JayJayH

That exactly. The 50 DDS posts a week are more like an obsessed football fan.

Marvin touched on it earlier.

Generally, mentioning open borders and mass immigration in any negative context means automatic disqualification for racist bigotry. Unless it comes from Bernie Sanders, then it's more of a "let's not talk about that."

So you agree the quotes are dumb?

I think "low information" refers more to the fact that people no longer really care what's being said as much as they care who says it.

If you build a brand and a following, you can get people to agree with (or conveniently forget) most of your policies. That's true whether your name is Barack, Bernie or Donald.

This is why Black Lives Matter has lost so much of the support it originally had, like most leaderless organizations.

Here's what I see in Milwaukee:

An armed black man with a lengthy criminal history gets into a confrontation with a black police officer in a black neighborhood in a county with a black sheriff in a country with a black president. Protesters, without examining evidence or applying any form of reason, begin burning down black businesses in a black neighborhood, shouting anti-police rhetoric. "Racism!" once again thrown around like sour-tasting Halloween candy, rather than being applied as the serious allegation it should be.

Even if you think Sylville Smith was shot unnecessarily, explain to the American public how exactly BLM is helping improve the lives of black residents of Milwaukee, or race relations in America.

The officers who killed Freddie Gray, or the officer who shot the care taker in Texas, or the officer who shot an unarmed man in the back in South Carolina... They should all be in jail along with the protestors burning down innocent people's cars and businesses in Milwaukee.

a. you are confused and not a little...we should not be asking Native peoples for anything when we already stole 99% of their #### - I said Indian American, not American Indian/Native American.

b. you are trying to make this sound like some sort of redistribution of wealth. When reparations were given to Japanese interment camp survivors , it was an acknowledgement of wrongs.

c. I personally dont think that reparations will ever work based on skin color. The reparations should be an apology to the descendants of slaves. I know of no scheme to sort that out.

it is not about economic justice, it is about acknowledgement of past sins by our government

admitting you're confused seems a good start, but in the meantime, why don't you go ahead an put in your request

Help me out of confusion - Please. Again, I'm wondering why this stuff is strictly skin color related. The overall debate on the far left these days is "white people owe stuff to people of color."

Do I owe a Taiwanese or Indian American making $100,000 per year anything because I'm white?

Do they owe me something as they make about 40% more than Norwegian Americans on average?

The reasons for Asian American success are as diverse that the number of countries and ethnic groups they come from. Because the immigration growth of Asians in American since 1980 has been incredible with 74 % of all Asians in American born on foreign soil, you have to factor in self selection ( the ability for the folks with the best resources and training to choose to come to the worlds best market place) as a significant factor in any study of their success ( and kids success)

In other words ( to exaggerate the effect a bit) If you land on these shores with 500k in assets and a college education your chance of success is higher (duh). Additionally if you are coming from a relatively stable political and economic country your chances of success increase exponentially. Not all folks coming from asia fit into these group, but a larger proportion do.

Certainly this group a people have distinct attitudes toward work effort and the value of multi-generational family living, but they are also less likely to identify (14% according to Pew) as Americans and choose to identify with their country of origin. Perhaps this will change over time with the generations.

Data on self selection

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1814529?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Pew Study

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/asianamericans-graphics/

Japanese Americans, many of whom are 2nd, 3rd, 4th, even 5th generation have no socioeconomic disadvantage compared to white Americans. Very few Filipino immigrants to the U.S. came with 500,000 in their pockets. Self-identified "American Americans" (typically southern and Appalachian whites) are among the poorest, least educated Americans. Again, where the left has gone bananas is in their new found fascination with race and labels.

I'm not sure whether to conclude "Asian privilege" is something white folks should go in marches to protest against.. Or whether there might be some fallacy to the notion that we live in a white supremacist nation.

According to some logic, there must be some Asian American conspiracy to oppress white people right?

Just to be clear, I don't actually believe this. But I am a little confused as to why I can't go on reparations.me and ask Indian Americans to give me free stuff based solely on our respective skin colors and corresponding average household incomes.

