Trump just won the election

[ZealoulyStriving]

Para mis amigos hispanohablantes:

 

 

Edited July 22, 2024 by ZealoulyStriving

[NeuroTypical]

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I’ll bet you 50$ you can find MAGA supporters who believe this actually happened.
 

You know, people like @Phoenix_person. 😉 

[Backroads]

4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I’ll bet you 50$ you can find MAGA supporters who believe this actually happened.
 

You know, people like @Phoenix_person. 😉

Or my parents' next door neighbor. A dear, wonderful woman. But as awful as an assassination attempt is, some of us were looking forward to making some popcorn and listening to Neighbor rant MAGA about it. (Still haven't run into her)

[Phoenix_person]

The head of the Secret Service was grilled by the oversight comittee today. It, uh, did not go well for her. 

[Ironhold]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

The head of the Secret Service was grilled by the oversight comittee today. It, uh, did not go well for her. 

To put it bluntly, the Secret Service's handling of the whole matter was so botched and incompetent that it's spawned conspiracy theories as to whether or not someone was actually in on it and wanted it to happen.

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

The head of the Secret Service was grilled by the oversight comittee today. It, uh, did not go well for her. 

 

Heads should roll...figuratively of course.

[Traveler]

59 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

Heads should roll...figuratively of course.

Agreed.  However, it would seem that our political arena has perfected the art of plausible deniability.  And as long as one’s favorite political party is called with the foul – it becomes a defend the foul as though life depended upon it.  Just as in sports – it does not depend on how flagrant the foul as much as who it is being called on.

There is an old saying, “Don’t count your chicken before they hatch.”  I think republicans underestimate the extent democrats will employ to maintain power – especially if it is obvious that they are about to lose.

 

The Traveler

 

[Carborendum]

10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

It is so sad when such ridiculous satire comes so close to reality.

[mirkwood]

Cheatle's resigned.

[NeuroTypical]

9 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Cheatle's resigned.

I could have done a better job at being grilled by congress.  

"Obviously we've failed in one of our most core functions.  I'm in the process of figuring out why, and I will fix what's broken.  If you need a figurehead to crucify, you have my resignation.  If you'd rather ensure the correct people are fired, then finish with your questions and let me get back to my job."

Literally all she needed to say.

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I could have done a better job at being grilled by congress.  

Which explains exactly why she shouldn't have had the job to begin with.  DEI hire. That's all you need to know.

[Phoenix_person]

59 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Which explains exactly why she shouldn't have had the job to begin with.  DEI hire. That's all you need to know.

It's okay to say that a woman is incompetent without implying that a woman who has spent most of her life protecting the POTUS only got her current position because of her gender. A white dude could have screwed this up just as easily. What would the excuse have been then?

[mikbone]

45 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

It's okay to say that a woman is incompetent without implying that a woman who has spent most of her life protecting the POTUS only got her current position because of her gender. A white dude could have screwed this up just as easily. What would the excuse have been then?

He sucked at his job.

Not only was she a complete failure.  Her policies weakened the service.

She couldn’t answer a single question with any sense of understanding.

She gave the impression that she has no understanding where the service procedures broke down nor that she has done anything to try to understand what went wrong.

The incompetence and total failure to alleviate anyones concern during the hearing was an embarrassment.

Even the democrats were exasperated with her.

We can and should do better.

Edited July 23, 2024 by mikbone

[Phoenix_person]

47 minutes ago, mikbone said:

He sucked at his job.

Not only was she a complete failure.  Her policies weakened the service.

She couldn’t answer a single question with any sense of understanding.

She gave the impression that she has no understanding where the service procedures broke down nor that she has done anything to try to understand what went wrong.

The incompetence and total failure to alleviate anyones concern during the hearing was an embarrassment.

Even the democrats were exasperated with her.

We can and should do better.

