Scalia died

[Jack]

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

I admit it, that's pretty damn funny. It needs to become a meme!

[nereo]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

Republicans generally made up the north, while democrats generally made up the south. Abraham Lincoln was a republican that brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation which lead to the amendment that freed slaves forever(in the United States). Yes Donald Trump is a racist, but look at the rest of our candidates, Rubio, Carson, previous candidate Bushes Wife, etc. There may be a few racist republicans, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire GOP racist.

No the entire GOP is not racist. Still it does look bad the way that GOP leaders continually try to delegitimize Obama, who happens to be the first black President. One could argue that they treated Bill Clinton pretty bad as well without racism being a factor. Still fair or not, it just looks bad to treat Obama so poorly. And it cuts both ways, every time Obama dares to say anything about race, he gets accused of being a divider instead of a uniter. As much as we might to wish otherwise, we are not a color blind society and that unfortunately leaves lots of room for innuendo regarding racial motives.

Might as well toss this out there... as a society we aren't exactly fair towards women candidates either.  Hillary is the obvious one here but it seems to extend to just about all women candidates.  We talk about women's age, whether they've had cosmetic surgery (e.g. Fiorina), their choice of wardrobe (e.g. 'the pantsuit') and whether their career has come at the expense of their children (or having children) or marriage.  In contrast few care that the oldest candidates are Sanders and Trump, no one gives much print to their wardrobes or personal looks (exception: Trump's hair), or divorces (Trump (2) & Sanders & Kasich) or whether their political career has come at the expense of parenting (Trump (5), Christie (4), Carson (3), Sanders (1), Kasich (2)) or lack of children (Cruz, Rubio)

just sayin'.

[Jeremy E.]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

Republicans generally made up the north, while democrats generally made up the south. Abraham Lincoln was a republican that brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation which lead to the amendment that freed slaves forever(in the United States). Yes Donald Trump is a racist, but look at the rest of our candidates, Rubio, Carson, previous candidate Bushes Wife, etc. There may be a few racist republicans, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire GOP racist.

No the entire GOP is not racist. Still it does look bad the way that GOP leaders continually try to delegitimize Obama, who happens to be the first black President. One could argue that they treated Bill Clinton pretty bad as well without racism being a factor. Still fair or not, it just looks bad to treat Obama so poorly. And it cuts both ways, every time Obama dares to say anything about race, he gets accused of being a divider instead of a uniter. As much as we might to wish otherwise, we are not a color blind society and that unfortunately leaves lots of room for innuendo regarding racial motives.

Might as well toss this out there... as a society we aren't exactly fair towards women candidates either.  Hillary is the obvious one here but it seems to extend to just about all women candidates.  We talk about women's age, whether they've had cosmetic surgery (e.g. Fiorina), their choice of wardrobe (e.g. 'the pantsuit') and whether their career has come at the expense of their children (or having children) or marriage.  In contrast few care that the oldest candidates are Sanders and Trump, no one gives much print to their wardrobes or personal looks (exception: Trump's hair), or divorces (Trump (2) & Sanders & Kasich) or whether their political career has come at the expense of parenting (Trump (5), Christie (4), Carson (3), Sanders (1), Kasich (2)) or lack of children (Cruz, Rubio)

just sayin'.

I think they are against Obama because he's republican, they are just as mean if not more towards Hillary, and I don't think that's because she's a woman but because she's very likely to be their democratic opponent in the presidential election. I've heard WAAAAY more jokes cracked about Trumps hair/divorces than any of the things you listed about Hillary

[mtn]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

Republicans generally made up the north, while democrats generally made up the south. Abraham Lincoln was a republican that brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation which lead to the amendment that freed slaves forever(in the United States). Yes Donald Trump is a racist, but look at the rest of our candidates, Rubio, Carson, previous candidate Bushes Wife, etc. There may be a few racist republicans, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire GOP racist.

No the entire GOP is not racist. Still it does look bad the way that GOP leaders continually try to delegitimize Obama, who happens to be the first black President. One could argue that they treated Bill Clinton pretty bad as well without racism being a factor. Still fair or not, it just looks bad to treat Obama so poorly. And it cuts both ways, every time Obama dares to say anything about race, he gets accused of being a divider instead of a uniter. As much as we might to wish otherwise, we are not a color blind society and that unfortunately leaves lots of room for innuendo regarding racial motives.

Might as well toss this out there... as a society we aren't exactly fair towards women candidates either.  Hillary is the obvious one here but it seems to extend to just about all women candidates.  We talk about women's age, whether they've had cosmetic surgery (e.g. Fiorina), their choice of wardrobe (e.g. 'the pantsuit') and whether their career has come at the expense of their children (or having children) or marriage.  In contrast few care that the oldest candidates are Sanders and Trump, no one gives much print to their wardrobes or personal looks (exception: Trump's hair), or divorces (Trump (2) & Sanders & Kasich) or whether their political career has come at the expense of parenting (Trump (5), Christie (4), Carson (3), Sanders (1), Kasich (2)) or lack of children (Cruz, Rubio)

just sayin'.

I think they are against Obama because he's republican, they are just as mean if not more towards Hillary, and I don't think that's because she's a woman but because she's very likely to be their democratic opponent in the presidential election. I've heard WAAAAY more jokes cracked about Trumps hair/divorces than any of the things you listed about Hillary

Pretty much everything I've heard against Hillary (taking out 1 super racist/prejudice/sexist Facebook "friend") is against her past actions in the "political" arena--dating back to her involvement in Whitewater, to Janet Reno, all the way to the Benghazi and Yahoogate issues.

