The Biden/Harris Administration Accomplishments Thread

[luthervol]

If the fifty best candidates for VP, cabinet post or SC judge are all black or women or whatever, I don’t care. Get the best! Narrowing the pool because of race is wrong, isn’t it?

I don't think that it always is.

If you have narrowed the pool to 50, you used some criteria to get there. Now to narrow it even further, you need additional criteria. If they are all highly qualified at that point, what criteria will you use. It's absurd to say that there are simple ways to clearly distinguish between the highly qualified. If you are choosing between ten highly qualified people, I would recommend choosing the one you believe best advances your organization toward its desired goals.

I think you guys are having a problem with the fact that Biden was up front and honest about his intentions. Every president enters office with a short list of possible nominees.

 

[luthervol]

It either applies to all or it doesn’t . Skin color either matters or like MLK said .. IT DOESNT. No grey area . This is just you twisting in the wind .

lol.....Either height matters or it doesn't. Like Napoleon said......IT DOESN"T
Except for when it does.

 

[hndog609]

It either applies to all or it doesn’t . Skin color either matters or like MLK said .. IT DOESNT. No grey area . This is just you twisting in the wind .

It's the Looth run in stupid circles until you get tired routine. The guy actually just conflated height with the still-in-the-womb human characteristics of sex and race. It's to the point he's not worth engaging on the subject any longer.

 

[luthervol]

It's the Looth run in stupid circles until you get tired routine. The guy actually just conflated height with the still-in-the-womb human characteristics of sex and race. It's to the point he's not worth engaging on the subject any longer.

What????????? Are all 3 not human characteristics?

I never cease to be fascinated by you guys' phobic reaction to anything you cannot easily process as either black or white.

 

[hndog609]

What????????? Are all 3 not human characteristics?

I never cease to be fascinated by you guys' phobic reaction to anything you cannot easily process as either black or white.

I'm going to make an exception from my non-engagement stance because of the sheer amount of stupid here.

1)The question isn't, was, or ever will be (in this context) what is or isn't genetic. (we could make it eye or hair color, whatever) WTF do you think there's literally a slew of laws unambiguously making a big (BIG) deal about discrimination based on race and sex? (I don't care what your answer is, just that you understand how height is a useless comparison here)

2)It's a bad look when you're trying to make a point and get the cited example wrong.

The Myth of Napoleon's Height: How a Single Image Can Change History

 

[0nelilreb]

lol.....Either height matters or it doesn't. Like Napoleon said......IT DOESN"T
Except for when it does.

Twisting in the wind .. This is either acceptable behavior from from everyone or it isn’t . No grey area . I do enjoy watching you try to spin it while others watch though .

 

[HammondB3Vol]

I don't think that it always is.

If you have narrowed the pool to 50, you used some criteria to get there. Now to narrow it even further, you need additional criteria. If they are all highly qualified at that point, what criteria will you use. It's absurd to say that there are simple ways to clearly distinguish between the highly qualified. If you are choosing between ten highly qualified people, I would recommend choosing the one you believe best advances your organization toward its desired goals.

I think you guys are having a problem with the fact that Biden was up front and honest about his intentions. Every president enters office with a short list of possible nominees.

In the VP search, if you weren’t a POC and a woman, you were not considered. Same for the SC nominee. Pete’s appointment was pandering to the alphabet crew. Sure every president enters office with a short list for appointments. Narrowing the list by race is the wrong way to go about it. But that’s all your party has. Joe positive accomplishments are nowhere to be found.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

It's a slow day at work, so I'll jump which I'm sure is a mistake.

I grew up a Republican who has turned away from the party primarily because I can't align with Trump and those that support him. What I can't understand is how he maintains so much support and why he holds appeal to people sticking with the Republican party. Could anyone calmly, logically explain why his version of politics is still attractive?

I completely understood the original appeal in 2016. Washington had left the vast majority of the country, particularly the south and rural parts, behind or ignored it for decades. Trump stood up and said that, but to me at least, it was very clear he wasn't the right person to lead that movement (he's the textbook definition of NYC/Washington elite). What confuses me is after seeing him in office for 4 years, why is his behavior and message still appealing?