Latino women make less than Black women, Black women less than white and as a whole all women as a college graduate makes 7 % less in her first year when controlling for all other factors like performance, role , productivity, industry. The gap between women and men grows through their careers, controlling for all other factors

What gets me about statistics when it comes to Latinos is that there is rarely ever anything to control for the roughly 18% of Latinos currently in the U.S. who are here illegally - Or their U.S. citizen dependents. That again has zero to do with race and everything to do with legal status and the corresponding effect on household income.

I haven't seen those statistics, but are they controlled for factors like hazard pay (men typically take on more hazardous work) and other life choices i.e. maternal leave? (I really do think we need more paternal leave in the U.S.) I've also seen statistics suggesting women are less likely to negotiate pay - Again, I think the big picture is great for research, I think you need to look a lot more in the details to make sensible policy.

So by that measure, (which I disagree with because I think we can get a lot of good data for Economics, Criminology and Sociology that can inform public policy) some one who thinks we live in " racist patriarchal sh*thole ruled by white supremacy" would have equal dibs on the truth than say a white man who thinks most white men have their resources , power and mobility simply because we live in a meritocracy.

Both groups would be subject to the same error in data and analysis. Would you agree?

I would agree to the extent that there is a fine line between saying "we have some problems" and drawing up doomsday scenarios.

However, you'd be hard pressed to call the U.S. a nation of "white supremacy." I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how Asian Americans outperform whites in virtually every single measure pertaining to standard of living despite growing up and living in a nation hellbent on oppressing minorities. Asian Americans on average make more money, are better educated, live longer, are less likely to be incarcerated, are less likely to commit crimes, are less likely to be victims of crime and are less likely to drop out of high school and college. The list goes on. According to some logic, there must be some Asian American conspiracy to oppress white people right?

Implications of shift to progressive policies being a downward spiral

I think there are plenty of great ideas within the realms of progressivism. When it becomes a religion of ideological purity, often times based more on feelings than science, it ends up in the same dirt pile as young earth creationism, no matter how good the intentions.

When Vox, Slate, Salon, MSNBC, Buzzfeed and other agenda-driven websites become megaphones for an entire political movement - What, really, differentiates the movement from Sean Hannity, Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh? It's unsustainable, not fact based and serves mainly to vilify others.

And part of that lack of trust is the insanity Obama and his minions push everyone There is a mass shootings. They immediately want to ban so called asshalt weapons, ban magazines and limit ammo sales. Of course if every weapon in America they want banned disappeared tommorow, it would not affect gun deaths 1%.

They don't want to talk about the real gun violence in the inner city cesspoolso they have created

The response after the Orlando shooting was a prime example of how far to the fringes of each side have gotten:

The right: Nothing to do with gun laws. (the weapon)

The left: Nothing to do with No such thing as radical Islam. (the ideology)

Unfortunately the fringes of each side have now found their way into elected government.

So we agree that when Trump says the when Hillary will abolish your 2nd ammendment rights and that there is nothing you can do about it he is full of it

I'd go farther and say he's full of it quite often. If I was a staunch 2nd amendment rights advocate, I would have some concerns regarding the federal judges she might appoint, and her husband did manage to implement an assault weapons ban in the 90s. But on the whole, reality is that it would take a lot more than a 4 - 8 year presidential term with a 40% approval rating and a Republican congress to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Efforts to safeguard conservative principles should have started with staying out of Iraq, moderating Fox News a bit, then nominating someone capable of winning a general election and not delving into the abyss of European-style populism. Frankly, I think Trump is doing more damage to conservative interests by merely being the nominee. You don't take a sledgehammer where a scalpel is needed.

1 how many 2nd amendment people do not want everyone everywhere to have guns?

2 the titular head and presidential nominee for the Republicans says the the Democratic nominee is trying to abolish the second ammendment. Why shouldn't we believe him?

