@chimaera So you are going to tell me, that hiring managers, who gets hundreds of applications a day, are going to take time to google map addresses for every applicant and check the enthnicity distribution for every district in the city, just so they won't accidentally hire someone with a certain skin tone? That would take so much effort, that NOBODY in middle managemet wants to do.
@OrlonKronsteen It would be harder for an interviewer to, who already accepted the application, to spin not hiring at the interview based soley on race. That face to face is difficult to fake. That's why so many applications get rejected, they don't need to provide a reason for an application.
Is my system perfect? No, but I have yet to hear any alternative proposal that doesn't enforce racism of its own, and this was the product of about 10 minutes of thought. If every proposition to limit racism is shot down because, "People will still be racist." Then just give up now. People will always be arsebutts. We need to take the best steps we can, or will stagnate and never get anywhere.
@OrlonKronsteen It would be harder for an interviewer to, who already accepted the application, to spin not hiring at the interview based soley on race. That face to face is difficult to fake. That's why so many applications get rejected, they don't need to provide a reason for an application.
Have you had a chance to interview people for a job before? (Honest question) - I have. Last time my company hired, I was part of the interview team (did research on the resumes, was in the interview). We judged each candidate after the interview and decided on our "order or preference".
It's incredibly easy for one (or more) people in that interview to knock you down on the list a spot or 3 because you're African American, a woman, Hispanic, have a lisp or bad body odor - or any other reason. It's impossible to specifically track and call those interviewers who did so out for being prejudiced.
So no. I dont think that system works. The interview process will allow for discrimination just as easily as any other part of the process.
Employment is necessarily a zero-sum game. If I got the job, you didnt. If we both got the job, two other people did not. If you use a libertarian approach of having no or few regulations or laws in place, then the majority will generally infringe upon the minority. In most situations, the minorities are already at a disadvantage. So something like Affirmative Action helps to mitigate that damage on some level (while being unfair on its own merit. Then again, the system on its own is also unfair. You have it either way).
@OrlonKronsteen It would be harder for an interviewer to, who already accepted the application, to spin not hiring at the interview based soley on race. That face to face is difficult to fake. That's why so many applications get rejected, they don't need to provide a reason for an application.
They don't have to spin anything. They just hire who they want. And rarely are offers made during the interview, it's usually a follow-up email or phone call.
Interviews actually aren't very good predictors of job performance. They measure your ability to talk about the job, and that's about it.
Well, they can help determine a candidate's personality and fit with the organization, as well as seeing how sociable they are, how they handle pressure, etc.. That said, there are lots of people who give great interviews but are lousy hires. They aren't foolproof, but are another tool to help determine if a candidate is right - hopefully.
I assume interviews have some use in determining fitness for highly social jobs. If you're a receptionist or salesperson, you should be able to immediately be charming and personable to a total stranger. An interview should be able to determine that.
Interviews are probably one of the biggest ways to let racial biases, unconscious or no, into the hiring process. Interviews are often unstructured and the interviewer has lots of freedom over how to make the call, so a "gut feeling" is sometimes all the interviewer has to go on. Frankly, an online questionnaire would involve less bias and be more efficient than an in-person interview for any job that doesn't require a gregarious and instantly likeable personality.
It's worth pointing out that not all example of affirmative action are government-mandated. Some companies take measures to avoid racial bias or even show preference to minorities because they believe it's in their own best interests as a private company to do so.
Interviews are probably one of the biggest ways to let racial biases, unconscious or no, into the hiring process. Interviews are often unstructured and the interviewer has lots of freedom over how to make the call, so a "gut feeling" is sometimes all the interviewer has to go on. Frankly, an online questionnaire would involve less bias and be more efficient than an in-person interview for any job that doesn't require a gregarious and instantly likeable personality.
Well. I dont know that I agree with this specifically, either. From personal experience only - we used the interview to ensure that someone isnt padding their resume - and that someone would be a "good fit" for our team. Since most jobs do require some level of an ability to work well with others, an interview is instrumental in determining that.
