Ten oz

Left leaning vs right leaning on science forum is a curious difference. Political parties have a handful of core ideas that at the foundation of their advocated philosophies. Here in the U.S. right leaning political advocates are the more anti science leaning. While pointing that out may seem like finger wagging or an inflammatory charge it is still accurate to say nonetheless. If we look at the political affiliations of groups which seek to defund public supported nonprofit search, supress climate research, invest in counter evolution education, and so on they are all right leaning. It is just the truth. In my opinion many people identify as left leaning or right leaning as a cultural identity while their actual beliefs are more al la carte. One may consider themselves left leaning do to their policy views towards science ingeneral but they also may be strongly against any form of gun control and as a result take umbrage when the suggestion is made that left leaning policies are pro gun control. Problem there is that left leaning political groups do advocate for gun control. If one votes to elect left leaning politicians on the national level it inevitably benefits gun control efforts. Therein lies the problem some want to be identified politically for what they individual believe and not for the policies they ultimately suppport as a byproduct of their vote. The contradiction creates a lot of argument because while it is true that President Trump is setting Climate Policy back it is not true that every one of his supporters individually deny climate change. That said, whether they like it or not, every one of Trump's supporters are individually aiding and abetting Trump's assualt of Climate Policy. So we have those who demand individual ideological identification separate from what they ultimately support and those who strictly identify people based of what's ultimately supportered. Personally I feel no man is a political island. Politics is a team sport and it is fair to identify people by the team they are on. For me it would be nonsensical to claim I was Pro Choice but then vote for Pro Life politician after pro life politician. If other variables are so much more important to where I lend my suppors that the pro choice vs pro life issue is time and time agian getting brushed aside than I think it is fair to I am politically indifferent on the issue as either outcome is perfectly acceptable. Who we vote for shows where or priorities are which in turn determines which team we align ourselves with. If one feels insulted when accurately associated with the team they are on than they probably should pick another team rather than cry foul about it.

129 million people vote in the 2016 U.S. election. Seventy percent of voters were white, 90.3 million voters. Trump won 58% of those white voters, 52.4 million votes. Total received a total of 63 million votes. That means 84% of Trumps support came from white voters and other the 39 million minority voters in 2016 only about a quater supported him. Trump won 63% of all white male voters to 53% of white females and males accounted to 52% of all votes to just 48% for women. White Males are the heart and soul of Trump's base. This thread is about Trump and as it zigzag to other things when Trump is creating national firestorms it is worth remembering who his base and supporters overwhelmingly are, white males. With that context in mind the Nazis we saw carrying torches, their leaders like David Duke who were out there saying Trump supports them, and the driver of the car who killing a counter protester are white males. That isn't to say ALL white males are Trump supporters or that ALL whites people are racist. The counter protesters were majority white as well. In context to Trump's supporters and in context to Nazis and KKK groups which openly supprt Trump we are talking about groups who are predominantly white males. Not all whites are racist but nearly all of Trumps supporters are white. Not all whites are racist but all Nazis are white. Not all of Trump's supporters are racist but a shocking number of them are. From the National Bureau of Economic Research: "In response to help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston newspapers, they sent resumes with either African-American- or white-sounding names and then measured the number of callbacks each resume received for interviews." "The results indicate large racial differences in callback rates to a phone line with a voice mailbox attached and a message recorded by someone of the appropriate race and gender. Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback. " " Race, the authors add, also affects the reward to having a better resume. Whites with higher quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower quality resumes. But the positive impact of a better resume for those with Africa-American names was much smaller." http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html " we sent emails to more than 6,500 randomly selected professors from 259 American universities. Each email was from a (fictional) prospective out-of-town student whom the professor did not know, expressing interest in the professor’s Ph.D. program and seeking guidance. These emails were identical and written in impeccable English, varying only in the name of the student sender. The messages came from students with names like Meredith Roberts, Lamar Washington, Juanita Martinez, Raj Singh and Chang Huang, names that earlier research participants consistently perceived as belonging to either a white, black, Hispanic, Indian or Chinese student." "We computed the average response rates for each category of student (e.g., white male, Hispanic female), dividing the number of responses from the professors by the number of emails sent from students in a given race or gender category. Our analyses, which we reported recently in a second paper, revealed that the response rates did indeed depend on students’ race and gender identity. Professors were more responsive to white male students than to female, black, Hispanic, Indian or Chinese students in almost every discipline and across all types of universities." https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/opinion/sunday/professors-are-prejudiced-too.html?mcubz=1 Your personal experience isn't supported by search. The above experiments have been performed numerous times throughout the years and the result are consistant. The 2 studies I linked above show not only an advantage in employment but an advantage in education which is a critical part of getting quality employment. Then there is the fact that amongst those employeed over the age of 25 White males unemployment is just 3% compared to 6% for African Americans overall, 4.5% for Hispanics overall, and 4% for white females. So despite your experience looking for a job white males statistically are doing better than other groups broken down by race or gender.