1. I haven't met many who actually believe that. In no state can you legally acquire a handgun if you have a felony conviction. I personally think it should be a bit stricter than that, but even Texas has limitations relating to mental disorders. It's a little bit like abortion. Very few people actually believe abortion should be legal up until the due date of the baby, yet that's the impression conservatives usually have of pro-choice activists. Very few people believe anyone should be able to just buy a gun, yet that's the impression liberals usually have of 2nd amendment activists.

So in many cases, there isn't a lack of consensus as much as there is a lack of trust, particularly as a result of federal overreach in later decades. It's no longer enough to compromise with the other side, because we consider the other side to be a crazy bunch of raging lunatics. In that case, it's better to overreach and crush the other side whenever possible. So, 2nd amendment people don't trust liberals on gun control issues, and they shift farther right. Pro-choice activists don't trust conservatives on abortion issues, so they shift left. It's a downward spiral.

2. Frankly, I don't believe much of what the current Democratic nominee says in either direction, but a president has no power to abolish the 2nd amendment. Thankfully, this country's constitution and system of government was design for change to happen very slowly - Which is why it's currently the oldest still-standing constitution in the world.

So basically, more meaningless baloney. Maybe they just aren't good at their jobs? Simple mathematics, if there is demand for you, you'll earn more. And as I've routinely stressed before, college education is far, far from being the end all, be all.

Kind of like the false equivalence when feminists complain that their bachelor's degree in feminist dance therapy only pays 52 cents on the dollar that a physics major makes.. Blaming the gap primarily of course on systemic sexism.

Actually, I don't have to make the argument. Trump makes it for me.

A minority isn't the GOP frontrunner. And let's be clear, you know just like everyone else that if Obama had Trump's pedigree, he would have never been able to run. NEVER. Every single thing Trump is and stands for, would decimate any candidate of any other color than a white man. A guy with 5 kids? 3 wives? A wife who was nude and might have been working here on a visa? No minority would ever run with that background. Why you ask? Because we've known since birth that we have to be WAAAAY better than a white person to even think about competing against one. That's why Obama has TWO degrees, married to the same woman for 20 years, raised great kids, and didn't have a single scandal to his name. But folks are quick to erase his accomplishments just for the sake of putting Trump above him. Got folks here talking about how classy Mrs. Trump is compared to FLOTUS. Give me a break.

So it's really simple. Trump got the nomination because he came out spouting racist, hateful rhetoric. Fact. The Mexico remark and building the wall. Had Trump come out sounding like any other candidate, he wouldn't have made it. He would have lost to any other candidate. But Carson or Cain weren't going to make it either. Like I said, take a good look at ANY Trump supporter's Twitter/FB feed.

And Janelle brings up a good point. The folks here married to PI women and other countries should take notice. Trump supporters don't want them here either. She said one dude she was talking to says he sees folks married to non-European spouses in the same boat as the illegal aliens.

P.S. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/black-women-become-most-educated-group-in-us-a7063361.html

Black women are the most educated in the US. And are paid the least. Let me guess, black privilege?

Trump's rise is a culmination of WP.

I never said a minority. I said a plurality. Which again is different from a majority.

Cruz, Rubio and Carson cumulatively had a majority of GOP primary support through the GOP primary season. Trump had a 30% +/- plurality.

We can discuss to great lengths on an immigration forum like VJ whether the notion of a border wall is "racist" - Or a response to the fact that we have 12,000,000 +/- people living here who didn't go to an immigration forum like VJ first. Other proposals like visa entry/exit systems and mandatory e-verify would not differentiate between European, Asian, African or Mexican nationals. A wall on the southern border would because.. Geography. Visa exit systems and e-verify have been discussed ostensibly as well, but only the proposed wall has been deemed "racist." (A third of the border was fenced up by Clinton in the 90s already)

I've seen plenty of hate and irrationality spewed from the Twitter accounts of many people, including Trump, Cruz, Hillary, Bernie and Obama supporters. What you consider to be prejudice or hate depends entirely on what side you're on. I have plenty of friends on the Bernie side, I have plenty of friends on the Hillary side, and I have plenty of friends on the Trump side (surprisingly few of whom are white).

