The Biden/Harris Administration Accomplishments Thread

[luthervol]

So many on the left continue to follow “diversity makes us strong “ idea. Unity is what makes you strong not diversity.

Many see diversity as a necessary component of unity. And when many see it that way, it becomes that way.

 

[0nelilreb]

I’m a child of the 60s civil rights movement. We were taught to judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I’ve done exactly that during my work as a small business owner, from the people I employed to the clients that I worked for. Race and sexual orientation just never entered into the picture for me.
I’ve always tried to be “colorblind “ and to walk in the other man’s shoes. But now the new standard is equity, not equality. It seems like colorblind isn’t enough anymore.
I know you come from academia and I respect that but you should also respect those of us that have been out “in the real world “. Successful business people don’t see color, except maybe green.

It’s been amazing to watch the transition from the Democratic party as they go from a party full of radical racists to a party full of radicals that are still racist just under the guise of equality in my lifetime . I grew up as a southern Dem surrounded by the original good ole boys in Mississippi and Tennessee , have lived in the Midwest , California and now in Virginia . I’ve been in every one of the lower 48 states multiple times, and met a ton of very interesting people along the way but none more interesting than the ones that are the very thing they proclaim loudly to hate . They don’t realize that they are doing the same thing , just under a different cause .

 

[HammondB3Vol]

I'm also a child of the 60s and complete agree with and admire the way you have chosen to live your life.
Being in academia doesn't insulate one from "the real world"; in some ways it may even give a broader perspective of what is really out there in the real world.

I’m glad that you have a broad perspective. Then you should be able to admit that naming a Vp, cabinet member or a judge should have nothing to do with color but only content of character.

 

[luthervol]

Shouldn't the goal always be to select the best, most qualified person for the job?

I have no problem in considering diversity in selecting members of any team. I do however have a problem with saying the candidate must be AA and a woman for example. It's condescending to the candidate first and foremost, but it also narrows the talent field artificially.

Again, it comes down to who decides what makes one "the best and most qualified" person. And what the ultimate primary objective is.

I still think a football coach/team owner is a good analogy.
Lots to be considered, and on multiple levels, when making a pick or a hire, and there are often disagreements on what the top priorities and qualifications should be.
Best player but with low character, or great but not best player with high character?
Best player available in the draft, or do we pick to fill a specific need?
A player known to be a positive in the locker room, or a slightly better player who is known to be a cancer to team chemistry?
A player that can help us this year but is on the way down, or a person who needs a little time but has a huge upside?

To say just pick the most qualified - is much to simplistic.

 

[luthervol]

I’m glad that you have a broad perspective. Then you should be able to admit that naming a Vp, cabinet member or a judge should have nothing to do with color but only content of character.

I believe diversity is an appropriate objective and can be considered when narrowing down the field of qualified candidates.

 

[0nelilreb]

Again, it comes down to who decides what makes one "the best and most qualified" person. And what the ultimate primary objective is.

I still think a football coach/team owner is a good analogy.
Lots to be considered, and on multiple levels, when making a pick or a hire, and there are often disagreements on what the top priorities and qualifications should be.
Best player but with low character, or great but not best player with high character?
Best player available in the draft, or do we pick to fill a specific need?
A player known to be a positive in the locker room, or a slightly better player who is known to be a cancer to team chemistry?
A player that can help us this year but is on the way down, or a person who needs a little time but has a huge upside?

To say just pick the most qualified - is much to simplistic.

How many college coaches have you EVER seen pick the 2 star locker room buddy that everyone loves , over the 5 star player that isn’t everyone’s friend and doesn’t intend to be ?

 

[luthervol]

How many college coaches have you EVER seen pick the 2 star locker room buddy that everyone loves , over the 5 star player that isn’t everyone’s friend and doesn’t intend to be ?

I guarantee you they factor in character.
If they are deciding between 2 relatively equal 2 stars - those intangibles are what make the decision.

 

[0nelilreb]

I guarantee you they factor in character.
If they are deciding between 2 relatively equal 2 stars - those intangibles are what make the decision.

You side stepped my question and readjusted it to fit your narrative . Tisk Tisk

 

[GroverCleveland]

Someone who doesn't want to play the comically transparent gotcha game with a looney right-wing politician looking to score idiot points.

I'm adding one to the idiot point total.

Says the guy who imagines one day men can give birth to live children.

 

[C-south]

Which is exactly why we need diversity.

Lol. Diversity is absolutely not needed. I’m sure you’d rather have a black surgeon perform open heart surgery on you who finished at the bottom of his class with pending malpractice suits against him than a white surgeon who’s performed hundreds and the best there is.

 

[HammondB3Vol]

I believe diversity is an appropriate objective and can be considered when narrowing down the field of qualified candidates.

I’ve told you why, in these instances, it shouldn’t be considered. You have no basis for why they should other than “that’s how I feel “

 

[ButchPlz]

Lol. Diversity is absolutely not needed. I’m sure you’d rather have a black surgeon perform open heart surgery on you who finished at the bottom of his class with pending malpractice suits against him than a white surgeon who’s performed hundreds and the best there is.

True diversity is good but has a point of diminishing returns like anything else- and at some point, it becomes a net negative.

What the honk honkler you're responding to wants is not "diversity" in any meaningful sense.

 

[C-south]

Someone who doesn't want to play the comically transparent gotcha game with a looney right-wing politician looking to score idiot points.

I'm adding one to the idiot point total.

