If it's Trump vs. Clinton ...

[HollyS]

Voting for one of those two without holding your nose.

That option had not occured to me

Well, broaden your mind. Like Monnie, I will vote for Hillary Clinton without great unhappiness. She isn't my first choice, but, Obama wasn't my first choice, either. Neither is liberal enough for me. At least Obama was black and Clinton is a woman.

Hillary Clinton has a huge amount of experience in government; is very smart; is well educated; is not sexist or racist; and is stable. We have rarely had a candidate as well rounded as she is. Her policies are not exactly to me taste, but at least she will not try to turn back the clock on Roe v. Wade or set up a registry of Muslims. What else can you ask for nowadays?

I can't imagine what sets them apart for biological characteristics that they don't control . . . or why that would make them "more liberal" than anyone else in the Democratic party. But I digress.

I hate to disappoint DF, but faced with the choice between Trump and Clinton (we don't call him Donald, so let's not call her Hillary) . . . I cannot and will not vote for Trump. So, Clinton it is.

You mean you're not a lunatic??? And you're not going to take your vote and sit out because no candidates meet your lofty standards?

Who knew?!?


Believe it or not, I've missed you - it's been a bit too delikit in here for me.

I've missed you, too.

I can't not vote . . . although it crossed my mind at one point to leave that area unmarked on the ballot. I just decided that he must be stopped and I can only do that by voting against him. Clinton has her problems, and I'm no fan, but she is not an assclown, so there's that . . .

 

[ksinger]

Voting for one of those two without holding your nose.

That option had not occured to me

Well, broaden your mind. Like Monnie, I will vote for Hillary Clinton without great unhappiness. She isn't my first choice, but, Obama wasn't my first choice, either. Neither is liberal enough for me. At least Obama was black and Clinton is a woman.

Hillary Clinton has a huge amount of experience in government; is very smart; is well educated; is not sexist or racist; and is stable. We have rarely had a candidate as well rounded as she is. Her policies are not exactly to me taste, but at least she will not try to turn back the clock on Roe v. Wade or set up a registry of Muslims. What else can you ask for nowadays?

I can't imagine what sets them apart for biological characteristics that they don't control . . . or why that would make them "more liberal" than anyone else in the Democratic party. But I digress.

I hate to disappoint DF, but faced with the choice between Trump and Clinton (we don't call him Donald, so let's not call her Hillary) . . . I cannot and will not vote for Trump. So, Clinton it is.

You mean you're not a lunatic??? And you're not going to take your vote and sit out because no candidates meet your lofty standards?

Who knew?!?


Believe it or not, I've missed you - it's been a bit too delikit in here for me.

I've missed you, too.

I can't not vote . . . although it crossed my mind at one point to leave that area unmarked on the ballot. I just decided that he must be stopped and I can only do that by voting against him. Clinton has her problems, and I'm no fan, but she is not an assclown, so there's that . . .

On the topic of not voting, and stopping Trump (if it comes to that, and it's looking like) by any means at our disposal, we are in perfect agreement.

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.

 

[HollyS]

Ssshhhh, don't tell DF, but the older I get, the further from (rabid) Republican I get.

 

[AGBF]

Thank goodness you're back before the elections, Holly, but I don't know if I can recover from your absence from the Christmas music thread. Yes, I acknowledge that you made an appearance. (Thank you for that, my good friend.) But I missed you terribly. I mean that. It wasn't Christmas on Pricescope without you...for me.

Hugs,
Deb

 

[Matata]

The excuse for not selecting the person of color was often that the person was not the right "fit" for the department. That was code for "we don't want anybody different from us." And it wasn't only color that made a person the wrong fit -- age, sex, gender played equal parts. A perfectly qualified white woman over the age of 50 was once rejected as the wrong fit for an all-male department. Women were underrepresented in that department. I made them hire her.

Why did the department necessarily "need" women? To say women were underrespresented as the excuse to why you "made them hire her" is weak, at best. Have you ever considered that maybe no other women with qualifications had applied in the past? Could it be that the male applicants possessed qualities and skill sets that made them a better fit? It's not always about race/sex/etc... even though some are just dying to make it so. I know I'd be very disappointed to think the only reason I was hired/accepted/etc was based on my sex or color -- I've worked too hard to not have my actual accomplishments recognized on their own.

One of the exercises I used during affirmative action training was to have workshop participants review a fictitious resume for an actual job in our organization. One applicant's name was caucasian sounding (Robert Smith for example) and one not (Mohammed Ali for example). The majority of the time, Smith would be chosen as a candidate for interviewing for the job. The exact same resume.