 

[luthervol]

In the VP search, if you weren’t a POC and a woman, you were not considered. Same for the SC nominee. Pete’s appointment was pandering to the alphabet crew. Sure every president enters office with a short list for appointments. Narrowing the list by race is the wrong way to go about it. But that’s all your party has. Joe positive accomplishments are nowhere to be found.

In all but a couple of the VP searches in our 59 presidential elections, if you were not a male and a PONC (person of no color) you were not considered.
So call the score 125 to 3.

 

[Orangeburst]

It's a slow day at work, so I'll jump which I'm sure is a mistake.

I grew up a Republican who has turned away from the party primarily because I can't align with Trump and those that support him. What I can't understand is how he maintains so much support and why he holds appeal to people sticking with the Republican party. Could anyone calmly, logically explain why his version of politics is still attractive?

I completely understood the original appeal in 2016. Washington had left the vast majority of the country, particularly the south and rural parts, behind or ignored it for decades. Trump stood up and said that, but to me at least, it was very clear he wasn't the right person to lead that movement (he's the textbook definition of NYC/Washington elite). What confuses me is after seeing him in office for 4 years, why is his behavior and message still appealing?

No..just the opposite actually. I would love for DC to ignore the South.

 

[HammondB3Vol]

It's a slow day at work, so I'll jump which I'm sure is a mistake.

I grew up a Republican who has turned away from the party primarily because I can't align with Trump and those that support him. What I can't understand is how he maintains so much support and why he holds appeal to people sticking with the Republican party. Could anyone calmly, logically explain why his version of politics is still attractive?

I completely understood the original appeal in 2016. Washington had left the vast majority of the country, particularly the south and rural parts, behind or ignored it for decades. Trump stood up and said that, but to me at least, it was very clear he wasn't the right person to lead that movement (he's the textbook definition of NYC/Washington elite). What confuses me is after seeing him in office for 4 years, why is his behavior and message still appealing?

I think Trump brought a populist movement to the front, but you’re right. He wasn’t the best person to lead the movement. Drain the swamp, America first, border control, sovereignty and personal responsibility are concepts I’ll always embrace. But Trump really only made the divide wider IMO.

 

[luthervol]

I'm going to make an exception from my non-engagement stance because of the sheer amount of stupid here.

1)The question isn't, was, or ever will be (in this context) what is or isn't genetic. (we could make it eye or hair color, whatever) WTF do you think there's literally a slew of laws unambiguously making a big (BIG) deal about discrimination based on race and sex? (I don't care what your answer is, just that you understand how height is a useless comparison here)

2)It's a bad look when you're trying to make a point and get the cited example wrong.

The Myth of Napoleon's Height: How a Single Image Can Change History

That was a very poor use of an exception.
Your stupidity comes from your complete ignoring of the reasons why there are literally a slew of laws unambiguously making a big (BIG) deal about discrimination based on race and sex. (I don't care how blind you try to remain, but the obvious answer is because for hundreds of years people discriminated based on race and sex - or in other words, race and sex did indeed matter.)

And nice try..............
5'5" is pretty short - even by their standards of the time - below average.
According to pre–metric system French measures, he was a diminutive 5′2.” But the French inch (pouce) of the time was 2.7 cm, while the Imperial inch was shorter, at 2.54 cm. Three French sources—his valet Constant, General Gourgaud, and his personal physician Francesco Antommarchi—said that Napoleon's height was just over ‘5 pieds 2 pouces’ (5’2”). Applying the French measurements of the time, that equals around 1.69 meters, or just over 5’5”. So at 5’5” he was just an inch or so below the period’s average adult male height.

Here's to hoping your non-engagement stance is more successful in the future.

 

[luthervol]

It's a slow day at work, so I'll jump which I'm sure is a mistake.

I grew up a Republican who has turned away from the party primarily because I can't align with Trump and those that support him. What I can't understand is how he maintains so much support and why he holds appeal to people sticking with the Republican party. Could anyone calmly, logically explain why his version of politics is still attractive?

