Does Gun Control Increase Security or Infringe Human Rights?


Gunslinger Snavely here to say “PEW PEW PEW PEW….Welcome to our channel of D-D-Death” [Intro Music] Death of a Notion. In today’s episode, we’re gonna be pitting together the political Left’s ideology of gun control against the political Right’s ideology of an inalienable right to bear arms. Where are the lines drawn on this matter in the USA and internationally? Are there trends and statistics that can be observed to help human society with some reasonable level of gun control? Is it possible that the left and the right are
both in the right, and can we use reason to figure out a third option that both sides can agree on? I guess we’re gonna find out today! Let’s start off with some
common ground between the two sides rather than immediately pit them against
each other. Like there is one fact about guns that a grand majority of people can
agree with and that is guns make the job of killing people a whole lot easier. Also from the Pew Research Center, if I were to ask an American the statement: “Should we prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns?” or “Should we bar the sale of guns to those who are on no-fly or watch lists?” It doesn’t matter if you are Republican or Democrat, 80% of you will agree with those statements. Since we have the groundwork laid out for us, let’s start critically thinking as a group, and imagine that a hypothetical law was put in place
that made it illegal to sell guns to the mentally ill. What illnesses do we include in this law? And are there any that we can exclude? Because both Paranoid Schizophrenia and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder are mental illnesses. Yet someone who is OCD would hypothetically be fine with owning a gun. You know, as long as they spend four hours a day cleaning it and loading it and
reloading it. While the Paranoid Schizophrenic would be more likely to
shoot up a bunch of monsters in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and killing innocent
bystanders. OCD probably shouldn’t go under this mentally ill gun control blanket. Neither should most sexually-based mental illnesses. And illnesses such as depression are so widespread, how and why would we even bar
such an illness from buying guns? What I’m trying to get at is this: whatever
exhaustive list of mental disorders you wish to be included in this hypothetical
law, there will be somebody there ready to argue that you have one too many or one too few mental disorders on your list. So now let’s see the best arguments for gun control presented by both sides. The Right says: “More gun control is not needed. Education about guns and gun safety is what is
needed to prevent accidental gun deaths.” And 95 percent of U.S. gun owners say that
children should learn about gun safety. But I say: “little did they know that if they
made gun safety education mandatory, if it is in fact needed, IS a form of gun
control that is used in many nation states. The Right says: “Gun control laws
will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws.” Which is
absolutely true, but I say it will make obtaining those guns just a little bit
harder to get. Also take this logic to the full extent and think about it.
“Murder control laws will not prevent criminals from committing murder,
therefore we do not need murder control laws.” It’s time to Purge, y’all!!! The Right says: “gun control laws and lower gun ownership rates do not prevent suicides.” Which is a
solid argument; if people want to commit suicide there are many ways to kill
oneself. and they site that “Lithuania has one of the world’s lowest gun
ownership rates of seven hundred guns per 100,000 people, but it’s suicide rate
was 45.06 per 100,000 people in 1999, and it’s the highest suicide rate among countries with available information.” The Left says: “High-capacity magazines should be banned because they easily turn murder into
mass murder. And they cite that “In a Mother Jones Investigation found that
high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the sixty-two mass
shootings between 1982 and 2012. When high-capacity magazines were used in
mass shootings the death rate rose 63 percent and the injury rate rose 156
percent. The Left says: “A majority of adults, including most gun owners support common-sense gun control such as background checks, banning of assault weapons, and banning of high-capacity magazines.” To be fairrr, I found an article
that says that bans on assault weapons do not reduce gun deaths.
Just because people support an notion, doesn’t mean that there is good science
to back it up. And heck, before researching this video, I thought banning
assault weapons was a no-brainer. But it doesn’t show the results that we would
expect when concerning gun related deaths. The Left says: “The Second
Amendment was put in place to protect the rights of militias to own guns, not
the rights of individuals.” In 1791, baby USA wrote within its Constitution the
Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights which states that “a
well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Within this statement, there are two somewhat obvious statements that are said. One, that a militia brings security, and two, keeping and bearing arms is a human right.
Something I, and something some historians have noticed, is that these
two things are very much intertwined Rereading the statement as a whole, as a
Philosophical and Psychological statement “A well-regulated militia brings security,
therefore, for the purposes of increasing flow and productivity to our security,
keeping and bearing arms is a human right.” The notion that the founding
fathers wrote this statement for the purposes of protecting the individual
rights alone is kind of wrong. Within the context of the full sentence that is the
Second Amendment, the individual’s rights are there to protect the collective. Not
the individual’s rights are there to protect the individual when their own
shiz hits their own fan. For the purposes of straight up answering the main question of the video, I’m gonna have to do some REAL TALK! Mmmm, this is
gonna be some Real Talk y’all. Okay, taking all the guns away is a bad idea. Giving every last body a gun also a bad idea. Too many dead bodies when you take
either extreme path. Now gun control as a notion in and of itself is…wait for it…CONTROLLING. And you know what else is controlling? A ducking well-regulated militia. A militia that’s got their shiz together. A militia that knows where most all of its guns are. A militia that controls where its guns are. A militia that already in its own right requires a back-ground check of physical and mental health just to get in. Do you think the founding fathers expected a group of white bass Hicks to be the source of their security? White bass hicks who ain’t regulating shiz and showing off their inalienable right to bear arms? Heck to the naw! You know who they were
expecting to provide us security? I’ll tell you who they be expecting to
provide us security. THE MI-LI-TA-RY. You know, back in the day they didn’t have a U.S.
Army taking care of the big stuff for us. *misquacked* They had the common man there as part of
the militia taking care of that big stuff. Y’all want to stop this onslaught
of mass shootings in our culture? Have a couple of your military boys and gals
guarding the places you want to see protected. Highschools? Military.
Universities? Military. Airports? Military. Southern borders? Hmmmm? USE THE DUCKING MILITARY! So yes, gun control increases security. And yes it may infringe on
human rights, but you can get your rights back as soon as you decide to add to the
collective security in the military. And you can still get your guns from Ruraltown, Letterkenny, USA. Just let the government know what heat you are packing,
why you are packing heat, and how you will be protecting your heat so that
your dumbass five-year-old doesn’t blow off his or his brothers head. We ain’t
living in the Wild West here folks. Gun control. Good. Increases security and
flow of the militia. And protects human rights by protecting the lives of those
who call the USA their home. But of course not so much gun control that guns
become impossible to buy, keep, and bear. Because whooo-weeeee, that would clearly infringe on human rights and would definitely be bad for everybody. Phew…All right we good… we good? All right. Now back to your regularly scheduled type of talking. And even though guns were abundant in revolutionary America, so where the gun restrictions. This may sound stupid now, but they had gun laws
making it illegal to sell guns to Native Americans, Irish indentured servants and
black slaves. So even then, with the Second Amendment fresh on everyone’s
mind there is evidence of gun control in some form. And since it appears that some
level of gun control is good and reasonable, it’d be nice to have some gun
related statistics to help guide politicians to help create policies that
would hypothetically reduce the number of gun related deaths in their
jurisdiction. And that’s what I’m here for! In a paper by Koper et. al., it
says that “available information suggests that automatic weapons and other
high-capacity semi-automatics are involved in as many as 57% to firearms mass murders.” However, paraphrasing David Hemingway, who is the Director of the
Harvard Injury Control Research Center, suggests that even though banning
assault weapons may reduce the number of mass murders or shootings it would do
little to no effect on reducing the number of deaths caused by guns. Also in
a 2017 paper Hemingway examined laws that banned assault rifles in the
context of other firearms related laws. And none of the assault weapons banning
laws found a decrease in firearm homicides. So apparently, banning semi-automatic and automatic weapons doesn’t reduce the
amount of gun deaths. Here’s a question: Where are the world’s guns? Wait for it…just look at this graph. Let it soak in….okay, next question. What is the best
guesstimate for the number of gun related deaths connected to each type of
gun? Even though handguns and shotguns have similar prevalence in quantity
available, handguns by far are the most frequent gun of choice in homicides. But
the type of gun isn’t the largest indicator of what gun is likely to be
used to kill someone. Studies have shown a significant correlation between the
size of caliber and frequency of gun homicides. The larger the caliber of the
gun, the more likely it’ll be used to kill someone. Here’s another question: Is
there any correlation between the number of guns and the number of gun deaths in
a country? Or gun to person frequency and the number of gun deaths per capita? Alright, wait for it…I’ll show you another graph. The first graph when compared to all countries that have this data no correlation is found. However, if you have only developed countries in this graph and excluding the very racist and killing
South Africa, there is a strong correlation found. A good formula to remember this by is: Developed Country + More Guns=More Death by Guns. Or depending on who you’re talking to: Mad and Crazy People in a Country + Just a Few Guns=Significantly More Death by Guns. Which brings us to
the next question: Are there any psychological trends inside the minds of
those who commit mass murder? Dr. James Knoll in an article on psychologytoday.com says this: “Most perpetrators are young males who act alone after
carefully planning the event. They often have a long-standing fascination with
weapons and have collected large stores of them. The shootings usually occur in a
public place and during the daytime. The mass murderer is an injustice collector
who spends a great deal of time feeling resentful about real or imagined
rejections and ruminating on past humiliations. He has a paranoid worldview
with chronic feelings of social persecution, envy, and grudge holding. He
is tormented by beliefs that privileged others are enjoying life’s
all-you-can-eat buffet while he must peer through the window; and outside
loner always looking in. He creates and enacts and odious screenplay of grandiose
and public retribution. Like the child who upends the checkerboard when
he does not like the way the game is going, he seeks to destroy others for
apparent failures to recognize and meet his needs.
Fury, deep despair, and callous selfishness eventually crystallize into
fantasies of violent revenge on a scale that will draw attention. The mass
murderer typically expects to die, and frequently does in what amounts to a
mass-homicide personal-suicide. Some clearly do not meet criteria for any
mental disorder and often may justify their acts on political or religious
grounds.” We can easily predict a high risk group, but have no way to identify
the one specific person who will go haywire or when they will go haywire. One
last thing that I think everyone should be aware of concerning people who commit
mass murder: Often times, they tell someone that they are going to do it.
Either explicitly, or in a clear negative and weary tone. So if
someone you know meets the general criteria of someone who is in the
high-risk group, and you hear or see them communicate that they are going to do it,
here’s my professional list of common sense list of things to do in this
situation, as helped by my bachelor’s degree in psychology and my minor in
criminology. First, talk to them. You alone may be able to stop or persuade them
from doing those harmful actions. Second, call their authorities. Family members,
pastors if applicable, police; people who are above them who can investigate
further and talk to them. And third, at least in the following weeks, try to
befriend them. Nobody can be friends with everybody that they meet all the time.
But people like that obviously need some extra loving if they get to that
point. Prove to them that the way that they were thinking was wrong, and that
there are people who do care about their needs. Here’s a question: Where are the
most common mass murder locations? The sample size that I found was from an
article on the Washington Post, and it records every instance of 4 or more people
dying from a gun in the United States since 1969. So here are your Top 10ish
Mass Murder Locations. Low and tied for number 10, but prevalent
enough to get me to notice, was Post Offices, Military Bases, and Auto Shops.
Number 9: the Malls and Marketplaces. Number 8: Elementary Schools. Number 7: on
Government property. Number 6: High Schools. Number 5: Colleges and
Universities. Yes, places of education are hotspots. If we combined them, they would be collectively number 3. Number 4: Religious Meeting Places. Number 3: at Home; in close proximity to someone who just snaps and goes cray-cray on the fam. Number 2: at Bars, Clubs, and Restaurants. And the Number 1 place you are most
likely to experience a mass shooting event, which is still very unlikely IS: by
the hand of your coworkers. It doesn’t matter if it’s white collar or blue
collar; a stressed co-worker can be a deadly co-worker. So smile! Make a friend! And watch them spare your life as they shoot up the place and they don’t tell you first. Here’s a question: Are there any laws in
place in certain States and Providences that are successful in keeping gun
deaths low? Even in the United States? Oh yeah! Massachusetts got wise and treated
the ability to buy a gun very similarly to the way that we buy a car: with a gun
license and registering the gun into the Massachusetts Gun Transactions Portal.
Recent data shows that Massachusetts had 3.6 gun deaths out of 100,000 people in comparison to New Hampshire, which is very close and
similar culturally, but has very lax gun control laws, they have a gun death
rate of 9.9 out of 100,000, almost 3 times more. And the
top three states with regards to gun death rates are Alaska, Alabama, and
Louisiana, all of which had loose gun laws, all had gun death rates over 21 out of 100,000. Now internationally speaking, there is one
nation state that has such an amazingly low gun homicide rate that it would be
wrong of me not to bring it up, and that nation is Japan. In Japan, most but not
all guns are illegal. Gun ownership is therefore rare, and the gun homicide rate
in Japan is 1 in 10 million per year. The only guns that Japan permits are
shotguns, air guns, guns with specific research or industrial purposes, or guns
that are used in competitions like skeet. However, one looking to obtain one of
these few legal guns in Japan must go through an onslaught of prerequisite
tasks. One, they gotta obtained formal instruction on the safety and usage of
the weapon. Two, they gotta pass a battery of written, mental, and drug tests. Three,
they gotta undergo a rigorously detailed background check. Four, they gotta inform
the authorities of how their weapons and ammunition are stored (mostly to see if
they are doing it safely). And five, they gotta submit their firearms for annual
inspection, again for safety reasons. This may be a little bit overkill, like
banning handguns and requiring that you have to get your gun expected every
year, may be unnecessary, but their impressive numbers speak
for themselves. Some analysts speculate a couple reasons why Japan has such an
aversion to firearms, may be from the demilitarization that happened in the
aftermath of World War II. And since the citizens observed that the overall crime
rate is low, most Japanese see no need for firearms. So now there should at least
be some level of urgency to resolve this issue to at least statistically reduce
the amount of gun related deaths that happen within any state that enacts
policies consistent with what this research shows. But anywho, hopefully as a
result of all this research, you may now realize that the Liberal concept of gun
control is actually reasonable and can work. And that the Conservative concept of
an inalienable right to bear arms may bring security when it is reserved for
the military and controlled within acceptable reason within the main
populace. Personally, I think that Massachusetts way of requiring a license
and registration to buy a gun, plus a part of Japan’s way to require a mental
and background checks every time you get the license, which I think
should happen once every five years, plus one or two military personnel guarding
at least all of our schools and universities and businesses that can buy
that kind of security time, plus a cultural awareness to love and befriend
those who are in the high-risk category to become mass murderers, will be all
that we need to combat this cultural epidemic within the US and around the
world. This video was made by Tim and Kaiida Snavely on the channel called
Death of a Notion. And definitely not by people who imagine a utopia involving zero
guns, nor involving zero gun control restrictions, so that every last Bad Chad and Crazy
Dave can buy whatever gun whenever they want. Because as long as there’s deviance,
and statistically there always will be, there will need to be some security
system in place to redirect those deviants from causing themselves or society harm. And hey, if you would like to become more enlightened with joy and knowledge,
depressed because I killed a notion that you held onto and you accept that, enraged
because I killed a notion that you held on to and you’re trying to defend a
dead horse, or thoughtful because I listen to well reasoned counter arguments to defend the
notions that I try to bring death to. If you would like to be more of any of those
things, please do us a giddy and click on those like and subscribe buttons. And
until next time, Kumbaya Mother Duckers. The Right goes: *makes elephant noise*. The Left goes: “Hee-Haw”. The Tim goes:…… “Quack”