"That's why Obama has TWO degrees, married to the same woman for 20 years, raised great kids, and didn't have a single scandal to his name. But folks are quick to erase his accomplishments just for the sake of putting Trump above him."

Frankly, this could be said about any presidential candidate ever.

"That's why Bush has TWO degrees, married to the same woman for 20 years, raised great kids, and didn't have a single scandal to his name. But folks are quick to erase his accomplishments just for the sake of putting Obama above him." - I was never a fan of Bush, and I d*mn near cried tears of joy when Obama won in 2008. But how often do you hear of people applauding George W's unprecedented battle against AIDS? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-george-w-bushs-greatest-legacy--his-battle-against-aids/2012/07/26/gJQAumGKCX_story.html?utm_term=.351c29349546

"The folks here married to PI women and other countries should take notice. Trump supporters don't want them here either. She said one dude she was talking to says he sees folks married to non-European spouses in the same boat as the illegal aliens." - Look, I've heard die-hard Bernie supporters call for the killing of white men, and we could go back and forth on what he's heard, she's heard etc. You just kind of have to ignore them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Donald Trump is something completely new as far as presidential candidates go. A populist of his caliber has never been a major contender before. But if you actually listen to the content of what Donald Trump says at rallies from Pennsylvania to Nevada, most of it is railing against money in politics, free trade and inaction on illegal immigration. None of which are topics I would contribute to "white supremacy." The "Obama is stupid", "Hillary is a traitor", "Kerry is incompetent" etc, etc, etc has been quite normal rhetoric from the European populist right for decades. It's now come to America. I think Trump has gotten away with a lot that he shouldn't have in part because of a political left crying wolf and abusing the word racism for many, many years. Remember when George W. Bush was a fascist, John McCain was racist and Mitt Romney was going to "put black people back in chains"?

What I will agree with is that there has been a rise in white nationalism in recent years. I attribute this partly to growing demographic shifts, but also partly to anti-white rhetoric and identity politics. It's not a good thing. We absolutely do not need white nationalism, but when you create politics based on labels and intersectional tribalism, you're going to end up with tribalism across the board - Including among whites in Appalachia and the Deep South.

2006: "Don't label me. I'm a human being."

2016: "Here is a list of all my labels."

When the left spoke like Morgan Freeman is when I proudly called myself a liberal. 50 years ago you would have been called a radical for saying you were "colorblind." 30 years ago you would have been called a progressive. Today, you're called a racist.

P.S. I'm not trying to ignore your comment on black women and education. The statistic is new to me (thanks for sharing), so I don't feel like I can make any comment on it at this point.

The NRA is a big factor here. But the biggest factor is political polarization and lack of trust.
It's a failure of the political right to rein in their crazies, and a failure of the political left to rein in their crazies.

The crazies on either side tend to be the loudest, thus they get the most attention, and ultimately the most power.

That's why you now have a political right who thinks liberals want to take away everyone's guns.

That's also why you now have a political left who thinks conservatives want everyone, everywhere to have guns.

Sadly, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, where more and more liberals begin using "ban guns!" rhetoric, while more and more conservatives begin using "no regulation!" rhetoric.

let me play you analogy back to make sure I understand it:

Elected officials espousing creationist views are holding back American society and the same way the architects of social science that is not data driven are working their way onto the Universities of America in a way that is creating false narratives about race in America...do I have that right?

Creationists arrive at that conclusion by cherry picking science, disregarding other science and guessing in order to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.

In the realms of social science, you can rarely carry out experiments, so you rely on quasi-experiments, history and all too often a bit of subjective opinion. The notion that we live in a racist patriarchal sh*thole ruled by white supremacy.. You can only come to that conclusion by cherry picking social experiments, disregarding other experiments, guessing, misunderstanding certain concepts and applying history in a way that suits your pre-determined conclusion.