[dramaman]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

Republicans generally made up the north, while democrats generally made up the south. Abraham Lincoln was a republican that brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation which lead to the amendment that freed slaves forever(in the United States). Yes Donald Trump is a racist, but look at the rest of our candidates, Rubio, Carson, previous candidate Bushes Wife, etc. There may be a few racist republicans, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire GOP racist.

No the entire GOP is not racist. Still it does look bad the way that GOP leaders continually try to delegitimize Obama, who happens to be the first black President. One could argue that they treated Bill Clinton pretty bad as well without racism being a factor. Still fair or not, it just looks bad to treat Obama so poorly. And it cuts both ways, every time Obama dares to say anything about race, he gets accused of being a divider instead of a uniter. As much as we might to wish otherwise, we are not a color blind society and that unfortunately leaves lots of room for innuendo regarding racial motives.

Might as well toss this out there... as a society we aren't exactly fair towards women candidates either.  Hillary is the obvious one here but it seems to extend to just about all women candidates.  We talk about women's age, whether they've had cosmetic surgery (e.g. Fiorina), their choice of wardrobe (e.g. 'the pantsuit') and whether their career has come at the expense of their children (or having children) or marriage.  In contrast few care that the oldest candidates are Sanders and Trump, no one gives much print to their wardrobes or personal looks (exception: Trump's hair), or divorces (Trump (2) & Sanders & Kasich) or whether their political career has come at the expense of parenting (Trump (5), Christie (4), Carson (3), Sanders (1), Kasich (2)) or lack of children (Cruz, Rubio)

just sayin'.

I think they are against Obama because he's republican, they are just as mean if not more towards Hillary, and I don't think that's because she's a woman but because she's very likely to be their democratic opponent in the presidential election. I've heard WAAAAY more jokes cracked about Trumps hair/divorces than any of the things you listed about Hillary

True. I think the problem, however, with the opposition to both Obama and Hillary is that they often seem to voice their opposition in words that although may not be overtly about race or gender do seem to be recognizable substitutes for those who have racist and sexist viewpoints. Such as those who constantly refer to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Of course it works both ways. I've seen dems who like to refer to Ted Cruz as Rafael (his given name) Cruz. Both examples are not very subtle attempts to point out that a politician isn't white enough.

[dramaman]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

Republicans generally made up the north, while democrats generally made up the south. Abraham Lincoln was a republican that brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation which lead to the amendment that freed slaves forever(in the United States). Yes Donald Trump is a racist, but look at the rest of our candidates, Rubio, Carson, previous candidate Bushes Wife, etc. There may be a few racist republicans, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire GOP racist.

No the entire GOP is not racist. Still it does look bad the way that GOP leaders continually try to delegitimize Obama, who happens to be the first black President. One could argue that they treated Bill Clinton pretty bad as well without racism being a factor. Still fair or not, it just looks bad to treat Obama so poorly. And it cuts both ways, every time Obama dares to say anything about race, he gets accused of being a divider instead of a uniter. As much as we might to wish otherwise, we are not a color blind society and that unfortunately leaves lots of room for innuendo regarding racial motives.

Might as well toss this out there... as a society we aren't exactly fair towards women candidates either.  Hillary is the obvious one here but it seems to extend to just about all women candidates.  We talk about women's age, whether they've had cosmetic surgery (e.g. Fiorina), their choice of wardrobe (e.g. 'the pantsuit') and whether their career has come at the expense of their children (or having children) or marriage.  In contrast few care that the oldest candidates are Sanders and Trump, no one gives much print to their wardrobes or personal looks (exception: Trump's hair), or divorces (Trump (2) & Sanders & Kasich) or whether their political career has come at the expense of parenting (Trump (5), Christie (4), Carson (3), Sanders (1), Kasich (2)) or lack of children (Cruz, Rubio)

just sayin'.

I think they are against Obama because he's republican, they are just as mean if not more towards Hillary, and I don't think that's because she's a woman but because she's very likely to be their democratic opponent in the presidential election. I've heard WAAAAY more jokes cracked about Trumps hair/divorces than any of the things you listed about Hillary

Pretty much everything I've heard against Hillary (taking out 1 super racist/prejudice/sexist Facebook "friend") is against her past actions in the "political" arena--dating back to her involvement in Whitewater, to Janet Reno, all the way to the Benghazi and Yahoogate issues.

I think criticizing Hillary for her being married to Bill - something Fiorina did - is a good example of non political, subtly gender-based, criticisms.

[PathtoFIRE]

Doesn't Cruz have two children? I seem to recall some creepy political ad that used them. Also, I remember a few stories about Rubio's shoes, but I agree, women candidates seem to be judged on looks and presentation more than men.

[Gin1984]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

Republicans generally made up the north, while democrats generally made up the south. Abraham Lincoln was a republican that brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation which lead to the amendment that freed slaves forever(in the United States). Yes Donald Trump is a racist, but look at the rest of our candidates, Rubio, Carson, previous candidate Bushes Wife, etc. There may be a few racist republicans, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire GOP racist.

No the entire GOP is not racist. Still it does look bad the way that GOP leaders continually try to delegitimize Obama, who happens to be the first black President. One could argue that they treated Bill Clinton pretty bad as well without racism being a factor. Still fair or not, it just looks bad to treat Obama so poorly. And it cuts both ways, every time Obama dares to say anything about race, he gets accused of being a divider instead of a uniter. As much as we might to wish otherwise, we are not a color blind society and that unfortunately leaves lots of room for innuendo regarding racial motives.

