The Biden/Harris Administration Accomplishments Thread

[AM64]

I'm talking about qualifications. Diversity should be the goal and goals should be reflected in your ranking of desired qualifications.

Absolutely not. Job qualifications should never take backseat to diversity hiring in government. If a business decides diversity hiring is advantageous to the business, that's fine unless the business is an allowed monopoly.

 

[GroverCleveland]

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 hear you, brother. FWIW, I think there were many things that appealed to people and what got him elected in the first place and continued support in 2020.

1) He was not part of the swamp as you allude to. After the arrogance of the Obama administration and of Hillary Clinton, many people felt the elite ruling class (including a segment of the Republican party, people like Mitt Romney) thought they had it figured out and the country was their oyster. They could do what they pleased and while they were not able to complete a leftist shift towards moving the country down the socialist road, they were well on their way; Hillary's election would seal the deal.

2) The news media is dominated by elitists who look down their noses at the middle class and, particularly, flyover county. I'd personally like to tar and feather Jim Acosta. Trump stuck his finger the eye of both these groups and people loved it.

3) He was goal oriented and is results driven, damn the niceties. Unfortunately, this was his biggest problem, he never seemed to really understand how to play Washington politics to really keep his policy goals on track. Just because he and the Senate Majority Leader of his own party may disagree on something is not a good excuse to attack said Senate Majority Leader.

4) Most people I know hated his Twitter account. Only a few I know felt it was the only way he could talk directly to the people. Personally, he made me despise the words Twitter and tweet. But it was sometimes fun to see him stick it to the elites.

5) The massive support in 2020 was push back against what, with very few exceptions, everyone thought was a senile moran being led around by a bunch of woke idiots and some puppet masters we really do not see (his cabinet is absolutely full of clowns and I don't believe they're collectively capable of running a lemonade stand with any competency, let alone the Federal government).

6) His actual policies appealed to people who supported him (I did for the general) like illegal immigration, recognizing China's economic hegemony, ending the endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel, recognizing and calling out the European NATO countries riding us for their defensive umbrella, the understanding what a freaking high cost government regulations are and lowering income taxes, especially corporate income taxes and his calling out the fact that Washington now thinks it owns the country, doesn't serve it. There are probably more, these are just ones off the top of my head.

I hope he decides not to run again as I agree with you, he is seriously flawed individual for that position. If he does, I'll support someone else in the primary. If he is the nominee, I will support him in the general because the Democrats are being led by full-blown idiot leftist progressives.

 

[luthervol]

Critical mass could be even greater than majority no?

Sure. I guess it could be as high as 90%. In my mind, and the way I use the term, critical mass is the amount necessary to force movement or change.

 

[VolStrom]

Absolutely not. Job qualifications should never take backseat to diversity hiring in government. If a business decides diversity hiring is advantageous to the business, that's fine unless the business is an allowed monopoly.

I'll just leave this here.

 

[luthervol]

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.

Good grief you can come across as a petty and sad individual.
Quote from your post above: "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."
Below is my post........Read my post and then reread your quote above.

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

Napoleon's height had absolutely nothing to do with anything that was being debated. I could have said Spud Webb or Manute Bol or Nick Saban - who I said was completely irrelevant to the point being made.

You viewed that as an opportunity to go off on some irrelevant tangent and try to claim it as some type of gotcha moment.
How sad is that? I've willingly set myself up as a target for you guys, it's kind of fun and I take the efforts as a compliment, but do a little better in picking your battles; at least make it something relevant and try to keep it factual.


And for the top part of you post......again lol.....do better.
Doing it wrong is discriminating against a less advantaged group especially when done from a position of supposed superiority.
That is not even remotely similar to what Biden did.

 

[85SugarVol]

Sure. I guess it could be as high as 90%. In my mind, and the way I use the term, critical mass is the amount necessary to force movement or change.

Agreed. Critical mass here would be greater than 51% imo.

 

[luthervol]

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.

It wasn't really about lynching. The law was introduced in 1922 and failed to pass because of a filibuster by a block of southern democratic senators. The passage 100 years later was mostly a symbolic gesture.