I'm not disputing any of that. I said that it's possible to separate someone's incompetence from their skin color, gender, etc. I doubt very much that anyone in either party will deny that there was gross incompetence on display during the Trump rally, but what's the basis for focusing in on the Secret Service chief's gender? Why is there always an underlying assumption that incompetent leaders who are women and/or POC/LGBTQ are products of DEI programming while, at worst, their straight white male counterparts are simply incompetent, and often given multiple chances of redemption regardless of whether or not they have any real accomplishments to justify it? I'm curious to see how many people who claim they "don't see color" will be calling Kamala a "DEI candidate" over the next few months/years.

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

I said that it's possible to separate someone's incompetence from their skin color, gender, etc.

Absolutely.  You sound like a conservative.

When we see a person utterly fail at a task, one tends to ask the question, "How did this person get the job in the first place?"

Do you understand why DEI is mathematically prone to bad hires?

Edited July 23, 2024 by Carborendum

[mikbone]

1 minute ago, Phoenix_person said:

Why is there always an underlying assumption that incompetent leaders who are women and/or POC/LGBTQ are products of DEI programming

Well couple issues.

“Shapiro’s video cited a May 2023 CBS News story, in which Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle said she wanted the agency to hire more women.”

Some of the women in the videos looked out of shape and incompetent.

 

[Phoenix_person]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

When we see a person utterly fail at a task, one tends to ask the question, "How did this person get the job in the first place?"

Do you understand why DEI is mathematically prone to bad hires?

Sure, if it's not implemented correctly. I don't automatically assume that DEI hiring is the reason behind every mistake made by a woman or POC, because if done properly, you're still giving the job to well-qualified individuals. Any halfway decent DEI consultant (a fastly shrinking field now that their expertise has been reduced to a slur replacement) will tell you that merit and proper training are just as important hiring factors as seeking diversity. The goal of DEI is to find/hire a diverse range of well-qualified employees and to provide them with the training they need to be successful. It's not a perfect system, but it can be very useful if used properly. The problem is that a lot of companies/organizations are more concerned with appearing diverse than actually embracing diversity. So they hire some token women and non-white people so they can make nice posters showing how diverse their workforce is, all while failing to give their employees the tools they need to be successful. I know an outstanding DEI director who is constantly turning down consulting gigs for organizations like that because they're not actually serious about putting in the work. They just want DEI brownie points. DEI is supposed to be PART of the hiring process, not the entire process.

 

I agree that it's wise to investigate HOW an incompetent person got hired/promoted. I just think it's unnecessary to make unfounded assumptions based on "identity politics". Objectivity is dead, I suppose, and I won't deny that "my side" played an equal role in killing it.

I'm old enough to remember conservatives complaining (and justifiably so, sometimes) about constantly being called racists during the Obama years. It was said, correctly, that overuse of the term cheapens it and causes it to lose all weight and credibility. Now, conservatives call everything that upsets them "woke" or "DEI". How is that different? 

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Sure, if it's not implemented correctly.

This tells me that you're not familiar with the weaknesses inherent in DEI policies.

Let me know if you want to learn.

[Ironhold]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

I'm old enough to remember conservatives complaining (and justifiably so, sometimes) about constantly being called racists during the Obama years. It was said, correctly, that overuse of the term cheapens it and causes it to lose all weight and credibility. Now, conservatives call everything that upsets them "woke" or "DEI". How is that different? 

When I raised concerns about Obama's tax proposals, I was told to "drop the act and admit to being racist" by one of his sycophants. 

According to this sycophant, there was "no good reason" to ever question or criticize Obama, and so any questioning or criticism was de facto racism. 

That's where a lot of the claims of racism came from, his sycophants lobbing the term out to deflect from any negative feedback. 

[ZealoulyStriving]

Prediction:

Like 2016 the Press will be telling us nightly how fantastically Harris/?? are doing in the polls only to be shocked that they loses by 4% points.