He didn't lose because he was called a racist on the left, he lost because he never had a chance in the first place. Anyone with eyes can see the GOP won't put a POC in the WH, at least not in our lifetime. Trump's rise makes that clear as day. Because if we're going off the political climate today, Carson should have never fallen off. He didn't make a quarter of the mistakes Trump did, but the rebuke was swift and brutal.

Go look at any number of Trump supporters on FB or Twitter. Racism is hot and heavy.

Here's what I saw in early polling and primaries:

Carson - 30%

Trump - 30%

Cruz - 20%

Rubio - 15%

Here's what I saw in most early primaries:

Trump - 30%

Rubio - 22%

Cruz - 21%

Carson - 10%

So in early polling, you had Trump at 30%, you had Republicans supporting Rubio, Cruz or Carson at 65%.

In early primaries, you had Trump winning 30%. you had Republicans voting for Rubio, Cruz or Carson at 53%.

So in reality, you had two Hispanic Americans and a black American winning the majority of Republican votes in Iowa, South Carolina and most of the south. Where did Carson poll best? The Deep South - Among white Republican voters in Louisiana and South Carolina.

So why didn't Cruz, Rubio or Carson win? Because you don't need to win a majority of support in a Republican primary to win the nomination. You need to win a plurality in a crowded field of candidates. If you're going to make the argument that Herman Cain and Ben Carson didn't win the GOP nomination because they're black, you'll have to at the same time argue why it was that Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, etc. etc. etc. didn't win despite being white.

No, the truth is - Out of a crowd of 17 mostly white candidates, Carson, Rubio and Cruz were the most popular next to Trump.

So if you're going to make the "GOP racism" argument, you'll also have to explain why two Hispanic candidates and a black candidate won the combined majority of GOP primary votes in Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Maine, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Idaho, Wyoming.. Etc., etc., etc.

Donald Trump did not beat Cruz/Rubio/Carson until Carson and Rubio dropped out.

Either way you break it down, the majority of GOP primary voters preferred a Hispanic or black candidate this year.

Actually it does.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/03/opinions/lee-immigration-ethnic-capital/

Instead, it's a unique form of privilege that is grounded in the socioeconomic origins of some -- not all -- Asian immigrant groups. Understanding this privilege offers insights into how we can help children from all backgrounds succeed.

So there's that.

As for your first question, instead of a long drawn out statement, I'll say this. Donald Trump is running for President. If you can find me one other person of another race that could run and make the same mistakes, let me know. He is the epitome of white privilege.

So when we talk about privilege, we're mainly talking socioeconomics, not white supremacy. According to popular narrative, 4th generation Japanese Americans should be doing terrible in American society. Newly arrived Filipino Americans should be doing even worse. Instead, Asian Anericans are generally better off than white Americans on average, whether you they are 1st generation or 3rd generation.

I disagree. Ben Carson is the only republican candidate to have actually lead Donald Trump in the polls, even after numerous questionable comments. Carson rose in the polls precisely because he played on the outsider, populist right wave. His campaign didn't dwindle because GOP voters all of a sudden found out he was black. It dwindled because of a terrible debate performance on foreign policy and subsequent lack of momentum. The same is true for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Ben Carson could have been as bombastic as Trump, and he would have gotten where Trump is today. Trump's largest gain in poll numbers actually came in November when Carson's support began to fade.

What Ben Carson did endure were a barrage of racial slurs from the left ranging from Uncle Tom to Porch Monkey to Oreo cookie to race traitor.

Jay Jay , in which state are ypu registered as a liberal? cuz I would like to see who certified you.

I'm not sure I'm certified. I did spend 15 years trying to convince Republicans that going into Iraq was an exceptionally bad idea, that the U.S. healthcare system costs, per capita, twice the amount of any single payer system, that there is no non-religious reason for a federal ban on ban gay marriage, that there is a correlation between climate change and CO2 in the atmosphere, that religion doesn't belong in politics, that deporting 12 million people won't work in practice, that you shouldn't own a gun if you're mentally insane and that absolutely no amount of hurt feelings trump an individual's right to free of speech. That didn't prevent much of the GOP from going over a cliff.

