A march on Washington only and idiot would ignore (to be fair he will try because he is an idiot) the Scientists March

[Waffles731]

So if you haven't heard, there is another march on washington coming, and this time its a SCIENTISTS MARCH.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/donald-trump-science-march-washington-climate-change-global-warming-a7547206.html

Now if you have actually paid any attention to the GOP, when it comes to science, the majority of the republican party politicians are a combination of a bunch of un-informed dumbasses and a bunch of people whom oil companies have lobbied to deny science. Now the fact is that scientists tend not to be uninformed dumbasses. Come to think of it, being an uniformed dumbass is actually the exact opposite of a scientists job.

So while you're uninformed idiot brain can blame the millions of people in women marches being stupid. I'd love to see how you rationalize this. Whatever bullshit excuse you manage to come up with this time to try to keep it seem like trump is a perfect candidate who knows what is going on instead of a corrupt billionaire. It's going to be even more hysterical than the last excuse. The fact is that you can believe that Trump is right about his clearly ill-informed scientific facts, you can do that, that is something you are free to do. However being free to do that doesn't make you any less of a dumb-ass for doing so because here's the thing.

So yeah Scientists are marching on washington and please I'd love to hear more of you're bullshit excuses for trump again because this is getting funnier everytime.

I'd just like to say that this is going to be my last political take for a while, someone on here made some very good points about how I've been acting lately and combined with how I felt after realizing how much of an asshole I was after mocking people who are regretting voting for trump because they are afraid of losing healthcare. I'm done, I keep getting angrier and angrier and the person who said I've been acting closed minded is right. I have, so no more political takes till I can actually do better.

in the meantime I've got a bunch of #creepyhappenings takes I want to write and a bunch of entertainment takes.

[RedThread]

Recognizing and preparing the world for climate change is going to be essential to our future. I really hope scientists can change hearts and minds.

It's going to be an uphill battle now because all people like Trump have to say is that scientists are elitist liberals from elitist liberal institutions without even addressing the issues at hand and people will fall in line. That's what politics is. It's a series of buzzwords that make people ignore the issues at hand.

[IAmRedThunder]

SCIENCE IS POWERRRR!!

[Jager66]

I've found that most people don't understand the "anti climate change" even deniers get it wrong all the fucking time, scientists for and against as well.

I'm not taking a position for or against as I just don't care about the issue so won;t argue it. But there is essentially the situation.

Argument against climate change is based on a math error. Please keep in mind this is way over my head I'm just relaying the information as best I understand it.

There is some fairly advanced math involved, the kind that requires physicists and math mathematicians to understand, not derpy climate change scientists. Even then it's very easy to get the calculation wrong depending on what your "start point" is. If you "start" at the wrong spot then the result, if you graphed it, would look like a hockey stick but if you start at the "right" spot then the graph would hardly move at all unless you added waaaaaaay more C02 to the calculation.

The result of this is essentially that we would need to add more c02 into the atmosphere then there is fossils to burn left in the ground before we got to a runaway green house effect, this includes the additional green house effect from increased Methane as well.

The second half of the argument is this:

As things are right now we would need to more than double (+150%more) the amount of c02 in the air before we have the amount that is optimal for plants to grow. The amount that they evolved to have. When plants have more c02 they grow fast, bigger, require less water, produce more fruit/grain/nuts etc.. and will grow in areas that otherwise would have been barren.

The earth has increased it's "green space" by 30% because plants are growing faster and in areas that previously didn;t support plant life because the increase in c02 has reduced their need for water. This is happening despite deforistation.

The economic cost of adapting to green house effect, rising sea levels etc.. is substancialy cheaper then trying to prevent warming, by many times over.

More people will die from starvation and lack of water, lack of economic opportunity than will from embracing warming.

[Phoenix98]

Are you referring to people doing this march like Bill Nile the Science Guy who believes that anyone with a viewpoint he doesn't agree with like climate change views should be jailed and sent to prison on criminal charges? Bill Nile the Science Guy? More like Bill Nile the Fascist Guy.

This march just like the women's march is a huge waste of our time and will accomplish nothing but by all means march.

Also if global warming is so real like Ole Bill claims then why are the polar ice caps not only freezing over but expanding? This is not some crazy theory I made up by the way, you can find it on the NASA website they even sent a team down there to study it.