I completely understood the original appeal in 2016. Washington had left the vast majority of the country, particularly the south and rural parts, behind or ignored it for decades. Trump stood up and said that, but to me at least, it was very clear he wasn't the right person to lead that movement (he's the textbook definition of NYC/Washington elite). What confuses me is after seeing him in office for 4 years, why is his behavior and message still appealing?

I gave your post a well deserved like - which is the kiss of death for about half the posters in the PF
Sorry

 

[85SugarVol]

How many of those are competent, or close to competent?

Does it matter?

 

[85SugarVol]

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

Many could be defined as a 1000. Do you mean majority?

 

[McDad]

It's a slow day at work, so I'll jump which I'm sure is a mistake.

I grew up a Republican who has turned away from the party primarily because I can't align with Trump and those that support him. What I can't understand is how he maintains so much support and why he holds appeal to people sticking with the Republican party. Could anyone calmly, logically explain why his version of politics is still attractive?

I completely understood the original appeal in 2016. Washington had left the vast majority of the country, particularly the south and rural parts, behind or ignored it for decades. Trump stood up and said that, but to me at least, it was very clear he wasn't the right person to lead that movement (he's the textbook definition of NYC/Washington elite). What confuses me is after seeing him in office for 4 years, why is his behavior and message still appealing?

Good questions. Thought provoking, too.

Best I can offer is some Rs saw in Trump a fighter, an instigator, a bully who could fight for America and them. He mocked and trolled elitists in DC, entertainment, and media. He became (I think) a cult of personality for some.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

I gave your post a well deserved like - which is the kiss of death for about half the posters in the PF
Sorry

I just want what's best for me and those around me. Unfortunately, I feel like our political leaders on both sides care less about that and more about "beating" the other side. We all need to stop electing people who only want to fight each other.

 

[luthervol]

Many could be defined as a 1000. Do you mean majority?

I was reluctant to say majority. What I really wanted to say for the second "many" was critical mass. Can't put an exact number or percentage on it.
It's sort of like you don't actually know which piece of straw is going to break the camel's back until after the camel's back is broken.

 

[luthervol]

I just want what's best for me and those around me. Unfortunately, I feel like our political leaders on both sides care less about that and more about "beating" the other side. We all need to stop electing people who only want to fight each other.

I 100% agree.

 

[85SugarVol]

I completely understood the original appeal in 2016. Washington had left the vast majority of the country, particularly the south and rural parts, behind or ignored it for decades. Trump stood up and said that, but to me at least, it was very clear he wasn't the right person to lead that movement (he's the textbook definition of NYC/Washington elite).

Trump was completely unrepresentative. And they loved him.

 

[85SugarVol]

I was reluctant to say majority. What I really wanted to say for the second "many" was critical mass. Can't put an exact number or percentage on it.
It's sort of like you don't actually know which piece of straw is going to break the camel's back until after the camel's back is broken.

Critical mass could be even greater than majority no?

 

[hndog609]

That was a very poor use of an exception.
Your stupidity comes from your complete ignoring of the reasons why there are literally a slew of laws unambiguously making a big (BIG) deal about discrimination based on race and sex. (I don't care how blind you try to remain, but the obvious answer is because for hundreds of years people discriminated based on race and sex - or in other words, race and sex did indeed matter.)

And nice try..............
5'5" is pretty short - even by their standards of the time - below average.
According to pre–metric system French measures, he was a diminutive 5′2.” But the French inch (pouce) of the time was 2.7 cm, while the Imperial inch was shorter, at 2.54 cm. Three French sources—his valet Constant, General Gourgaud, and his personal physician Francesco Antommarchi—said that Napoleon's height was just over ‘5 pieds 2 pouces’ (5’2”). Applying the French measurements of the time, that equals around 1.69 meters, or just over 5’5”. So at 5’5” he was just an inch or so below the period’s average adult male height.

Here's to hoping your non-engagement stance is more successful in the future.