My job is not at all social and does not require interfacing with customers. Still, I wouldnt ever be comfortable hiring someone without interviewing them (Worth noting that I'm not "The boss" though. Of anyone. Just an employee on interview panels). Maybe that's just my experience, and most people feel comfortable hiring without an interview?
@BallpointMan@OrlonKronsteen Like I said before. My example took all of ten minutes to come up with, and removed race from the equation in half the process. To think that we can't come up with something better than enforced racism (affirmitive action), while actually dedicating time and resources to said goal, is preposturous. (I have never had to spell taht before. I wonder how I did. Meh, almost had it.)
Well, interviewing goes a lot deeper than that, especially in more demanding jobs. It can help you determine how much real knowledge a candidate has about a job in an organic way that can't be achieved with mere testing. As a member/victim of the gig economy, I work in two different fields: corporate communications and higher education. When hiring is done there are tests and extensive interviews. The idea of hiring in either without interviewing is inconceivable, or plecostomus, if you will. I'm sure this is true with many if not most other professions as well. It would be great to find solutions that don't require affirmative action, but I'm not sure this is it.
@BallpointMan@OrlonKronsteen Like I said before. My example took all of ten minutes to come up with, and removed race from the equation in half the process. To think that we can't come up with something better than enforced racism (affirmitive action), while actually dedicating time and resources to said goal, is preposturous. (I have never had to spell taht before. I wonder how I did. Meh, almost had it.)
Maybe it was only 10 minutes because it is a bad example since you removed it from the easy half of the equation. It's like claiming you can make a wonderful dinner after having just bought some ingredients regardless of your lack of cooking ability.
As other have said, I was involved in hiring comittees and I would raise hell if I was told I had to give recommendations before meeting the candidate in person. A face to face interaction is still one of the best ways to get to know someone and get a feeling for how the candidate is able to perform in a work environment. Your idea does not even allow for a phone interview.
And unfortunately, I had quite a few candidates who had a nice CV on paper, but where it turned out that they obviously lied about it.
The problem with having no affirmative action (and I would prefer if it wasn't needed) is that social mobility is not that large, and many of the reasons why minorities do worse is still rooted in past oppression, they were never compensated for. It's also a matter of stereotypes; if you have no doctors or lawyers in your family, it is much less likely that you will believe you can one. It makes sense to support it where you can to improve this. Hell, if you want no other people to lose opportunities for it then invest a lot of additional money to create new jobs/chances especially for this and call the cost a long overdue compensation payment.
The problem with having no affirmative action (and I would prefer if it wasn't needed) is that social mobility is not that large, and many of the reasons why minorities do worse is still rooted in past oppression, they were never compensated for. It's also a matter of stereotypes; if you have no doctors or lawyers in your family, it is much less likely that you will believe you can one. It makes sense to support it where you can to improve this. Hell, if you want no other people to lose opportunities for it then invest a lot of additional money to create new jobs/chances especially for this and call the cost a long overdue compensation payment.
That person probably also grew up in a neighborhood or in a school district that reflected his or her family's income level. None of them were likely ever very highly paid, so they've probably received the worst a public education had to offer. (This all happens to white people too - it's just statically more likely to happen to black families) - So it's kind of important to break the cycle where and when possible.
I agree with everyone else - I wouldnt support affirmative action if there was a clearly better and more fair way to ensure that racial bias was not levied at prospective employees while ensuring that the top candidates get the jobs they deserve. However, that not being the case - I prefer trying to balance the scale to bring minorities closer to true equality than let the scales balance themselves (historically always at the majority's benefit and minority's expense).
Have you had a chance to interview people for a job before? (Honest question) - I have. Last time my company hired, I was part of the interview team (did research on the resumes, was in the interview). We judged each candidate after the interview and decided on our "order or preference".
It's incredibly easy for one (or more) people in that interview to knock you down on the list a spot or 3 because you're African American, a woman, Hispanic, have a lisp or bad body odor - or any other reason. It's impossible to specifically track and call those interviewers who did so out for being prejudiced.
So no. I dont think that system works. The interview process will allow for discrimination just as easily as any other part of the process.