A Passion for Politics


>>OLIVER YOUNG: One of the first weeks I had
on campus here, I had a meeting with my advisor, Bryan Marshall, the chair of the poli-sci
department, and I asked him what would be a good way to get involved on campus. I’m looking to interact with students who
are interested in politics and policy and he recommended the Janus Forum. And I went into one of those first meetings,
back in 2015, and there was a rich discussion on the current state of affairs in American
politics and foreign affairs, and what was so great about that experience was the club,
the Janus Forum itself, in talking about those issues works really hard to check their biases
at the door so that we have a constructive dialogue. So, the steering committee for the weekly
meetings would come up with the topics for the forums. So someone would present a topic idea, and
everybody would vote on it. My idea was this past spring, where we had
former senator from New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte, Ezra Klein, the founder of Vox, and then Jonathan
Swan, who’s a reporter at Axios, the big scoop guy. It was about intra-party wars and the future
of the political parties, and subjectively and objectively I think it was the best forum
that we’ve had in my time here, and it was my idea to have this topic. But I will say that my most, my favorite experience
in the Janus Forum might have been meeting James Carville, the “Ragin’ Cajun” and campaign
manager for Bill Clinton. He was a really funny guy. That forum was hilarious. He would sort of get up and fix his socks
on stage while one of the other panelists, Alex Castellanos, who is a Republican communication
strategist, was talking, and he got the crowd rip-roaring, clapping, and laughing. He was really great, and in the meeting afterwards
he teased me about not wearing a tie. Just a very accessible human being and very
funny and very genuine and very much wanted to support kids chasing their passions in
politics. And through that I heard that other students
had done this program called Inside Washington, where students from all sorts of backgrounds,
from all different majors, were encouraged to apply to a spring semester or summer term
trip to Washington, DC to meet with speakers and then also to have an internship that would
apply for credit. And I was interested in studying abroad until
I found this trip, I found this opportunity, and I applied, and I was there for the inauguration
of the Trump administration, I was there for the first 100 days last year, last spring. It was transformative for me. I found that the students that I met in my
group will be some of my longtime friends going forward. I met people that have had a profound impact
on me just personally The best part about Inside Washington I found
was, regardless of your politics, regardless of your political affiliation, no matter who
you meet they’re going to have an impact on you. They’re going to tell you something that you
didn’t pick up previously, they’re going to give you advice that you wouldn’t have thought
of previously. I found that my commitment to making this
country a better place was rooted in that Inside Washington experience. Every day was fascinating, every day was a
new day, there was always something to look forward to, to bring to work, to have a conversation
with. My internship was with a lobbying firm, small
firm with just a few members, a few partners and a couple other interns, and I got to know
them very well. I got to know all of their stories very well,
and every day was a new day to talk about something. I focused a lot on various policy initiatives
that we’re trying to get through Congress, and I would go to committee hearings, I would
watch them online, I would transcribe these hearings, I would write up memos about what
was going on. I did an email of the meeting of the week. I would say something like, “Hey, there’s
these two committee hearings on this proposed legislation, and I want a transcription of
this one and just a memo on this one.” I think there’s very much an “American dreamness”
to the Inside Washington program that you get while you’re there. The students, everybody goes in really nervous
about their place, and feeling inadequate, and feeling like, “Man, there are people that
are better, stronger, better connected than I am,” but Inside Washington leveled the playing
field for everybody. Everybody left feeling like they had a shot
at really making change and having a positive, productive career in the realm of politics
that helped their passions and didn’t deter them. People felt inspired when they left, that
they can do great things with that education they had while they were there and the connections
they built and the relationships that were really grown because of everyone’s commitment
to their jobs, their work, and the people around them.