You are correct Yssie, that across the board change in cultural values is needed. But it can't happen in isolation. There has to also be cross-cultural integration in the workplace and in educational institutions among many others. That can't happen when legitimately qualified members of underrepresented groups are not hired because of prevailing prejudice. It is just as damaging as when members of underrepresented groups are hired for jobs for which they are not qualified.

Why is it necessary for everything to be "cross-cultural"?? Yssie is right... Why can't people be hired (or not) based on their qualities, skills, and experience? It's a slap in the face for those who have worked hard to be on the "no-hire list" simply because of the color of their skin/sex/faith or whatever reason. That said, it would be just as bad to be underqualified, yet hired because of the same reason.

To hire/accept someone based on race or sex when all other things are equal is just stupid -- and it's discrimination. And I take offense to the term "reverse discrimination" -- that's stupid as well... It's ALL discrimination. Period. [/quote]

You are entirely missing the point and you have admirably proved why affirmative action is still needed. Maybe the law needs to be amended, but it's still needed. There's no way we can look at the world today and not see hatred and prejudice manifest at every level of society.

You are prejudiced against the notion that discrimination of any kind is wrong and I'm not seeing anything in your words that says you're open minded enough to consider anything but your own opinion. That's the kind of closed mindedness that AA law attempts to diminish.

The intent of Affirmative Action law is not to put unqualified people in a job. It is to ensure that qualified people are hired. It is to ensure that qualified people are hired regardless of ethnicity, sex, gender, religious belief.

You wonder why a department full of men would "need" a woman. They didn't need her. They didn't want her. Because she had a vagina. Do you think that's ok?

You said "I know I'd be very disappointed to think the only reason I was hired/accepted/etc was based on my sex or color -- I've worked too hard to not have my actual accomplishments recognized on their own." How would feel to find out that you were rejected because your accomplishments were trumped by your sex or color? And had that happened to you, how do you expect you'd ever be able to show an employer that you had worth if you couldn't get a job?

We tend to stick with our own identified group who believe as we do and usually look as we do. That's why cross- and multi- cultural integration is important. We can't understand others who are different if we never venture outside our box and don't allow anyone in who is different. And if we don't let them in, we'll never see what they are capable of accomplishing.

I too would like to see the time come when job applicants were evaluated solely on their accomplishments and experience. That's the ideal and we're not there yet.

 

[msop04]

You are entirely missing the point and you have admirably proved why affirmative action is still needed. Maybe the law needs to be amended, but it's still needed. There's no way we can look at the world today and not see hatred and prejudice manifest at every level of society.

You are prejudiced against the notion that discrimination of any kind is wrong and I'm not seeing anything in your words that says you're open minded enough to consider anything but your own opinion. That's the kind of closed mindedness that AA law attempts to diminish.

The intent of Affirmative Action law is not to put unqualified people in a job. It is to ensure that qualified people are hired. It is to ensure that qualified people are hired regardless of ethnicity, sex, gender, religious belief.

You wonder why a department full of men would "need" a woman. They didn't need her. They didn't want her. Because she had a vagina. Do you think that's ok?

You said "I know I'd be very disappointed to think the only reason I was hired/accepted/etc was based on my sex or color -- I've worked too hard to not have my actual accomplishments recognized on their own." How would feel to find out that you were rejected because your accomplishments were trumped by your sex or color? And had that happened to you, how do you expect you'd ever be able to show an employer that you had worth if you couldn't get a job?

We tend to stick with our own identified group who believe as we do and usually look as we do. That's why cross- and multi- cultural integration is important. We can't understand others who are different if we never venture outside our box and don't allow anyone in who is different. And if we don't let them in, we'll never see what they are capable of accomplishing.

I too would like to see the time come when job applicants were evaluated solely on their accomplishments and experience. That's the ideal and we're not there yet.

I do see the point. You're saying that discrimination is okay, as long as certain groups are given an advantage (or disadvantage) merely based on the color of their skin or gender. As long as a certain race of people are discriminated against, that's okay??

And I have experienced it in my own family. My own husband WAS rejected regardless of his accomplishments BASED ON THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN. He can't get a city job that he is more than qualified for because he's white. Because of this, the city has been through THREE different people who did not have the qualifications to do the job. Why were they hired if they didn't have the qualifications, you might ask??? BECAUSE of the color of their skin.

So, it's been over 50 years since AA was established and we're still not there yet. Unfair advantages (and disadvantages for some) are still there. FIFTY YEARS. Seems like we need a new idea, because trying to lessen discrimination by discriminating against different groups isn't the answer. It's asinine.