Employment is necessarily a zero-sum game. If I got the job, you didnt. If we both got the job, two other people did not. If you use a libertarian approach of having no or few regulations or laws in place, then the majority will generally infringe upon the minority. In most situations, the minorities are already at a disadvantage. So something like Affirmative Action helps to mitigate that damage on some level (while being unfair on its own merit. Then again, the system on its own is also unfair. You have it either way).
Why nobody talks about the SUBJECTIVITY of race based affirmative action?
An example? Obama. He is half white, he can use affirmative action programs? And a 3/4 white guy? an 7/8? Who draw the line? Will be one drop rule? If someone is 1/256 black, he can use affirmative action program? Craig Cobb an white supremacist is 14% African. He can use affirmative action?
Other example. "hispanic". No other country in the world ever considered hispanic as a race. I never saw the UK media labeling Afro Caribbeans as "hispanic"(they are African). So, for eg Gisele Bundchen. She have a German surname, light eyes/hair, was born in a city that even today speaks Riograndenser Hunsrückisch German but this city is on Brazil, is she white or "latina"? And Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, she have 3 blonde daughters but was born in Argentina? If she goes to USA with Argentine passport, can use affirmative action but with an EU passport can't? And her daughters?
If the affirmative action only applies to mestizos, why classify an half white half indigenous in USA differently than a half white half indigenous in another region? And how much indigenous someone needs to be to use affirmative action? Some Castizos(3/4 white) looks very white and some not. They can use affirmative action program?
See? There are a lot of subjectivity on affirmative action. And in a libertarian approach, discrimination should't be crime.
That's exactly correct. Biologically speaking race is a meaningless term in humans. If you have a scientifically rigorous definition and a test to find out the race of a person, please share.
Are you talking about subjectivity or arbitrariness? Those are different things. If you are talking about arbitrariness, this can be applied to just about any policy, e.g. why is the top tax rate 40% and not 38%? Why is the military budget X billion dollars and not Y billion dollars? Sometimes to be able to make decisions you need to introduce cutoffs that are somewhat arbitrary but also justifiable in some way.
"Everyone with an Argentine password" would be arbitrary but not subjective. Not that I am saying this should be a qualification criteria for Affirmative Action.
Finally, regarding the libertarian approach you are correct, but you could have said the same about feudalism, fascism or a theocracy. There is a good reason why most people are not libertarians, or at least not this kind of libertarian (there are so many different kinds that I am pretty sure it includes some who think discrimination should be illegal).
More interesting I find is that you both argue that Affirmative Action is discrimination against Whites and therefore wrong and that discrimination shouldn't be a crime. I am not saying that this is a contradiction; most likely what you are thinking is that AA is from the government while other discrimination is from individual and private entities and that it is therefore not comparable. Correct?
Finally, I think Obama even though he managed to become president is still an excellent example of how he was still treated differently. To be elected he had to be the most squeaky clean President of the century with a completely clean family record. And they still made up conspiracy theories about faking his birth certificate and his wife being transgender. I think that if Obama had even had an affair that became public, he would have been dropped like a hot potato. He certainly wouldn't have been elected with Trump's family history.
And they still made up conspiracy theories about faking his birth certificate and his wife being transgender.
That second one just seems random. And not actually a scandal. And also biologically impossible depending on the definition, because she has kids.
It was a racist conspiracy theory put forward by some on the far-right, like Alex Jones. Basically another way for InfoWars to denigrate the Obamas other than just shouting racial slurs into the microphone.
@AstroBryGuy: I know about the birther thing. What baffles me is the idea that Michelle Obama was transgender. Where would that even come from? It just seems so random.
I can understand how one Catholic priest might support one of his own; people often protect "their own" at the expense of others. It's disgusting and disturbing, but I already know about that kind of human behavior. What I don't understand is how this could keep happening for decades on end without a bunch of other, more conscientious priests speaking out. And I find it absolutely baffling that you could have a group of priests who would join in on the rape in an organized fashion. It's not just the sheer number of rapists and the sheer volume that I find difficult to understand. It's just, how many non-pedophiles had to look the other way for this to go on for decades on end?
@AstroBryGuy: I know about the birther thing. What baffles me is the idea that Michelle Obama was transgender. Where would that even come from? It just seems so random.
I can understand how one Catholic priest might support one of his own; people often protect "their own" at the expense of others. It's disgusting and disturbing, but I already know about that kind of human behavior. What I don't understand is how this could keep happening for decades on end without a bunch of other, more conscientious priests speaking out. And I find it absolutely baffling that you could have a group of priests who would join in on the rape in an organized fashion. It's not just the sheer number of rapists and the sheer volume that I find difficult to understand. It's just, how many non-pedophiles had to look the other way for this to go on for decades on end?
There were plenty of non-priests, law enforcement, and even parents of the said children who swept it under the rug as well. Catholic school Administrators who certainly knew enough rumors going around to say something. Cops and prosecutors who would deal with the church's lawyers directly and were content to let the church meet out it's own punishment. And parents who took the position that a financial payout and pretending it never happened would be the best way to deal with it.
@AstroBryGuy: I know about the birther thing. What baffles me is the idea that Michelle Obama was transgender. Where would that even come from? It just seems so random.
I can understand how one Catholic priest might support one of his own; people often protect "their own" at the expense of others. It's disgusting and disturbing, but I already know about that kind of human behavior. What I don't understand is how this could keep happening for decades on end without a bunch of other, more conscientious priests speaking out. And I find it absolutely baffling that you could have a group of priests who would join in on the rape in an organized fashion. It's not just the sheer number of rapists and the sheer volume that I find difficult to understand. It's just, how many non-pedophiles had to look the other way for this to go on for decades on end?
There were plenty of non-priests, law enforcement, and even parents of the said children who swept it under the rug as well. Catholic school Administrators who certainly knew enough rumors going around to say something. Cops and prosecutors who would deal with the church's lawyers directly and were content to let the church meet out it's own punishment. And parents who took the position that a financial payout and pretending it never happened would be the best way to deal with it.
In our parish, we knew who they were. There were always rumors passed around: "Don't leave your kids alone with Brother So-and-So". It wasn't the priests in our case it was the Franciscan Monks, two of them at different times.
I'm not sure there was anything my parents could have done, as far as I know, they're knowledge was always at the rumor and innuendo level. But in the end, it's one of the major reasons I broke with the church and later stopped believing altogether. Really, the entire sprawling organization is rotten to the core.
Are you talking about subjectivity or arbitrariness? Those are different things. If you are talking about arbitrariness, this can be applied to just about any policy, e.g. why is the top tax rate 40% and not 38%? Why is the military budget X billion dollars and not Y billion dollars? Sometimes to be able to make decisions you need to introduce cutoffs that are somewhat arbitrary but also justifiable in some way.
I think that is subjectivity leading to arbitrariness as i've said on my example.
You will consider everyone in a spanish is speaking country in Americas as "hispanic"? So if two germans have a son in Ushuaia, his son can use affirmative action. If the same couple have a second son in Falklands(an English speaking British territory very close to Ushuaia), then the second son can't. See how arbitrary that definition is? Same for other examples, castizos, mestizos, quadroons, etc. Who will draw the line of "white and non white"?
IMHO the government should be color blind. Private institutions are different.
, but you could have said the same about feudalism, fascism or a theocracy. There is a good reason why most people are not libertarians, or at least not this kind of libertarian (there are so many different kinds that I am pretty sure it includes some who think discrimination should be illegal).
If a bunch of fanatics wanna build a city who enforces his theocracy, i have no problem. If they aren't forcing anyone to live, what is the problem? Same for if a group of white nationalists wanna create an white only city. Let everyone who agrees with then self-segregate. The minority in the rest of the country will have less racism and they will be happy.
More interesting I find is that you both argue that Affirmative Action is discrimination against Whites and therefore wrong and that discrimination shouldn't be a crime.
Government discrimination and private discrimination are very different. If a group of people decide to create an black only nightclub, i can go to another nightclub. If the government prohibits people of "X" race from going to nightclubs, then members of "X" race can't do anything...
Also, the "grey lines" will be a problem for this people to solve, not the government...
