Ten oz

1 - Of the various industries I listed Navy SEALS account for less than a a tenth of a single percent of people. Even amongst men there are very large disparities in physical strength and overall health. The argument that men a are stronger than women, in my opinion, has never made sense. Every individual has differences and while there are minimum levels of fitness required to perform various tasks there are few jobs where a maximum level of fitness is superior. Perhaps amongst athletes in the NBA, NFL, and etc but not amongst Electrician's, Structural Engineers, and etc which employ far more people. You are using fringe examples to justify at large trends. 2 - Generations of treatment is not an issue because today some girls are encourage? 3 - No, it is men's fault. Men are the ones who spent generations keeping women out of the workforce. Women didn't even have the right to vote until less than a hundred years ago, Yale and Princeton first admitted women in 1969, Harvard in 1977, and etc. If is not the fault of men that women were kept out of various industries and denied opportunities given to men whose fault was it, god's? You brought it up as an example and it is an example I do not agree. I do not see have BLM is an example of reverse racism or discrimination. BLM is about the way they (members and supporters of BLM) feel black people are treated by police. I don't understannd how a group whom is asking that black people not be mistreated is somehow being discriminatory in the reserve? They are not advocating that other races be mistreated. Perhaps you disagree with them. Perhaps you feel blacks are treated fair by police and BLM is advocating a useless point. That is fine. That doesn't make BLM racists in the reserve. I think you are confusing your opinion of their message with mistreatment. They are not advocating discrimination against you.

The end? You started this thread and brought BLM up in the OP. This is your discussion.

I did not imply a number of police that discriminate. I said the police have a lot of positional power in society and "if" they choose to discriminate the result can be life changing. BLM as an organization have a message you disagree with. They do not impact your life and there message doesn't seek to impact your life. Can a women be sexist against a man, sure. Are women typically in a position to discriminate against mean, no. There are nurmerous industries that are dominated by men: Military, defense contractors, Law Enforcement, construction, electrical distrubution, mechanical industries, and etc, etc, etc. A wealth portion of our workforce. For the women who do work in male dominated industries they are minorities by numbers. As a minority in those professions they do not have a position to discriminate from. The list of industries which are dominated by women aren't ones which employ even 10% as many people broadly. There simply isn't a reserve comparison to be made. On average women are out numbered by men professionally. This difference doesn't exist as a natural effect of men just choosing to do X, Y, or Z. Rather, women have been raised for generations to not pursue various careers and/or prevented from it outright. Families have groomed boys to pursue STEM degrees while encouraging girls against it. Various careers have had and a few continue to have gender restrictions. There are still various classes of ships and submarines the Navy that don't allow women for example. That in turn limits a womens options for career diversification and training in the Navy. Discrimination against women has taken different forms. For some it has been religion. A belief that women should be subservient to men. For others it is just straight chauvinism. And then there are those who choose to segregate women for what they consider practical reasons. Whatever the excuse it is almost always women drawing the short straw in the deal. What is the reverse? Then of course there is the violence. Statistically male assualt women at levels that far exceed to reserve. The numbers are significant enough that any woman whom finds herself alone amongst a group of men is justified in being nervous. Again. the reserve of this doesn't exist. Theoretically it could but as something which is pervasive in society it simply doesn't.

The threads title is about discrimination and not hate. If you're asking about hate the answer is never. People will always hate people. If you are asking about discrimination than that is a different conversation. Discrimination is about treatment. Regardless of feelings positive or nagative feelings towards other groups the ability to discriminate doesn't always exist. Muslims living in Israel are not in a position to discriminate against Jewish people. Some may hate but as a group they lack the positional power in Israeli society to discriminate broadly. At the same time Isael is sounded by Islamic nations. Some of those nations support terrorism against Israel. So while Jewish people are not discriminated against by Muslims within Israel they are by some Muslims outside of Israel. BLM is not a group with any positional power to discriminate. They can be marginalized and ignored. The way they feel towards other people, me or you, has no impact on our lives. Meanwhile the group (Police) that BLM speaks out against have massive amounts of positional power in our society. If the police choose to discriminate, even a little, the results are life changing. Police cannot be marginalized or ignored. Merely attempting to marginalize or ignore police itself can be a provocation that justifies the police taking one into their physical control. In my opinion it is important to separate the way people feel about each other from the ability of people to mistreat each other. People in power havethe ability to negatively impact the lives of those they dislike. So it is important people in power be more tolerant, inclusive, and etc. Conflating how every individual feels with the fact that some in positions of power use their feelings to oppress is a mistake. Everyone doesn't have to like everyone else. Everyone simply needs equal treatment and protection by society at large.