Charlamagne & Trevor Noah Ch2: Reparations, US Politics & How to Be Informed | Emerging Hollywood


(hip hop instrumental) – Hollywood is being rebuilt by artists not afraid to disrupt the status quo. Telling fresh stories and
bringing to life characters who until now have been
confined to the margins. This is Emerging Hollywood. So, you understand the whole conversation about reparations now. ‘Cause it’s really just
the acknowledgement that America did something wrong. – Right, and I think the
interesting thing is just framing. You look at Germany, Germany
goes back to Namibians. They’re like eh we gon’ pay. We’re going to pay for what we did. And we’re not paying to pay you off. You know, I’ve seen the talking point that people have gone with. They’re being like black people, you’re just going to get paid off. It’s not about paid off. It’s about somebody out
there acknowledging, hey I put you down and kept you down so that I could build
everything I have today. And as we all understand
with compound interest and with accumulations of wealth,
holding somebody else down and growing what you’ve taken from them can lead you to be in a position where they can never ever catch up to you. There’s never truly equality. So the conversations around reparations rarely have to be in and around that. It’s just studying and looking, hey, is there something
we can do in this country that can truly put black
people in a position where they are equal. Not just equal on the
surface but they are equal. And we’ve realized that
on many levels in America, Black Americans have been held back on so many different levels. Whether it’s getting higher interest rates for not just loans from
banks but also student loans, you leave school with
a higher level of debt for studying the same thing
as a student who is white. How is that equality? And I think those are
some of the conversations that Americans need to have
but it’s been spun again because people have made it seem like (in Southern American accent) hey Dan, you gon’ have to give them $50. (Charlamagne laughs) Hey Petey, you gon’ pay a 100. And that’s not what it’s going to be but I think people have managed to successfully distill it
into this simple talking point that makes it feel like it’s
an us versus them conversation when in fact it’s not. – Nah, it’s simple. America systemically did something to put black people in a bad position, now systemically do something to put them in a good position. – It’s as simple as that. I always ask people, why
wouldn’t you want that as well? I always go, why wouldn’t you want that? Why wouldn’t you want to see
black communities raised up? Why wouldn’t you want it? I don’t understand why you
wouldn’t want to see that. And America has a history of doing that. That’s another thing for me. America has a history of helping people. America has a history of going, hey farmers, we’re going
to give you subsidies, we’re going to help the corn industry. Hey, you know what? All you guys who fought in the war, you come back, we’re going to help people. They didn’t help the
black soldiers as much but what they did was they said if you were a white person who
has fought for this country, we’re going to help you. We’re going to help you buy a house, we’re going to help you go to school. And for a long time that
wasn’t frowned upon in America. It wasn’t seen as a handout,
it was seen as a boost. It was a normal thing. But now it feels like that
once that boost is going towards a certain group of people, now there’s resistance to that idea. This is not a country of handouts, this is where you work hard. It’s like yes, we all work hard but it helps when somebody
doesn’t block the path that you’re trying to work hard towards. – So what’s their answer when
you ask them that though? When you say, “Hey, why
wouldn’t you want that?”, do they pull out their
Klan hoodie (Trevor laughs) this is why I don’t want it. – No, I genuinely think it’s framing. I’ve learned most of American politics is hampered by political branding. It’s brilliant and it’s how
most of the conversations are distilled in this country. A classic example and a simple one is Obamacare versus the Affordable Care Act. They asked Americans do
you support Obamacare? – No. – The numbers were dismal. They said do you support
the Affordable Care Act? The numbers were double. Same thing.
– Same thing. – Different name. Why? ’cause the one sounds
like black medicine that’s why. (Charlamagne laughs) – What’s the role of comedy in politics? – Well, that’s an interesting question. What is the role of comedy in politics? – Especially right now. – I’ve lived in a country where, for many years, comedy wasn’t legal if it was speaking about what
was going in the country. There’s still African countries where you can’t just tell
whatever joke you want. So I think for me the most
important aspect of comedy personally is knowing that you still have the freedom of speech to
say what you want to say about what’s going on and the world. In terms of its importance, I think it changes from person to person. For me, it’s about
giving people a reprieve ’cause people get so stressed about what’s happening in the news, people get stressed out about
what’s happening in politics and I think comedy reminds you of who you’re trying to be,
who you maybe once we’re and that the world is not always ending even though it seems like it may be. – What do you think that
the most effective way to inform people about politics, like people who may not
be informed about politics any other time? They get it from the Late
Night shows it seems like. – Well, I don’t think it’s
the most effective way. I think it has become one
of the more effective ways in America because of
how bad your news is. Do you know what I mean? – Yeah, it’s so much fear mongering, they want something lighter. – Yeah, but what is news in America? It’s opinion panels, boxes of
people shouting at each other. It’s people sitting on
a couch spewing opinions whereas when you look at news
especially around the world like in South Africa what I grew up with, people in Britain, et cetera. The news is a very boring
institution but very informative. So, I grew up watching what was happening all over the world, every night as a kid. I didn’t enjoy it but I
knew and so for me I think maybe a byproduct of American news skewing towards entertainment
has meant that entertainment has started to skew towards news and so that’s why people feel like it’s one of the best
places to be informed. I don’t think it’s the
best way to be informed, I just think right now it’s how people are being best informed. – But you do try to be informative though? – Oh yeah, I think great comedy
is about informing yourself. All of the greats have
given me that advice in different ways, at different times. Everybody from Dick
Gregory to Dave Chapelle, they all go like look at
what’s happening in the world and just tell the truth and then the jokes are
going to come from that. So, as a person I try
and make The Daily Show what I’m talking about to my friends, to my writers, to my people. It’s not like I leave the building and all of a sudden I’m
thinking of other things. It’s everything that’s
going on in my world and I try and condense it
into that 30 minute show. – So what is the most effective
way to be informed nowadays? ‘Cause it’s so much different
news coming at you– – [Trevor] That’s a good question. – Every second of the day. – I’ll be honest with you,
I question everything now. I question everything
and I read everything. Everything, everywhere. So, I will read five different newspapers, I will try and get five
different versions of the story. I try and dig into a thing
over and over and over again ’cause I’ve come to realize that as much as we like to believe that there’s such a thing as objectivity, everyone has some sort of bias. – Yeah, I guess that’s the problem with having so many opinion
based sources, right? – Right, yeah that’s the thing. – ‘Cause everybody’s got some bias. – When it comes to politics, you realize there is no
definitive truth per se. I mean there are certain facts,
there are scientific facts but when it comes to everything else. I mean everyone can
argue chicken or the egg in any argument. So, you have to figure out, I guess, what you base your opinions on, which economists you trust,
which think tanks you trust, et cetera, et cetera, and that’s why I have a
big team that works here with fact checkers, with
writers, with everyone who can come together and
say okay, we agree on this being the most concrete
version of the truth that we’re going to go out with. – Do you get the final say in it? – Yeah, you have to have the final say. At some point, I’ve got
to put my neck on the line and be like yeah, this
is what I want to do ’cause again if I leave
the building, it’s me. I can’t say to you guys tomorrow, if you go Trevor, why did you say that? Well actually Charlamagne–
– One of my writers wrote it. – My writer wrote this. No, that’s why every
single joke that comes out, I either write it with the
writers or I approved the joke. I go that was funny,
I’m going to say that. – What do you say to people
who say The Daily Show can be an echo chamber? – Everything is an echo chamber. I think that’s a term that
people use to try and justify what a group of people are
saying in and amongst themselves. I think for myself, you will
always have an echo chamber because people who watch your show are people who like your show. Do you get what I’m saying? So you’ll always have that. What I think is key for me is to break out of that
bubble that you live in and acknowledge what’s
happening outside of that world. So what I do is I go, let’s
acknowledge moments or things that may make us uncomfortable
or engage in ideas that other people have, that
we may not necessarily discuss amongst ourselves and I think that’s key. So, I don’t just live in a
world where I’m like you agree, we agree, yeah we’re
good, we agree, we agree. No, no, it’s like all right,
we know what we think. That’s why I want to have
Republicans on the show, that’s why I have people
I will not agree with on any policy on the show because I want to engage
with them on an idea and I want to expose them
to my audience and be like yo, I want you to trust
your ideas of the world because if what you believe can change when you meet somebody else then it wasn’t based on anything concrete. Your belief should be strong enough that they can stand up to
the ideas of somebody else. – Have any of them ever changed your mind? When’s the last time that’s happened? – I don’t know if anyone
has changed my mind but I do know people have given
me a different perspective on how to see something. So whether it’s Chris christie
or whether it was Rand Paul. There’s always something I
garner from another human being. I think most human beings are trying to do what they think it’s right
from their point of view. There are obviously people in the world who I think are just evil. There are some human
beings who are just like no I’m trynna destroy things but I think most human beings
in the world are going, no, I’m right and I’m
trying to do what’s right. So, I try and garner even a glimpse of their world from them. It helps me understand how to
formulate a different argument or see them more as a human being and try to engage with them
and get to the same place. – Is there any good way to see
this current administration? Has any of them ever said something to you that says oh I can see why
you support the president? – Is there any good way to
see this administration? I don’t know if there’s a good way to see this administration but one thing I will
say about Donald Trump that I’ve repeatedly said is one thing that people take for
granted with Donald Trump is that he is brilliant
at acknowledging problems. – Really? – He is fantastic at
acknowledging problems. His solutions are trash. (Charlamagne laughs) He’s fantastic though. He doesn’t hide that there is a problem. So he would say, for
instance, no one liked it when he went and said, “Hey
guys, in Belgium and in France, “they’ve got something bubbling up there.” He was like look man, I’ve
noticed that there is conflict between the immigrant
community in these places and that’s going to bubble. People were like Trump
is just talking trash and then all of a sudden
you saw immigrants that were involved in attacks and people like oh we didn’t know this and people we’re like yeah this is a big thing in the community, how did we not know? And I think it’s because
a lot of the time, we choose to ignore things. His solutions are trash though because he’ll say the
same thing in America. He’ll go we have a problem with
immigration, build a wall– – [Charlamagne] Build a wall. – Come on, man, that’s not a solution. What are you going to do
about the Middle East? We’re just going to
bomb the shit out of it. These are not solutions but I
think what he’s good at doing is identifying problems and I think if you understand the problem that he’s identifying you can figure out another solution and speak to those same people. And I think some politicians
have latched onto that now. They’ve started realizing the reason Trump connects with people is because he speaks to
people that they see as real but maybe we can give
them another solution. (hip hop instrumental)