@BallpointMan@OrlonKronsteen Like I said before. My example took all of ten minutes to come up with, and removed race from the equation in half the process. To think that we can't come up with something better than enforced racism (affirmitive action), while actually dedicating time and resources to said goal, is preposturous. (I have never had to spell taht before. I wonder how I did. Meh, almost had it.)
10 minutes is what it'd take me to create a new Baldur's Gate character. But in any professional context, such as discussing a potential new work project, I'd consider such an argument both unprofessional and arrogant.
Are you sure? Almost every argument I hear about people of color not getting jobs or even callbacks is beacuse their names, "Don't sound white enough." My system would at least guarantee callbacks regardless of someone's name. If a business is going to deny someone work because of their "race", I GUARANTEE you, it starts at the application level. Another thing, I'm not a professional. I tossed out a spitball system, which succeeds at the application level at the very least, to draw the discussion towards provding ideas for alternate systems or improvements on what we have. I think its very telling that instead of trying to refine these ideas we have, or to come up with new and better ones, the standard response seems to be, "That's stupid, we shouldn't do anything."
There is nothing wrong with offering a correction. People are allowed to make mistakes, even those who are put in a position to defend a unpopular person or position.
Now feel free to claim that they skewed the numbers to make Trump look better about job creation, as that is a worthy angle than Sanders being given wrong figures to defend against the claims that Trump is a racist. (Or even using job creation as a way of saying he isn’t racist)
In regards to Trump and racism.....thus far I have avoided mentioning the Omarosa situation, but it's worthy of discussion. First off, is she an untrustworthy person?? Yeah, I suppose. She is a Trump reality TV creation, a literal Frankenstein's monster as far as Trump is concerned. She is simply turning what she learned from him back on her creator. Beyond that, Trump is the one who hired her in the first place, despite no actual qualifications for whatever her job was. I've said forever that Trump basically surrounds himself with jackals. It is the height of absurdity to think ANY of these people surrounding Trump won't turn on each other at a moment's notice and start eating their own.
For the crux of the matter, did Trump use the word she claims she heard him use?? I mean, if I was betting on it, yes, of course he did. Anyone who is going to say otherwise is going to look awfully stupid when that tape inevitably does come out. Will it matter that there will be verifiable evidence that the President is a virulent, unrepentant racist?? Not even remotely. There is a decent chance his poll numbers wouldn't even take a hit. Instead, I predict that in the immediate aftermath of such a tape coming out (if and when), the conversation will immediately be focused on rap music. Mark my words.
Omarosa is not the first to level this accusation either. Actor Don Cheadle also offered his own story about Trump's use of the word, it was simply ignored. All I'm saying is, don't be surprised if one afternoon in the future this so-called tape comes to light. And also don't be surprised when the discussion turns to "how come black people can say it and I can't".
Foreign Policy drew disturbing similarities between the Iran-Contra affair and the Trump administration's treatment of the special counsel. GOP figures like Bob Dole painted the lead investigator, who previously was widely respected by both parties, as a partisan figure leading a "witch hunt," and people who hid evidence of wrongdoing were later pardoned, shielding them from prosecution.
Comments
@OrlonKronsteen It would be harder for an interviewer to, who already accepted the application, to spin not hiring at the interview based soley on race. That face to face is difficult to fake. That's why so many applications get rejected, they don't need to provide a reason for an application.
Is my system perfect? No, but I have yet to hear any alternative proposal that doesn't enforce racism of its own, and this was the product of about 10 minutes of thought. If every proposition to limit racism is shot down because, "People will still be racist." Then just give up now. People will always be arsebutts. We need to take the best steps we can, or will stagnate and never get anywhere.
Have you had a chance to interview people for a job before? (Honest question) - I have. Last time my company hired, I was part of the interview team (did research on the resumes, was in the interview). We judged each candidate after the interview and decided on our "order or preference".
It's incredibly easy for one (or more) people in that interview to knock you down on the list a spot or 3 because you're African American, a woman, Hispanic, have a lisp or bad body odor - or any other reason. It's impossible to specifically track and call those interviewers who did so out for being prejudiced.
