I may have to vote for Trump

[Fenring]

So now you have to wonder if Hillary is the fierce husband-beating bitch who wreaks physical havoc on her philandering husband, or is she really a lesbian who (likely) could care less where Bill dips his beak as long as it's not into her.

You can have one, but not both.  Unless you're a blog poster who is an ex-psychoanalyst and you have a deeply negative view of Hillary Clinton's psychological state for some unknown reason that perhaps only a psychoanalyst could explain.

False. This is not a real dilemma. Someone can be jealous of someone else, and want to own solitary access to them, without being sexually drawn to them. This is a territory thing, and territory can be drawn up by sexual boundaries but also can be drawn up by other sorts of boundaries. And PS - there is substantial first-hand accounts from Secret Service people who got to know some of her girlfriends quite well (to the point of even being friendly with them themselves) that makes this look to me less like an accusation and more like a fact that is well-hidden for obvious reasons even though in truth I don't personally care much about it either way. But public knowledge of it would create a fiasco in terms of the fidelity of their marriage, so I get why they'd keep it secret. Recall that the Underwoods in House of Cards are based directly on the Clintons, and a lot of the details put in there are not drawn at random.

Jason, nice post.  I have a very slight disagreement with this comment, though:

She doesn't strike me as being a very passionate person, or if she is, she has buried it under a carefully crafted mask hardened by decades in politics.

I think she is very passionate about public service, and that passion is rooted in her personality.

I think she is very driven to get where she wants to get. Is that what "passionate" means?

[cherrypoptart]

Well our definitions on this may be different.

I consider someone to be a racist if they put the people of their own race first, give them priority, and thus favor "their own" over people of other races. A non-racist person looks at the person  as an individual first and doesn't favor their own race over any other. Just as a side note I don't know what you'd call someone who favors a race other than their own over their own, for instance a white person who may prefer the more civilized behavior of Japanese society over the company of most Americans or French.

In the same vein a misandrist like Hillary puts their own gender first, gives them the priority, and thus favors females over males, for instance by saying things like we need to encourage more girls in school to pursue fields in math and science and computer technology. Yes we do to encourage more girls but we also need to encourage more boys too. Saying we have too many boys maximizing their human potential but not enough girls is misandrist unless every boy who can already is doing so which is certainly not the case. A misogynist would prefer to hire men over women regardless of the women's better qualifications. Ideally, both boys and girls would be highly encouraged to pursue STEM fields in education and a male and female would be judged on their merits in the hiring process and if one is objectively better qualified for the job they would get it regardless of their gender.

[TheDeamon]

I consider someone to be a racist if they put the people of their own race first, give them priority, and thus favor "their own" over people of other races. A non-racist person looks at the person  as an individual first and doesn't favor their own race over any other. Just as a side note I don't know what you'd call someone who favors a race other than their own over their own, for instance a white person who may prefer the more civilized behavior of Japanese society over the company of most Americans or French.

I would hold to that. A racist will always consider race as a decisive factor when considering someone for employment without need for outside factors(like say, federal or state "affirmative action" laws) to force them to do so. Likewise for a sexist, be they male or female. That being said, there are some perception gap issues that are starting to get identified, and women are often at a disadvantage in that regard on many fronts, but that isn't exactly something that can be solved in a one size fits all legislative type approach.

As to the person who prefers the "more civilized behavior" of the Japanese over his contemporaries, that probably depends on if the person in question draws the distinction along cultural/behavioral lines, or if the line is drawn along actual ethnic lines. It is a borderline case either way, as that's going to leave that person predisposed towards favoring someone of Japanese descent as they're more likely to present with the desired traits, but that isn't to say he couldn't run into a Spaniard, Brit, Aussie, Frenchman, African, German, or any other type of racial/national origin who shares comparable views and has taken up comparable affectations in their own lives.

[AI Wessex]

Well, if Hilary is at least a little bit bi-sexual, and Bill Clinton is her "beard" it could also explain a fair bit that way.

Unless you really think this is a likely scenario you are falling into the FOX pit of despond where you can posit any crank theory and then claim that by debating its merits you have given it credibility.  I'm surprised and disappointed.

[AI Wessex]

I think she is very driven to get where she wants to get. Is that what "passionate" means?

No.

I consider someone to be a racist if they put the people of their own race first, give them priority, and thus favor "their own" over people of other races. A non-racist person looks at the person  as an individual first and doesn't favor their own race over any other. Just as a side note I don't know what you'd call someone who favors a race other than their own over their own, for instance a white person who may prefer the more civilized behavior of Japanese society over the company of most Americans or French.

What do you consider a person who strongly favors someone who shares their religion? 

[TheDeamon]

What do you consider a person who strongly favors someone who shares their religion?

Favors in what way? Also bearing in mind that for many people, in particular the church-going crowd, their main social circles are going to be people in their congregation...

But if they're making employment decisions simply on the basis of the religious denomination, at the disregard of all other factors, then they're being discriminatory on a religious basis. Do note the caveat's here. If its a dead heat between two candidates otherwise, and that is decisive factor("personal comfort factor") on their end, I'm not going to be calling it much of anything. But if the call was in favor of the under-qualified/"poorly suited" applicant based on race/religion/gender then there are "issues" present.

Of course, you also get to wade into all kinds of grey areas because of the whole "Freedom of (dis)association" and I do think it should apply to hiring decisions made by private citizens. Whether or not I personally agree with their decision is immaterial, it is their choice to make, not mine. Public officials are another matter entirely.

[cherrypoptart]

Al

"What do you consider a person who strongly favors someone who shares their religion?"

That did cross my mind as I was writing about the other stuff and frankly I didn't mention it because I couldn't come up with any type of an answer. Are we talking favors them personally or politically or professionally? We know it's supposed to be wrong to discriminate against someone based on their religion in business and hiring practices, but what about when you choose a person to marry? I can't decide if that's wrong or not or what exactly to call it. 

[AI Wessex]

You're both right, of course, that there are a range of situations to consider.  People tend to associate with others with whom they share common beliefs and attitudes.  That applies to churches representing different religions and sports bars where people assemble to root for their teams.  That's pretty innocuous stuff where those affiliations are reinforced and validated by the others who congregate, and we assume that what they do in private reflects that commitment.

On the other end of the spectrum we say expressing hatred toward someone's religion, ethnicity or race is not permitted, even though that also is a belief or attitude.  People who congregate in order to confront and denounce gays or protest at abortion clinics are also expressing their beliefs.  I think all of those “beliefs and attitudes” are odious; the group behavior falls somewhere between extremes and is allowed by free speech rights, unless they physically attack or deny those people access to publicly available facilities.  Let’s not forget that lynchings were not uncommon in the US even into the 20th Century and were often treated as celebrations in town squares. 

I find it sad and even a bit weird that state legislatures single out groups of people with particular physical characteristics specifically to leave them unprotected from business or public accommodation or protection.  Michigan does that with LGBT, other states are enacting "bathroom laws" targeting transgender people.  Cities in Tennessee and other states have tried to block construction of an Islamic mosques, stretching local laws to cover their personal biases against that religion.

And this weekend we have another extreme expression this sort of hatred that I think makes us question how valid the basis of any sort of exclusionary or discriminatory "belief" is.  The shooter in Orlando called 911 and swore allegiance to ISIS while he was walking around the nightclub shooting.  He ended up killing about 50 people and wounding another 50 or so.  He has been rightly denounced for his actions, but did he really do it for ISIS, or is there more to understand about his motivations?

From his father and his ex-wife, we are learning that he had a deep-seated hatred toward gays and a violent and abusive personality.  His father says he chose the wrong way to express his hatred of gays.  His ex-wife says she "escaped" their home and divorced him due to his violent temper, where among other things he would beat her if he came home and found that she hadn't done the laundry.  A former co-worker says he routinely ranted about homosexuals to the point that he complained on numerous occasions to his boss and eventually quit because of his own safety concerns.  No matter what anyone's beliefs are, I don't see how anyone could do what he did and not be emotionally unstable and predisposed to commit acts of violence.  In this case (at the moment until there is more information) my sense is that he acted out of his own emotional problems and feelings of hatred and used ISIS for "permission". 

[TheDeamon]

In this case (at the moment until there is more information) my sense is that he acted out of his own emotional problems and feelings of hatred and used ISIS for "permission".

Permission which, in this case, would have happily been given had he asked, as ISIS the LGBT crowd isn't far off from Jews and Infidel Crusader Christians on the top of their "to kill" list.

[AI Wessex]

In this case (at the moment until there is more information) my sense is that he acted out of his own emotional problems and feelings of hatred and used ISIS for "permission".

Permission which, in this case, would have happily been given had he asked, as ISIS the LGBT crowd isn't far off from Jews and Infidel Crusader Christians on the top of their "to kill" list.

I wasn't talking about ISIS, but about the shooter and his state of mind.  We know they would be happy with what he did and have encouraged people to carry out random acts of terrorism in their name without asking.