The most important part of his answer was not repeated. Everything else was fluff. The question in the video was asking if he really thought banning muslims was right and his answer was basically yes supported by "they did not come from Sweden", they are not white. The repeated parts are things he says for the rest of us not in his target audience. It is his way to water down the blatantly racist parts with a bunch of talk that means nothing. If Trump was clever as the video and others suggest he would be able to sway his supporters. He would have been able to move towards the center some in the general and would be doing better than he is. Rather, his supporters rejected his attempts like his "softening" on immigration. He is not the leader of his supporters. He can't sell them on new views or positions. He just echos what they already believe and that is why he hasn't been able to grow his base or even shore up Republican support as the Republican nominee. I agree. I fear someone more compenent than Trump, someone who truly premeditiates his languages and knows how to camouflage it, is watching all of thise and taking notes. No one could have predicted a year ago how sloppy and accomodating the media would be with a candidate like Trump. I hope Trump doesn't end up being a dry run for someone more dangerous.

The video is a logical analysis of the language Trump uses however I think it misses the mark. Of all the highlighted bits examined in Trump's response to Kimmel the most important line was ignored. Trump said "they did not come from Sweden". Which is a not so subtle way of saying they were not white people. Trump also said to look at what happened in Paris and California. There are more terror attacks in the middle east against Muslims than any other group yet Trump added Paris as a place outside the U.S. to look because it is in a marjority white country. Trump speaks in clear racist terms. Us (white people) vs them (not white people). The video is over intellectualizing Trump. There is not a secret to Trumps language. His success isn't rooted in his use of one and two sylleble words. His success is rooted in his bigotry. His supporters like what he has to say.They are not being tricked. They really do want a wall on the southern border, they really do want minorities stopped and frisked by police, they really do want a ban of Muslims immigrant, there is no smoke and mirrors here. Trump isn't having to convince anyone of this stuff. His supporters already felt this way. What has allowed Trump to succeed where the David Dukes, Pat Buchanans, and other bigots have failed is that Trump has already been a celebrity reality star and has had a respected business brand for decades. Trump already had a podium and mic. Those before him had to beat the streets stirring up exposure while defending themselves against charges of racism. Media just dismissed them as the idiots they are/were. Trump is already a house hold name so he didn't have to work for coverage and exposure. He has bypassed that hurdle. His message was pushed straight out by the media in a way Pat Buchanan could never achieve.

Nah, sometimes it is just that a fan won't to have won or is just looking to complain because they lost. Trump supporters (any healthy number of them) honestly believing the election is rigged seems too tin foil hat wearing to me. It is fairly obvious to the majority of the country that Trump has lost or rather will lose the Latino, black, woman, educated, and etc vote. I think most know, beneath all the rhetoric, that a national election can't be won losing all those groups. Trump's core supporters are racist, sexist, angry, and many other nasty things but enough of them are lunatics to buy into a stolen election narrative. At least not in my opinion.

Lots of people say Trump is a good speaker. I don't see it. His thoughts are disjointed and difficult to follow. I had a low opinion of him before all of this. Before he announced he was running for President. He has always seemed to has the nervous energy of a drug addict mixed with the rambling stream of consciousness of someone with adrenaline rushing to their head the moments before a fight breaks out. Donald Trump sounds like a megalomanic. While Clinton sounds boring she sounds sane. Trump does not.

It has but the marjority of the time it doesn't. I don't think it will this time. Obviously I could be wrong but most in the conservative establishment identify that Trump will lose and that acknowledgement is trickling down amongst conservative pundits. We still have 3 weeks to go. I think by election most Trump supporters will be exiting the stadium early to beat traffic understanding that the game isn't close enough to wait til the final whistle.