[Suzie]

On 7/23/2024 at 3:30 PM, Phoenix_person said:

Sure, if it's not implemented correctly. I don't automatically assume that DEI hiring is the reason behind every mistake made by a woman or POC, because if done properly, you're still giving the job to well-qualified individuals. Any halfway decent DEI consultant (a fastly shrinking field now that their expertise has been reduced to a slur replacement) will tell you that merit and proper training are just as important hiring factors as seeking diversity. The goal of DEI is to find/hire a diverse range of well-qualified employees and to provide them with the training they need to be successful. It's not a perfect system, but it can be very useful if used properly. The problem is that a lot of companies/organizations are more concerned with appearing diverse than actually embracing diversity. So they hire some token women and non-white people so they can make nice posters showing how diverse their workforce is, all while failing to give their employees the tools they need to be successful. I know an outstanding DEI director who is constantly turning down consulting gigs for organizations like that because they're not actually serious about putting in the work. They just want DEI brownie points. DEI is supposed to be PART of the hiring process, not the entire process.

 

I agree that it's wise to investigate HOW an incompetent person got hired/promoted. I just think it's unnecessary to make unfounded assumptions based on "identity politics". Objectivity is dead, I suppose, and I won't deny that "my side" played an equal role in killing it.

I'm old enough to remember conservatives complaining (and justifiably so, sometimes) about constantly being called racists during the Obama years. It was said, correctly, that overuse of the term cheapens it and causes it to lose all weight and credibility. Now, conservatives call everything that upsets them "woke" or "DEI". How is that different? 

Let's face it, for some people anybody who isn't white or a man is automatically a "DEI hire" no matter their education, career or experience. Tim Burchett should go back to chasing UFOs. Just alone here, a poster without any proof whatsoever said that Harris slept her way into politics! Seriously, totally uncalled for. Will they say that about a man? Nope. Some even say she is "black" or Indian" and she should stick with one (lol). How ignorant can you be? The obvious lack of knowledge on the complexities of ethnicity make some people sound very ignorant. I suggest traveling overseas!

People are free to use their own brains instead of repeating everything MAGA says. This is why I have no respect for the cult and i make no apologies for it.
 

[Phoenix_person]

1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Let's face it, for some people anybody who isn't white or a man is automatically a "DEI hire" no matter their education, career or experience. Tim Burchett should go back to chasing UFOs. Just alone here, a poster without any proof whatsoever said that Harris slept her way into politics! Seriously, totally uncalled for. Will they say that about a man? Nope. Some even say she is "black" or Indian" and she should stick with one (lol). How ignorant can you be? The obvious lack of knowledge on the complexities of ethnicity make some people sound very ignorant. I suggest traveling overseas!

People are free to use their own brains instead of repeating everything MAGA says. This is why I have no respect for the cult and i make no apologies for it.
 

It's gotten bad enough that apparently GOP leadership felt the need to tell their members to dial back the race talk.

[Carborendum]

7 hours ago, Suzie said:

Let's face it, for some people anybody who isn't white or a man is automatically a "DEI hire" no matter their education, career or experience.

So, you're not interested in learning anything?  Gee, you must be a DEI hire.

The fact is that you have no idea if she's NOT a DEI hire.  At least I have mathematical probabilities supporting my guess.  You've got nothing but indignation.

Edited July 25, 2024 by Carborendum

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, you're not interested in learning anything?  Gee, you must be a DEI hire.

The fact is that you have no idea if she's NOT a DEI hire.  At least I have mathematical probabilities supporting my guess.  You've got nothing but indignation.

Of course not.  That is part of the reason we can't have civil discussions any more.  Lets break this down.  We had a organization that failed at it primary purpose.  An absolute necessity is to find out why it failed and fix it if we want to have that organization work like it should.  There are two things to look at in these kind of cases.  People and Processes.  Both can fail.  Now in most cases its kinder and more Christ-like to focus on processes and only go after people when it is clear they did not follow good processes.

DEI hiring is a process.  But to certain people this process is a sacred cow, holy and unassailable.  We see the fruits of this idolatry in their attacks on anyone who dares question it.  They would rather attack a person then a process. So they call anyone who thinks about questioning it sexist or racist or whatever label of evil they think might fit so they do not have to question if the process they are worshiping has fundamental flaws.