Also did it also no occur to anyone that if anything is making the planet warm up that it might be the fucking huge ass planet known as Nubaru that is due to pass by the earth and our solar system soon? Because that is the most logical explanation. Since the closer it gets the more things are going to heat up and when it does pass scientists or at least the real ones are speculating that it will cause a planet wide black out and cause multiple various devastating natural disasters, in fact some claim that the increase in seismic activity and earthquakes can be attributed to Nubaru as it gets closer and closer to earth.

[JohnSmith627]

If the republicans are the science deniers, then why does the democratic party:

• promote gender dysphoria (a legitimate mental disorder) by preaching the scientifically untrue notion that gender is a social construct/fluid

• believe that race is a social construct and denies definable attributes present within DNA that differentiates between races

• continuously push the widely debunked gender wage gap

• fear-monger the statistically untrue belief that there's a plague of racist white cops shooting innocent blacks

• promotes the anti-scientific "alternative medicine" movement that has resulted in many deaths (by attempting to heal curable illnesses with herbal remedies)

• reject scientific evidence proving that race is a determinant of intelligence because it hurts people's feelings (The Bell Curve)

• promote anti-GMO propaganda established through debunked studies

• fear-monger imaginary "rape culture" from statistics established from extremely biased studies

• constantly contradict basic economics by promoting ridiculously high minimum wages

• promote the scientifically-impossible "Big Bang" theory

• deny irrefutable differences between males and females established through millions of years of evolution

• refuse to believe the scientifically, physically, biologically, and embryologically proven concept that pregnancy begins at conception

• promote the ridiculous claim that you can be healthy at all sizes (fat acceptance)

• fear-monger nuclear reactors as dangerous (Green Party)

• push the debunked correlation between fracking and groundwater pollution

• believe anti-vaccination (many polls reveal that millennials (most of which lean liberal) are far more skeptical about vaccines than older Americans)

• reject the genetically-validated concept that a fetus is a SEPARATE human from the mother

• I could go on all day...

[Starrk]

Race doesn't determine IQ you imbecile. The reasons why Democrats don't believe that lie is because not even scientists believe it. The idea of Race being a determinant factor in IQ was disproven back in the 60s. All the Bell Curve does is show you a correlation, that it. It doesn't show you causation.

This is what separates Psychologist from Non-Psychologist. The former can interpret research and studies, while the latter takes the study at face value.

As for Race being a social construct, that part is true. Race isn't biological because its too fluid and arbitrary. What's considered black in the US isn't black in Brazil. What we consider white in 2017 wasn't white in 1932. What we call mulatto/mixed in the US has a whole different meaning in South Africa.

While there are population that differ genetically, these genetic population do not correlation to our categorization of race. Phenotypes (genes that show themselves) is a horrible predictor of ones entire genetic makeup.

[JohnSmith627]

@Starrk

1. Of course race doesn't literally determine someone's IQ, it merely affects it. And the substance of your rebuttal indicates that you've never actually read The Bell Curve.

2. Saying "not even scientists believe it" is subjective, false, an outright appeal to authority fallacy, and an absurd notion that consensus somehow determines science.

3. Your argument about races being identified differently in certain locations does not invalidate the fact that races have irrefutable differences present within DNA.

4. I'm still waiting for you invalidate the 15 out of 17 points that you outright skipped. Unless... gasp! The Democratic Party isn't as "scientific" as you think.

[Starrk]

1. Oh this is just wonderful. Please explain how Race effects IQ. As for the Bell Curve it does not prove that IQ is caused by Race, which you did state prior so don't you dare back peddle now.

2. Appeal to Authority is a fallacy that has the potential to be fallacious, but every instance of appeal to authority is not fallacious. In this case it is not. The evidence of race being a determinant factor in IQ is extremely shaky and does not hold well to scrutiny, especially when race in itself is too arbitrary to define and classify.

3. These difference in DNA do not correlate to OUR classification of race. The AAA (American Association of Anthropology) even released a statement on this situation explaining that majority of human genetic variation exist within a given race not between them.
www.americananthro.org/.../Content.aspx

4. I don't care about the other points. The race and IQ points were the only ones that irked me. The rest I don't really care about.