It is common in sports to blame the refs for a loss. Common for fans to claim the league conspired to help a specific team win or get better treatment for a specific athlete. I am not implying it is innocent or innocuous as it is in sports. I understand it is far more mean spirited and dissisive. I just think that once it ends it will end. We will have a couple weeks of sour grapes complaiing and people will start focusing on what come nexts.

The difference, and a significant one in my opinion, is that Bill has already been called to the carpet for his actions. He has already had to answer questions, been investigated, and apologized. There has already been a special prosecutor investigation, a Congressional impeachment, a trial in the Senate, and etc, etc, etc ad nauseam. Simply saying both have been accused or are guilty of similar behavior is a larger over simplification. I don't see the hypocrisy you mention. Trump being exposed to the same public scrutiny and legal review Bill Clinton was is perfectly fair and if Trump comes out the other side scarred but exonerated as Bill has than that is fair too. But to just say the two are equals and we are hypercritical for being upset with one over the other ignores many factors, too many factors.

The House doesn't need permission from a court to hold an impreachment vote. Several members of the House floated impeaching Obama on several occassions but were able to whip up enough support. The Senate holds the power to try a President for a crime and convict them but the House can still hold a vote. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House but the Senate fail to convict him. Bill Clinton is an example of an impeached President who was not convicted of an impeachable offense as outline in the Constitution's Article 2.

They have needed to rebuild since Bush and refused to. Centrist Republicans who care about policy wanted to shift in 08' but the fringe right in the party staged a coup after ahead of the 2010 midterms with the Tea-Party. With a burn it to the ground rather than give it up the Tea-Party sought to oust any Republican not loyal to the cause. Trump in many ways appears to by the next progression of that coup. Failure to instal their leader in the white house won't end it. They still have too much power in congress. Hard to tell where it goes from here. If I had to guess I assume the far right will take no prisoners in the 2018 mid-term elections and if they can get enough seats with launch a campaign to impeach Hillary Clinton. Something many regret they didn't do with Obama.

1 - I agree 100%. They will be fired up and ready to go for the 2018 mid terms. However they will morph between now and then. Trump will not remain as their leader just as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck couldn't keep hold of their Tea Party leadership. From George Wallace to Pat Buchanan to Trump and all the various leaders between the racist right wing fringe is constantly re-window dressing the shop. 2 - I disagree. It is just sport. Doesn't matter how terrible a certian sports team is there are always die hard fans that say "this is our year". They don't believe it much as they feel the confident show of support is their duty as a fan. In reality many of those "this is our year" fans would be perfectly satisfied if their team just made it to playoff talk or are had a few noteworthy wins. Same way in the original Rocky and the most recent one (Creed) thre was victory in just making it all 12 rounds without being knocked. They say Trump can win be the reality is they just want Trump finish and get in a few kicks along the way. The above sports analogy I think uniquely embodies Trump supporters but they are so predominantly working class white males. They are the majority of the viewership for UFC, Football, Baseball, NASCAR, and etc. At a Trump rally one sees exactly the same sort of us vs them, we're going to kick their butt, today is our day sort of trash talking one would expect from a drunken crowd in a sports arena

I don't understand this post as a response to mine. You are addressing things not contained in my post. To your assertion about what I think I have and it not mattering; what does matter? This thread is about law/policy and not individual subjective internalization of ethics. Gov't policy as a reflection or practice of societal ethics functions differently than personal ethics. What is ethical is not merely what is popular is reflected in our government's systems of checks and balances. An elected official may be able to ride a specific wave of political opinion into office but then be stopped from enacting policy by the courts, states, and etc. In context I am not saying my ethics are loftier than yours nor am I being emotional. I feel you are over simplifying what ethics are and how they finction in our policy system by conflating them with feelings and opinions.

He will try. All the people I mentioned have tried. Election seasons, for some, are very intoxicating. In the moment partisans will defend anything and are often whipped in a fenzy. Millions cried in 2012 that if Obama was re-elected obamacare (Affordable Care Act) would destory our economy and lead to death panels. 4yrs later Obama is leaving office as one of the most popular Presidents ever. Once Trump loses and the hangover punds in people won't be so eager to line up behind him.