I'm not close minded at all. Affirmative action is discrimination. Period.

 

[Matata]

And I have experienced it in my own family. My own husband WAS rejected regardless of his accomplishments BASED ON THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN. He can't get a city job that he is more than qualified for because he's white. Because of this, the city has been through THREE different people who did not have the qualifications to do the job. Why were they hired if they didn't have the qualifications, you might ask??? BECAUSE of the color of their skin.

I stated in my first post that misapplication of AA law is the result of lazy/incompetent/untrained people. It was my main point because that misapplication is at the root cause of the objections to AA. I neglected to mention that misapplication of AA law is illegal and for that I apologize.

Only businesses who are federal contractors have any obligations to implement affirmative action programs. Businesses that provide goods or services to the federal government in the amount of $50,000 or more and who have 50 or more employees have obligations under a law known as Executive Order 11246 and must develop an affirmative action plan and program.

Affirmative action does not mean preferences or quotas. The obligation of federal contractors who have affirmative action obligations means they must track applicants, engage in nondiscrimination, analyze the racial and gender make-up of the organization, and, importantly, cast the net to find qualified minorities and females for consideration in the application process.

At no point, ever, is the employer permitted to use race or gender as a deciding factor in hiring an employee and must consistently hire the most qualified candidate. To hire a less-qualified person due to race or gender would violate the other federal discrimination laws. For example, it would be illegal to discriminate against a more qualified white male in favor of a less qualified Hispanic female. If an employer did this, the white male could sue alleging discrimination… and he’d win if it was true that the employer made the decision to hire the lesser qualified Hispanic female due to her race or gender.

If the city your husband applied to is subject to AA law and violated it, he can and should sue. If they are not obligated to follow AA, he should sue.

 

[msop04]

And I have experienced it in my own family. My own husband WAS rejected regardless of his accomplishments BASED ON THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN. He can't get a city job that he is more than qualified for because he's white. Because of this, the city has been through THREE different people who did not have the qualifications to do the job. Why were they hired if they didn't have the qualifications, you might ask??? BECAUSE of the color of their skin.

I stated in my first post that misapplication of AA law is the result of lazy/incompetent/untrained people. It was my main point because that misapplication is at the root cause of the objections to AA. I neglected to mention that misapplication of AA law is illegal and for that I apologize.

Only businesses who are federal contractors have any obligations to implement affirmative action programs. Businesses that provide goods or services to the federal government in the amount of $50,000 or more and who have 50 or more employees have obligations under a law known as Executive Order 11246 and must develop an affirmative action plan and program.

Affirmative action does not mean preferences or quotas. The obligation of federal contractors who have affirmative action obligations means they must track applicants, engage in nondiscrimination, analyze the racial and gender make-up of the organization, and, importantly, cast the net to find qualified minorities and females for consideration in the application process.

At no point, ever, is the employer permitted to use race or gender as a deciding factor in hiring an employee and must consistently hire the most qualified candidate. To hire a less-qualified person due to race or gender would violate the other federal discrimination laws. For example, it would be illegal to discriminate against a more qualified white male in favor of a less qualified Hispanic female. If an employer did this, the white male could sue alleging discrimination… and he’d win if it was true that the employer made the decision to hire the lesser qualified Hispanic female due to her race or gender.

If the city your husband applied to is subject to AA law and violated it, he can and should sue. If they are not obligated to follow AA, he should sue.

My husband would not sue, regardless of if our city is obligated to follow AA. He wouldn't even consider jumping on that bandwagon. He has a successful business, and doesn't have a victim mentality. He thought he'd give a city job a shot... I can't blame him for wanting government benefits and paid vacation.

 

[liaerfbv]

My husband would not sue, regardless of if our city is obligated to follow AA. He wouldn't even consider jumping on that bandwagon. He has a successful business, and doesn't have a victim mentality. He thought he'd give a city job a shot... I can't blame him for wanting government benefits and paid vacation.

Utilizing the legal system to preserve your rights doesn't mean that you have a "victim mentality."

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="smitcompton


I care very much about the poor children in Chicago. But, the only way out of this, I believe, sits with those parents. Until you make, or teach(bring Home Economics back) the mothers to make breakfast and even, god-forbid, lunch, the cycle will continue.
The teachers cannot do it, the pastors cannot do it , and their friends are from the same set of circumstances

I no longer want to listen to the liberal who hasn't solved it in all these yrs, no matter how much they ring their hands, and tell us how awful life is for the poor. My heart no longer bleeds for those parents or those that excuse them.