[Anonymous]

I agree with staying out of political discussions, I do not agree you're closed minded.
I was reading your conversation with the 14 years old girl whose father happens to work for an oil company and she was borderline hysterical. I wouldn't have apologized myself but then again, I'm not that politically correct and always take the opinion of children with a pinch of salt.
Of course no one wants to hear that your family works for tha bad guys and I reckon for most people it's a decent job, but let's not forget that oil companies invest that much money on the green research EXACTLY BECAUSE they're being pressured about it and to try and diminish their bad wolf image. It's what it is, they're no saints giving it out of generosity.

I think the Kyoto Protocol also summarized very nicely which are the world's most polluting countries and which aren't willing to take responsibility.
So much for the comment "nature produces more CO2 than human made technologies". Let me laugh out loud.

[TripleAce]

Ehh this is a tuff one

No one is denying that climate change is real. The problem lies in whether it's mainly causes by humans

Studies do show that nature produces the most co2 ... much more than mankind. Many scientists don't believe in the magnitude of man made climate change

Who really knows, it happens but will it still happen if humans didn't exist on planet earth... well look at venus, mit defiantly happened there and it has no life

[John_Doesnt]

I've lost hope in marching because I don't think we're marching against people who don't believe. We're marching against people who want to hold onto every last dollar and avoid paying for carbon emissions.
No amount of marching or science is going to stop corporate greed on such a massive scale. We also can't stop Fox News from keeping Americans "on the fence" in scientific debates.

[samhradh_leannan]

I definitely plan to support this march. Denying climate change is one of the most dangerous things we can possibly do as a country.

[Ironlak282]

I don't understand why world leaders aren't required to be scientifically literate as a requirement for the job. You are the leader of the people of your nation who represent all different faiths and non at all so you should act on their behalf and do your job in a secular way. That means thinking scientifically.

[Darkfairie17]

The scientists are going to march? Omg that's too awesome! :D

[Anonymous]

when the president says grab them by the pussy
what are you expecting from him really?
human rights or respecting women
well Lol no dont expect any good thing from this orange creature

[Iraqveteran666]

Lol more marches. The last March resulted in an executive order withdrawing taxpayer funding for planned parenthood.

[Iraqveteran666]

Trump will probably raise emission levels after this March lol
Who else wants to March?

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Like a march caused that. That was going to happen anyway.

[Waffles731]

"The last March resulted in an executive order withdrawing taxpayer funding for planned parenthood."
You say that like its a good thing?
That Trump was protested specifically because voters were worried about him and what he'll do, so what does he do? He says, fuck the constitutents

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

The same guy who said he'll be president for all Americans. Turns out he lied to both sides of the divide - some just don't realize it yet.

[Iraqveteran666]

Nah he's doing what he said he'd do. And yes it's entirely possible he did it so liberals understood who is running the country. It is a good thing. It's not up to taxpayers to kill your babies

[Intraluminal]

Do you *realllly* think that an appeal to logic is going to work here? This is the definition of the Dunning–Kruger effect in operation.

[Anonymous]

If this march were to happen in the summer I'd go. God I feel like I'm in a movie when I turn on the news and that kind of man is my president. It's like you can't even parody him. No joke you make will be more crazy than what he's actually doing.

[ColinHarvey]

Shut up about climate change, if we let it go on, I'll have BEACHFRONT PROPERTY here in Austin Texas.

I need this to happen for me.

[Waffles731]

Yeah, cause beachfront property in texas is a good idea, The Residents of Galveston island had a grand old time

[ColinHarvey]

You're invited to party at my beach house when it all floods over, bro. You heard what the scientists said, "Its already too late to stop global warming." So let's just party, right? I mean I bought a Prius, I've done all I could do.

www.google.com/.../...8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html

[Waffles731]

Eh, the foods not good enough in Austin, rather be in San Antonio

[ColinHarvey]

Ughhhhhhhhh fuckkkk youuuuuuu :D

[SlightlyCrazy]

Your a bringer of good news man! Though I support your efforts all the way your takes are reflecting that anger. Use it for good don't let it make you bitter

[Nuala]

What exactly are they marching for?

