Trump just won the election

[Suzie]

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.

Not sure why you quoted me, it actually shows your own indignation. Don't worry, it isn't all about you so don't elevate yourself.  Learning from someone who just repeats what MAGA says? Um, nope. Not interested in the least. I like to discuss issues with people who think for themselves, no offense.

 

[Phoenix_person]

39 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

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.

And you don't see how focusing in on someone's gender is going after a person instead of the process? I don't recall Condoleezza Rice getting that treatment when it was postulated that the National Security apparatus that she was in charge of may have neglected to ascertain the immediate nature of the terrorist threat from Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the months leading up to 9/11. 

Speaking of 9/11, do you know who was on the security detail that was protecting Dick Cheney as he was moved to an undisclosed location that day? Kimberly Cheatle. I'm not saying she was leadership material or that she didn't royally bungle the PA event and the ensuing congressional hearing (Condi, by comparison, handled herself fairly well in front of Congress imo). But to suggest that a 20+ year veteran of the Secret Service only got her current position because of her gender is willfully ignorant and dismissive of an entire career of public service. Did any agents or their superiors get that kind of treatment after Reagan was shot (I wasn't born yet, so I'm seriously asking)?

I don't deny that DEI is a flawed concept, mostly because it's rarely implemented in a way that actually makes sense. DEI isn't hiring the first woman or POC that sends you an application. It's not setting a quota for how many non-white/male hires you make. Mostly, DEI is simply about helping employers to truly look at the merits of the people they're considering. We have a lot of meaningless criteria that we rate people on during hiring processes. Who dressed better? Who wrote a better cover letter? Who sent us a note thanking us for giving them an interview*? Standards like that will almost automatically eliminate single mothers and people without means. Personally, I don't consider someone unqualified because they wore jeans to an interview or didn't write a cover letter. That's what the interview process is for. The way you present yourself physically is important, sure, but any loser with some disposable income can buy a suit and get a friend or family member to help with resumes and cover letters. DEI helps employers look past the things that don't matter as much (because a lot of your "diverse" candidates may not be a fit by those standards) and focus on the meat of what the job requires and whether or not you think that person can perform the job.

*I spent three years as a hiring manager. Our owner was very fixated on cover letters and thank you notes. It drove me absolutely up the wall. Fortunately, it stopped after one of our worst hires was a person (white guy) who checked all the right boxes during the hiring process, but was an abyssmal employee. I didn't want to hire him. The owner thought I was crazy not to and made the decision for me. He lasted two months, and that's only because my supervisor wanted everything against him documented for liability reasons. This was in the beer industry, btw, arguably one of the first industries to try to get serious about diversity (it was an extremely white and male industry when I got my start). So yes, @Carborendum, I know a thing or two about how DEI is *supposed* to work, and why it often doesn't. I've sat through training seminars and presentations outlining exactly how diverse hiring can strengthen an organization when used in harmony with merit-based hiring practices.

[LDSGator]

25 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

ut to suggest that a 20+ year veteran of the Secret Service only got her current position because of her gender is willfully ignorant and dismissive of an entire career of public service

Bingo.

[estradling75]

46 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

And you don't see how focusing in on someone's gender is going after a person instead of the process?

 

Transference much??? 
DEI is a process... that we are examining that and it is the only attack that is being made.  The nature of DEI is that it is a non option for White Males.  It can only be examined in the context of Non white males.  But we can not examine it for real life potential failures because people like you instantly transfer any questioning of DEI process to an attack on person.  Which we aren't doing.

You correctly state that we would not be doing this if the person was a white male... but that is because we can not. DEI does not apply.  If it were a white male we would be questioning things like the "Good old boys network" and "privilege" and you would be right there with us and not considering it an attack on the person.

