Trump's far-right supporter base only account for a minority of his overall movement, whereas radical Islamic thought is pertinent among a majority of Muslims as outlined in my earlier post(s).
Even so, the question itself is rather bizarre from an intellectual disposition. There has been numerous studies differentiating the structural and intellectual composition of different human species, with there being an inverse correlation between intellectual excellence and physical capability. Black Africans, for instance, often dominate in sport - namely running - because their structural composition, as a result of evolution, has meant that they are naturally much more physically capable than other groups like Caucasians and Mongoloids. Mongoloids, however, often dominate when it comes to intellectual excellence. If you look at the academic attainment of far-East Asians in comparison to that of other ethnic/ race groups you will find a common theme. According to a report conducted in 2006 by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the data showed that among five year old children (in the US), Asians perform much better than their white, Hispanic and black counterparts.
If the question was are blacks a superior race, physically - I'd answer yes.
If the question was are far-East Asians a superior race, intellectually - I'd answer yes.
The point I'm making is you cannot the 14% replying as "unsure" - or even the 16% replying as "yes" - as outright racists when you don't have cogent evidence on the matter.
Not every newspaper has a political bias: Reuters and the BBC being notable examples. If you use a source which has a longstanding bias favouring one side of the political spectrum, it's your responsibility to provide conclusive evidence from a non-partisan perspective. Although the Times did provide a link to the YouGov survey, the results didn't confirm (nor deny) the Times' remarks and therefore they remain unverifiable as no other news outlet was able to confirm them, either.
No, it doesn't. I don't know what they're teaching you at law school, but using unfounded assumptions which you cannot support with cogent and critical analysis does not justify your making skewed remarks. To some, the Civil War was never about the freeing of slaves. It was about states' rights - and even those campaigning to end slavery weren't doing so because they were against the oppression of blacks - Abraham Lincoln being a notable example:
βI will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black racesβ
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4According to the same data you provided: 22% of Clinton supporters believe that blacks are less intelligent; 32% of Clinton supporters believe that blacks are more prone to criminality; and 25% of Clinton supporters believe that blacks are more lazy.
(I will answer this in more detail further down).
Bigotry is synonymous for intolerant. Donald Trump is not intolerant of Muslims. Just because he's championing a policy which would prevent Muslims from entering the country, this doesn't mean he is intolerant of Muslims and nor does it mean that he believes all Muslims are terrorists.
To use an example of Muhammad Ali, in an interview he did back in the 70s, he said in favour of black separatism because he couldn't trust "white people". Of course, he went on to say not all white people are bad - and this was in a time of unrivaled racial violence - but he made an excellent analogy: if there were ten people, and nine of them wished you no harm, but one of them did, would you invite all ten of them in knowing that one of them wishes you harm?
Muhammad Ali made those comments at a time where racism and violence against the black community - by a notable minority of whites - was existent and present. Donald Trump is making the same sort of comments at a time where terrorism and violence - by a notable of minority of Muslims - is also existent and present.
Alright, so let's interrogate the percentage table you provided where I now know you were getting these statistics from. The first problem I can see the data is referring to each group as "whites" and "blacks". It's exceptionally broad. Does it mean all whites/ blacks? Or some whites/ blacks? Personally, I would imply the questions asked as "generally", so I will address each of the questions as such.
Are blacks - generally speaking - less intelligent than whites?My answer: yes.
However, this is absolutely not because blacks are genetically less intelligent, but instead because of high single-parenthood rates, poverty and low income. Nevertheless, according to data released by the Department for Education, blacks are the lowest performing group in the United States achieving only 2.47 in their GPA as oppose to whites which achieve 2.88.
Are blacks - generally speaking - more lazy than whites.My answer: don't know.
Albeit there was a report showing that blacks, on average, produce less reports and receive less citations for academic work than their white and Asian counterparts, I didn't find any evidence to prove blacks were "more lazy" (or less productive) than whites for the same work.
Are blacks - generally speaking - more rude than whites?My answer: don't know.
Unable to find any data on the matter.
Are blacks - generally speaking - more violent than whites?My answer: yes.
However, this is absolutely not because blacks are genetically more violent, but instead because of high single-motherhood rates and high high-school dropout rates. According to the FBI, in 2014, blacks commit nearly 38% of all violent crime as oppose to whites who commit 59.4% of it. Proportionally, blacks - generally speaking - are more prone to violent crime.
Are blacks - generally speaking - more criminal than whites?My answer: yes.
However, this is absolutely not because blacks are genetically more criminal, but instead because of high single-motherhood rates and high high-school dropout rates. According to the FBI, in 2014, blacks account for nearly 28% of all crime as oppose to whites who commit 69.4% of it. Proportionally, blacks - generally speaking - are more prone to crime.
ConclusionAlthough there's no evidence to suggest that blacks are more lazy or more rude than white people, there is systemic evidence to show that blacks - generally speaking - are more prone to violence, criminality and perform more poorly against their white, Hispanic and Asian peers. Of course, this is absolutely not because of genetics, but rather because of the socioeconomic conditions that blacks in the US are more frequent to. Indeed, there is no evidence that any disparity exists when these factors have been righted.
Nevertheless, generally speaking, it is not racist nor untrue to make honest generalisations when there's cogent evidence to support such a conclusion. This is where political correctness is the problem. No, not all blacks are violent or criminal or less intelligent - but generally speaking, at present they are.