History of the Republican Party | American civics | US government and civics | Khan Academy


– [Voiceover] Hey, Kim! – [Voiceover] Hi, David! – [Voiceover] So, with the
Republican National Convention coming up in just a couple of
weeks as we’re recording this, you thought it would be
like a really good idea to sit down and examine the
history of the Republican Party. So what’s, what’s going
on in the country in 1854 that leads to this party forming? – [Voiceover] Well,
there’re growing discussions over slavery, and why the slavery
should expand to the West. Now, all throughout the 19th century the citizens of the United States had been kind of compromising on
the issue of slavery. First, they had a line
between North and South, said only slave states
could be below this line. Now the Kansas-Nebraska Act
overturns that compromise. The Kansas-Nebraska Act,
which says that the citizens of a territory when applying for statehood can themselves decide
whether or not that state should have slavery. – [Voiceover] So, even
though Kansas and Nebraska are north of this parallel in Missouri above which slavery couldn’t exist, this new law kind of overturns
that, that agreement? – [Voiceover] Exactly. So a number of US citizens,
who are anti-slavery, which means that they don’t want slavery to spread into western territories, mainly because they want those territories free from white farmers to not have to compete
with wealthy slaveholders who have free labor to
farm and ship their goods and sell their crops. – [Voiceover] What about
people that hate slavery and think it’s immoral
and want to abolish it? – [Voiceover] Those people
are called abolitionists. – [Voiceover] Yeah,
that’s a convenient name. – [Voiceover] Yes. And the abolitionists,
really before the 1850s they were kind of considered
the lunatic fringe, only those sorts of people would imagine that you would want to end
slavery right now everywhere that exists in the United States. So, they don’t want to
just not have slavery out in the West, they want slavery to be
ended where it exists already in the South.
– [Voiceover] Right. – [Voiceover] So, those
who believed in abolition, those who believed in anti-slavery went to a new party, the Republican Party. – [Voiceover] So even
within the Republican Party abolitionism was still on the fringe of the party plank? – [Voiceover] Yeah, I would say so. So, the new Republican
Party which really comes out to an extremely strong start, they run their first candidate in 1856, he gets second place in national election, which is amazing.
– [Voiceover] Not bad. – [Voiceover] But their
second candidate for President is Abraham Lincoln. And Lincoln himself is
actually kind of considered a moderate, because he is anti-slavery, he is not an abolitionist. But nonetheless, the
South perceives Lincoln to be an abolitionist and
white Southerners revolt and start the Civil War. – [Voiceover] So, because he is perceived as an abolitionist,
because he is a Republican, that’s why South Carolina secedes? – [Voiceover] Exactly. So, the Civil War ensues. This is a four year long battle. 620,000 Americans die. And at the end of the day, the North, the United States of America
led by the Republican Party is victorious. – [Voiceover] So the
victory of the United States in the Civil War kind of assures dominion of the Republican
Party for a generation. – [Voiceover] Yeah, I would
say even more than that. So, for the rest of the 19th century and really into the early 20th century the Republican Party is the
stronger political party in the United States. – [Voiceover] So, from
the end of the Civil War, from 1865, until about when would you say? – [Voiceover] I would
say the Great Depression. – [Voiceover] So, it’s
an almost unbroken string of republican presidencies. – [Voiceover] Yeah, there are only three Democratic presidents in this time period. So it’s 72 years of
pretty much uninterrupted Republican rule. And the Republican Party is
the party of anti-slavery. During the Civil War they were the party of the emancipation
proclamation under Lincoln. So, it’s during their rule
that the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, is passed. The 14th Amendment, which
guarantees equal citizenship to African Americans, is passed. And the 15th Amendment,
guaranteeing the right to vote for African Americans, is passed. – [Voiceover] So in the period immediately following the Civil
War called Reconstruction, when we see the election
of some of the first African American senators
and representatives to the Congress. – [Voiceover] Exactly. So, during this time period
quite a few African American men were elected to US Congress,
and many more served in appointed roles, like postmaster. – [Voiceover] So this is
when we get the election of Senator Hiram Revels from Mississippi. – [Voiceover] Exactly. So Hiram Revels was one of the first two African American senators. So after the Civil War the
Republican Party was really kind of this party of the Gilded Age. They believed in modernizing
the infrastructure of the United States. They built lots of railroads. They enacted policies that would protect American business. And it’s really in this early period of the turn of the century
that the Republican Party becomes associated with
protections of business there. – [Voiceover] Is that
what the elephant’s about? – [Voiceover] Kind of, yes. So, the elephant was popularized in an 1870 cartoon by Thomas Nast. – [Voiceover] Oh, the
same guy that gave us Santa Claus, right? – [Voiceover] Yes. And Nast depicted the
Republican Party as an elephant because it was a party of strength, a really big consequential party. – [Voiceover] That’s so
fascinating to have gone from this, like, insurgency party to this, like, to being perceived as the elephant of electoral politics in 30 years. – [Voiceover] Yeah, it’s amazing. Unfortunately, it kinda
all comes crashing down with the Great Depression. – [Voiceover] Sure. – [Voiceover] So, the
pro-business policies, the lack of regulation in the 1920s leads to the stock market crash of 1929. And it was a Republican
president, Herbert Hoover, who was in the presidency
at the time of the crash. And so, in 1932, Democrat
Franklin Roosevelt is elected president. And the following 40 years, more or less, are going to be the time
of Democratic ascendancy. But, in the meantime, there is one notable Republican president. – [Voiceover] Ike for
President, Ike for President. – [Voiceover] I like Ike, you like Ike, Everybody likes Ike. – [Voiceover] For President. – [Voiceover] (laughs) So, we were quoting one of Ike’s campaign commercials. – [Voiceover] Who is Ike, Kim? – [Voiceover] Ike was
General Dwight Eisenhower who was a World War II hero. He was so popular he
would have been elected had his… – [Voiceover] Could have been
from the Martian party, right? – [Voiceover] Yes (laughs). – [Voiceover] Like any party
expect the Communist Party would have propelled
Eisenhower to the presidency. – [Voiceover] Yes. Exactly. And you’re right that one
of the, you know, key themes of this time period was anti-Communism, and both Republicans and Democrats had an anti-Communist bent. But Eisenhower was elected in 1952, and he was really the first president to use commercial spots to get elected. He had these cute little jingles that were very memorable. – [Voiceover] So catchy. – [Voiceover] And he
really used the medium of television well. So he’s kind of the father of TV ads. – [Voiceover] Yeah, it’s interesting, because I think we think of Kennedy as being the first television president. But I would, I think we
could both make the claim that it’s, it’s really Eisenhower. – [Voiceover] That is a great point. So, Eisenhower is kind
of a Republican moment in a much larger Democratic era. – [Voiceover] Okay. – [Voiceover] And this is the era when the Civil Rights Movement happens. This is the era of the
Great Society programs, which were Lyndon Johnson’s programs to try to attack poverty,
and New Deal programs. So this is really the
birth of the welfare state. So in this time period
the Republicans begin to experience a demographic shift. So first, they had been the
party that was most known for representing African Americans, because they were the party of Lincoln. But during the New Deal, when most people really
needed economic help, the African American constituency moved over to the Democrats. They actually had a campaign
saying to African Americans “turn your picture of
Abraham Lincoln to the wall” so that he can’t see you changed parties. But this is really the time period when the Democratic Party begins to pick up the
votes of African Americans. And so, over the course of
the 1930s through the 1960s, as the Democratic Party begins to advocate bigger and bigger government,
a larger welfare state, and more and more social progress, the Republicans develop a
conservative response to that. And in the 1970s and 1980s, in the aftermath of the
Civil Rights Movement, many whites in the South
felt that the social chaos of the Civil Rights
Movement had gone too far. And so, they left the Democratic Party, which had been traditionally
a party in the South, and joined the Republican Party, which was presenting a
more conservative face towards social change. And so, in the 1980s this
new conservative movement really came together in the
person of Ronald Reagan. And Ronald Reagan brought together a number of constituencies. He brought together business interests, who wanted less government
regulation of business. He also brought together
Christian evangelicals, who wanted a more conservative social value program in government. And he also brought
together anti-Communists, who felt that the Democratic presidents had been too soft on
Communism during their tenure. – [Voiceover] So this
is interesting to me, because it seems to be
around the era of Reagan that we started to see the beginnings of ideological polarization
within the parties. – [Voiceover] I would say
that’s kind of been around since the beginning, more or less. You know, the two
original political parties in the United States, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, or the Democratic-Republicans. This is the party led by Thomas Jefferson versus the party led
by Alexander Hamilton. You know, they had the
same idea of the sort of large central government versus the small central government. In many ways we’re still
debating the same issues that Hamilton and Jefferson
were debating in 1800. – [Voiceover] So, okay, so we’re seeing this conservative coalition coalesce around the election of Reagan, and his election was like a sweep, right? – [Voiceover] Yes. Yeah, he deregulates a lot of industries. He defends conservative
social family values, like prayer in school, for example. And he takes a very hard
line against Communism. And George W. Bush, who was the most recent
Republican president, had a fairly similar agenda, although less emphasis on anti-Communism and instead an emphasis on anti-terrorism. – [Voiceover] So we’re seeing
this shift over last 150 years of party priorities for the Republicans as the country changes and
as its demographics change. – [Voiceover] And we’ll find out how the story of the
Republican Party continues in this election.