Annette[/quote]


Exactly!, ... We have been fighting poverty since LBJ was Prez. and it has gotten worst in the past 50 yrs.... No public programs will be able to solve poverty it must start at home.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="msop04|

Why is it necessary for everything to be "cross-cultural"?? Yssie is right... Why can't people be hired (or not) based on their qualities, skills, and experience? It's a slap in the face for those who have worked hard to be on the "no-hire list" simply because of the color of their skin/sex/faith or whatever reason. That said, it would be just as bad to be underqualified, yet hired because of the same reason.

To hire/accept someone based on race or sex when all other things are equal is just stupid -- and it's discrimination. And I take offense to the term "reverse discrimination" -- that's stupid as well... It's ALL discrimination. Period. [/quote]

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="HollyS|
I hate to disappoint DF, but faced with the choice between Trump and Clinton (we don't call him Donald, so let's not call her Hillary) . . . I cannot and will not vote for Trump. So, Clinton it is.[/quote]


I have no problem with voting for Clinton. I wish that she can come up with her own policies instead of 4 more yrs of Obama ideology.

 

[HollyS]

Thank goodness you're back before the elections, Holly, but I don't know if I can recover from your absence from the Christmas music thread. Yes, I acknowledge that you made an appearance. (Thank you for that, my good friend.) But I missed you terribly. I mean that. It wasn't Christmas on Pricescope without you...for me.

Hugs,
Deb

Wow! Thanks, Deb! I'm both sorry you missed me and extremely glad to be missed.

I was really, really busy creating the décor for a big corporate Christmas party; something I was hired to do. I didn't even put up a big tree, although I did decorate the house.

 

[packrat]

Britta Rose for President! She's got a funky ear and she's cranky but she takes no shit.

 

[Gypsy]

The Right SLAMS Hillary for STAYING with her husband though he was the unfaithful one. Why is it sexist that I slam him for his infidelity.

Gypsy, FWIW I agree with you. Trump is a misogynist pig who exhibits sexist and disgusting behavior (IMO) and yes infidelity is something I will judge. And there is a big difference b/w being divorced and having slept with others while still married. IMO.

But then again I also judge Hillary Clinton for staying with her husband after all he has done so at least I am consistent.

Why is it anyone's business why the Clintons have remained married?

Listen, the issue to me is of oath breaking. And of hypocrisy of the religious right.

Mutual agreed upon divorce for irreconcilable differences, or leaving a marriage because the other party has broken THEIR oath is fine me.

Hillary Clinton is not the one who broke the oath. In my opinion, all that demonstrates about her character forgiveness. That's a very CHRISTIAN attribute. And yet the Right reviles here and uses her decision to stay as evidence of her being unfeminine and too ambitious and therefore not Presidential material. Personally, I think forgiveness is a good character in a President.

Trump IS the one who broke his oath. And that to me speaks about HIS character, and no it doesn't speak well especially IN CONTEXT of his other attributes. I think he sees morality as a convenient coat to put on when it benefits him, and take off when it benefits him. And yet the same Christian right who says all gays and anyone who has an abortion is going to hell are FLOCKING to the polls in droves and you hear nary a peep of the issue. Even though he will be asked AGAIN AND AGAIN to uphold his oath of office if he is elected.


That said, I really wish Elizabeth Warren was running.

 

[AGBF]

The Right SLAMS Hillary for STAYING with her husband though he was the unfaithful one. Why is it sexist that I slam him for his infidelity.

Gypsy, FWIW I agree with you. Trump is a misogynist pig who exhibits sexist and disgusting behavior (IMO) and yes infidelity is something I will judge. And there is a big difference b/w being divorced and having slept with others while still married. IMO.

But then again I also judge Hillary Clinton for staying with her husband after all he has done so at least I am consistent.

Why is it anyone's business why the Clintons have remained married?

Listen, the issue to me is of oath breaking. And of hypocrisy of the religious right.

Mutual agreed upon divorce for irreconcilable differences, or leaving a marriage because the other party has broken THEIR oath is fine me.

Hillary Clinton is not the one who broke the oath. In my opinion, all that demonstrates about her character forgiveness. That's a very CHRISTIAN attribute. And yet the Right reviles here and uses her decision to stay as evidence of her being unfeminine and too ambitious and therefore not Presidential material. Personally, I think forgiveness is a good character in a President.

