Natural selection.

I'd say the hypothesis "it was all made up" has infinitely more merit than the hypothesis "god is real". The former has actual evidence you can use to prove it. The latter has none.>> ^gwiz665:

The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it. To say you prefer uncertainty is to say you enjoy the freedom of imagining that the answer is something else, because you don't like it. We aren't uncertain about everything. We have to be certain of some things, like the fact that we exist. Do we say that those who believe they exist embrace this answer because they are afraid of not existing? Clearly, certainty is useful.
If you want say that theists embrace God because they don't want to die, you could also say that atheists reject God because they don't want Him to exist. Take these scientists, for example:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97
No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.
Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182
To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.
To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.

I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.

It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.

Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.

If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it. To say you prefer uncertainty is to say you enjoy the freedom of imagining that the answer is something else, because you don't like it. We aren't uncertain about everything. We have to be certain of some things, like the fact that we exist. Do we say that those who believe they exist embrace this answer because they are afraid of not existing? Clearly, certainty is useful.
If you want say that theists embrace God because they don't want to die, you could also say that atheists reject God because they don't want Him to exist. Take these scientists, for example:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97
No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.
Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182
To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.
To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it. To say you prefer uncertainty is to say you enjoy the freedom of imagining that the answer is something else, because you don't like it. We aren't uncertain about everything. We have to be certain of some things, like the fact that we exist. Do we say that those who believe they exist embrace this answer because they are afraid of not existing? Clearly, certainty is useful.
If you want say that theists embrace God because they don't want to die, you could also say that atheists reject God because they don't want Him to exist. Take these scientists, for example:
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97
No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.
Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182
To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.
To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?

We're both ignorant. Only one of us knows it.

It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it. To say you prefer uncertainty is to say you enjoy the freedom of imagining that the answer is something else, because you don't like it. We aren't uncertain about everything. We have to be certain of some things, like the fact that we exist. Do we say that those who believe they exist embrace this answer because they are afraid of not existing? Clearly, certainty is useful.

If you want say that theists embrace God because they don't want to die, you could also say that atheists reject God because they don't want Him to exist. Take these scientists, for example:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard
New York Review of Books 1/9/97

No evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind; that it is not a commitment to evidence, but a commitment to naturalism. ...Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it.

Steven Pinker MIT
How the mind works p.182

To say God couldn't touch this world because the Universe is so big is a false argument. The Universe may be huge to us, but to God it is very small. If God is omnipresent, He is everywhere at the same time. Size and distance mean nothing in that equation.

To say God created the Universe is not the end of inquiry, it is the beginning of true inquiry and true science. How could you understand the creation without understanding the Creator?

I did actually decide to change some of the language in the different sections so that they are more separated and have less to do with Evolution with each other (the Alien one is odd of course as it has the possibility of having itself be true and others as well), BUT we are really talking about the ORIGIN of the human race. By which means did we come and continue from, basically.

Anyway, right now I'll have to get @lucky760 as nothing in the modify entry section is working so I can't add in the changes I made (plus I noticed a "boo-boo" I made as I basically said natural selection was "survival of the fittest", go look it'll be there till I can fix it . Hopefully the changes I make separate the four out enough so they can stand on their own, but I do believe Evolution will still triumph as it has FAR too much evidence and backed up peer reviews going for it to really make a difference otherwise.

Option 4 is my next option...

edit-There the language has been changed to better suite the individual pieces rather than making them beholden to Evolution.

>> ^zombieater:

I like the idea of this survey, but the description mixes two different topics. The theory of natural selection and evolution have nothing to do with the origins of life on earth (the prevalent scientific theory belongs to abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). I believe this may be what gwiz touched on, in that numbers 2 and 4 also refer to evolution.
Perhaps we could ask a survey that asks about the origin of life on earth? Selections could include:
1) Creationism
2) Deism (Clockwork Universe Theory)
3) Abiogenesis
4) Panspermia Hypothesis
The Gallup poll to which you refer did not focus on the origins of life, rather how life has changed (or not changed) in our recent biological history. I doubt you meant that aliens have changed life since it first began, which is why I believe two different ideas are mixed here.