[Waffles731]

acknowledgement of climate change, cause American scientists are just fucking hardcore motherfuckers who don't give a shit about what the government says, at least that's the message half B-movies give

[Nuala]

Okay... Why are they marching on the Whitehouse about this? Has Trump said he doesn't believe in it or something?

[Waffles731]

Yeah, and its actually because of the keystone deal between Canadian and American Businessmen, he and his Canadian cohorts (look at our countries, our evil bastards even scheme together) have actually gone out and done all they can to try and deny climate change, because like a handful of very wealthy Canadians and Americans, and a few Norwegians, Trump is a huge investor in the keystone pipeline

[Nuala]

Sorry dude, I got to unfollow you... I'm sick of this stuff popping up in my feed...

[Waffles731]

No problem, sorry about that

[Nuala]

Sorry? Are you fucking kidding?

Okay, I'm going to tell you some facts... You are probably not going to believe them because you are a closed minded left wing ideot that refuses to acknowledge facts that aren't in your tiny field of view... But I used to respect you, so I'll type it out.

Do you know where one of the largest contributions to green energy in Canada comes from? BP! An oil company! Oil company's spend tons of time, money and scientists investing in not only greener ways to transport oil but also other projects like air energy. It's almost like it benifets them not to spill oil and lose tons of money! On top of all that, they employ million of Canadians so they can have food on their tables. Those monsters!

[Nuala]

But you are like soooooo right, the oil industry is evil! Why should you believe the ones who work there instead of random scientists in a different country? That just doesn't make sense!
But what do I know? I'm just some evil girl that's dad works in the oil industry that is one of many who would go broke if they disappeared.
But we're evil and deserve to go bankrupt. At least that's what you're saying...

[Waffles731]

'On top of all that, they employ million of Canadians so they can have food on their tables. Those monsters! But what do I know? I'm just some evil girl that's dad works in the oil industry that is one of many who would go broke if they disappeared.
But we're evil and deserve to go bankrupt. At least that's what you're saying...'
Individual people aren't evil, and yeah, I'd be remiss if I didn't take notice of the people they employ but U. S oil companies spend so much on anti-climate change propoganda, maybe its different in Canada.
I do know that exxon mobile had research in the 1980s that showed what would happen and they buried it.
I don't hate the people who get employed by them, I hate what its doing to the environment.
I'm sorry if I offended you

[Waffles731]

Its like the coal industry, its a shitty situation with no good solution.

[Waffles731]

and I'll admit when I'm wrong, cause now I feel like an idiot but I honestly wasn't thinking about this, ' It's almost like it benifets them not to spill oil and lose tons of money! '
I'd have to say, you're right

[Nuala]

Omg, see. You just did what I said you would! It's like I am a psychic! You just ignored EVERYTHING I said except for a tiny bit at the end... Like I'm not even mad anymore. I'm just laughing!
Your countries a joke and you're the punchline.

[Nuala]

Ignore my last comment...

[Nuala]

I didn't see the second post

[Waffles731]

I actually quoted and talked about multiple parts both pointing out the flaws and admitting where you had a point

[Waffles731]

and now that I think about it, I think I have been A LOT more closed minded and becoming so recently, and its a problem

[Nuala]

Yeah, my phone was being funny and only popped up a tiny amount of what you said... Sorry

[Waffles731]

No, its not you're fault, its not the first time I've felt like a major asshole this week

[Waffles731]

But I think this is going to be my last political take for a while, I keep getting angrier and angrier and I think, I think its making me more closed minded.

[Anonymous]

How is all this going to work, granted strength in numbers, but when you brainwash the military and police to do your dirty work and push your ideals which can be morally, ethically wrong, then we loose regardless

[Waffles731]

If trump really is going to have blackshirts then I remember a very important quote by edward abbey

[Opinion Owner]

it is going to happen

[Iraqveteran666]

Blackshirts and brownshirts weren't police or military, they were political activists that protested democracy, rioted when election results didn't go there way and assaulted members of the opposition activists and voters. Does that sound familiar lol?

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666 "that protested democracy"
I'm sorry, but He lost the popular vote, don't act like this was democratic

[Iraqveteran666]

So now America is not a democratic Republic all because your candidate lost lol

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666
"democratic Republic all because your candidate lost lol
Its not a democracy because the person who won the popular vote did not win the presidency, that's the opposite of a democracy

[Iraqveteran666]

Why don't you just get rid of the system and install Hillary as dictator for life

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666 I didn't vote for clinton, I didn't vote for trump, I literally tossed a coin because I liked both Johnson and Stein

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666
Again that also goes against democracy just as much as the electoral college does

[Iraqveteran666]

Yes change the goal posts after the election. I think Hitler said the same thing.