I think those are perfectly legitimate liberal viewpoints, despite the fact that nearly 40% of millennials favor a ban on "hate speech." George Carlin would roll in his grave.

The viewpoints I argue on VJ pertain mostly to traditional liberal thought as well. In this case, I think any liberal should question whether gun ownership or gun culture is the real problem. I'm interested in solving problems, not making ideologically pure fad statements. Has banning guns from any major metropolitan area of the United States actually helped lower murder rates?

If being liberal means banning things we don't like, avoid offending anyone at all cost, promoting religiously orthodox medieval garments as "diversity", not questioning semi-truths that have become almost folkloric to the left - Then I don't meet certification requirements.

There are plenty of perfectly reasonable conservatives, and plenty of good ideas on the conservative side. I may not agree with all of them, but I'd rather compromise with conservatives, than see my own side fall over its own ideologically authoritarian cliff of hypocrisy.

I'm not sure, but are you talking about another black member here? Because I think I've said about a hundred times that racism is everywhere. I've experienced it in Germany, Sicily, (Belgium wasn't bad) and Japan. Not to mention places like Korea, Vietnam, and Hong Kong. Can't even catch a cab without a white guy decoy there.

As for the folks from Africa, yeah I could see that, with that whole apartheid thing that happened. But let me guess, because they were white, this upset you and means that when a white person experiences it, it's way worse...

Unless this mythical black poster you seem to have me confused with speaks up, I'm pretty sure you can't find it here that I've said I'm the only one. And TBH, I think I've had it pretty easy to my parents and grandparents. I've got friends at work about 15 years older and they got stories. Mine don't even rate when you can see the scars on a person's body.

As far as people from other countries go that come here poor and make good, it's not secret to why that is. There's no stigma about them. They're not judged in the same manner. Hell I've seen poor Asians be like, at least we're not poor black people. It's like you and Oriz keep wanting to move the goal post. No one wants to be victim status #1, but if you want to keep thinking being white is some kind of disadvantage because you can't CLAIM racism, it's a free country.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/10/white-in-africa-outsiderAs far as your I'm white and would suck in Africa, please do some research.

My skin colour represents privilege and status. Must suck to be you.

Same to you Oriz, please post where I said it's exclusively to black people. And while you're at it, post those laws I keep asking for. Since Jewish people are so oppressed here in the US. And let's be clear since you're trying to move the post too, LAWS or something that keeps Jewish people out of something.

I'll gladly "own up" to white privilege the day I hear any proponent of the matter lay out a good argument as to why, specifically, it's called "white" privilege.

Asian Americans have the highest average household incomes in America. Indian Americans are the only ethnic group making over $100k per year on average. Asian Americans are on average more educated, have higher life expectancy, are less likely to be incarcerated, less likely to be shot by police, less likely to be perpetrators or victims of crimes than white Americans. Iranian Americans make on average $100 more than Norwegian Americans, while Japanese Americans make on average $10,000 more per year and Filipino American households make an average of $20,000 more per year. Pakistani Americans and German Americans have roughly the same annual income, while Taiwanese Americans outperform most other demographic groups in virtually every single measure pertaining to standard of living.

If "Asian America" was a country, it would be by far the world's wealthiest, while "African America" would still be the world's 13th wealthiest, outperforming half the European Union.

Yet, we live in a racist sh*thole trying to annihilate black people, with a system that is "rigged" to benefit white people at the expense of minorities. And Asian privilege does not exist because.. What? Band-aids more often come in "European complexion"?

When you single out a significant part of the population based solely on the color of their skin but fail to substantiate why accusations made don't apply to others, you end up convincing very few people. That's true whether you single out blacks, whites, Hispanics or Asians. My initial gut feeling would have it that the narrative of "white privilege" fits in perfectly with the narrative of an "oppressive, racist sh*thole called America", and statistics suggesting that white Americans aren't doing quite as well as other demographics groups is.. Well.. Contrary to that narrative. It's kind of like when some Christian groups dismiss clear evidence of an Earth dating waaaaay farther back than 6,000 years. Because pretending it's 6,000 years old conveniently fits the narrative.