Your right, I did mix it up a bit. I tried to even it out a bit in a quick edit maybe 10 minutes afterwards when I fully re-read it (and the realization that it was slanted hit me; I also tried to make the religious stances sound more equalized--hard to do without evidence...). But, really I had it up for too long so I just left it be; or at the least I thought it was too long. I figured everyone would gather what there was to choose from and what I meant whether I made some mistakes or not. Even in my description of Evolution I made sure to make people realize that Darwin's old natural selection isn't the "exact" primer for everything in biology although a strong one. We've found much to our surprise that stranger things are going on in the lands of "Evolution" and natural selection, survival of the fittest, and other old adages taught in school as the MOST of the only things driving Evolution for the most part may be a little off--not completely--just that the window to our knowledge IS NOT closed and our horizons are broader than once thought thanks to modern scientists re-tooling their devices and machines to once again have a more thorough and "re-tooling" our look at Evolution for a harder "inside look" as well. It's more like an onion now with layers that peel off; each time you peel off one there's another ready to be peeled off... (I'll make sure I didn't get that confused in the poll, somewhere...)

As for choices two and four... I was also concerned that they both had Evolution (especially choice four as I listed it DIRECTLY, even though technically an Alien intelligence is bound to believe, perhaps, in fourteen different reasons for their existence and ours as well...so I may have "jumped the shark" so to say on that one altogether) as a primary tool in them as well as it really didn't differentiate them that much from straight up Evolution (and it did in fact make Evolution seem like the clear choice in many respects, unless you are a STOUT believer of the other two--no case was made for them). Your selection of choices certainly would have worked as well (though to be honest I think many would need to go to Wikipedia before they picked it ), but I did want to try to remain close to the Gallup Poll (as you discussed later) and you're correct in that I should have stayed away from the Evolution subject on those and focused on what their key beliefs, politics (if any), key ideas, and as I said earlier perhaps to even make a case for them--as much could be made. (That goes for @gwiz665s comment too as well, as you said; his comment noted the same discrepancy...) These are things to make sure I do on my next poll; but, I think everyone can make it through this one OK for now.

C'est la vie.

PS- My shift keys are broken and it's DRIVING me nuts. If it seems like I'm randomly not capitalizing letters that should be, that's why! Good thing I'm proof-reading right now or I would have had 10 or so just in this post alone!

I like the idea of this survey, but the description mixes two different topics. The theory of natural selection and evolution have nothing to do with the origins of life on earth (the prevalent scientific theory belongs to abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). I believe this may be what gwiz touched on, in that numbers 2 and 4 also refer to evolution.

Perhaps we could ask a survey that asks about the origin of life on earth? Selections could include:
1) Creationism
2) Deism (Clockwork Universe Theory)
3) Abiogenesis
4) Panspermia Hypothesis

The Gallup poll to which you refer did not focus on the origins of life, rather how life has changed (or not changed) in our recent biological history. I doubt you meant that aliens have changed life since it first began, which is why I believe two different ideas are mixed here.

Hard one to vote on. I don't believe any of those and the first two aren't an answer (ie. how does a fridge work? magic. - that's not good enough to be an answer for me). Evolution is a fact - we've actually used natural selection to breed better hunting dogs etc for years. It was exploited during the slave trade too so we know natural selection works for humans too (at a terrible human cost, of course). Evolution doesn't say where life came from, only how life progressed.

An extra terrestrial source of life? Well we've been hit countless times by countless objects from space, it's not unreasonable. Or do you mean ONLY sentient beings visiting earth and causing life? Either way, we have definitely evolved.

I think the only way we'll ever get closer to answering a question like this is finding out just how abundant "life" is in the universe, or at least our local region of the galaxy. If it's abundant, then either it formed here or it was extra terrestrial. And if we reach that point i won't care which it was

>> ^vaire2ube:

the music helps me remember things easier, must activate some brain power .. taking genetics this fall with organic chemistry. thanks for video, very simple.
oh yea, also ... evolution by natural selection is a fact. it is part of the theory of evolution, but it is a fact.


>> ^shuac:

I'll bet this would've been helpful if I could hear the narrator above the guitar.


You should post on YouTube so the uploader can read it.

the music helps me remember things easier, must activate some brain power .. taking genetics this fall with organic chemistry. thanks for video, very simple.

oh yea, also ... evolution by natural selection is a fact. it is part of the theory of evolution, but it is a fact.