It is going to be very strange times once Mueller's investigation starts making its recommendations. Pending on what those recommendation are it is possible Trump may fire Sessions and Mueller then claim a vast conspiracy against him. If Congress were to hold heirings on impeachment Trump potentially matter might do who knows what. I don't see Trump going quietly or peacefully. With that point 2018 might be wild. I honestly would not be surprised if on election night Trump declared a state of emergency and ordered armed troops to man polling places to ensure the millions of illegal voters he carries on about won't swing elections.

The Civil War ended in 1865. The Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville was built in 1924. That is nearly 60yrs after the war ended. It is not a relic from the Civil War itself. It isn't a historical piece. The Statue way donated by a wealthy stockbroker. Same guy paid for the Stonewall Jackson sculpture in Charlottesville.

Removing venerations to Civl War Generals isn't whitewhiting historty. It is not usual to build monuments to ones belligerents. Battlefield memorials, museum displays, history books,and etc is how nearly every war is remebered in the U.S..We name schools, highways, parks, and so on after those we mean to pay great respect to in honor of their contribution to the nation. It is nonsensical to bestow that respect on those who committed treason and attempts to end the nation. Most of these Confederate venerations were put up well after the Civil War and in places of no reasonable relation to the Civil War. In Idaho they have a Robert E. Lee Creek in the the Boise National Forest and a Robert E. Lee campground in the capital. Idaho wasn't even a state during the Civil War. Idaho has no relationship to the Confederacy. The peak period of schools being named after confederates and parks being built was during civl rights. These things don't date back to the Civil War itself. This discussion reminds me a bit of past national conversations about the the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. There are always those who argue that the founders we religious and it alters or rewrites history to remove "under god" from the pledge. In reality the pledge was written in 1892 long after all the founders were dead and the "under god" part was added in 1954. The alternative history is including "under god" and not vice versa.

80-90% of African Americans? So much for you questioning what you have said that was racist.

I understand what you are saying but have never had that problem when discussing issues related to race. If you often find yourself being accused of racist thought or apologist arguments which aid to cover racist concept perhaps you should think a bit more about what you are saying and challenge yourself on what you believe as to whether or not it is racist. Seriously, if I often found myself being labeled a chauvinist when discussing women I when commit to some introspection rather than just assume time after time people are wrong.

Enlighten me as to why African Americans, including those who suffered during segregation, are overwhelmingly Democrat today. Should be easy for such a well read person as yourself.

@ waitforufo African American voters voted 89% for Clinton and have consistently voted Democrat , 80's to low 90's percent, since LBJ. Civil rights icons like John Lewis and Jesse Jackson are Democrats. How do you square that reality with your claim that the modern Democratic party are the party of racists and responsible for our countries history of racists?