Might as well toss this out there... as a society we aren't exactly fair towards women candidates either.  Hillary is the obvious one here but it seems to extend to just about all women candidates.  We talk about women's age, whether they've had cosmetic surgery (e.g. Fiorina), their choice of wardrobe (e.g. 'the pantsuit') and whether their career has come at the expense of their children (or having children) or marriage.  In contrast few care that the oldest candidates are Sanders and Trump, no one gives much print to their wardrobes or personal looks (exception: Trump's hair), or divorces (Trump (2) & Sanders & Kasich) or whether their political career has come at the expense of parenting (Trump (5), Christie (4), Carson (3), Sanders (1), Kasich (2)) or lack of children (Cruz, Rubio)

just sayin'.

I think they are against Obama because he's republican, they are just as mean if not more towards Hillary, and I don't think that's because she's a woman but because she's very likely to be their democratic opponent in the presidential election. I've heard WAAAAY more jokes cracked about Trumps hair/divorces than any of the things you listed about Hillary

True. I think the problem, however, with the opposition to both Obama and Hillary is that they often seem to voice their opposition in words that although may not be overtly about race or gender do seem to be recognizable substitutes for those who have racist and sexist viewpoints. Such as those who constantly refer to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Of course it works both ways. I've seen dems who like to refer to Ted Cruz as Rafael (his given name) Cruz. Both examples are not very subtle attempts to point out that a politician isn't white enough.

Actually it is not about him not being white but about him passing as white and the GOP being ok with that and comparing that to the behavior of the GOP towards Obama.  You (in general) are ok only if you can pass as one of us. 

[nereo]

I think they are against Obama because he's republican, they are just as mean if not more towards Hillary, and I don't think that's because she's a woman but because she's very likely to be their democratic opponent in the presidential election. I've heard WAAAAY more jokes cracked about Trumps hair/divorces than any of the things you listed about Hillary

really?  hmm... maybe a personal bias here.  I meant it when I said that Hillary was the obvious one but that i wasn't talking specifically about her.  It may just be the things my brain hears, but whenever a women candidate is around I hear far more chatter about their dress, age, and family obligations than I hear about male candidates, and I don't think it's a GOP/democrat division either.   Other random examples include Fiorina's possible cosmetic surgery, Palin's apparent lack of parenting, Reno's physical attractiveness, Whitman's ambition, Pelosi's age, Clinton being married to an adulterer....  Meanwhile we don't seem to care about electing men that are multiple divorcees, who are bad looking or who's political career has caused them to largely ignore their children.  Just my observation... it could all be my own bias here; i have no hard data to back it up (though I'm finding it far harder to find a female in public office with these 'social strikes' than it is to find a man).
I will admit Trump's hair has always been fodder for text (how can it not??)

[dramaman]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

Republicans generally made up the north, while democrats generally made up the south. Abraham Lincoln was a republican that brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation which lead to the amendment that freed slaves forever(in the United States). Yes Donald Trump is a racist, but look at the rest of our candidates, Rubio, Carson, previous candidate Bushes Wife, etc. There may be a few racist republicans, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire GOP racist.

No the entire GOP is not racist. Still it does look bad the way that GOP leaders continually try to delegitimize Obama, who happens to be the first black President. One could argue that they treated Bill Clinton pretty bad as well without racism being a factor. Still fair or not, it just looks bad to treat Obama so poorly. And it cuts both ways, every time Obama dares to say anything about race, he gets accused of being a divider instead of a uniter. As much as we might to wish otherwise, we are not a color blind society and that unfortunately leaves lots of room for innuendo regarding racial motives.

Might as well toss this out there... as a society we aren't exactly fair towards women candidates either.  Hillary is the obvious one here but it seems to extend to just about all women candidates.  We talk about women's age, whether they've had cosmetic surgery (e.g. Fiorina), their choice of wardrobe (e.g. 'the pantsuit') and whether their career has come at the expense of their children (or having children) or marriage.  In contrast few care that the oldest candidates are Sanders and Trump, no one gives much print to their wardrobes or personal looks (exception: Trump's hair), or divorces (Trump (2) & Sanders & Kasich) or whether their political career has come at the expense of parenting (Trump (5), Christie (4), Carson (3), Sanders (1), Kasich (2)) or lack of children (Cruz, Rubio)

just sayin'.

I think they are against Obama because he's republican, they are just as mean if not more towards Hillary, and I don't think that's because she's a woman but because she's very likely to be their democratic opponent in the presidential election. I've heard WAAAAY more jokes cracked about Trumps hair/divorces than any of the things you listed about Hillary

True. I think the problem, however, with the opposition to both Obama and Hillary is that they often seem to voice their opposition in words that although may not be overtly about race or gender do seem to be recognizable substitutes for those who have racist and sexist viewpoints. Such as those who constantly refer to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama. Of course it works both ways. I've seen dems who like to refer to Ted Cruz as Rafael (his given name) Cruz. Both examples are not very subtle attempts to point out that a politician isn't white enough.

Actually it is not about him not being white but about him passing as white and the GOP being ok with that and comparing that to the behavior of the GOP towards Obama.  You (in general) are ok only if you can pass as one of us.

Yes, but that's kind of an unfortunate example of how our nation isn't color blind. Studies have shown that job applications with foreign names are weeded out at a higher percentage than those with equal qualifications but standard white bread 'American' names. First or second generation immigrants changing their names has been going on for centuries. I can't blame a person for strategically deciding to adopt a less foreign name to fit in. It is Ultimately a person's name is their own personal choice and that choice should be respected no matter what one may think it says about their own racial and cultural pride.

