ADVERTISEMENT

Tastiest dog breed thread - poll coming

Okay, on the run, but will squeeze this in..........

When you say you are going to pick the very best candidate for a position, and it ends up being a women that you share her qualifications with and she is head and shoulders above other candidates, more power to her. When the hiring entity says they are going to hire a woman, then 1/2 of the candidate pool is instantly eliminated. So what are we supposed to think? If the hiring entity comes out and says that they are going to hire the best man for the job, I would immediately say that is discrimination, eliminating half of the candidate pool and quite possibly eliminating the best possible person for the job. So yes, I am totally convinced that she was a DEI selection, and not the best possible person for the job. Yes, she has had some good positions, but not an impressive list of accomplishments, IMHO.

As evidence to back that up, Biden also telegraphed his intention to do a DEI selection for the Supreme Court. He specifically stated he was going to hire a black woman for the job, obvious payback to James Clyburn for basically rescuing Biden's campaign in 2020. Once again, at least for appearance's sake you need to state that you will do an exhaustive search and then select the best candidate for the job. By saying he was going to nominate a black woman for the court, that meant he was eliminating 90-95% of the possible field to choose from. If it looks like DEI, walks like DEI, and talks like DEI, it most likely IS DEI. Three points to illustrate why she might not, probably not, was the best qualified to be on the Supreme Court. 1. She was unable to define a woman. WTH? How pathetic is that? 2. She repeated a point from an attorney that AR's (or maybe it was even automatic rifles) fired 600-800 rounds per second! Seriously, how clueless is that? 3. She claimed that black women have twice as good outcomes when the deliver a baby with a black doctor! How stupid is that? Does she really think that is true? Ha!

Yes, I realize that I have just discussed two "black" women, so I undoubtedly will get attacked for being a racist, while ignoring the facts of the situation. Just remember I could have included folks like Mayor Pete, Admiral Rachel, the luggage stealing weirdo, etc, but time prevents that. Gotta run....
When you say you are going to pick the very best candidate for a position, and it ends up being a women that you share her qualifications with and she is head and shoulders above other candidates, more power to her. When the hiring entity says they are going to hire a woman, then 1/2 of the candidate pool is instantly eliminated. So what are we supposed to think? If the hiring entity comes out and says that they are going to hire the best man for the job, I would immediately say that is discrimination, eliminating half of the candidate pool and quite possibly eliminating the best possible person for the job. So yes, I am totally convinced that she was a DEI selection, and not the best possible person for the job. Yes, she has had some good positions, but not an impressive list of accomplishments, IMHO.

In what scenario does any of this you said pertain to Harris? The selection process for VP never is stated as picking the best candidate. It's selecting the person who gives the ticket the best chance to win, by catering to a certain electorate or winning a certain state and balancing out the ticket etc. That is exactly why trump selected pence, to cater to the evangelicals. It's why Obama picked Biden, to appeal to white voters. "Best qualified" is not part of the occasion. Harris certainly was qualified and she brought other benefits which paid off.

Harris was not a DEI "hire" for her senate seat either because she was elected. Jackson has nothing to do with Harris and is a whole different discussion. I agree, Biden should have just nominated her without stating that he was going to pick a black woman. Just do it.

The danger of throwing out DEI is that it automatically puts the USER of that term in the position of seeming to think that a minority could never just be an imminently qualified person and that it MUST ONLY be because they are a minority and couldn't POSSIBLY get picked for any other reason. Because Republicans who use that term only use it to denegrate minorities. It's dog-whistle shit. I don't believe you hold that belief, so I would ask again if you still think harris qualifies as a "DEI" hire for VP?

Tastiest dog breed thread - poll coming

Listening to RFK is basically the same thing as listening to Patrick Mahomes Brother. Dude is a never has been attention whore, who gives a flying F what that asshat has to say. He should be endorsing Trump he’s a perfect addition to his team.
In a Presidential race that will likely come down to the margins, a marginal RFK, Jr. could definitely matter. His support tailed off the last month with all the strange $*** coming out about a past sexual assault, chemicals in water, and the dead bear incident.

RFK, Jr. apparently approached both campaigns about a cabinet position in return for his endorsement. Harris first, who apparently ignored RFK. Trump later who said yes.

I watched parts of RFK's announcement speech and have seen him in a couple short interviews. He doesn't exactly come across as "right in the head".

Tastiest dog breed thread - poll coming

It'd be cool to compare that to Kamala, but she doesn't give interviews.

On another note. RFKs speech today was really good, you'd think the left would listen to it and consider what RFK is saying but that's not what NBC told them to do so they won't.

Sad!
Listening to RFK is basically the same thing as listening to Patrick Mahomes Brother. Dude is a never has been attention whore, who gives a flying F what that asshat has to say. He should be endorsing Trump he’s a perfect addition to his team.
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT