I simply said you are entitled to your opinion. I did not ask you to defend. I indicated no intent for me to defend the choice.
You called it a specific term, DEI hire, and you can see it that way.
So, yay for opinions!
Political ramifications for Trump assassination attempt part II
- Thread starter 81usaf92
- Start date
You called it a specific term, DEI hire, and you can see it that way.
So, yay for opinions!
Maybe Biden picked her because he felt that she was the best choice as a running mate. There are an assortment of factors that might qualify one for that position, including race and/or gender.
Do you think that JD Vance was the most qualified to be Trump's VP?
NYT gift link
How Biden Chose Harris: A Search That Forged New Stars, Friends and Rivalries
Joe Biden winnowed a large list of candidates to four finalists before settling on Kamala Harris, in a process shaped by questions of loyalty.
I'm pretty sure Biden was specific about his gender/race parameters for VP and Supreme Court. Only certain people need apply.
Yeah but they didn’t begin to protect the president until Teddy Roosevelt. Basically three presidents were assassinated before the Secret Service started protecting the President…. Remember Lincoln was the first to be killed.
I think the one ironic thing about Vance and Kamala is that they were probably two of the harshest critics of their running mates but all of the sudden they are singing their praises when a VP position is being dangled over their heads. Granted Kamala never called Biden “Hitler” but she did basically insinuate that he stood by while busing was being opposed by the States.
She may have been the best choice, I've said as much, but he made it very clear he was ignoring at least half of the potential candidates based on DEI qualifications:
Joe Biden Definitively Vows to Pick a Woman Vice President
In the first one-on-one Democratic primary debate Sunday, former Vice President Joe Biden vowed to pick a woman Vice President.
No Idea, I don't know anything about Vance. But Trump never said he was only looking for a 'male candidate' or similar - the uproar if he had would have been incredible (as it should have been for Biden).
It was stupid then, too. Reagan is/was no different than anyone else - if he made a bad decision, it was a bad decision.
Correct. I'm old enough to remember when meritocracy was a quintessential liberal value.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
It was a political choice, made for political reasons.
Moreover, it is a single position. There is a difference in selecting a woman of color for a single open position and selecting 50 white people for 50 open positions.
Only as a matter of scale. If it's not based purely on merit, it shouldn't be the choice.
If there were two equal candidates and you chose one due to skin color, sex, etc - no problem. But to set out choosing based on that is as wrong as denying service based on those same qualities.
For a couple hundred years, woman and minorities were dismissed out of hand as possibilities for high offices. Stating that it's about time that qualified people from those groups should finally be chosen isn't something to be ridiculed. If Sandra Day O'Conner and Kamala Harris weren't as qualified as any male, then critics would have a point. Those milestones should be celebrated rather than demeaned. No more-deserving white male was left out when those choices were made.
You don't think there is anyone more qualified than Kamala? Really? It wasn't that long ago I was reading about the Dems claiming they had a "deep bench." If Kamala is the best there is ...
Oh, and I've seen this countless times. The biggest impediments to a woman climbing higher in her career are the nefarious actions of other women.
She wasn't close to my first choice (neither was Biden, for that matter), but there's no doubt that she was qualified for the position.
Eh, I don't see her as that qualified. She's flip flopped on issues like most every politician. Her communication skills are terrible. Most politicians are whores. Some more so than others.
All of this makes the assumption that there is a Nick Saban type who is obviously the best for the job. I’ve hired many people and the pool of talent is limited so there may be an obvious choice. When searching nation wide, there should be multiple highly qualified candidates. If this is the case, take the candidate from the under represented group to gain an insight into their perspective. I haven’t seen anyone arguing to take someone less qualified for the position.
Does insight into their perspective make them a better (more valuable) employee? I can certainly see that, among qualified candidates, you go with the one that is the best personality fit for the office. You have to spend 8+ hours a day with this person, so you want to be able to enjoy his/her company.
It is very typical in higher education, in government hiring, and in some corporate hiring.
Fubo TV Free Trial - Cut the cord!
Latest threads
-
School shooting in Sweden (adult school)- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 0
-
-
News Article: Father of Greg Brooks Jr (LSU DB) Calls Out Brian Kelly on Good Morning America- Started by CB4
- Replies: 0
-
America's Role in the Middle East
- Started by Huckleberry
- Replies: 3
-
-