[mtn]

I'm increasingly annoyed at how the term "lame duck" has shifted earlier and earlier.  It wasn't even a full year after Obama had been re-elected when I first heard some talking-heads refer to him as a "lame-duck" president.  After the 2014 midterm elections the usage was widespread.  I agree that a President should continue to do his or her constitutional duties up until (s)he is replaced.  The only time I think the term "lame-duck" might be appropriate is for an outgoing President between the Nov. elections and the January inaugeration of the new President.  Even then a President should continue to pass or veto legislation and not (as many seem to suggest) defer all action until the new guy/gal moves into the oval office.

As other people have pointed out, apparently the GOP thinks a black President only gets three-fifths of a term.

Republicans generally made up the north, while democrats generally made up the south. Abraham Lincoln was a republican that brought forth the Emancipation Proclamation which lead to the amendment that freed slaves forever(in the United States). Yes Donald Trump is a racist, but look at the rest of our candidates, Rubio, Carson, previous candidate Bushes Wife, etc. There may be a few racist republicans, but I don't think it's fair to call the entire GOP racist.

No the entire GOP is not racist. Still it does look bad the way that GOP leaders continually try to delegitimize Obama, who happens to be the first black President. One could argue that they treated Bill Clinton pretty bad as well without racism being a factor. Still fair or not, it just looks bad to treat Obama so poorly. And it cuts both ways, every time Obama dares to say anything about race, he gets accused of being a divider instead of a uniter. As much as we might to wish otherwise, we are not a color blind society and that unfortunately leaves lots of room for innuendo regarding racial motives.

Might as well toss this out there... as a society we aren't exactly fair towards women candidates either.  Hillary is the obvious one here but it seems to extend to just about all women candidates.  We talk about women's age, whether they've had cosmetic surgery (e.g. Fiorina), their choice of wardrobe (e.g. 'the pantsuit') and whether their career has come at the expense of their children (or having children) or marriage.  In contrast few care that the oldest candidates are Sanders and Trump, no one gives much print to their wardrobes or personal looks (exception: Trump's hair), or divorces (Trump (2) & Sanders & Kasich) or whether their political career has come at the expense of parenting (Trump (5), Christie (4), Carson (3), Sanders (1), Kasich (2)) or lack of children (Cruz, Rubio)

just sayin'.

I think they are against Obama because he's republican, they are just as mean if not more towards Hillary, and I don't think that's because she's a woman but because she's very likely to be their democratic opponent in the presidential election. I've heard WAAAAY more jokes cracked about Trumps hair/divorces than any of the things you listed about Hillary

Pretty much everything I've heard against Hillary (taking out 1 super racist/prejudice/sexist Facebook "friend") is against her past actions in the "political" arena--dating back to her involvement in Whitewater, to Janet Reno, all the way to the Benghazi and Yahoogate issues.

I think criticizing Hillary for her being married to Bill - something Fiorina did - is a good example of non political, subtly gender-based, criticisms.

Non-political, sure--that is a good point. I do question her remaining married to him, because I cannot personally imagine how anyone could be. I think he is a slimeball, and that makes me think that she is in the marriage only for power.

I'm not sure if I view that as a good or a bad thing in a President.

I did, however, immediately ignore just about anything Fiorina said after reading some her history. I don't think she'd be a good president; I'd struggle to say that she was even a mediocre CEO.

[3okirb]

Racist or not, you can't say Trump's not sexist.  I honestly don't see how any woman would vote for him with the comments he makes.  I'm a male with daughters, and I can't stand to hear him talk anymore.  If you're a woman (or know one that you like), it's terrible to think that no matter what they accomplish in life, how smart they are, how respected they are in their field of expertise, etc., Trump will always comment on her looks first.  I just can't fathom why someone would want a guy like that leading a country where half (arguably more) of our productivity comes from women.

[Gin1984]

Racist or not, you can't say Trump's not sexist.  I honestly don't see how any woman would vote for him with the comments he makes.  I'm a male with daughters, and I can't stand to hear him talk anymore.  If you're a woman (or know one that you like), it's terrible to think that no matter what they accomplish in life, how smart they are, how respected they are in their field of expertise, etc., Trump will always comment on her looks first. I just can't fathom why someone would want a guy like that leading a country where half (arguably more) of our productivity comes from women.

Because the majority of people do believe that women are less capably and productive then men even when the actions of the woman are identical (research in multiple different fields have shown this to be true).  This is true even for women and for men who believe women are equals, it is something our culture has trained into us.

[Jeremy E.]

Racist or not, you can't say Trump's not sexist.  I honestly don't see how any woman would vote for him with the comments he makes.  I'm a male with daughters, and I can't stand to hear him talk anymore.  If you're a woman (or know one that you like), it's terrible to think that no matter what they accomplish in life, how smart they are, how respected they are in their field of expertise, etc., Trump will always comment on her looks first. I just can't fathom why someone would want a guy like that leading a country where half (arguably more) of our productivity comes from women.

Because the majority of people do believe that women are less capably and productive then men even when the actions of the woman are identical (research in multiple different fields have shown this to be true).  This is true even for women and for men who believe women are equals, it is something our culture has trained into us.

I saw a study that said men are better soldiers than women, but can't find it. That being said, everyone knows Trump is both racist and sexist, as well as an idiot who has no right to run for president, but still he just won every delegate in South Carolina, all 50 counties. Tis a sad time indeed.
Edit, here is the study, not exactly better soldiers, but women marines are injured at a higher rate than men and shoot less accurately
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/11/marine-study-women-in-combat-injured-more-often-than-men.html

women and men are different, I agree they should be treated equally but get annoyed when people say they are exactly the same. Women use their brain to think 100% of the time, while there are times when men don't think about anything. Some things women are better at, some things men are better at.