And then you put words in our mouths saying the its "the only reason" and that is flat out lie and fundamentally dishonest of you.  She failed.  Stating that  is not an attack on her character.  I would have failed.  The difference is I know I should not have the Job... Lots of people know I should not have the job.  But apparently people thought she should and it raises the question of why?  There are lots of experienced people who are not leadership material.  The idea that her limits were overlooked by the hiring process because of DEI is a totally reasonable line to investigate.  It may not end end up being true but until it is investigated we will not know.

 

[Phoenix_person]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Transference much??? 
DEI is a process... that we are examining that and it is the only attack that is being made.  The nature of DEI is that it is a non option for White Males.  It can only be examined in the context of Non white males.  But we can not examine it for real life potential failures because people like you instantly transfer any questioning of DEI process to an attack on person.  Which we aren't doing.

Those questions should absolutely be asked. By Congress, and others who have access to all the pertinent information. The only objective facts that we have right now is that a former president was almost killed on Kimberly Cheatle's watch, and that she then failed to satisfy the accountability requirements of Congress and the American people (the latter, imo, is the more agregious offense; it's unreasonable to hold the director personally responsible for every organizational failure, but she still should be able to answer direct questions with clarity, which she did not do). We also know that she has had a long career with the secret service, and was on the front lines of executive protection on one this nation's darkest days. I don't know of any notable failings in her record prior to the Trump incident. I'm sure Congress will do a deep dive into that in their investigation. I'm sure they'll also look at the circumstances around her being promoted to director of the Secret Service. Until their findings are made public, I'm going to try to avoid making baseless assumptions and stick to what we know.

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

She failed.  Stating that is not an attack on her character. 

I'm not disputing that, nor have I disputed at any point that she should be unemployed right now. It's possible to make those arguments without making it about her gender.

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

But apparently people thought she should and it raises the question of why?  There are lots of experienced people who are not leadership material. 

I already stated reasons not related to gender why she may have been considered for promotion.

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The idea that her limits were overlooked by the hiring process because of DEI is a totally reasonable line to investigate.  It may not end end up being true but until it is investigated we will not know.

Sure. I'm not ruling out the possibility that she was promoted because she's a woman and not because of her merits. But I'm not going to make that assumption unless there's a reason to. At this point, I think such assumptions are unfounded and harmful to women and POC who actually deserve to advance in their fields.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

And you don't see how focusing in on someone's gender is going after a person instead of the process? I don't recall Condoleezza Rice getting that treatment when it was postulated that the National Security apparatus that she was in charge of may have neglected to ascertain the immediate nature of the terrorist threat from Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the months leading up to 9/11. 

Speaking of 9/11, do you know who was on the security detail that was protecting Dick Cheney as he was moved to an undisclosed location that day? Kimberly Cheatle. I'm not saying she was leadership material or that she didn't royally bungle the PA event and the ensuing congressional hearing (Condi, by comparison, handled herself fairly well in front of Congress imo). But to suggest that a 20+ year veteran of the Secret Service only got her current position because of her gender is willfully ignorant and dismissive of an entire career of public service. Did any agents or their superiors get that kind of treatment after Reagan was shot (I wasn't born yet, so I'm seriously asking)?

I don't deny that DEI is a flawed concept, mostly because it's rarely implemented in a way that actually makes sense. DEI isn't hiring the first woman or POC that sends you an application. It's not setting a quota for how many non-white/male hires you make. Mostly, DEI is simply about helping employers to truly look at the merits of the people they're considering. We have a lot of meaningless criteria that we rate people on during hiring processes. Who dressed better? Who wrote a better cover letter? Who sent us a note thanking us for giving them an interview*? Standards like that will almost automatically eliminate single mothers and people without means. Personally, I don't consider someone unqualified because they wore jeans to an interview or didn't write a cover letter. That's what the interview process is for. The way you present yourself physically is important, sure, but any loser with some disposable income can buy a suit and get a friend or family member to help with resumes and cover letters. DEI helps employers look past the things that don't matter as much (because a lot of your "diverse" candidates may not be a fit by those standards) and focus on the meat of what the job requires and whether or not you think that person can perform the job.

*I spent three years as a hiring manager. Our owner was very fixated on cover letters and thank you notes. It drove me absolutely up the wall. Fortunately, it stopped after one of our worst hires was a person (white guy) who checked all the right boxes during the hiring process, but was an abyssmal employee. I didn't want to hire him. The owner thought I was crazy not to and made the decision for me. He lasted two months, and that's only because my supervisor wanted everything against him documented for liability reasons. This was in the beer industry, btw, arguably one of the first industries to try to get serious about diversity (it was an extremely white and male industry when I got my start). So yes, @Carborendum, I know a thing or two about how DEI is *supposed* to work, and why it often doesn't. I've sat through training seminars and presentations outlining exactly how diverse hiring can strengthen an organization when used in harmony with merit-based hiring practices.

You make some very good points in your post.  However, you do realize that DEI by intent and implementation, has a focus, primarily of gender and race.

As for the comparison of Condoleezza Rice and Kimberly Cheatle, we need only look at two very important elements.  First – Were established procedures followed?  Second – Was there any effort of coverup or shive blame for not following procedures?  As a side note – in most cases a coverup causes more problems (eventually if not immediately) than the initial issue. 

Our corporate structure is in horrible disarray.   I can give many examples, but I will give a counter example.  In Japan, it is required, both by law and tradition that if a company has a layoff that no one in management receives a bonus.  In the USA most layoffs take place so that (insure that) upper management and investors can receive bonuses.   Because of such incentives – US corporations tend towards corruption – which bleeds over into politics.

Everyone wants to work with those they trust and to force otherwise with the power of law is both offensive and ineffective.  The best success come from incentivizing the individuals most qualified.  It really is not that difficult to discover the most qualified.  Let me give an example.  Take at random 10 individuals in any endeavor – be it sports, business, politics, doctors, engineers, lawyers, teachers, plumbers, electricians, artists – whatever.  There is an amazing difference in production and quality of production.  DEI demands equal compensation for equal work.  That is not a good idea because there is only an appearance of equal work – the work is never equal.  For example, I was a welder in the army.  A very good welder BTW.  On my mission I met a fellow that worked 6 months out of the year and yet was a multi-millionaire welder.  I could not believe he could make so much money welding – so I asked.  He responded that he was the best welder in the world and when no one else was able to complete a job – he was called.

What we want to do to help society prosper is to incentive those that are the most productive.  Things like minimum wage, equal pay for equal work and DEI do not incentivize the most productive.

But there is another consideration.  That is to incentivize the less productive to be more productive.  To do that – we need to allow those that give more effort the opportunity to do so – and my experiences with government is that when the government gets into the dog fight – what we seem to discover is that career politicians really do not have any skin in the game.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

the USA most layoffs take place so that (insure that) upper management and investors can receive bonuses.

Nope. As someone whose relatives have made the decisions to lay people off, you are wrong. Watching my aunt and father agonize over who gets laid off was heartbreaking. You are also wrong that they do so to get “bonuses”. You have no idea what you are talking about. 

You watch too much TV and think that’s how the corporate world works. 

Edited July 25, 2024 by LDSGator

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

So yes, @Carborendum, I know a thing or two about how DEI is *supposed* to work, and why it often doesn't. I've sat through training seminars and presentations outlining exactly how diverse hiring can strengthen an organization when used in harmony with merit-based hiring practices.

Nope, that has nothing to do with the math behind the weakness.

[NeuroTypical]

Just a reminder folks, we have to keep things civil.   Please remember the site rules:

2. Please be conscious of the fact that although Third Hour is aimed towards an LDS audience, that the membership of this site consists of friends from an array of different backgrounds, beliefs, and cultures. Please be respectful and courteous to all, and know that everyone who is willing to follow the Rules and Terms of Third Hour are welcome to participate and be a member of Third Hour. Keep in mind that anything posted, uploaded, or otherwise displayed on the site should be understandable to friends of other faiths as well as to members. Please define any LDS vocabulary that friends of other faiths may not understand (i.e. Mutual, Relief Society, and Deacon.)