Trump IS the one who broke his oath. And that to me speaks about HIS character, and no it doesn't speak well especially IN CONTEXT of his other attributes. I think he sees morality as a convenient coat to put on when it benefits him, and take off when it benefits him. And yet the same Christian right who says all gays and anyone who has an abortion is going to hell are FLOCKING to the polls in droves and you hear nary a peep of the issue. Even though he will be asked AGAIN AND AGAIN to uphold his oath of office if he is elected.


That said, I really wish Elizabeth Warren was running.

I understand your position, Gypsy. It's completely internally consistent. (Given the way you reason, I would expect nothing else.) I have no real problem with it.

 

[AGBF]

That said, I really wish Elizabeth Warren was running.

Gyps, You and Ame were the ones who made me aware of her. "The New York Times" appears to think that she is now the bane of Donald Trump's existence. It made me smile. (I had already read about their Tweets, but not about how she is galvanizing people behind her.)

Link to article...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Deb

 

[LaineyRod]

[/quote] Why is it anyone's business why the Clintons have remained married?[/quote]

Listen, the issue to me is of oath breaking. And of hypocrisy of the religious right.

Mutual agreed upon divorce for irreconcilable differences, or leaving a marriage because the other party has broken THEIR oath is fine me.

Hillary Clinton is not the one who broke the oath. In my opinion, all that demonstrates about her character forgiveness. That's a very CHRISTIAN attribute. And yet the Right reviles here and uses her decision to stay as evidence of her being unfeminine and too ambitious and therefore not Presidential material. Personally, I think forgiveness is a good character in a President.

Trump IS the one who broke his oath. And that to me speaks about HIS character, and no it doesn't speak well especially IN CONTEXT of his other attributes. I think he sees morality as a convenient coat to put on when it benefits him, and take off when it benefits him. And yet the same Christian right who says all gays and anyone who has an abortion is going to hell are FLOCKING to the polls in droves and you hear nary a peep of the issue. Even though he will be asked AGAIN AND AGAIN to uphold his oath of office if he is elected.

That said, I really wish Elizabeth Warren was running.[/quote]

I won't carry a sign for either even though I am able to see a little good and a lot of not so much in each candidate, but Gypsy, I couldn't agree more with every single word you just said! I love Elizabeth Warren!

 

[luv2sparkle]

I have no idea what I will do. I cannot stand either candidate. On the one hand, I think Hillary will have no respect for the law, or what the people want and for entirely different reasons, neither will Trump.

Trump is scary from the standpoint of how the rest of the world views us, but I don't think he would throw our soldiers under the bus like Hillary did. But he very well may get us into WW111, so what difference will his standing for service men mean in the end.

There just is not a candidate worthy of the office. I am not a fan of Obama, but I don't think he has publicly humiliated us like Trump very well may do. I never thought that we would have two candidates that make Obama look so good.

I don't think Hillary is trustworthy. If I thought for one nanosecond that she stayed with Bill because she loved and forgave him, I would count that as a point for her character-wise. I think she only stayed for politics. I can't really know that, but I sure have never seen anything between them that even looked like they even liked each other. She is clearly a liar.

I guess I am hopeful for a last minute independent that is worthy of voting for. The problem with this is, it leaves it way open for one of the others to win. Voting for an independent that doesn't stand a chance will be a loss anyway.

 

[jordyonbass]

I feel this is appropriate and kinda creepy at the same time

 

[AGBF]

I feel this is appropriate and kinda creepy at the same time

I do not know how closely you follow the goings on in the United States, Jordy, but we currently have a suit and counter-suit in one our states (North Carolina) over whether people can use a public restroom for a sex other other than the one on their birth certificates. Your "Clump" photo made me think that the restroom monitors would have their work cut out for them trying to direct the candidate to the place where s/he could freshen up.

Deb

 

[kenny]

I feel this is appropriate and kinda creepy at the same time

Clump!

Hahahaha!

 

[jordyonbass]

I feel this is appropriate and kinda creepy at the same time

I do not know how closely you follow the goings on in the United States, Jordy, but we currently have a suit and counter-suit in one our states (North Carolina) over whether people can use a public restroom for a sex other other than the one on their birth certificates. Your "Clump" photo made me think that the restroom monitors would have their work cut out for them trying to direct the candidate to the place where s/he could freshen up.

Deb

I am well aware of the legislation furore Deb, it would be an interesting situation indeed but I think what would be lost on a lot of people is that poor ol' Clump just wants to go to the bathroom!!

It's such a creepy photoshop job, I may have trouble getting to sleep tonight

 

[AnnaH]

Clump, funny but also my biggest fear--that they are the same person