[Jack]

There is no reason for anyone to levy sexist criticism at Clinton; she has plenty of political baggage to go criticize instead.

However, I'll note that she's very quick to accuse her (male) opponents of sexism, even when none exists. That is itself sexist.

Trump is both racist and sexist, as well as an idiot who has no right to run for president, but still he just won every delegate in South Carolina, all 50 counties. Tis a sad time indeed.

Trump has every right to run for President; he has no right to be this goddamn successful at it!

[Jeremy E.]

There is no reason for anyone to levy sexist criticism at Clinton; she has plenty of political baggage to go criticize instead.

However, I'll note that she's very quick to accuse her (male) opponents of sexism, even when none exists. That is itself sexist.

Trump is both racist and sexist, as well as an idiot who has no right to run for president, but still he just won every delegate in South Carolina, all 50 counties. Tis a sad time indeed.

Trump has every right to run for President; he has no right to be this goddamn successful at it!

Although I do think it's sexist of her to say "How am I establishment, I'm running to be the first female president ever."

[dramaman]

There is no reason for anyone to levy sexist criticism at Clinton; she has plenty of political baggage to go criticize instead.

However, I'll note that she's very quick to accuse her (male) opponents of sexism, even when none exists. That is itself sexist.

Trump is both racist and sexist, as well as an idiot who has no right to run for president, but still he just won every delegate in South Carolina, all 50 counties. Tis a sad time indeed.

Trump has every right to run for President; he has no right to be this goddamn successful at it!

Although I do think it's sexist of her to say "How am I establishment, I'm running to be the first female president ever."

While I disagree with her logic - that being female precludes one from being part of the establishment, I'm not sure that the latter 'running to be the first female president' is sexist. Sexism generally involves negative gender stereotypes. Attempting to break new ground in destroying those stereotypes is not itself sexist.

[Jeremy E.]

There is no reason for anyone to levy sexist criticism at Clinton; she has plenty of political baggage to go criticize instead.

However, I'll note that she's very quick to accuse her (male) opponents of sexism, even when none exists. That is itself sexist.

Trump is both racist and sexist, as well as an idiot who has no right to run for president, but still he just won every delegate in South Carolina, all 50 counties. Tis a sad time indeed.

Trump has every right to run for President; he has no right to be this goddamn successful at it!

Although I do think it's sexist of her to say "How am I establishment, I'm running to be the first female president ever."

While I disagree with her logic - that being female precludes one from being part of the establishment, I'm not sure that the latter 'running to be the first female president' is sexist. Sexism generally involves negative gender stereotypes. Attempting to break new ground in destroying those stereotypes is not itself sexist.

I believe using gender to distinguish yourself away from something political is sexist, it sounds like you disagree with this being sexist?

[dramaman]

There is no reason for anyone to levy sexist criticism at Clinton; she has plenty of political baggage to go criticize instead.

However, I'll note that she's very quick to accuse her (male) opponents of sexism, even when none exists. That is itself sexist.

Trump is both racist and sexist, as well as an idiot who has no right to run for president, but still he just won every delegate in South Carolina, all 50 counties. Tis a sad time indeed.

Trump has every right to run for President; he has no right to be this goddamn successful at it!

Although I do think it's sexist of her to say "How am I establishment, I'm running to be the first female president ever."

While I disagree with her logic - that being female precludes one from being part of the establishment, I'm not sure that the latter 'running to be the first female president' is sexist. Sexism generally involves negative gender stereotypes. Attempting to break new ground in destroying those stereotypes is not itself sexist.

I believe using gender to distinguish yourself away from something political is sexist, it sounds like you disagree with this being sexist?

I do disagree. Clinton wanting to the first female President is no more sexist than Obama wanting to be first black President is racist. The idea that avoiding sexism requires one to ignore sex altogether is ridiculous.

[Jeremy E.]

There is no reason for anyone to levy sexist criticism at Clinton; she has plenty of political baggage to go criticize instead.

However, I'll note that she's very quick to accuse her (male) opponents of sexism, even when none exists. That is itself sexist.

Trump is both racist and sexist, as well as an idiot who has no right to run for president, but still he just won every delegate in South Carolina, all 50 counties. Tis a sad time indeed.

Trump has every right to run for President; he has no right to be this goddamn successful at it!

Although I do think it's sexist of her to say "How am I establishment, I'm running to be the first female president ever."

While I disagree with her logic - that being female precludes one from being part of the establishment, I'm not sure that the latter 'running to be the first female president' is sexist. Sexism generally involves negative gender stereotypes. Attempting to break new ground in destroying those stereotypes is not itself sexist.

I believe using gender to distinguish yourself away from something political is sexist, it sounds like you disagree with this being sexist?

I do disagree. Clinton wanting to the first female President is no more sexist than Obama wanting to be first black President is racist. The idea that avoiding sexism requires one to ignore sex altogether is ridiculous.

Where did I say Clinton wanting to be the first female president is sexist? did you read what I wrote?

[nereo]

I believe using gender to distinguish yourself away from something political is sexist, it sounds like you disagree with this being sexist?

I do not think that using gender to distinguish yourself is inherently sexist.
According to Merriam-Webster, sexism is:

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially discrimination against women. 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

Running to be the first woman US president is neither prejudicial nor enforcing the social stereotype surrounding sex.
In order for her comments to be considered sexist they would need to make disparaging or discriminatory remarks about men.

[Jeremy E.]

I believe using gender to distinguish yourself away from something political is sexist, it sounds like you disagree with this being sexist?