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666 it'd be better and more fair if we changed them for the next one not this one, I'll accept this result, I'll just oppose him at every turn because I've yet to see him give any indication of working for the interests of the American people and not the interests of big banks

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666 But don't call this election democratic, because it wasn't by definition

[Iraqveteran666]

If he's successful in all his promiseson he will win the popular vote next time around. If you think he can't keep those promises remember they said he could never possibly win.

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666
He's already not kept them, he was claiming to drain the swamp, then appoints a cabinet full of professional politicians and wall street bankers.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

You realize that the blackshirts and brownshirts were both right wing paramilitary organizations, right?

[Opinion Owner]

we are just fucked all around. The Neocons will try their best to stay in power for 8 years. But Im sure there will be some over reach with Trump, but his minions will turn a blind eye to this because all the branches of government (Judicial, Legislative, Executive) is all run by his minions, so nothing can and will be done

[Iraqveteran666]

@HungLikeAHorsefly you realise they were socialists. Hillary was a socialist. Trump is a capitalist and nationalist. We've had 8 years of decline. The only people who voted Hillary are on welfare or privileged elitist liberals

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@Iraqveteran666 No, the blackshirts and brownshirts were both Fascists. They're on the opposite end of the spectrum from Socialists. They called themselves Socialists, but had nothing to do with Socialism in any way, shape or form.

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666 This may be hard for you wrap you're head around, but the democrats are centerists, Trump is just slightly left of being far right,
Hillary was a centerist, so was bill, so was obama, so was al gore,
Bernie is a social democrat, and to the left of him are the hardline socialists

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@Waffles731 Bernie actually identifies as a Democratic Socialist and strangely enough, that's not the same thing as a Social Democrat. I say that because I am one (and a member of the DSA).

You may already be familiar with the terms, but in modern terminology Democratic Socialists are traditional Socialists whereas Social Democrats argue for a free market approach to non-essential industries and a statist approach to healthcare, education, transportation and the military.

[Waffles731]

@HungLikeAHorsefly
He identified as one, however his policies are those of a social democrat

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I agree. I've always wondered why he doesn't identify as a Social Democrat. I think maybe it's because most Americans would probably just think he means "Democrat".

[Iraqveteran666]

@HungLikeAHorsefly seriously they were socialists. The came from the same place but split ideals. Socialism describes broad range of groups. There's a reason it was called National socialism with emphasism on the Nationalist. Bernie is more of a Marxist socialist but of course cabt identify as that in America. Hillary is a democratic socialist who abandoned socialism when she started getting obscene amounts of money. Trump is a capitalist and nationalist not in anyway a socialist. The scale is more complicated than left or right that's a very simplistic view the media likes to portray politics.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@Iraqveteran666 No, the Nazis were not simply a form of Socialist - they are a completely different beast (Fascists), regardless of what they called themselves. Before they came to power, all of the Socialists in Germany fought them, and when they did come to power, they outlawed Socialism in Germany. It was the Socialists that were fighting the Brownshirts in the streets, and it was the Social Democrats (led by Otto Wels) that were the ones that stood up to Hitler in the Reichstag.

If simply stating a fact doesn't convince you, look at the famous quote by Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Socialists - and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists - and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews - and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."

Now, why do you think he would have said that if the Nazis were Socialists?

[Iraqveteran666]

@HungLikeAHorsefly they outlawed any party that was not national socialists. Fascism came out of the socialist movementso in 1900's gaining momentum in political wake of ww1.

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666
The nazis were fascists, right wing,
DO YOU KNOW WHO WAS AN OUT AND OUT SOCIALIST, MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@Iraqveteran666 Ah, I see where you're coming from. Yes, if you trace it far enough back Fascism was a splinter movement from Socialism. That doesn't mean, however, that after that Fascism has anything to do with Socialism. Saying "Nazis were Socialists" is still abjectly false.