And this is why I'm convinced general conversation with you on the topic is a waste of time. You literally just cited how doing it wrong (making it about race and sex previously) is somehow an OK to do it now despite how it should be a "we're better than that now" moment and take it off the table.

This reply isn't even about you but for McDad having me get to play "Check your source".

From the source I cited.

At his death, his height was initially measured using French inches instead of English inches, which are slightly shorter. According to the BBC, the average height of British males at the beginning of the 19th century was around 170 centimeters or 5ft 5in. That means that Napoleon, at 5ft 7in, was around average height – or even a little bit tall – for a man of that time.

Fhttps://www.thoughtco.com/was-napoleon-bonaparte-short-1221108

It turns out that Napoleon wasn't particularly short at all. Napoleon is sometimes described as being 5 foot 2 inches tall, which would definitely make him short for his era. However, there is a strong argument that this figure is wrong and that Napoleon was actually about 5 foot 6 inches tall, no shorter than the average Frenchman

The Myth of Napoleon’s Height

Worse still, the French pouce — the system of measurement in France — listed Napoleon at 2.71 centimeters, which translated to 5 feet 2 inches in the British imperial system. This inaccuracy persisted for generations, until historians finally determined that Napoleon was 5 feet 6 inches, which was just over average height for the time.

The real beauty isn't the discussion of some specific measurement somewhere between 5'5" and 5'7". Even if one were to argue he was as much as an inch below avg (debatable as cited) he in no way was as diminutive as commonly perceived. The fact you would blatantly (and assuredly intentionally) try to set aside that aspect of the story, being it was a falsehood you perpetuated, is adorably disingenuous.

I remember when D4H predicted GA to win a game and when they didn't went on a furious run of circular reasons why he was somehow right despite being wrong. You compare favorably.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

This reply isn't even about you but for McDad having me get to play "Check your source".

From the source I cited.

At his death, his height was initially measured using French inches instead of English inches, which are slightly shorter. According to the BBC, the average height of British males at the beginning of the 19th century was around 170 centimeters or 5ft 5in. That means that Napoleon, at 5ft 7in, was around average height – or even a little bit tall – for a man of that time.

Fhttps://www.thoughtco.com/was-napoleon-bonaparte-short-1221108

It turns out that Napoleon wasn't particularly short at all. Napoleon is sometimes described as being 5 foot 2 inches tall, which would definitely make him short for his era. However, there is a strong argument that this figure is wrong and that Napoleon was actually about 5 foot 6 inches tall, no shorter than the average Frenchman

The Myth of Napoleon’s Height

Worse still, the French pouce — the system of measurement in France — listed Napoleon at 2.71 centimeters, which translated to 5 feet 2 inches in the British imperial system. This inaccuracy persisted for generations, until historians finally determined that Napoleon was 5 feet 6 inches, which was just over average height for the time.

The real beauty isn't the discussion of some specific measurement somewhere between 5'5" and 5'7". Even if one were to argue he was as much as an inch below avg (debatable as cited) he in no way was as diminutive as commonly perceived. The fact you would blatantly (and assuredly intentionally) try to set aside that aspect of the story, being it was a falsehood you perpetuated, is adorably disingenuous.

I remember when D4H predicted GA to win a game and when they didn't went on a furious run of circular reasons why he was somehow right despite being wrong. You compare favorably.

LOL!

 

[MercyPercy]

1. Got out of afghanistan
2. Hasn't started wwIII yet
3. Hasn't died

 

[AM64]

Which is exactly why we need diversity.

If a business uses a strategy to attract a different segment of the population, that's a business decision unless the business is somehow a monopoly and it disenfranchises other customers. The government is an entity that deals with everyone ... and typically struggles to find the best applicants in any case. There's no rational reason for government to pare down choices because it already has a captive base. Of course we do know the game - buying votes.

Here's an example of government buying votes by playing with sympathies. Murder is a crime - has been for a very long time. Lynching is murder, but lynching is also generally considered to be racial in origin even if it isn't. Congress wrote legislation making lynching a crime even though it's already an existing crime - waste of time, effort, and money to buy votes. That's the kind of thing you get when you select people for positions based on bias.