"plural noun. the ethics of journalism. moral code, morals, morality, moral stand, moral principles, moral values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, creed, credo, ethos, rules of conduct, standards (of behaviour), virtues, dictates of conscience" Creed, ethos, code, standards, and etc are more than just the current prevailing societal consensus. Human knowledge is accumulative. We are constantly building it it as we go. As such best practices and standards for behavior reach beyond modern day trends. What is ethical is not merely what is popular.

I disagree. From Sarah Palin to Genn Beck or Newt Gingrich to Pat Buchanan the right wing conservative base has a history of jumping on bandwagons. They will find a new shiny thing by the mid-terms in 2018. I honest believe they (trump supporters) never believed they'd with the white house. For them victory was in venting their fustrations and proving to the rest of us they really would hold their breath till they passed out. Trump said he'd deport millions of latinos and build a wall, bad muslims from entering the country, nationalize stop and frisk in balck communities to fix race relations, put a legal penalty in place for abortion, and told Clinton to her face he'd work to put her in jail. All of that for the far right has been every bit rewarding as any election victory could ever be. They don't actually care about governance. That just wanted the chance to soil the process and insult those who they disagree with and Trump has given them that; mission accomplished.

They don't care. The same Republican base who supported W Bush and the Iraq War now support a guy who lies about never supporting the Iraq War and calls Bush a terrible president. He also insults the last two Republican nominees for president, whom his base also supported, and still they support him. They just want a win and if they can't have one they at least want the selfish condolence of hurling insults. Trump's finger pointing, lurking behind Clinton, threatening to imprison Clinton, and name calling of Clinton in the second debate was as satisfying to his base as him winning the election could be. It is everything they want.

I see many people on social media insisting that where there is smoke there must be fire. That perhaps not all allegations are true but surely some must be. It is a dishonest and insidious way to play upon the average persons desire to to be fair. So much has been thrown at Hillary Clinton that accepting some of it is just being fair. The approach plays on ignorance/apathy and scandal fatigue.

I think the notion that Trump is a skilled businessman and entertaining is a reflection of the denial our society has about privilage. People keep insisting that Trump must be good at business due to his success and a talented spokesman. Society has a tough time acknowledging that a person can have so much wiuthout talent. We link success to talent/ability in a more direct way than it exists. The world in unfortunately not that fair. Some people do simply have more and get more just cause. Trump inherited hundreds of millions and was groomed his whole life to in the families real estate business. His lawyers, accountants, logistical operators,and etc manage the details. Trump is just a spoiled brat that takes credit for things gifted to him and his wealth creates a facade of intelligence which doesn't actually exist.

The case in question has already been adjudicated. Like everything else involving the Clintons that keep coming up. What new information or detail exists that suddenly makes the relevant today?

I listened to the audience of this a about a week ago. Clinton is heard laugh in the audio. However she is not laughing at a rape victim. She is making what I'd describe as pretntious remarks about how inept other lawyers involved in the case were. Context matters.

Trump is so terrible that in comparison Pence seems intelligent and put together. Pence is a climate change and evolution denier who also supports homophobic and aggressively sexist policies. Neither Pence or Trump have any business holding public office in my opinion. Trump complained during the second debate that as a Senator Hillary failed to change the tax code and provide universal healthcare yet the failure of change on those policies is exactly because of politicians like Pence. The GOP blocks policy and works across the country to undercut those policies which slip through then turn around and blame others for why government doesn't work better. Pence is every bit as divisive, sarcastic, dishonest, manipulative, and sexist as Trump. The only difference is that when Pence speaks he can contain a single thought within the scope of a single topic.

Trump has said many blantantly racist, nationalist, sexist, islamophobic, and etc things. The Republicans who finally stand up now must first explain why now and not before if they expect to be taken seriously. Otherwise they just look like rats abandoning a sinking ship. I commend the ones who never got on board to begin with like Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, Bill Kristol, and etc.