[Iraqveteran666]

@HungLikeAHorsefly agreed but most political movements from the 20th century from facisits to communists trace from socialism. Martin Luther was a conservative and Republican.

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666
Martin luther king was a socialist want to hear his speeches?
His last speech was literally about socialism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6TDTq1p6SQ

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666
Martin Luther King Jr. Was DEFINITELY NOT A conservative

[Iraqveteran666]

He was a preacher with family values.

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666 Being a preacher doesn't change the fact that he was a socialist

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666
And its some real good family values when you let homeless people die on the streets because you want to cut funding to welfare programs, its some real good family values when you want to let people die or go bankrupt because they can't pay for healthcare, its some real family values when you want cut benefits so children can go hungry,
Yeah republicans have some real family values there

[Iraqveteran666]

In the original term after all socialism incorporates conservative Christian values. He was pro marriage and anti abortions

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666
Abortion and marriage have literally NOTHING to do with socialism, that is and always has been a completely different issue...
And yeah redistrubtion of wealth, so conservative

[Iraqveteran666]

So what Hitler was a socialist so was Stallingborough, Hillary was too once.

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666 Hillary was not a socialist, she was and always has been a centerist

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666 Hitler was a fascist not a socialist, Fascism is agreed by political analysts and historians to have been a far right movement.
Just like democratic republic of korea is none of those, the national socialists were not socialists but nationalists and fascists

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

FWIW, in 1966 Martin Luther King, Jr. gave a speech at a staff retreat for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Check out page 19 here:

www.thekingcenter.org/.../mlk-speech-sclc-staff-retreat

"... it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with the economic system of our nation. That is what it means, really. It means something is wrong with capitalism."

...

"there must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism, and I am saying that we must be Communist or Marxist."

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

And in a letter to his wife in 1952:

"I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic. And yet I am not so opposed to capitalism that I have failed to see its relative merits. It started out with a noble and high motive, viz, to block the trade monopolies of nobles, but like most human system it fail victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has outlived its usefulness."

kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/.../

Does it still sound like MLK would be a modern day Republican to you?

[Iraqveteran666]

@HungLikeAHorsefly most religious leaders have spokenot our on capitalism. He was completely conservative. Often opposing the democrats and their racism in the south.

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666 The SOUTHERN democrats, northern democrats were a different story, as he was VERY good friends with both JFK and RFK.
JFK was the one who created the Civil Rights act of 1964 which sadly he died before he saw coming to fruitition,
The only reason southerners blame democrats so much is they want to deny the southeast was and still is a fucked up place, and the fact that its so deeply red makes the democrats and easy target

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666 Again, He was a literal socialist, he wasn't a freaking conservative

[Iraqveteran666]

No its because the democrats led the south for years and profiteered

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kil30nkdpy0

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666
ignore that, or don't if you're interested in creepy unsolved mysteries,
I meant to copy and paste your response,
'No its because the democrats led the south for years and profiteered'
really, you are blaming carpetbaggers.
again this isn't the 1860s anymore

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@Iraqveteran666 You are correct - The Democratic Party was the party of the south for most of its history. It supported slavery and the KKK. And, in the mid 1960's, the racists in the party left and went to the Republican Party. That's where they still are today. So, MLK was most definitely a Republican back then, but the GOP isn't anything like it was when he was alive and he most certainly would not be one today.

To put a finer point on it: the racists in the Democratic Party that made it illogical for MLK to have been a Democrat then are now Republicans. That makes it illogical that he would be a Republican now.

[Iraqveteran666]

@HungLikeAHorsefly nope still racist democrats. They buy minorities with welfare.

[Waffles731]

@Iraqveteran666 Yeah, cause all that welfare going to red states is totally only going to minorities...

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

@Iraqveteran666 Heh, okay. I can see you aren't very good with history, so I'm going to do my part to let this incredibly long thread die.

[Iraqveteran666]

Well the democrats ran those states for decades. They bought votes with welfare as they always do rather than jobs. The southern states have been hit hard over the years as jobsoon have been outsourced to China.

[Walrus_au]

I heard about this and am glad to see it happening, as disappointed and unsurprised as I am to see the need.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

A geneticist is also running for a Senate Seat.
He is from Berkley.

[HarryBenton]

At one time this would have worked, unfortunately Americans no longer believe in science.