So no. I dont think that system works. The interview process will allow for discrimination just as easily as any other part of the process.
Employment is necessarily a zero-sum game. If I got the job, you didnt. If we both got the job, two other people did not. If you use a libertarian approach of having no or few regulations or laws in place, then the majority will generally infringe upon the minority. In most situations, the minorities are already at a disadvantage. So something like Affirmative Action helps to mitigate that damage on some level (while being unfair on its own merit. Then again, the system on its own is also unfair. You have it either way).
Well, they can help determine a candidate's personality and fit with the organization, as well as seeing how sociable they are, how they handle pressure, etc.. That said, there are lots of people who give great interviews but are lousy hires. They aren't foolproof, but are another tool to help determine if a candidate is right - hopefully.
Interviews are probably one of the biggest ways to let racial biases, unconscious or no, into the hiring process. Interviews are often unstructured and the interviewer has lots of freedom over how to make the call, so a "gut feeling" is sometimes all the interviewer has to go on. Frankly, an online questionnaire would involve less bias and be more efficient than an in-person interview for any job that doesn't require a gregarious and instantly likeable personality.
It's worth pointing out that not all example of affirmative action are government-mandated. Some companies take measures to avoid racial bias or even show preference to minorities because they believe it's in their own best interests as a private company to do so.
My job is not at all social and does not require interfacing with customers. Still, I wouldnt ever be comfortable hiring someone without interviewing them (Worth noting that I'm not "The boss" though. Of anyone. Just an employee on interview panels). Maybe that's just my experience, and most people feel comfortable hiring without an interview?
Poor Sweden.
http://therightscoop.com/breaking-something-big-is-happening-in-sweden-right-now-with-fires-burning-all-over-the-country/
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/swedish-leader-voices-anger-after-dozens-of-cars-are-burned-1.4051802
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6058269/Sweden-car-firebombing-Masked-youth-gangs-coordinated-attacks-social-media-police-say.html
As other have said, I was involved in hiring comittees and I would raise hell if I was told I had to give recommendations before meeting the candidate in person. A face to face interaction is still one of the best ways to get to know someone and get a feeling for how the candidate is able to perform in a work environment. Your idea does not even allow for a phone interview.
And unfortunately, I had quite a few candidates who had a nice CV on paper, but where it turned out that they obviously lied about it.
The problem with having no affirmative action (and I would prefer if it wasn't needed) is that social mobility is not that large, and many of the reasons why minorities do worse is still rooted in past oppression, they were never compensated for. It's also a matter of stereotypes; if you have no doctors or lawyers in your family, it is much less likely that you will believe you can one. It makes sense to support it where you can to improve this. Hell, if you want no other people to lose opportunities for it then invest a lot of additional money to create new jobs/chances especially for this and call the cost a long overdue compensation payment.
I agree with everyone else - I wouldnt support affirmative action if there was a clearly better and more fair way to ensure that racial bias was not levied at prospective employees while ensuring that the top candidates get the jobs they deserve. However, that not being the case - I prefer trying to balance the scale to bring minorities closer to true equality than let the scales balance themselves (historically always at the majority's benefit and minority's expense).
An example? Obama. He is half white, he can use affirmative action programs? And a 3/4 white guy? an 7/8? Who draw the line? Will be one drop rule? If someone is 1/256 black, he can use affirmative action program? Craig Cobb an white supremacist is 14% African. He can use affirmative action?
Other example. "hispanic". No other country in the world ever considered hispanic as a race. I never saw the UK media labeling Afro Caribbeans as "hispanic"(they are African). So, for eg Gisele Bundchen. She have a German surname, light eyes/hair, was born in a city that even today speaks Riograndenser Hunsrückisch German but this city is on Brazil, is she white or "latina"? And Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, she have 3 blonde daughters but was born in Argentina? If she goes to USA with Argentine passport, can use affirmative action but with an EU passport can't? And her daughters?
If the affirmative action only applies to mestizos, why classify an half white half indigenous in USA differently than a half white half indigenous in another region? And how much indigenous someone needs to be to use affirmative action? Some Castizos(3/4 white) looks very white and some not. They can use affirmative action program?