I do not think that using gender to distinguish yourself is inherently sexist.
According to Merriam-Webster, sexism is:

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially discrimination against women. 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

Running to be the first woman US president is neither prejudicial nor enforcing the social stereotype surrounding sex.
In order for her comments to be considered sexist they would need to make disparaging or discriminatory remarks about men.

It's crazy how you guys can be so smart in terms of mustachianism and finances, and yet be blind to anything bad about the political party that you align with

[nereo]

I believe using gender to distinguish yourself away from something political is sexist, it sounds like you disagree with this being sexist?

I do not think that using gender to distinguish yourself is inherently sexist.
According to Merriam-Webster, sexism is:

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially discrimination against women. 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

Running to be the first woman US president is neither prejudicial nor enforcing the social stereotype surrounding sex.
In order for her comments to be considered sexist they would need to make disparaging or discriminatory remarks about men.

It's crazy how you guys can be so smart in terms of mustachianism and finances, and yet be blind to anything bad about the political party that you align with

what makes you think I align with the democrats?!  Are you even reading my posts that you are quoting?

[dramaman]

I believe using gender to distinguish yourself away from something political is sexist, it sounds like you disagree with this being sexist?

I do not think that using gender to distinguish yourself is inherently sexist.
According to Merriam-Webster, sexism is:

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially discrimination against women. 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

Running to be the first woman US president is neither prejudicial nor enforcing the social stereotype surrounding sex.
In order for her comments to be considered sexist they would need to make disparaging or discriminatory remarks about men.

It's crazy how you guys can be so smart in terms of mustachianism and finances, and yet be blind to anything bad about the political party that you align with

Disagreeing or agreeing with a party makes one neither insightful nor blind.... Unless its the Libertarian Party. They're just a bunch of blind wackos ;)

[Jeremy E.]

I believe using gender to distinguish yourself away from something political is sexist, it sounds like you disagree with this being sexist?

I do not think that using gender to distinguish yourself is inherently sexist.
According to Merriam-Webster, sexism is:

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially discrimination against women. 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

Running to be the first woman US president is neither prejudicial nor enforcing the social stereotype surrounding sex.
In order for her comments to be considered sexist they would need to make disparaging or discriminatory remarks about men.

It's crazy how you guys can be so smart in terms of mustachianism and finances, and yet be blind to anything bad about the political party that you align with

Disagreeing or agreeing with a party makes one neither insightful nor blind.... Unless its the Libertarian Party. They're just a bunch of blind wackos ;)

I align most with libertarians, as I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I understand we need some social programs for those that can't take care of themselves. That being said, I listen to both sides and if someone made an actual claim about libertarians rather than just "they are blind wackos", I would listen to it rather than disregard it out of ignorance.

[arebelspy]

Disagreeing or agreeing with a party makes one neither insightful nor blind.... Unless its the Libertarian Party. They're just a bunch of blind wackos ;)

I align most with libertarians, as I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

+1.  And I think it's a common sentiment around here.

[dramaman]

I believe using gender to distinguish yourself away from something political is sexist, it sounds like you disagree with this being sexist?

I do not think that using gender to distinguish yourself is inherently sexist.
According to Merriam-Webster, sexism is:

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially discrimination against women. 2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

Running to be the first woman US president is neither prejudicial nor enforcing the social stereotype surrounding sex.
In order for her comments to be considered sexist they would need to make disparaging or discriminatory remarks about men.

It's crazy how you guys can be so smart in terms of mustachianism and finances, and yet be blind to anything bad about the political party that you align with

Disagreeing or agreeing with a party makes one neither insightful nor blind.... Unless its the Libertarian Party. They're just a bunch of blind wackos ;)

I align most with libertarians, as I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I understand we need some social programs for those that can't take care of themselves. That being said, I listen to both sides and if someone made an actual claim about libertarians rather than just "they are blind wackos", I would listen to it rather than disregard it out of ignorance.

Yeah, I totally hear you. Kind of like when someone accuses folks of being 'blind to anything bad about the political party you align with'. I mean those kind of empty accusations are just totally lame. Don't you agree? ;)

[GuitarStv]

Disagreeing or agreeing with a party makes one neither insightful nor blind.... Unless its the Libertarian Party. They're just a bunch of blind wackos ;)

I align most with libertarians, as I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

+1.  And I think it's a common sentiment around here.

+1.

Libertarians are wackos.





:D

[Jeremy E.]

So, passed Biden is pissing me off. He gave Republicans a reason to not do their jobs and ignore Obamas nominations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0

[dramaman]

So, passed Biden is pissing me off. He gave Republicans a reason to not do their jobs and ignore Obamas nominations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html?_r=0

They don't need a reason and this latest 'revelation' is a lot to do about nothing. Biden's comment was in late June, a full 4 months - over 120 days - later in the year. Plus Biden was not talking about total obstruction nomination unseen that the GOP are doing now. Finally his actions speak louder than words. When Clarence Thomas was nominated to replace Thurgood Marshall, which moved the court FAR right, Biden did not obstruct the proceedings. Finally in Reagan's last year in office Biden actually voted for Anthony Kennedy.

Personally, I want to see Obama select a highly qualified minority moderate nominee and let the GOP obstruct and pay the price when minorities vote, returning the Senate as well as the Presidency to the Dems.

[3okirb]

Racist or not, you can't say Trump's not sexist.  I honestly don't see how any woman would vote for him with the comments he makes.  I'm a male with daughters, and I can't stand to hear him talk anymore.  If you're a woman (or know one that you like), it's terrible to think that no matter what they accomplish in life, how smart they are, how respected they are in their field of expertise, etc., Trump will always comment on her looks first. I just can't fathom why someone would want a guy like that leading a country where half (arguably more) of our productivity comes from women.