Charlamagne & Trevor Noah Ch1: Immigration, Politics & U.S. Media Influence | Emerging Hollywood


(smooth music) – Hollywood is being rebuilt by artists not afraid to
disrupt the status quo, telling fresh stories, and bringing to life characters who, until now, have been
confined to the margins. This is Emerging Hollywood. (claps)
Peace to the planet. I go by the name of Charlamagne Tha God, and the man I’m with today
needs no introduction. He’s a New York Times best-selling author, host of The Daily Show. My man, Trevor Noah. (hands slap)
– Trev. – What up, my dude?
– What’s happening, brother? – How are you?
– Now, as an immigrant, do you feel responsible to
advocate for other immigrants through your comedy?
– Oh, that’s an interesting question. Americans use the term
immigrant so broadly. It’s interchangeable. When people say immigrant in America, a lot of the time, what
they’re talking about is a person who comes here from Mexico. (laughs) You know?
– Yeah. – People don’t think of Chris
Hemsworth as an immigrant. So when people say immigrant in America, I’ve noticed that the terminology specifically refers to
a certain type of person who many people perceive
having a certain backstory and journey and purpose in America. But I look at everyone. Justin Bieber’s an immigrant. You know what I mean? – [Charlamagne] Drake. – [Trevor] Drake is an immigrant, exactly. So I don’t think I’ve ever
thought of it in that way. What I do think about when
I’m creating my comedy is trying to connect to the most honest and human experience. I think, as people, we have a tendency to feel when it applies to
us or people close to us and as soon as we’re out of the danger or we’re in the shade,
then we start going like, oh, I don’t know about those people. I don’t know about those people. And so, for me, what I’m
constantly trying to do is go, are we having
an honest conversation about these people, with regards to how America treats them? And I think that’s what
I’m always trying to do, and it’s changed in my life,
because I learn things. I haven’t always held
the views that I’ve held. I haven’t always been informed, and I think that’s what
being informed is about is like learning and unlearning, which is even harder to do. – Yeah, I feel like I’m
doing more unlearning as I get older, you know what I’m saying? – Which is a good thing, ’cause most people do
it the other way around. – Yeah, they hold onto just their beliefs that they’ve had their whole life. – Most people are like, I’m tired. (Charlamagne Tha God laughs) I’m tired of learning new shit. I’m done. – But what was the influence of media in your childhood like? How did that shape your perspective? – I think it depends on what media. American media played a big role in defining how I saw the world. You know, I watched
American sitcoms growing up, and what was weird in South Africa was we had all of the shows coalesced, so I didn’t know that they
were from different networks or they appealed to different groups, so for me, Sister Sister was the same as Murder, She Wrote. They were all in–
– (Charlamagne) Really? – [Trevor] the same vein. Yeah, like it was in the same space. Do you get what I’m saying? I wasn’t like, oh, this is
for a certain type of viewer and that’s for a certain type of viewer. – Oh, it was all American to you. – It was just like, yeah,
it was just American TV. When I used to watch American TV, I genuinely thought the
population in America was 50% black, 50% white because of how we had the shows. I was just like, yeah,
this is how this world is. The black people have houses
where they go upstairs. I was like, man, they’re
balling in America. Good times. – No, you never saw Good Times. (Trevor laughs) That’s what that was. – (laughs) I never saw Good Times. – Now, how did growing up in South Africa shape the way you view American politics? – What’s interesting about
South African politics is that, in many ways, it has
echoes of American politics. Specifically with
regards to our histories. We both share histories where black people have been oppressed just because of the color of their skin. We both have histories where
black people have had to fight just to be considered equal. We also both have histories and presents where black people are now going, hey, freedom was the
beginning of the journey. Now we need to find a way to overcome all of the implicit obstacles that have been placed in our way. So in many ways, those
things are very similar across countries. What has been different for me is South Africa was a minority that was oppressing a majority where in America, it was the opposite. And so in South Africa,
once power shifted, you had a world where the black government forced people to acknowledge
what had happened. It feels like Americans
just ended and moved on. It was very much like,
(blathers) black people can vote. Now it’s done. (blathers) all right,
black people, you can, yeah, yeah, black president. It’s over now, right? Let’s move on, let’s move on. Whereas we had to have painful
and specific conversations about what was done to
black people in our country and I think that stuck
with a lot of people and that created an honest base for the country to grow from. It’s not easy, and it
didn’t fix everything, but I do think it fertilized the soil so that the roots of honesty
could dig into the ground. And I’ve noticed a lack
of that in America, and it’s because of just the
way people have been educated. A lot of people are like,
what are you talking about? What do you mean, redlining? What do you mean? What are you talking about? And you’re like, you don’t know this? You don’t know how black people weren’t able to live in certain areas? You don’t know that black people weren’t given access to home loans? You don’t know that black people weren’t given access to credit, which is how you grow
your wealth in America? You don’t know these things? And people genuinely don’t know, and so then you understand
if they don’t know that, it can affect how they perceive a problem as opposed to them going, yeah, I see why you’re in this position. It’s them going, clearly
you’re lazy, and I’m not. And so those are the biggest things, and that’s what shaped, I
think, how I see the politics. You know, South Africa
has a similar history, but it’s helped me understand why there’s some of the gridlocking
conversations in America. (smooth music)

Truth Worth Telling by Scott Pelley


– I’m Scott Pelley, 60
Minutes correspondent and author of Truth Worth Telling. I wrote Truth Worth Telling because I simply couldn’t stop myself. After 45 years in journalism,
20 of them at 60 Minutes, the stories just float
out of me like a torrent. Each chapter is about a person that I met who discovered the meaning of their life during the momentous events of our times. I write about the gallantry of the firefighters of the FDNY as we stood before the collapsing towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11. I write about an Air Force nurse at a combat field hospital in Iraq who literally opened her own veins to save the life of a dying Marine. I write about the authenticity
of Bruce Springsteen, about the vision of Elon Musk, and there’s a chapter
about the 2016 election, and I try to explain how Donald Trump lost the popular vote by
nearly three million votes, and still became President
of the United States. Overall, I’d like Truth Worth Telling to be an inspirational book, reminding us all of the value of values in these uncertain times. At 60 Minutes, our job
is to travel the world and find the most
fascinating stories we can. Truth Worth Telling is a
collection of the best of the best, plus a few things I
couldn’t tell you on TV. (inspirational music)

Donald Trump Remarks Aid White Supremacists’ Political Ambitions | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC


NOW.>>GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU. MUCH APPRECIATED. THANKS TO YOU AT HOME FOR JOINING US THIS HOUR. IN 1924 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NEEDED TO PICK A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE TO RUN AGAINST CALVIN COOLIDGE. THEY KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE HARD. COOLIDGE WAS FAIRLY POPULAR. HE HAD BECOME PRESIDENT WHEN WARREN HARDING KEELED OVER AND DIED IN OFFICE. AS PRESIDENT COOLIDGE WAS PRETTY WIDELY LIKED, HE WAS OVERSEEING A PRETTY GOOD ECONOMY, RUNNING BASICALLY AS AN INCUMBENT TO TRY TO HOLD ON TO THE SEAT. AND THE DEMOCRATS KNEW THAT COOLIDGE WAS GOING TO BE HARD TO BEET IN 1924. BUT THE DEMOCRATS HEAD INTO THEIR CONVENTION THIS YEAR, IN THE HOT SUMMER OF 1924 INTENDING TO PICK SOMEBODY TO RUN AGAINST COOLIDGE AND THEY AT LEAST FELT LIKE THEY HAD A COUPLE OF GOOD CANDIDATES TO CHOOSE BETWEEN. THIS IS A TIME WHEN THEY CHOOSE THEIR NOMINEES AT THE BIG MEETING OF THE NATIONAL PARTY. WHEN THE DEMOCRATS CONVERGED IN THE SUMMER OF 1924 THEY KNEW THEY HAD TWO FRONT RUNNERUNNERS A DEMOCRAT NAMED AL SMITH. GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK AT THE TIME. AND WILLIAM GIBBS McDUE. HE WAS ORIGINALLY FROM TENNESSEE, ULTIMATELY BECAME A SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA IN THE WOODROW WILSON ADMINISTRATION. HE WAS SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AND HE PULLED OFF THE MAJOR CUE OF MARRYING PRESIDENT WILSON’S DAUGHTER WHILE WILSON WAS PRESIDENT AND McDUE WAS SERVING AS THE SECRETARY OF TREASURY. THEY HELD THE WEDDING AT THE WHITE HOUSE. IT WAS A BIG DEAL. MACK KA DUE IS THE SON-IN-LAW OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT, A FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY, A SENATOR, VERY RICH WITH TIE TO THE WEST AND THE SOUTH, VASE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. VERY VERY VERY WELL CONNECTED. AND IN FACT THE LAST TIME DEMOCRATS NEEDED TO PICK A PRESIDENTIAL CAN DATE FOUR YEARS EARLY IN 1920, THEY VERY NEARLY PICKED McDUE. THEY MIGHT HAVE DONE BETTER WITH HIM IN 1920 THAN THE GUY THEY ULTIMATELY PICKED AND LOST. AL SMITH HAD A GOOD SHOT OF GETTING THE NOMINATION BUT WILLIAM MACK KA DUE WAS IN GOOD STEAD TO. HE HAD ONE ACE IN THE HOLE. A SECRET WEAPON. WHICH IS THAT HE ALSO HAD THE KLAN. THIS WAS 1924, KU KLUX KLAN WAS ABSOLUTELY ASCEND ENT IN THE 1920s. THE FILM CAME OUT AND SWEPT THE NATION, HELPING TO REVILIFY THE KLAN IN THE OLD DAYS. THE KLAN GOT MORE WIND IN THEIR SAILS WHEN THEY BECAME ONE OF MAJOR POWERS PUSHING FOR PROHIBITION. LOOKING BACK ON PROHIBITION, IT SEEMS LIKE U ONE OF THE MORE UNLIKELY THINGS IN AMERICAN HISTORY WE EVER WOULD HAVE DECIDED, TO BAN ALCOHOL AS A COUNTRY, REALLY, WE DECIDED THAT? BUT AN UNSUNG BUT IMPORTANT PART OF WHY THAT HAPPENED WAS THE KLAN SUPPORTING PROHIBITION. AND BY THE TIME THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS MAKING THIS HARD CHOICE OF WHO TO PICK TO BE THEIR NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT IN 1924, THE KLAN THOUGHT IT SHOULD HAVE A SAY. THE KLAN WAS BIG ENOUGH, CONFIDENT ENOUGH, WIDE SPREAD ENOUGH IN TERMS OF THEIR REACH THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY SHOULD GET TO MAKE THE CALL FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE. AND THE TWO FRONT RUNNERS WERE THAT GUY WILLIAM GIBBS McDUE AND AL SMITH. AND FOR THE KLAN THAT WAS AN EASY PICK WAS AL SMITH WAS A CATHOLIC. AND THE KLAN WAS AS ANTI-CATHOLIC AS THEY ANTI-SO MET TICK AND ANTI-BLACK. THE KLAN WENT ALL IN FOR WILLIAMS GIBBS McDUE. AND THE KLAN WAS CENTRAL TO THE FIGHT FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION THAT YEAR. AN ANTI-McDUE DELEGATE FROM ALABAMA OF ALL PLACES PUT FORWARD A PLANK FOR THE PARTY PLATFORM THAT YEAR THAT WOULD HAVE CONDEMNED THE KLAN. THE FIGHT TO APPROVE THE ANTI-KLAN PLANK FOR THE PARTY PLATFORM ABSOLUTELY CONVULSED THE CONVENTION THAT SUMMER. THEY WERE LITERALLY FIGHT IN THE AISLES. THEY AT ONE POINT CALLED IN A THOUSAND POLICEMEN TO BREAK UP THE BRAWLING ON THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION. ULTIMATELY THE ANTI-KLAN PLANK AND THE PARTY PLATFORM, IT WAS VOTED DOWN. IT WAS VOTED DOWN BY ONE VOTE. POLITICO.COM DID A RETRO REPORT ON THIS A LITTLE MORE THAN A YEAR AGO AND RESURFACED THIS HEADLINE, ANTI-KLAN PLANK LOSES BY 541 AND 3/20thS OF A VOTE TO 542 3/20ths OF A VOTE. RIOTOUS SCENES MARK THE ROLL CALL. BEDLAM OVER THE KLAN. SECOND POLL IS REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE QUESTION ON THE KLAN QUESTION. AND IN THE CHART THERE IN THE THIRD COLUMN, IT’S THE LIST OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE AT THE CONVENTION AND WHO VOTED HOW ON THE KLAN PLANK. IT WAS THAT BIG OF A DEAL. FAILED BY ONE VOTE. AND WHEN THE ANTI-KLAN — SO THE PRO-KLAN SIDE WON, RIGHT? WHEN THE ANTI-KLAN PLANK LOST BY THAT ONE VOTE, 20,000 MASKED HOODED CLANSMEN RALLIED ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER IN NEW JERSEY TO MARK THE MOMENT. THEY DIDN’T THINK THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO RALLY IN NEW YORK, NOT WITH THEIR ROBES AND MASK. THEY CROSSED OVER TO NEW JERSEY AND SHOWED FORCE, 20,000 OF THEM. THEY HAD AN EF GI OF NEW YORK GOVERNOR AL SMITH AND THEY BEAT IT UP AND TORE IT APART. BUT THEN THE CONVENTION HAD TO MOVE ON TO PICKING ITS NOMINEE, RIGHT? YOU GOT TO PICK THE KLAN CANDIDATE, THE CANDIDATE THAT WAS CLEARLY FAVORED BY THE KLAN AND WOULDN’T DENOUNCE THEM OR SAY A WORD AGAINST THEM AT A CONVENTION THAT COULDN’T APPROVE AN ANTI-KLAN PLANK OR ARE YOU GOING TO PICK THE CATHOLIC GUY, AL SUBMIT. IF THAT’S THE SPLIT IN YOUR PARTY, HOW DO YOU BRIDGE THAT KIND OF SPLIT? FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT YEAR IN 1924 THEY COULDN’T BRIDGE IT. THEY STARTED BALLOTING, THEY STARTED TAKING VOTES ON WHO THE DELEGATES WANTED TO BE THEIR NOMINEE AND HONESTLY THEY COULDN’T GET THERE AND THEY COULDN’T GET THERE AND THEY COULDN’T GET THERE. THAT CONVENTION DRAGGED ON AND ON AND ON IN THE JULY HEAT IN MADIMADISON SQUARE GARDEN. THAT THING WENT ON FOR 16 DAYS WITH THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN THERE AND NO AIR CONDITIONING AND THE FIGHTS AND THE COPS AND THEY KEPT GOING BALLOT AFTER BALLOT AFTER BALLOT. FAMOUSLY THAT ONE ULTIMATELY WENT TO 103 BALLOTS. A RECORD. AND IN THE END THEY COULDN’T DECIDE. THE DEMOCRATS FINALLY IN THE END, EXHAUSTED, THEY PICKED NEITHER OF THEIR TWO CANDIDATES. THEY DID NOT PICK WILLIAM McDUE NOR DID THEY PICK AL SMITH. THEY ENDED UP THROWING IN THE TOWEL, PICKING SOME OTHER GUY NAMED JOHN DAVIS WHO NOBODY KNEW AND BASICALLY HAD NO CON SFICH THEY WERE SPENT WITH THEIR FIGHT OVER THE KLAN AND WITH THE KLAN THAT SUMMER IN NEW YORK. THEY RAN THAT GUY JOSH DAVIS, HE GOT TROUNSED. COOLIDGE WON THE ELECTION, SWORN IN IN MARCH OF 1925 AND THE KLAN, HAVING FLEXED ITS MUSCLES THAT WAY IN NATIONAL POLITICS IN THE LEAD UP TO THE ELECTION, COOLIDGE WASN’T THEIR GUY. THEY WANTED A DEMOCRAT IN THERE. BUT THEY DECIDED THAT ONCE COOLIDGE WAS IN THERE, IT WAS TIME FOR THEM TO MAKE ANOTHER SHOW OF POLITICAL POWER. AND THIS TIME THEY DIDN’T WANT TO MAKE IT WITHIN ONE POLITICAL PARTY, PARTICULARLY A POLITICAL PARTY OUT OF POWER. THIS TIME THEY WANTED TO FLEX THEIR MUSCLES ON THE NATIONAL STAGE. THIS PICTURE IS FROM AG 1925, DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF CALVIN COOLIDGES PRESIDENCY AFTER THE ELECTION OF 1924. MICHAEL BESHLASH TWEETED THIS OUT TODAY. THOSE ARE KLAN ROBES, THE KU KLUX KLAN MARCH IN FULL HOODS AND ROBES MARCHING IN PENNSYLVANIA IN 1925. THEN A YEAR LATER THEY DECIDED TO COME BACK AND DO IT AGAIN, THIS TIME, EVEN BIG IR. IN THE FALL OF 1926, SEPTEMBER OF 1926 THE KU KLUX KLAN HELD THEIR NATIONAL CONCLAVE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., SECOND TIME THEY RALLIED THOUSANDS STRONG IN D.C. IN TWO STRAIGHT YEARS. WHEN THEY TURNED UP IN 1926 THEY TURNED OUT 50,000 MASKED ROBED KLANSMEN WHO MARCHED IN FORMATION IN WASHINGTON, D.C. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES I’VE SEEN THESE PICTURES, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIME I’VE GONE THROUGH THE PICTURES, I HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING THAT THAT SHOW OF KLAN FORCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., I STILL HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING IT’S REAL. BUT THAT WAS REAL. 1926. 50,000 KLANSMEN MARCH IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THE FOLLOWING YEAR IN 1927 THERE WAS A KLAN RALLY AND MARCH IN NEW YORK CITY. IT STARTED OFF WITH A GROUP OF FASCISTS, BLACK SHIRTS WHO CLASHED WITH NEW YORK CITY POLICE AND THEN THAT MELEE WAS JOINED BY ABOUT, ACCORDING TO NEWS COVERAGE, BY ABOUT A THOUSAND KLANSMEN WHO TURNED OUT IN NEW YORK, IN QUEENS, TO MARCH AGAINST THE POLICE. THE “THE NEW YORK TIMES” PUBLISHED AT THE TIME SOME OF THE TEXTS OF THE HANDBILLS THAT THE FLYERS THAT THE KLAN WAS DISTRIBUTING AT THE TIME EXPLAINING WHY THEY WERE MARCHING, WHY THEY WERE RALLYING. THE HEADLINE ON THE FLYER SAID AMERICANS ASSAULTED BY ROMAN CATHOLIC POLICE OF NEW YORK CITY. THAT WAS THE EXPLANATION FOR WHY THEY HAD TO MARCH AGAINST THE POLICE. SO IN MAY OF 1927 A THOIS KLANSMEN AND SOME ASSORTED FASCISTS MARCHED IN QUEENS IN NEW YORK CITY AND ULTIMATELY RIOTED AND FOUGHT WITH POLICE. NOBODY WAS KILLED. THERE WAS A LOT OF NEWS COVERAGE OF IT AT THE TIME, WHICH SURVIVES BOTH FROM THE “THE NEW YORK TIMES,” FROM THE BROOKLYN DAILY EAGLE, A FEW OTHER PAPERS. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER AT THE TIME MADE A POINT OF TELLING THE PUBLIC THAT THIS WAS KIND OF A LANDMARK MOMENT FOR THE KLAN IN NEW YORK CITY. IT’S NOT THAT HE DIDN’T KNOW THAT THE KLAN WAS ACTIVE IN NEW YORK CITY, IT’S JUST THAT NEW YORK CITY HAD NEVER BEFORE SEEN A THOUSAND KLANSMEN TURN OUT IN THE STREETS IN ROBES AND MASKS LIKE THEY DID IN MAY 1927. ACCORDING TO NEWS REPORTS AT THE TIME, THERE WERE SEVEN MEN ARRESTED AT THAT KLAN MARCH IN NEW YORK, ONE OF THEM WAS FRED TRUMP, THE FATHER OF DONALD TRUMP. DONALD TRUMP HAS PREVIOUSLY RESPONDED TO REPORTING ABOUT THIS INCIDENT BY SAYING IT NEVER HAPPENED, NEVER HAPPENED. NEVER HAPPENED. THE WHOLE THING IS MADE UP. BUT THERE IS CONTEMPORANEOUS NEWS COVERAGE THAT BOTH DESCRIBES AND SHOWS PICTURES OF THAT MASS KLAN MARCH, INCLUDING KLANSMEN MARCHING IN NEW YORK CITY IN HOODS AND ROBES AND HIS FATHER’S NAME DOES SHOW UP AS ONE OF THE ARRESTEES FROM THAT MARCH. AND THE SINS OF THE FATHER ARE NOT THE SINS OF THE SON. FOR ANYBODY. BUT THAT IS NOT A REASON TO IGNORE HISTORY AND PRETEND THAT EVERYTHING THAT’S HAPPENING IN OUR LIFETIMES IS HAPPENING FOR THE FIRST TIME. I MEAN WE THINK OF THE KLAN NOW IN TERMS OF ITS ROLE AS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DURING RECONSTRUCTION, DURING JIM CROWE, DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ERAS IN THE SOUTH. WE THINK OF THE KLAN AND THEIR ATTENDANT MODERN WHITE SUPREMACIST GROUPS AS A MAGNET FOR TOOTHLESS LOSERS AND CON ARTISTS AND SMALL-TIME VIOLENT THUGS AND SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE LEGITIMATE FREAKING NUTS. BUT IT’S NOT ANCIENT HISTORY TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE WHITE SUPREMACIST MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES THAT PERSISTS DECADE AFTER DECADE THEIR THEIR GOAL IS NOT TO REST ON THE EDGE. THEIR GOALS AND THEIR EXPECTATIONS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THAT THEY SHOULD EXERT REAL MAINSTREAM POLITICAL POWER. THAT THEY SHOULD GET TO PICK THE PRESIDENT. AT LEAST THEY SHOULD GET TO PICK WHO RUNS. I MEAN WHAT IS UNPREDICTABLE NOW IS THAT WE DON’T KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THOSE GROUPS GOING FORWARD NOW THAT IT’S A MODERN PRESIDENT WHO APPEARS TO BE PICKING THEM.>>WHEN YOU SAY THE ALT-RIGHT, DEFINE ALT-RIGHT TO ME. YOU DEFINE IT. GO AHEAD. DEFINE IT FOR ME. LET’S GO.>>SENATOR McCAIN DEFINED THEM AS THE SAME GROUPS –>>EXCUSE ME. WHAT ABOUT THE ALT-LEFT THAT CAME CHARGING AT THE, AS YOU SAY, THE ALT-RIGHT. DO THEY HAVE ANY SEMBLANCE OF GUILT? NOT ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE NEOSENATEDIES OR WHITE SUPREMACISTS. THOSE PEOPLE WERE ALSO THERE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO PROTEST THE TAKING DOWN OF A STATUE OF ROBERT E. LEE. EXCUSE ME. AND YOU TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THE GROUPS AND YOU SEE — AND YOU KNOW IT IF YOU WERE HONEST REPORTERS, WHICH IN MANY CASES YOU ARE NOT. BUT MANY WERE THERE TO PROTEST THE TAKING DOWN OF THE STATUE OF ROBERT E. LEE. I NOTICE THAT STONEWALL JACKSON IS COMING DOWN. IS I GEORGE WASHINGTON NEXT WEEK AND THOMAS JEFFERSON THE WEEK AFTER? YOU REALLY HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF WHERE DOES IT STOP. BUT THEY WERE THERE TO PROTEST — EXCUSE ME. YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE NIGHT BEFORE, THEY WERE THERE TO PROTEST THE TAKING DOWN OF THE STATUE OF ROBERT E. LEE.>>THEY SHOWED UP IN CHARLOTTESVILLE –>>EXCUSE ME. YOU HAD SOME VERY BAD PEOPLE IN THAT GROUP. BUT YOU ALSO HAD PEOPLE THAT WERE VERY FINE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES. YOU HAD PEOPLE IN THAT GROUP — EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME. I SAW THE SAME PICTURES ADDS YOU DID. YOU HAD PEOPLE IN THAT GROUP THAT WERE THERE TO PROTEST THE TAKING DOWN TO THEM A VERY VERY IMPORTANT STATUE AND THE RENAMING OF A PARK FROM ROBERT E. LEE TO ANOTHER NAME. YOU HAD MANY PEOPLE IN THAT GROUP OTHER THAN NEO-NAZIS AND WHITE NATIONALISTS AND THE PRESS HAS TREATED THEM ABSOLUTELY UNFAIRLY.>>WE’RE SAYING THAT THE PRESS TREATED WHITE NATIONALISTS UNFAIRLY?>>NO. THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THAT RALLY, IF YOU LOOK, THERE WERE PEOPLE PROTESTING VERY QUIETLY THE TAKING DOWN OF THE STATUE OF ROBERT E. LEE. YOU HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THAT GROUP THAT WERE THERE TO INNOCENTLY PROTEST AND VERY LEGALLY PROTEST.>>AFTER THE PRESIDENT’S REMARKS TODAY PRAISING THE WHITE SUPREMACIST GATHERING IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA THIS WEEKEND, THIS BECAME ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE DAYS WHERE THERE WAS CONDEMNATION OF THE PRESIDENT FROM DEMOCRATS AND OBSERVEOBSER MIEMTD CONDEMNATION OF THE PRESIDENT FROM MEMBERS OF HIS OWN POLITICAL PARTY. IT WAS AN INTERESTING THING THAT HAPPENED LATE THIS EVEN, EARLY THIS EVENING WHEN SOME WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS TRIED TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THE PRESIDENT’S REMARKS AS WELL, AT LEAST ONE SENIOR OFFICIAL ANONYMOUSLY TELLING NBC NEWS THAT MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM, STUNNED BY THE PRESIDENT’S WORDS TODAY. THIS ONE SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL TELLING REPORTERS, TELLING NBC NEWS THAT THE PRESIDENT WENT ROGUE, THAT THERE WAS NO EXPECTATION AMONG THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO MAKE REMARKS ON THIS SUBJECT AT ALL. AND AS MUCH AS SOME WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL MIGHT WANT US TO BELIEVE THAT, IT’S CLEAR THAT THAT ACCOUNT WAS NOT TRUE. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS CAUGHT THIS HIGH RESOLUTION SHOT OF THE PRESIDENT FOLDING UP NOTES CLEARLY ABOUT THE WHITE SUPREMACIST RALLY AND STICKING THEM INTO HIS SUIT JACKET POCKET BEFORE HE STARTED TAKING QUESTIONS ON THIS. THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT THERE TO TALK ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE. HE WAS OBVIOUSLY INTENDING AS WELL TO TALK ABOUT THIS MATTER TODAY. HE HAD PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT THIS MATTER TODAY. WHITE HOUSE STAFF WOULD SAY THAT THIS WAS COMPLETELY SHOCKING TO THEM, THAT HE WENT ROGUE, HE WASN’T SUPPOSED TO TOUCH THE SUBJECT. THOSE MEMBERSBERS OF THE WHITE E STAFF ARE COVERING FOR THEMSELVES AND INVENTING SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED TODAY THAT MAKES THEM LOOK BETTER THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENED. AND THIS WAS A LOT OF THINGS TODAY. IT WAS NOT APPARENTLY A MISTAKE. IT HAS TO STOP BEING TREATED AS A SURPRISE. THIS WAS NOT THE PRESIDENT ACCIDENTALLY BLIRTING INTO SOMETHING THAT SOUNDED LIKE SYMPATHY FOR PEOPLE WITH UNPOPULATED POLITICAL VIEWS. THIS IS ON PURPOSE. THE PRESIDENT BUILDING UP AND TRYING TO CENTER UP IN AMERICAN POLITICS A LONG STANDING FORCE IN WHITE AMERICAN POLITICS AND CULTURE THAT WE HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO THINK OF AS A FRINGE THING. BUT IT DOES HAVE A VERY LONG HISTORY AND IT DOES HAVE REAL FORCE. THE PRESIDENT IS NOT MESSING UP HERE. HE DID NOT TRIP AND ACCIDENTALLY PRAISE WHITE SUPREMACISTS AND KE NEO-NAZIS WHO ACTUALLY KILLED SOMEBODY THAT WEEK. HE IS BUILDING UP SOMETHING THAT WAS A LONG STANDING FORCE FOR POLITICAL POWER AND TERROR IN THIS COUNTRY FOR GENERATIONS AND HE IS NOW DOING WHAT HE CAN TO HELP THEM COME BACK. AND PARTISAN AFFILIATIONS COME AND GONE, RIGHT? THE PARTY HAVING THE HUGE FIGHT OVER THE KLAN IN 1924 WAS THE PARTY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. PARTIES CHANGE, PARTY AFFILIATIONS CHANGE, IDEOLOGICAL IE LANESES COME AND GO, CANDIDATES COME AND GO TO THE POINT THAT WE CAN’T REMEMBER THE NAMES OF MOST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES NOT TOO LONG DOWN THE ROAD IN HISTORY.STORY. WHETHER YOU VOTED FOR TRUMP OR NOT, WH YOU HAVE A PARTISAN AFFILIATION OR NOT, WHETHER YOUR OWN FAMILY HAS EVER LIVED THROUGH THE TERROR THAT IS THIS VIOLENT RACIST ELEMENT OF AMERICAN CULTURE, THIS PERSISTENT VIOLENT RACIST ALMOST IN AMERICAN CULTURE IS A REAL THING THAT WE’VE LIVED THROUGH BEFORE AS A COUNTRY. AND IT WAXES AND WAYNES BUT IT HAS NEVER REALLY GONE AWAY. AND NOW THE PRESIDENT, WORKING OVERTLY AS PRESIDENT IS DOING WHAT HE CAN TO BRING IT BACK AND BUILD IT UP. AND SO FAR HONESTLY IT’S WORKING. HEAD’S UP. THIS IS NOT A MISTAKE.