Unfortunately, a number of science-denying young Earth Christians have made their way into elected government. And frighteningly, a large number of social science-denying activists have made their way into academia.

Yeah. We'd know it all right. The numerous times bullets have gone flying through our houses and vehicles because Upstanding Legal Gunowner decides to shoot at some imaginary possums while drunk, when Upstanding Legal Gunowner decide to point their firearm while beating their wives at 2am in the morning, when Upstanding Legal Gunowner murders children and pets because of celebratory drunken gunfire, when Upstanding Legal Gunowner decides to smoke some joints and then threateningly strokes his illegally carried gun so you won't call police after he rams into your vehicle, when Upstanding Legal Gunowner goes to the firing range and 'accidently' shoots themselves in the face. Sure thing we know it. Uh Huh. Absolutely.

Domestic violence, drunken murder and death threats are generally felonies, whether committed by an AR-15, a hammer or a Ford F-150.

Hillary Clinton anno May 2008 responding to question about why she's staying in the race.

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." referring to the chance that Obama might be assassinated.

I'm no fan of Trump and believe me, there is plenty of subject matter to go on regarding Trump. But folks, both Trump and the Trump bashing has reached idiotic levels.

All I've seen in the media is hypocritical, sensationalist slandering with no actual reference to policy alternatives.

He wants to deport 12 million people. "We have no realistic solution to preventing another generation from growing up undocumented, but he's racist."

He supports legal immigration. "He hates immigrants!"

He wants to ban Muslims. "We won't mention 'Islamic' and 'terrorism' in the same sentence, but he's racist."

He supports affirmative action. "He hates black people."

He support transgender bathrooms. "He's a bigot."

He wants to pull American troops out of [insert sh*thole]. "He's dangerous to world peace."

Damn right..at the foundation the European empires earned the subjugation and genocide of native peoples, appropriation of their lands, repeatedly broke treaties, imported slave labor and profited from the trade, Punished slave and native populations for retaining their own religion and language and structured society to pit poor populations of immigrants against each other. They showed a lotta gumption and deserved every dollar they stole.

Actually, the United States is the only country in the world where (legal) immigrants on average have higher incomes than the native born population, just in case there was some misunderstanding in the way we've structured society here.

That being said, does your comment apply also to the Japanese, Mongol, Persian, various Arab and Ottoman empires, or only the British, Spanish, French and Portuguese ones?

Maybe because there was a pretty lucrative slave trade going on right here in the USA at the time.

I really am struggling to find out why this tidbit of information is thrown out there like slaves weren't owned by white people here. And I've had more than one person here tell me I should be more mad at the African/Muslims that owned slaves in a different country than the white people who owned them here.

Of course. I think the bigger picture should still be in the curriculum of any self-respecting accredited educational institution however.

There is no one on this forum you could be mad at as far as slavery goes really. I am genuinely incredibly sorry that the great great great grandparents of a minority of white Americans "owned" (I can't even use that word without quotations, it's disgusting) your great great great grandparents.

So we have one said saying:

"Remember the Arab slave trade!" and "Blacks owned slaves too!"

Then we have another side saying:

"Why should I be more mad at African and Arab slave owners?"

This is what identity politics does. It leads to tribalism, and it makes people defensive based on factors that they, quite frankly, have nothing to do with. A 3rd generation Italian or Polish American today has just about as much to do with slavery as a Japanese or Nigerian American.

Whenever you throw blanket statements about race into the mix, people become defensive. That's true, whether you're black, white, brown, yellow or blue.

Which is just another reason why identity politics and "social justice" is an unsustainable, toxic mix that does nothing but fuel division and hatred.