Because the majority of people do believe that women are less capably and productive then men even when the actions of the woman are identical (research in multiple different fields have shown this to be true).  This is true even for women and for men who believe women are equals, it is something our culture has trained into us.

I saw a study that said men are better soldiers than women, but can't find it. That being said, everyone knows Trump is both racist and sexist, as well as an idiot who has no right to run for president, but still he just won every delegate in South Carolina, all 50 counties. Tis a sad time indeed.
Edit, here is the study, not exactly better soldiers, but women marines are injured at a higher rate than men and shoot less accurately
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/11/marine-study-women-in-combat-injured-more-often-than-men.html

women and men are different, I agree they should be treated equally but get annoyed when people say they are exactly the same. Women use their brain to think 100% of the time, while there are times when men don't think about anything. Some things women are better at, some things men are better at.

Not that it's much better, but wanted to clarify that 2 counties in SC voted for Rubio over Trump.

[LeRainDrop]

Racist or not, you can't say Trump's not sexist.  I honestly don't see how any woman would vote for him with the comments he makes.  I'm a male with daughters, and I can't stand to hear him talk anymore.  If you're a woman (or know one that you like), it's terrible to think that no matter what they accomplish in life, how smart they are, how respected they are in their field of expertise, etc., Trump will always comment on her looks first. I just can't fathom why someone would want a guy like that leading a country where half (arguably more) of our productivity comes from women.

Because the majority of people do believe that women are less capably and productive then men even when the actions of the woman are identical (research in multiple different fields have shown this to be true).  This is true even for women and for men who believe women are equals, it is something our culture has trained into us.

I saw a study that said men are better soldiers than women, but can't find it. That being said, everyone knows Trump is both racist and sexist, as well as an idiot who has no right to run for president, but still he just won every delegate in South Carolina, all 50 counties. Tis a sad time indeed.
Edit, here is the study, not exactly better soldiers, but women marines are injured at a higher rate than men and shoot less accurately
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/11/marine-study-women-in-combat-injured-more-often-than-men.html

women and men are different, I agree they should be treated equally but get annoyed when people say they are exactly the same. Women use their brain to think 100% of the time, while there are times when men don't think about anything. Some things women are better at, some things men are better at.

Not that it's much better, but wanted to clarify that 2 counties in SC voted for Rubio over Trump.

And also that South Carolina has 46 counties, not 50, so Trump won 44 of them -- though still all 50 delegates.

[music lover]

I think criticizing Hillary for her being married to Bill - something Fiorina did - is a good example of non political, subtly gender-based, criticisms.

It's not sexist to criticize a woman who chooses to stay married to a known creep...it's a valid criticism of her character/lack of character.

[nereo]

I think criticizing Hillary for her being married to Bill - something Fiorina did - is a good example of non political, subtly gender-based, criticisms.

It's not sexist to criticize a woman who chooses to stay married to a known creep...it's a valid criticism of her character/lack of character.

Well temporarily sidestepping the fact that you are calling President Clinton a "known creep" - it is sexist for an individual to criticize a women for her husband's adultery if that person is also not calling a male candidate for infidelity.

[arebelspy]

Also when did sticking with your partner and working through marital issues become a negative thing?

"You didn't get divorced" is a slam now?

[MDM]

Also when did sticking with your partner and working through marital issues become a negative thing?

"You didn't get divorced" is a slam now?

Slamming Mrs. C for working things out with Mr. C is indeed an overreach.

Slamming Mrs. C for her attacks on the women Mr. C sexually harassed is more valid.

[dramaman]

Also when did sticking with your partner and working through marital issues become a negative thing?

"You didn't get divorced" is a slam now?

Slamming Mrs. C for working things out with Mr. C is indeed an overreach.

Slamming Mrs. C for her attacks on the women Mr. C sexually harassed is more valid.

Considering the degree of enmity on the part of enemies of the Clintons, I wouldn't be surprised if she chose to believe her husbands denials and that the harassment claims were politically motivated. She wouldn't be the first wife who chose to believe her husband despite a number of good reasons not to.

[MDM]

Considering the degree of enmity on the part of enemies of the Clintons, I wouldn't be surprised if she chose to believe her husbands denials and that the harassment claims were politically motivated. She wouldn't be the first wife who chose to believe her husband despite a number of good reasons not to.

I'd buy that, if she at some point would have said "What he did was wrong, and unfortunately fits the worst stereotype of a man in a powerful position taking advantage of women.  I apologize to all the women I accused of making things up.  But, having said that, Bill and I love each other, have worked through this privately, etc. etc."

AFAIK she has never retracted her "trailer trash" etc. comments - has she?

[Cressida]

It may just be the things my brain hears, but whenever a women candidate is around I hear far more chatter about their dress, age, and family obligations than I hear about male candidates, and I don't think it's a GOP/democrat division either.   

You are correct.

[dramaman]

Considering the degree of enmity on the part of enemies of the Clintons, I wouldn't be surprised if she chose to believe her husbands denials and that the harassment claims were politically motivated. She wouldn't be the first wife who chose to believe her husband despite a number of good reasons not to.

I'd buy that, if she at some point would have said "What he did was wrong, and unfortunately fits the worst stereotype of a man in a powerful position taking advantage of women.  I apologize to all the women I accused of making things up.  But, having said that, Bill and I love each other, have worked through this privately, etc. etc."

AFAIK she has never retracted her "trailer trash" etc. comments - has she?