See? There are a lot of subjectivity on affirmative action. And in a libertarian approach, discrimination should't be crime.
"Everyone with an Argentine password" would be arbitrary but not subjective. Not that I am saying this should be a qualification criteria for Affirmative Action.
Finally, regarding the libertarian approach you are correct, but you could have said the same about feudalism, fascism or a theocracy. There is a good reason why most people are not libertarians, or at least not this kind of libertarian (there are so many different kinds that I am pretty sure it includes some who think discrimination should be illegal).
More interesting I find is that you both argue that Affirmative Action is discrimination against Whites and therefore wrong and that discrimination shouldn't be a crime. I am not saying that this is a contradiction; most likely what you are thinking is that AA is from the government while other discrimination is from individual and private entities and that it is therefore not comparable. Correct?
Finally, I think Obama even though he managed to become president is still an excellent example of how he was still treated differently. To be elected he had to be the most squeaky clean President of the century with a completely clean family record. And they still made up conspiracy theories about faking his birth certificate and his wife being transgender. I think that if Obama had even had an affair that became public, he would have been dropped like a hot potato. He certainly wouldn't have been elected with Trump's family history.
There's a new report, 900 pages long, that details organized coverups for child molesting priests by members of the Catholic church dating back seven decades.
I can understand how one Catholic priest might support one of his own; people often protect "their own" at the expense of others. It's disgusting and disturbing, but I already know about that kind of human behavior. What I don't understand is how this could keep happening for decades on end without a bunch of other, more conscientious priests speaking out. And I find it absolutely baffling that you could have a group of priests who would join in on the rape in an organized fashion.
It's not just the sheer number of rapists and the sheer volume that I find difficult to understand. It's just, how many non-pedophiles had to look the other way for this to go on for decades on end?
I'm not sure there was anything my parents could have done, as far as I know, they're knowledge was always at the rumor and innuendo level. But in the end, it's one of the major reasons I broke with the church and later stopped believing altogether. Really, the entire sprawling organization is rotten to the core.
In other news, hell freezes over.
You will consider everyone in a spanish is speaking country in Americas as "hispanic"? So if two germans have a son in Ushuaia, his son can use affirmative action. If the same couple have a second son in Falklands(an English speaking British territory very close to Ushuaia), then the second son can't. See how arbitrary that definition is? Same for other examples, castizos, mestizos, quadroons, etc. Who will draw the line of "white and non white"?
IMHO the government should be color blind. Private institutions are different. If a bunch of fanatics wanna build a city who enforces his theocracy, i have no problem. If they aren't forcing anyone to live, what is the problem? Same for if a group of white nationalists wanna create an white only city. Let everyone who agrees with then self-segregate. The minority in the rest of the country will have less racism and they will be happy. Government discrimination and private discrimination are very different. If a group of people decide to create an black only nightclub, i can go to another nightclub. If the government prohibits people of "X" race from going to nightclubs, then members of "X" race can't do anything...
Also, the "grey lines" will be a problem for this people to solve, not the government...
Now feel free to claim that they skewed the numbers to make Trump look better about job creation, as that is a worthy angle than Sanders being given wrong figures to defend against the claims that Trump is a racist. (Or even using job creation as a way of saying he isn’t racist)
For the crux of the matter, did Trump use the word she claims she heard him use?? I mean, if I was betting on it, yes, of course he did. Anyone who is going to say otherwise is going to look awfully stupid when that tape inevitably does come out. Will it matter that there will be verifiable evidence that the President is a virulent, unrepentant racist?? Not even remotely. There is a decent chance his poll numbers wouldn't even take a hit. Instead, I predict that in the immediate aftermath of such a tape coming out (if and when), the conversation will immediately be focused on rap music. Mark my words.
Omarosa is not the first to level this accusation either. Actor Don Cheadle also offered his own story about Trump's use of the word, it was simply ignored. All I'm saying is, don't be surprised if one afternoon in the future this so-called tape comes to light. And also don't be surprised when the discussion turns to "how come black people can say it and I can't".