Frankly, I'm used to the far right throwing out questionable statements regarding race. The mainstream left delving into racial tribalism is new to me, and as a liberal, it caught me completely off guard some time in 2015. Between the social justice brigade and the neo-Nazi crockpot known as Stormfront, I find very little difference. I find this beyond terrifying.

i didn't say white males were a bummer to the exclusion of all other sorts of males being a bummer.

Would be a bit racist to say:

Arab males have been a bummer through most of history.

or

Asian males have been a bummer through most of history.

Wouldn't it?

um, throughout world history the white male has sort of been a bummer. ain't nothing mystical about it.

If you start "world history" with Columbus' arrival in the Caribbean in 1492, and then solely focus on American history, sure.

Although I get confused, because some insist that even white Latinos are an oppressed minority in the U.S., while others like to point out their Spanish and Portuguese ancestors' conquest of the Americas as evidence of the white boogey man.

Either way, it would be incredibly Western-centric to exclude the Persian empire and its two centuries of conquest. Or the largest empire in human history - The Mongol Empire, which extended well into Europe at its height. Or millenia of Chinese hegemony in East Asia. Or the Ottoman Empire, which ruled a fairly substantial portion of Europe for centuries - Hence why Islam is widespread in southeastern Europe including Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria and Kosovo.

You're also forgetting about most history of African slavery - You know, that pesky Arab slave trade which brought millions of African and European slaves to the Ottoman Empire, Cairo and Zanzibar for over 1,000 years, well into the 20th century - 'Trumping' the Atlantic slave trade in both scope and extent. Largely ignored in U.S. curriculum for reasons unknown. Perhaps it's more convenient to conclude that slavery on the whole was "white male oppression?" That certainly wasn't true for Portuguese, French, Scandinavian slaves sold at markets in Istanbul.

But yes, if you put America in the center, focus solely on European colonialism, disregard Turkish and Arab colonialism, and then view history within the prism of the last 120 years while ignoring the Japanese Empire, you could come to that conclusion.

1. Should I sponsor her or my wife

2. Should we show that she has money in her back in India to support her trip or should we give affidavit of support ?

3. Should we just say its a fun trip or family ceremony etc ?

1. There is no such thing as sponsorship for a tourist visa. They don't care whether she's visiting family or Disneyland, as long as she's visiting.

2. There is no such thing as an affidavit of support for a tourist visa. Her bank statements will be fine as long as she can reasonably afford the trip she's planning.

3. Either works. Just say it's a trip to visit family. Again, they don't care why she going, they care that she'll be leaving.

As far as evidence to show ties to her country. Think about it from a 3rd party perspective. If a person you didn't know from India visited the U.S. - What sort of documentation would give you confidence that he/she was planning to return to India after the trip? Car ownership? Rental agreement? Close family? A dog? A planned future trip to Europe leaving out of Bombay? Etc.

And yet, I haven't heard a better solution from the GOP. Or are you saying that black people shouldn't get anything from them and should just ask you? At least Souske's idea would be the most marketable.

And that's the problem. It's not about being given something, it's about what you DON'T experience.

Have you been a victim of police brutality?

Do you get blamed for things that white men do negatively?

Are you assumed to be a criminal based on your skin color?

Are you a gun owner? Do you get asked if you're in a gang?

You get where I'm going with this.

I have never in my life heard of a Korean American who experiences police brutality or gets blamed for the actions of Kim Jong-un or the Virginia Tech shooter. Nor have I ever met an Indian American wrongly accused of gang membership.

Plenty of times however, I have been accused of being a bad dancer, a Republican, a truck owner, a country music lover, someone who doesn't understand culture and apparently, white men can't jump?

Point being - Asian Americans have the lowest incarceration rates in the nation, the highest average incomes, the highest life expectancy, the highest college attendance and the lowest drop-out rates. My Asian American ex wife's job application success rate was 5x greater than mine. Is there a particular reason Asian privilege isn't "a thing?" Or do we only focus on blanket statements about a mystical white male when it comes to the societal boogey man?