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

4. No bickering and nit-picking toward others. Realize that sometimes it is very difficult to be able to express how one feels through written words. Please be courteous and ask for a further explanation, rather then trying to attack and find holes in someone else's post.

 

The site rules are sort of based on the 2nd great commandment.  You're about to click "submit reply".  Does your post have any love in it?  Any of the exact opposite of love?  

Be charitable folks.  

[This has been moderator minute with your favorite mod-who-got-replaced-by-an-AI-two-years-ago, NTBot.]

Edited July 25, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Traveler]

On 7/25/2024 at 11:25 AM, LDSGator said:

Nope. As someone whose relatives have made the decisions to lay people off, you are wrong. Watching my aunt and father agonize over who gets laid off was heartbreaking. You are also wrong that they do so to get “bonuses”. You have no idea what you are talking about. 

You watch too much TV and think that’s how the corporate world works. 

I decided to wait a while to respond to your post.  I have spent most of my professional life working at the corporate level.  I am not sure what your experience is with your relative’s business, but it sound more like what we label in the USA as a small business rather than an element of the corporate world.  I would bet that their business does not sell corporate shares of their company.  Mostly because of your comments about bonuses – I would guess that they have control of their company and do not have to run anything past a board of directors – that in turn is liable to the shareholders. 

Up until recently, my wife and I have run 4 LLC companies that run more like you described.  We were able to keep our people employed during COVID but had to cut back on their hours.  During that time, we took no profits or even a dime for ourselves.  This was not really a big deal for us because the primary reason we have LLCs in the first place is for investments and tax advantages.   

I have worked for 4 separate corporate entities.  When I went to work for them, they all were the top companies in their marketplace with close to 90% of the market share.  For all but one, there was a merger that took place – it is sometimes called a buyout and sometimes called a hostile takeover.  I am quite sure that a takeover or buyout was not an obstacle your relatives worried about or did not have control over.   Likely their only problem with such a thing is if they defaulted from a loan.   Back to what I have experienced in all but one of the mergers I was a part of.  After some time, massive layoffs are announced.  The excuse is that the board of directors has determined that the company has redundancy and needs to “right” size for the current market.  What is always overlooked is that as soon as a massive layoff is announced a critical number of top performers take opportunities to work elsewhere.

One particular merger, I had enough inside information to realize that the actual reason for the downsizing was twofold.  First because a debt was incurred in the purchase of a competitor and with a change in the marketplace, they had to make some changes.  This brings me to the second reason.  In order to meet their projections and maintain their multimillion dollar bonuses (that are sometimes 10+ times their salaries) they had to adjust their bottom line which could only be done with layoffs.  As silly as this may sound it becomes quickly obvious that that without the personal (especially the most paid top performers) there is no way to maintain their market share.   By time the writing is on the wall (which the board could see before anyone else) things begin a downward trend – at which point the CEO and his management team move on to “help” other corporations remain profitable.

Though it did not happen while I was employed with Boeing – it has happened there as well during my lifetime.  The problems that are occurring now would have never happened when I was at Boeing.  How do I know this?  Because I know what it took to get on at Boeing and what the environment was like.  As a side note:  The employee union gained more control over the company.  Weather or not that is the reason for Boeing’s current problems – I could not say but I am doubtful that it did not have any impact.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

the USA as a small business rather than an element of the corporate world

Wrong. Both were high ups in the corporate world. One was in investment banking, one was in executive level sales & management. Sorry. 

Edited July 26, 2024 by LDSGator

[Traveler]

On 7/26/2024 at 12:26 PM, LDSGator said:

Wrong. Both were high ups in the corporate world. One was in investment banking, one was in executive level sales & management. Sorry. 

I stand corrected.  There are some good people amidst corruption – apparently.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I stand corrected.  There are some good people amidst corruption – apparently.

 

The Traveler

Thanks bud, appreciate the kind words towards them. Sorry if I came across as a jerk. 