What are Political Parties?


There are two main political parties in the
United States, the Republicans and the Democrats. What is a political party? Why are there only two main parties? A political party is a group of people who
have joined together because they share common principles, common beliefs, and common values,
and they seek to control government by winning elections. Members of a party work to convince the government
to adopt laws, regulations, and programs which reflect their party’s beliefs. Political parties have a long history, both
in the United States and in other countries as well. The United States has what is known as a two
party system. A two party system is a political structure
in which only two political parties have a genuine chance of winning elections. However, it does not mean that only two parties
are allowed to exist, as there are numerous other smaller parties. The two party system developed in Great Britain. In the latter half of the 1600s, and throughout
the 1700s, two political parties, the Whigs and the Tories, emerged and established themselves
as the dominant parties. This long-standing tradition of two main parties
probably led to the eventual adoption of a similar system in the United States. Initially, the Founding Fathers intended for
the American government to avoid politics. In fact, in his farewell address, George Washington
warned against the existence of political parties, suggesting that such organizations
were the “enemies of government” and would only distract government from its intended
purpose. However, early political disagreements gave
rise to the Federalist Party and Democratic-Republican Party. Since that time, the United States has nearly
always had two dominant parties. Currently, the two main political parties
in the United States are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Every political party has what is known as
a platform. A platform is a public statement of the party’s
main beliefs and guiding principles. Each of the stated principles of a platform
is known as a plank. Party platforms can be rather lengthy, with
modern parties having hundreds of planks. The party will adopt or update its platform
every four years at the party’s national convention. Political parties serve a wide variety of
purposes. One of the most important functions a party
serves is to nominate candidates. This helps a voter narrow his or her choices. Instead of voters studying a potentially limitless
field of candidates, each party selects nominees. This allows the voter to focus attention on
two or three candidates and make a more informed decision. Another function of political parties is to
inform voters. Whether it’s through local, grassroots involvement
such as letter writing campaigns, or party leaders speaking on television, parties attempt
to let the general public know what’s going on. This could also take the form of passing out
flyers or pamphlets, or staging a large protest rally. The party that is in power can also set the
agenda. This means that the party leaders will establish
a course for the nation to follow. Whether it is a good course, or a bad course,
would likely determine how long that particular party stayed in power. One final function of political parties is
to serve as a watchdog. Both parties do an effective job of watching
the other to make sure they are doing the things they are supposed to. If one party becomes corrupt, the other will
surely inform the public. Even though the Founding Fathers did not desire political parties to exist, they will surely continue to be a part of the American political system for years to come.

How Morals Influence If You’re Liberal Or Conservative


So I was trained as an experimental social
psychologist. I do work on human judgment decision-making particularly
the errors and biases that people show when they make judgments and really what
changed my research was in this hyper partisan political environment and just
looking at that and saying well what’s going on there and what a great example
of how people’s emotions are affecting their judgment. How is it that our sort
of moral feelings and our moral visions change the way that we view the world The theory that we work with its called moral
foundation theory. The basic ideas are five things that people care about. About
harming other people particularly weak people. About fairness. About loyalty to
family and things like that. Authority and tradition the way things
used to have been done and purity, so this notion that there’s certain states
of being that are pure and these five concerns across the world you see these
in all sorts of different cultures but different groups differ in how much they
weigh each of those different kinds of factors. Liberals essentially care about
two things, harm and fairness. If it doesn’t harm
somebody or if it isn’t unfair it is morally ok but political conservatives
tend to weight all five of these things as important so that they care about
harm and fairness but they also care about group loyalty, about authority and
tradition and about purity. If you look at libertarians they’re low on everything.
So their world view isn’t a deeply moral world view it’s more of a
pragmatic utilitarian world view and if you apply that to different political topics
you can see where these differences come from. one of the things that my research group
has been interested in is in the psychology of libertarianism as that’s
kind of grown into prominence. A chief concern is government leaves people
alone. It sort of accepts lifes winners and losers in an economic game. We created a website where people could
go and fill out psychological scales but we had this huge sample of people who
claim to be libertarians. Libertarians are psychologically different. So classic
situation is your kid goes off to school realizes they didn’t bring their homework. The
libertarian version thinks they will learn a lesson and never forget their
homework again because they’ll be very upset and if you
look at their psychology, it kind of fits really nicely with that they tend to be
kind of self oriented. They’re lower in empathy than both liberals and
conservatives or they just don’t feel other people’s pain in the same way. You may be better able to accept life’s
losers the less you suffer vicariously with them and it’s easier to
adopt that philosophy and so your moral vision tells you what would your ideology should be and
what the facts are and that’s exactly what we find across all these differences and
we’re able to compare them on twenty or thirty different personality types
liberals conservatives and libertarians. Which morals are most important to you?
do you think they shape how you vote? let us know in the comments below and don’t forget to subscribe to Figure 1.

Khan Trolls Politics Students



I mean I mind actually being patronizing on the grounds that I'm white be good yeah introduce yourself for the camera okay I'm Jake and I'm gonna be doing a talk on why anarchism deserves a chance I'm Harvey I'm doing a talk on why Trump to be President hi I'm Tom don't you see what people are subjects are do that sort of thing no one cares the state having failed and market forces letting the majority of states fail David do something we don't lose David David hammering babe my babe is racist I think the media are spinning that he's racist in the UK and we need to take a different perspective the world of politics has become self containing West our Pinterest page but why do you think you will need to diffuse yourself thanks give a fundamental misunderstanding of what alakazam is a belief or anarchism is doctrine of chaos and lawlessness which it frankly isn't in fact it's quite the opposite and I guess the burning desire in me to crush the 1% we had a look at your Twitter it was a great banter actually he's gonna be a huge fan of Katie Hopkins yeah the curse words but I can choose a hard line woman that stands up for our beliefs I think that's quite impressive in a modern day society I reckon you use a tool on a daily basis that runs along amicus lines use Wikipedia No okay well that actually kind of defeats my point I was gonna run with that politicians have been normal people for a very long time or their media spun the comment that Muslims will be banned from the US which is obviously incorrect there's a time with it it's obviously incorrect that's incorrect statement as natural I will they be bound for any period of time this is temporary but yeah so – it's just so they've been back that's right they argue that we to do that ourselves but most everything I misread them because they're singers at home kids leader per se what if I said there's no such thing as anarchism it doesn't exist how can you accept this you can see it it's like look it's a date so how much hey fans rappers from coming into the UK I mean like a rapper he's one guy but some sort of are more than one people I like even if like we do just through a word of it I was like we were men on the great examples in society today organizations apes Omega so in a sentence summarize your talk politician ice such an open your eyes shut open my eyes Jake do you think the last election went well no is it good day one I have nothing against a he's a bit of Jesus so what inspired you to do this huh guys hey have you got it oh I'm glad he's got us good by day politics in their career politics has become a career and I think in one way he's decided to do that controversial or not is the temporary ban Muslims okay Isis has been resolved so they're like a vitamin C tablet crisis you've got dissolving Donald Trump's water is that what you're you're saying I swears that analogy could work