Hanaguma

Ironically, the ruling federal Liberal party won 6 of the 10 ridings in New Brunswick in the last election cycle. Ditto the two elections before that. So hardly a Tory stalwart area.

...and now yet more worrying news about the current President- he uses a CPAP machine to assist his breathing at night. Journalists were wondering what the strange marks were on the president's face. They are from the mask that CPAP users need to help them breathe at night. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-28/biden-has-begun-using-cpap-machine-to-aid-with-sleep-apne

Difference perhaps is that they are discriminating based on the job and not the client? A straight person who wants a website for their gay friends who are getting married would also be refused. A gay person who wants a basic business website design would be accepted. The court is, and always will be, legitimate. Let your hate and resentment go. All that acid is doing your stomach no good- you might just anger your way into an ulcer, my friend.

Not always, but it is a possibility. That might make the NEXT guy think twice before trying to evade law enforcement. FAFO

I think we might be passing by each other a bit here... I agree with the criteria in your examples, but not as affirmative action examples. They are examples of using race and/or gender as valid criteria in making decisions. To me a decision based on principles of affirmative action means that the race (in this case) takes precedent over other factors. So, for example, a black child would be placed with an otherwise less qualified foster family IF that family were also black.

Sorry but I just don't see it. If the situation were reversed... a white kid needs foster care. Three families (black, white, Asian) are equally qualified to take the child. You would place the kid with the white family, correct? Ditto the care facility. For example, an all boys facility with too few male consellors. All things being equal, you would choose a male counsellor over a female one, wouldn't you?

I understand those examples but they aren't exactly what affirmative action is for. The culture of the child related to a foster family will naturally have an impact. IMHO it is a valid criteria. But AA seems to want diversity just for the sake of diversity, without any specifically articulated benefits or logic. An example would be requirements for government funded infrastructure projects that mandate percentages of minority bid acceptance. There is no relation between building infrastructure and race, yet the set asides exist. Even when better bids from non minority bidders are made, a poorer bid is accepted due to the race of the bidder. This is what people want to eliminate.

The elephant in the room is, as I posted above, the 280 point gap in SAT scores based on race. A black student with 1100 on SAT is in. A white or Asian student? No chance. Seems inherently and obviously unequal. Asian students score on average higher on admissions tests, but are accepted at a lower rate than any other group. Also seems inherently unfair to me.

One of Trump's greatest lasting legacies will be appointing 3 Justices to the Court. It leaned left for so long that the US forgot what it was like to have a court that respected the Constitution. TBH I prefer the system in Canada, where Justices are appointed until the age of 75, when there is mandatory retirement.

Can it take into account economic status and political leanings as well? I would say, all things being equal, if there are 3 equally qualified candidates for a job, give it to the one who looks like they need it the most for whatever reason. Chances are that in the long run they will do the best.

Nobody forced them to take out loans that would not result in decent jobs. They could have gone to trade school, learned to be an electrician or plumber, and be making six figures by the time they were 23 years old. It is not as if tuition costs were a mystery, is it? I would rather see that money used to support tech colleges and the like. There are millions of good paying jobs with no one to do them.

But that is not the case in the college admissions situation. Highly qualified Asian students are being rejected while marginally (at best) qualified black and Hispanic students are accepted. That does nobody any favours. The black and Hispanic ones often fail to graduate because they are being put into a situation that is too academically rigorous for them. The Asians lose out on opportunities that they deserve due to their diligence and hard work. Harvard example: Harvard sends recruitment letters to African-American, Native American and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores, around 1100 on math and verbal combined out of a possible 1600, CNN reported. Asian-Americans only receive a recruitment letter if they score at least 250 points higher — 1350 for women, and 1380 for men. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/15/politics/harvard-affirmative-action-opening-arguments/index.html

It is actually a very simple thing, not as socially complicated as you are trying to make it. To the students: You took out a loan. Now, pay it back. That's it. Now if we want to discuss whether the government should even be involved in this in the first place, great. I would rather see students go to private banks and make the case that they should be lent money for their education. Tuition in the States has exploded because of so much federal money sloshing around. Time to tighten up.

So would I, but we didnt get that either IMHO. Except for the boring part. Actually, that's not true. Joe is anything but boring lately. There are almost daily oopsies and brainfarts and malapropisms to enjoy.

Does it really matter by this point? But I will answer you. I think it is a combination. Trump had an image based on his business acumen and also his spectacular failures. He was a brash New York BS artist with an easily recognizable name and image. Also a man with considerable personal charisma and a flair for showmanship. Both contributed to his success on TV as well as in branding himself.

Actually, yes. Unless you know many other losers and broke businessmen who own one.

757

Perhaps. So, just out of curiosity, why do YOU think Trump inspires such vitriol amongst people who are relatively rational in other areas? It started the day after he was elected with marches and riots, and never let up.

Oh dear.... that hurts.

Here is an example of the hard-hitting, incisive questions from an ace journalist when she has the President for a solo interview... We don't get a lot of presidents through this studio...I hope you'll look at this as a place you can come and talk about anything that's on your mind

The problem is that the case in question did not put people of color against caucasians. It was a case of one POC group getting preference while another group of POC are getting screwed. Why is it that some POC have little trouble accessing the best schools while others do not? The field is level, but that does not mean that the results will be equal.

He was in a hurry to get a towel and wipe off the drool after the tongue bath he got from Wallace.

No cult member here. I liked what Trump did for the economy in his first term, as well as in foreign policy. After he lost in 2020 I wish he would have taken a step back and let some younger and less tainted people step forward. Wishful thinking though. He has a total lack of introspection that is fascinating and horrifying. I am amused at the impact he still has on so many people and how much real estate he occupies in their heads.

I think you meant "gangsta"... Trump inspires jealousy and rage in equal parts in his enemies. So many on the left took it as a personal affront that he beat their chosen 'most qualified candidate ever' that they have never recovered.

Kinda the way more than 80% of Democrats believed the debunked conspiracy theory that Russia hacked Democrat's email to help Trump.... (same article) Further, half of CLInton voters actually believed the Russians tampered with the votes themselves!