The 'trailer trash' comment was about Paula Jones, was it not? Was it ever definitively proven that Clinton harassed her? I'm not saying he didn't, but in Hillary's mind, if there is even a shred of doubt that she can cling to, she probably is. Don't underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance. Kind of like how Bill Cosby's wife totally supports him, despite all the claims from other women that they were harassed and drugged and even his own deposition showing he was unfaithful and had been prone to give drugs to women when dating.

[Jeremy E.]

Brian Sandoval(a republican) took himself out of consideration for Supreme Court Justice, what the heck?

[zoltani]

What a hypocrite! Scalia claimed to be pro-life......then died anyway.

[GuitarStv]

What a hypocrite! Scalia claimed to be pro-life......then died anyway.

He was a smoker, so really it was suicide.

[MDM]

The 'trailer trash' comment was about Paula Jones, was it not? Was it ever definitively proven that Clinton harassed her?

Don't recall whether it was specific to Paula or generic to the many who accused Bill of sexual harassment.  As for proven, most of the cases are "he said/she said", unless there were state or federal secret service agents present at the alleged times who could testify.  The semen stain on the blue dress, however, is about as definitively proven as it gets, and lends credibility to the earlier accusations.

I'm not saying he didn't, but in Hillary's mind, if there is even a shred of doubt that she can cling to, she probably is. Don't underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance. Kind of like how Bill Cosby's wife totally supports him, despite all the claims from other women that they were harassed and drugged and even his own deposition showing he was unfaithful and had been prone to give drugs to women when dating.

Cognitive dissonance can indeed be an issue, and it's worth examining how various candidates handle it.  E.g.,
Carson and pyramids being used as granaries vs. as tombs, or
Trump and any number of issues (treatment of women, self-image, etc.), or
Clinton and sexual harassment of women by men in positions of power,
etc.

[dramaman]

The 'trailer trash' comment was about Paula Jones, was it not? Was it ever definitively proven that Clinton harassed her?

Don't recall whether it was specific to Paula or generic to the many who accused Bill of sexual harassment.  As for proven, most of the cases are "he said/she said", unless there were state or federal secret service agents present at the alleged times who could testify.  The semen stain on the blue dress, however, is about as definitively proven as it gets, and lends credibility to the earlier accusations.

All the semen stain proves is that Bill was unfaithful and Lewinsky never claimed harassment (although an affair with a subordinate makes it quite easy for the more powerful party to take advantage of the lessor powerful one).

If I were to speculate as to what is going on in Hillary's head, I would imagine that she has accepted the fact that Bill had affairs but has chosen to believe that the harassment claims were spurred on by their numerous political enemies as well as the desire of those women to make some cash off of their affairs with Bill. If that is the case, I would find it very strange indeed if she did apologize for calling them trash considering in her mind they fooled around with her husband and then tried to cash in on his prominence. I'm not saying she's right, but when the well being of your own family is at stake, being totally objective is really, really hard. If two stories can fit within the known facts, one is inclined to believe the version that is less damaging to the family. Clearly Bill being unfaithful is bad, but him being unfaithful and a serial harasser is even worse. Thus I'm not surprised if Hillary has chosen to cling to the former over the latter.

[MDM]

If I were to speculate as to what is going on in Hillary's head....

As we would all be speculating, your version seems as likely to be true as another.

[dramaman]

If I were to speculate as to what is going on in Hillary's head....

As we would all be speculating, your version seems as likely to be true as another.

Undoubtedly. In the end, there is no real firm ground regarding Hillary and what she could or should have done in response to her husband's personal failings.

[nereo]

If I were to speculate as to what is going on in Hillary's head....

As we would all be speculating, your version seems as likely to be true as another.

Undoubtedly. In the end, there is no real firm ground regarding Hillary and what she could or should have done in response to her husband's personal failings.

... and this is exactly why I don't understand how this can be a determining factor when considering her for public office.  Should she have stayed with Bill?  Should she ahve divorced him?  How did they reconcile his infidelity behind closed doors? 
Ultimately, why is deciding to stay in a marriage where you've been cheated on somehow more baggage than having been divorced twice and married thrice?  Why do we seem more forgiving of men who cheat on their wives than on women who get cheated upon?

All of the answers to these questions escape me.

[Jeremy E.]

If I were to speculate as to what is going on in Hillary's head....

As we would all be speculating, your version seems as likely to be true as another.

Undoubtedly. In the end, there is no real firm ground regarding Hillary and what she could or should have done in response to her husband's personal failings.

... and this is exactly why I don't understand how this can be a determining factor when considering her for public office.  Should she have stayed with Bill?  Should she ahve divorced him?  How did they reconcile his infidelity behind closed doors? 
Ultimately, why is deciding to stay in a marriage where you've been cheated on somehow more baggage than having been divorced twice and married thrice?  Why do we seem more forgiving of men who cheat on their wives than on women who get cheated upon?

All of the answers to these questions escape me.

Some people are murderers and I'm not sure why they do it, but I judge them for it.

[nereo]

If I were to speculate as to what is going on in Hillary's head....

As we would all be speculating, your version seems as likely to be true as another.

Undoubtedly. In the end, there is no real firm ground regarding Hillary and what she could or should have done in response to her husband's personal failings.

... and this is exactly why I don't understand how this can be a determining factor when considering her for public office.  Should she have stayed with Bill?  Should she ahve divorced him?  How did they reconcile his infidelity behind closed doors? 
Ultimately, why is deciding to stay in a marriage where you've been cheated on somehow more baggage than having been divorced twice and married thrice?  Why do we seem more forgiving of men who cheat on their wives than on women who get cheated upon?

All of the answers to these questions escape me.

Some people are murderers and I'm not sure why they do it, but I judge them for it.

Well for the analogy to fit, you'd have to be more judgemental of those that get murdered than the actual murderer.