WHAT? THE. FUCK!?? Everyday I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the existence of the Internet is exponentially intensifying the effects of natural selection in many strange and tragic ways.

>> ^shveddy:
@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).
If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.


Hmm, your statement is littered with all sorts of inaccurate information.

Okay, first of all, this idea of "junk dna" is dying a slow death:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Contrary to your assertion, so-called junk dna is functional. And the idea of viral DNA insertions is completely ruled out when this "random" DNA turns out not to be so random after all, and serving very specific purposes. The idea, created in ignorance, exists mainly as a fudge factor for the evolutionary paradigm. The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection cannot produce enough mutations to account for the millions it needs in the 300,000 generations it took for humans to evolve. It's a lot easier to come up those numbers when 95 percent of the genome is "junk".

Second, molecular and morphological phylogenies are often wildly divergent. This is from an Article in nature magazine subtitled:

"Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled, asks Trisha Gura"

"When biologists talk of the ‘evolution wars’, they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. . . .

Battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life. Perhaps the most intense are in vertebrate systematics, where molecular biologists are challenging a tradition that relies on studies of fossil skeletons and the bones and soft tissue of living species. . . .

So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date"

They are so divergent that two camps have emerged in systematics, each claiming their phylogenies are more accurate. So your claim that Cytochrome C matches "scores" of different phylogenies is patently false, since hardly any of them agree. If want to say that isn't true, please provide the evidence. Note that "scores" means at least 40.

Third, creation theory predicts a hierarchical pattern, so finding one isn't going to falsify creationism or prove common descent. Especially in the case of the phylogeny of Cytochrome C, which has no intermediates or transitionals to be found. You do also realize that a common design can be explained by a common designer? It could simply be the case that Cytochrome C was tailored for different groups according to individual specifications, which then diverged futher by mutations. If your response is that Cytochrome C functions the same way in all life, my response is that the differences could be for coding other proteins.

Before I go any further, I would ask you to support your claims. Show me the specific data you're talking about so I can rebut it.

>> ^messenger:
So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you. Galileo, by the way, did believe the bible; what he didn't buy is the catholic interpretation of it, and rightly so.

>> ^messenger:
Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA. In any case, do you honestly believe you can point an instrument at God and say "there he is!". Is this idea not fundamentally ridiculous? I think what youre confusing is mechanism with agency. You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

Not only that, but if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence? The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it. I know there is an omnipotent God who made us in His image, and we are rational beings because He is a rational being.

>> ^messenger:
Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

If you understood it better than I do then you would know what macro evolution is. The scientific method uses empirical evidence, which comes from empirical experimentation or observation. There is no experiment to prove macro evolution, nor can it be empirically observed. It is simply an unjustified extrapolation from micro evolution (which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and based on nothing but inferences from *circumstantial* evidence and not evidence based on empirical observation.

Many people have this conception that the theory of common descent is as certain and proven as 2 + 2 = 4, or as Sepacore put it:

"once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions"

That is certainly how it is taught in schools, as absolute fact, and that's why I believed it too. It's when you stop looking at their conclusions and see the actual data they base them on that you will get the shock of your life. Yes, you're right, the theory makes a few predictions, all of which have turned out to be wrong..such as this:

The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin

Darwin predicted that for his theory to be true, there must be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. What have we found?:


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

What we find is that creatures appear in stasis, and enter and leave the fossil record abruptly with no changes.

Another prediction is a start from simple to complex, with an increase of diversity of the phyla over a long period of time.

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st edition, pg 307.

What we find is that all of the phyla we have today all abruptly appeared in the "cambrian explosion"

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs ... "
S. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, pg 238, 239.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for how poor a theory macroevolution actually is, but you won't have a shortage of true believers in it, even though they don't even understand what evidence it is based on. I do know something about science, and although I am a layman, I am perfectly capable of understanding of what makes a sound theory, and what doesn't. I would believe in macroevolution if the evidence supported it. Not only does it not support it, but it actually argues against it. It is shocking to someone who has been indoctrinated (like I was), but if you want to talk about fairy stories, macroevolution is a whale of a tale.

>> ^MrFisk:

The next GOP candidate?


I'm pretty sure she's liberal.

That doesn't discredit liberalism, but it is a step toward great depth to recognize there are unstable racist crazies across the entire population.