So what is your point? You think voters who reject racist today should vote against Democrats to punish them for racism in the past? Never mind which party today is sticking up for Nazis and using voter supression tactics in minority communities people need to coalesce behind Nazis and White Nationalist apologizers to final end racism in 2017..... You are misrepresenting the civil rights movement and the impact it had on our 2 party system and electoral process. Doing so displays a general lack of respect for that history and those effected. You may not be posting racial slurs but you are posting things that insult Democrats like John Lewis who endured beatings and arrests during the civil rights movement.

I provided the link to the article, not you. As such I provided the whole kit and caboodle. Stop qouting extremist group blog postings as facts which prove something. They are bias bits of unsubstantiated nonsense. I am not interested in the blog posts of fascists or Nazis. Nazi groups are a global nuisance. They are responsible for violence and murder all over the E.U., Eastern Europe, and the U.S.. They are not your standard political advocacy groups. You're pretending this is a standard Political competition ideas. ISIS, Al Qauda, Hamas, and Nazis are all terrorists group. Politicians left and right speak in a unified vioce against terrorist. No one defends ISIS by pointing out violence on both sides in Syria. No Politician left or right defends Al Qauda. Bothsides unilaterally agree to drone bomb and kill them. So these Nazis are actually getting a very fair shake here. Violence follows these groups throughout Western society and Eastern Europe. It is not unexpected that their "protest" turned violent. DHS has been warning about their violent potential and increasing aggression for some time now.

You noticed I left out? I provided a link for the full list to be viewed. None of those accounts minus the Washington Post account come from media source that are remotely creditable. The list was just a bunch of extremist bloggers. There is plenty of video from the event, people will be charged with crimes, and a person died. We can all see where the violence came from. Referring me to hate group blog posts in an attempt to spread out blame amongst all is ridiculous and beneath what I have grown to expect from members of this forum. I think any seasonable person would reject all those accounts as pure garbage. You are paying these people far more respect than they deserve. You are posting as if they are just some standard Political action group and this is all just a battle of opinions. They are not and this is not. They are a recognized hate group with a noted history of violence who seek the end of Western Society as we know it. They are more akin to ISIS than they are any standard Political advocacy group. "In a Joint Intelligence Bulletin, members of the intelligence community highlighted the growing threat posed by white supremacists and the rise of extremist violence in the United States, months before the violent clashes and subsequent deaths in Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday. The bulletin, dated May 10, 2017 and posted by Foreign Policy on Tuesday, provided what the agencies described as "new insight into the targeting preferences of white supremacist extremists" and the current state of white supremacist-related violence in the country." https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/fbi-dhs-may-report-warned-of-threat-posed-by-white-supremacists/#ampshare=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-dhs-may-report-warned-of-threat-posed-by-white-supremacists/

Here are some examples of what you are calling a "recount the fact that there was violence on both sides" from the article you recommended: “Marcus Cicero,” another far-right blogger at Occidental Dissent: “Now, to begin Saturday’s rally, the League of the South assembled at an area only a few blocks from Lee Park – I myself was one of the shield men. As we advanced down the street toward the park, I immediately noticed a horde of Antifa, BLM terrorists, and other assorted genetic refuse ready and willing to block the street leading up to our destination.” "Matt Parrott of Traditionalist Youth Network, a white supremacist group: “With a full-throated rebel yell, the League broke through the wall of degenerates and TradWorker managed to enter the Lee Park venue itself while they were largely still reeling. Michael Tubbs, an especially imposing League organizer towered over and pushed through the antifa like a Tyrannosaurus among raptors as league fighters with shields put their training to work.” "Jordan Green in the Nation, a leftist publication: “A phalanx of black-helmeted white supremacists — members of the Traditionalist Workers Party, Identity Evropa, American Vanguard, and other hate warriors — commanded the steps at the southeast corner of the park, repelling attempted incursions by Wobblies, communists, and a multiracial cast of irregulars eager to fight back. Water bottles and other projectiles flew in both directions, while police tear-gas canisters thudded into an adjacent parking lot, oftentimes lobbed back into the park by plucky leftists.” "Washington Post reporter Joe Heim: “Counter-protesters fought back, also swinging sticks, punching and spraying chemicals. Others threw balloons filled with paint or ink at the white nationalists. Everywhere, it seemed violence was exploding. The police did not move to break up the fights.” http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-charlottesville-witnesses-20170815-story.html That is evidence of nothing. The White Supremacist and far-rght bloggers!?!? Meaningwhile the Washington Post reporter said counter protesters "fought back". This is not evidence which justifies you using the word "fact". It is actually pitiful and you should be a little embarrassed that you directed me to something that contain such absurdities. Less of course it was is meant gaint wink to the fact you are just joking about? (real question)