[mikbone]

https://apple.news/AC1Cd-ETVQJOt7MhyDVPtsA

Edited August 13, 2024 by mikbone

[LDSGator]

21 hours ago, mikbone said:

https://apple.news/AC1Cd-ETVQJOt7MhyDVPtsA

Of course there will always be Trump zealots out there, but a lot of lifelong republicans are really tired of him.

This message is from a friend of mine of over twenty years. She is a conservatives conservative. Even she’s tired of him! 

[LDSGator]

Btw, her cancer has been in remission for several years now.

[Phoenix_person]

26 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Of course there will always be Trump zealots out there, but a lot of lifelong republicans are really tired of him.

This message is from a friend of mine of over twenty years. She is a conservatives conservative. Even she’s tired of him! 

None of my immediate LDS family members have ever voted for Trump, and while my siblings have centerish politics, my parents are both Reagan conservatives. They voted for McMullin in 2016 and (somewhat reluctantly) Biden in 2020. 

Edited August 14, 2024 by Phoenix_person

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

None of my immediate LDS family members have ever voted for Trump, and while my siblings have centerish politics, my parents are both Reagan conservatives. They voted for McMullin in 2016 and (somewhat reluctantly) Biden in 2020. 

My dad is the classic New England moderate republican. He’s like my friend-he’ll hold his nose and vote for Trump.

Amazingly, out of 15+ cousins, I’m the only non democrat. Some of them make you look like Barry Goldwater! 

[Vort]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Of course there will always be Trump zealots out there, but a lot of lifelong republicans are really tired of him.

This message is from a friend of mine of over twenty years. She is a conservatives conservative. Even she’s tired of him! 

At the risk of being obvious, this is...um...obvious. Yes, Trump has his zealots, but he also has great support from many social and political conservatives who don't particularly like him or his fiscal policies, but recognize that the alternative to Donald Trump is vastly uglier and worse.

Joe Biden has been an unfunny joke for at least the second half of his political career, and his candidacy only proves the deep and abiding cynicism of the Democrat party. The fact that Joe Biden actually won is a tribute to American mendacity and, if we're honest, the power wielded by the media.

Compared to Biden and the even more pathetic (if that's even possible) Kamala Harris, Donald Trump actually looks like a pretty good choice, personality quirks and all.

[Just_A_Guy]

I’m still NeverTrump; and continue to believe that if we take D&C 98:10 and Isaiah 8 seriously, eventually the Lord will prepare the way for a candidate who meets those criteria.

In the meantime:  I wrote in President Nelson in 2020 and am likely to do so again this year.

Edited August 14, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[askandanswer]

If it was the case that one candidate is more evil than incompetent, and another candidate is more incompetent than evil, who would be the better candidate?

[mirkwood]

Incompetence is a better choice then evil.

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m still NeverTrump; and continue to believe that if we take D&C 98:10 and Isaiah 8 seriously, eventually the Lord will prepare the way for a candidate who meets those criteria.

In the meantime:  I wrote in President Nelson in 2020 and am likely to do so again this year.

I applaud your willingness to stand for a principle you believe in. 

[Traveler]

37 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Incompetence is a better choice then evil.

I have always thought that incompetence is the primary problem of evil – when thinking Celestial.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

If it was the case that one candidate is more evil than incompetent, and another candidate is more incompetent than evil, who would be the better candidate?

The problem with applying this to modern American politics is that casting Trump as "evil" is a joke, especially when you compare him to Harris or Biden. What, Trump is evil because he supposedly committed adultery with a porn star, from which he gained zero professional status, while Harris is a hero because she literally slept her way into politics with a married man thirty years her senior?

As for the incompetence, that's always a bad thing, but Trump has demonstrated more competence than any president since at least Clinton (burns me to say that, but there it is). Harris? What has Kamala Harris ever done, ever, in her entire career, that suggests she might be anything besides a disaster as the President of the United States? Her career as vice president has been inglorious, when her duties required essentially zero effort.