It’s not a “gotcha game” it’s basic f****** biology. The political bs would lie in the answer she really wanted to say and those that agree already have more idiot points than they can stand.

 

[NEO]

I find it sexist that the office would ignore the legitimate wishes of their female patients by hiring a man. It seems like a big factor in determining qualifications is the number of patients that would choose to use the doctor.
Again, it seems to go back to how you view "most qualified".

Do you find it racist if that same doctors office would ignore it’s white patients who don’t want to be touched by a black man?

 

[C-south]

True diversity is good but has a point of diminishing returns like anything else- and at some point, it becomes a net negative.

What the honk honkler you're responding to wants is not "diversity" in any meaningful sense.

No. He’d rather those pushed along in the name of “diversity” have a false sense of being successful but put in positions where they can do no harm while those that are actually successful run cover for them.

 

[ButchPlz]

No. He’d rather those pushed along in the name of “diversity” have a false sense of being successful but put in positions where they can do no harm while those that are actually successful run cover for them.

Careful, that's a racist dog whistle since "success" is considered a "white" cultural trait for some reason.

 

[C-south]

Careful, that's a racist dog whistle since "success" is considered a "white" cultural trait for some reason.

It’s not just a race thing.

 

[luthervol]

You side stepped my question and readjusted it to fit your narrative . Tisk Tisk

lol....
A 5 star and a 2 star? Maybe if the 5 star is awaiting trial for murder and the 2 star is the grandson of your biggest booster.
Your question has absolutely no relevance to the point being made.
That's like saying your two choices for nomination for the SC are a veteran superior court judge with an impeccable record and a recent on-line graduate from law school who is currently unemployed.

 

[hndog609]

Shouldn't the goal always be to select the best, most qualified person for the job?

I have no problem in considering diversity in selecting members of any team. I do however have a problem with saying the candidate must be AA and a woman for example. It's condescending to the candidate first and foremost, but it also narrows the talent field artificially.

It's been covered but if in an "all else being empirically equal" scenario you tip it for some diversity then that can withstand scrutiny. If however the approach is "We're not even going to pretend this was ever actually about even looking for the best possible candidate since we're going to eliminate a gigantic swath of candidates based on sex and race." it discredits the merit of the hire. It can't not do so. I mean, if you must sit on a throne of lies so be it but FFS at least feign you set out looking for the best candidate as opposed to the up front "We're coming out of the gate telling you we're making our selection out of a greatly curtailed list of candidates picked from all the great choices found between the ashtrays and the thimbles."

 

[luthervol]

I’ve told you why, in these instances, it shouldn’t be considered. You have no basis for why they should other than “that’s how I feel “

I've told you why they should and you have not told me why they should not.

 

[KB5252]

Again, it comes down to who decides what makes one "the best and most qualified" person. And what the ultimate primary objective is.

I still think a football coach/team owner is a good analogy.
Lots to be considered, and on multiple levels, when making a pick or a hire, and there are often disagreements on what the top priorities and qualifications should be.
Best player but with low character, or great but not best player with high character?
Best player available in the draft, or do we pick to fill a specific need?
A player known to be a positive in the locker room, or a slightly better player who is known to be a cancer to team chemistry?
A player that can help us this year but is on the way down, or a person who needs a little time but has a huge upside?

To say just pick the most qualified - is much to simplistic.

If the objective of simply to hire a female minority that's fine, my argument is that in searches that involve government, law or all the above to narrow the search to this narrow scope is irresponsible, condescending and arguably illegal.

 

[0nelilreb]

lol....
A 5 star and a 2 star? Maybe if the 5 star is awaiting trial for murder and the 2 star is the grandson of your biggest booster.
Your question has absolutely no relevance to the point being made.
That's like saying your two choices for nomination for the SC are a veteran superior court judge with an impeccable record and a recent on-line graduate from law school who is currently unemployed.

Of course it has relevance, everything is relevant when deciding who to give the scholarship to as a coach isn’t isn’t it ? Again how many coaches have you ever seen pick the less qualified 2star over the 5 star regardless of their attitude ? Would you take the locker room buddy for your much needed stability and high character or the 5 star you didn’t need at a position that already has 4 deep line up ?

 

[luthervol]

Of course it has relevance, everything is relevant when deciding who to give the scholarship to as a coach isn’t isn’t it ? Again how many coaches have you ever seen pick the less qualified 2star over the 5 star regardless of their attitude ? Would you take the locker room buddy for your much needed stability and high character or the 5 star you didn’t need at a position that already has 4 deep line up ?

The supposed gap between a 5 star and a 2 star is so wide that the intangibles required to justify picking the 2 star are crazy.
Compare a 2 star with a 3 star. Or the player rated 24th in the nation at his position with the player rated 27th.

 

[luthervol]

Of course it has relevance, everything is relevant when deciding who to give the scholarship to as a coach isn’t isn’t it ? Again how many coaches have you ever seen pick the less qualified 2star over the 5 star regardless of their attitude ? Would you take the locker room buddy for your much needed stability and high character or the 5 star you didn’t need at a position that already has 4 deep line up ?

I can also tell you that all of the recruiters of players I've coached have always asked extensively about character type issues.

 

[HammondB3Vol]

I've told you why they should and you have not told me why they should not.

Got it. Because you think race matters and I don’t. We’ve clearly moved on from Dr King’s goals. I’m sorry I’m behind. I thought being the best at your job is what was most important and being respectful to ALL people was the standard. Not so with the left?