There is a percentage of Trump's supporters who have spent the last decade or longer being wrong about a lot. They have lost the debate on climate change, The Bush admin was a failure, GOP under Obama inept, and etc. There is baggage with that. Many of the same people who fiercely insisted we needed to invade Iraq also argued against the auto bail, against the ACA, against DACA, against gays serving openly, Gay Marriage, and etc. They found themselves defending people like George Zimmerman, Johannes Mehserle, and so on. On issue after issue the national view coming down against them. DACA, Gays Marriage, Obama, and etc are popular. Even with growing control over Congress and State Legislature they failed to develop policies which were useful or popular. Then Trump came along and gave they a win. A win most didn't think they wouldn't get. Now suddenly they can go back win all the debates they lost. The can say f#ck the Paris Agreement, bye bye to the ACA, go home dreamers, and etc. They can final win without the burden of being correct about anything. Of course managing a govt isn't about winning and losing. Retribution for past failed policy isn't useful. What makes since one year may not the following year as the world isn't a stagnate place. Political debate should always be based in the present with consideration for what can be learned from the past. Only way to preserve this is to fight. They don't have facts on there side. Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement doesn't change climate science. So they must fight to stay above the wave of information and fact checking of their lies. Many people who never would have considered defending Nazis a year ago now find themselve on egg shell being careful to not condemn them too harshly because they know once the dam cracks on Trump it is over. People know Trump is bad but after a year of defending him on twitter, facebook, and etc many just don't have to read "I told you so". Pride over sense. It has created a palpable sense on pending collaspe. On both sides everyone nows this charade can't continue but the right doesn't want to blink. Like the final days of a ponzi scheme there is a frantic sense that one big infusion of cash can keep everything going another month and give them time to think of a new plan or the FBI could kick in the front door in the next 5 minutes and end it all.

Again, no one is saying they aren't entitled to all laws the rest of us are. You are treating that period like a safety blanket. No one is saying free speech doesn't apply to them. As for the violence against them what was it? The Nazispital killed a person and sent nurmerous others to the hospital. What violence against them do you keep referencing?

You are passively defending the Nazis by pretending their were other groups on non-bigots there whose focus was preserving history and by insisting bothsides were violent. Only ONE SIDE brought torches, shields, and helmets. Only ONE SIDE drove a car into a crowd of people. Only ONE SIDE killed someone. Only ONE SIDE is recognized as a hate group and on DHS domestic terror watch lists.

It is the violence which is being criticized and their anti Western society message of hate. No one here is saying laws should be changed to prevent them from legal actives. You are making an empty point.

The Protests was known about for months. Local authorities had tried unsuccessfully to stop it. The permitted group were known White Nationalist. Your maybe this maybe that arguments simply don't add up. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/14/543462419/charlottesville-violence-highlights-cities-struggle-to-balance-rights-and-safety

Obviously but the argument of proving a negative has been launched. Less we interviewed everyone there how can we know every individuals intentions. Thus there may have been one history scholar amongst the nazi flags who isn't racist and purely wants to preserve history......hahaha. I personally don't know a single person who wouldn't remove themselves immediately once Nazis started chanting anti Semitic chants and carrying on about homosexual and what not less that was what they were there for. Challenging that there could have been history interested non-bigots amongst the Nazis carrying shields, swastika flags, and wearing helmets really challenges all sense of logic.

We were a British colony. After the revolutionary war we didn't erect monuments to venerate British Generals. We do have memorials celebrating English settlers like in Jamestown and other memorials celebrating key battles like in Yorktown but people like Sir Henry Clinton don't have monuments on state and federal lands, Colleges, and city parks all over. The British lost the war and the U.S. ceased to be their colony. Just as the Confederates lost the war and their Republic cease to be. After the Mexican American War many people who were formerly Mexican became U.S. citizens and the lands they had inhabited for generations became U.S. territory. Nearly a third of U.S. use to be Mexico. Where are the all the monuments and Colleges named after Mexican Generals? There are many memorials for battles and museums in TX, CA, and etc, many cities and school in honor of missionary workers but nothing celebrating Mexican leaders who killed U.S. soldiers. There is more to that simply saying Confederates were part of us. Mexicans became part of us. The British were us. What we do by venerating Confederates is different than the way we handle the rest of our history.

Every wartime nemesis of the U.S. is part of our history. Which others are venerated? Should we have a monument to Emperor Hirohito at Pearl Harbor?

People who commit crimes with guns are aggressively pursued and prosecuted. Gun violence and what should be done about it is a top Political issue in every Election. To imply gun crimes aren't of national focus or require more focus than they get is simply wrong. Guns along with taxes and abortion are the Holy Trinity of national political focus. The attention these protests are getting will slow and eventually go away. Gun's aren't going anywhere.

I find attempts to rationalize the purpose of such protests to be a passive defense for neo-Nazis white supremacists. As we have seen in recent years from the protests over the Confederate flag in South Carolina to what we saw over the weekend it is Nazi hate groups that show up in solidarity with Confederate history. There are not large groups of non-extremists out protesting to keep Confederate monuments. It is repeatedly hate groups carrying swastikas. Many people attempt to side with the group of sensible protesters who aren't bigots and just want to preserve history. Problem is that group of protesters doesn't exist. By making them up are a device one can defend the monuments behind all one is doing is passively saying the Nazis have a point. Free speech is free speech. Nazis can protest. If one agrees with the point Nazi protesters are making they should have the courage to say so and not pretend they agree with some non-Nazi pro Confederate protesters which don't actually exist.

Was reading about Prince Philip's war over the weekend so that is what came to mind. No one in here or anyplace else I am aware of are claiming all white people, Christians, or whatever are Nazis. The majority of counter protesters were white. We are only claiming the ones with torches and Nazi flags are Nazis. As for the GOP the Nazis made it clear they support Trump and Trump made it clear he doesn't want to lose that support. As such the GOP is in bed with them by continuing to accept their support. Doesn't mean all the GOP are Nazis. Just means they knowingly tolerate Nazis. Confederates are war heroes? They fought against and not for the U.S.. Is Sir Henry Clinton a war Hero you feel the U.S. should celebrate.

Donald Trump is who we thought he was. Those who defend him are deplorable as accurately labeled during the campaign. This is the same guy who had a "team of investigators" in Hawaii uncovering things about where Obama was born. All attempts to rationalize supporting Trump are exercises in cognitive dissonance. Amongst those who continue to support the GOP overall are standing shoulder to shoulder with racist hate groups and are in bed with a lying snake oil salesmen. As for Confederate monuments being part of our history; where are all the monuments celebrating English royalty? We were a colony after all. That is our history. Post the war for Independence why didn't we erect monuments to King Philip? It is usual to erect monuments, name schools & parks, and create museums to mark our wars. It is unusual for our (USA) foes to be venerated. Yes it is part of our history but the execution of it is not consistent with our values or treatment of other historical times.