 

[luthervol]

Absolutely not. Job qualifications should never take backseat to diversity hiring in government. If a business decides diversity hiring is advantageous to the business, that's fine unless the business is an allowed monopoly.

It seems we disagree.

 

[AM64]

I'll just leave this here.

Obviously Susan Sontag's intellectual "genius" highly exceeded her intellectual depth. She's somebody I never noticed - except the name; I can say I'm poorer now for being exposed to her BS.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

lol.....That's not a definition, that's an example, and you can't actually believe that comment would have been game over.

Meh…those questions would have never been asked of me because I’m in the camp that we are biologically defined as man or women. Not withstanding anomalies and genetic mutations, we are defined and there is a beauty to that design. Whatever it is in someone’s head that tells them as they look down at their junk with the happy trail that they are indeed a woman is called a mental health issue. Just like women who believe they are men and try to overhand power shake to prove it and bind their chests. Yes, that’s a thing.
It’s biology. The brain is forever a factor in how someone acts. Unfortunately, the brain is so complex that the “ I know who I am” center is often barraged by images, thoughts and actions of others and will form opinions that are not in fact biologically correct. People will argue it ad nauseum while throwing in gender, feelings, coulda woulda shoulda but in the end it’s simple biology.

Do I think a candidate for the Supreme Court should in fact be able to define what a woman is, yes. It deals directly with her ability to apply the law to cases that will bring up that exact issue and require her to either define her position, go with the majority opinion or she can skate on a dissent without opinion if she wishes. She’s going to the highest court in the land, she should be able to define what a woman is.
Quick question, Last count, how many women and how many men on the Supreme Court?

 

[Vol423]

I'm talking about qualifications. Diversity should be the goal and goals should be reflected in your ranking of desired qualifications.

At least your avatar is appropriate. That's about the only positive thing going for you.

 

[luthervol]

Agreed. Critical mass here would be greater than 51% imo.

Probably. I think more than 51% would agree with the rationale behind Biden's judicial picks.

 

[Vol423]

They can certainly be used as criteria to narrow the pool of qualified candidates.

It's funny to see you make a post referencing "idiot points" several posts before you roll out this gem.

 

[luthervol]

Meh…those questions would have never been asked of me because I’m in the camp that we are biologically defined as man or women. Not withstanding anomalies and genetic mutations, we are defined and there is a beauty to that design. Whatever it is in someone’s head that tells them as they look down at their junk with the happy trail that they are indeed a woman is called a mental health issue. Just like women who believe they are men and try to overhand power shake to prove it and bind their chests. Yes, that’s a thing.
It’s biology. The brain is forever a factor in how someone acts. Unfortunately, the brain is so complex that the “ I know who I am” center is often barraged by images, thoughts and actions of others and will form opinions that are not in fact biologically correct. People will argue it ad nauseum while throwing in gender, feelings, coulda woulda shoulda but in the end it’s simple biology.

Do I think a candidate for the Supreme Court should in fact be able to define what a woman is, yes. It deals directly with her ability to apply the law to cases that will bring up that exact issue and require her to either define her position, go with the majority opinion or she can skate on a dissent without opinion if she wishes. She’s going to the highest court in the land, she should be able to define what a woman is.
Quick question, Last count, how many women and how many men on the Supreme Court?

Are you counting Thomas as a man or are you counting his wife as a woman? Just kidding....kind of

 

[AM64]

It wasn't really about lynching. The law was introduced in 1922 and failed to pass because of a filibuster by a block of southern democratic senators. The passage 100 years later was mostly a symbolic gesture.

Murder was on the books back in 1922 also. Certainly killing somebody by hanging (unless a legal execution) would be murder than and now. Making a separate law is a stupid symbolic gesture - grandstanding for diversity votes. Obviously if a legislature believes there is time to enact this kind of nonsense then they don't need to be in session. Same deal with hate crime statutes ... grandstanding and attempting to drive wedges between people.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

If you think the "woman" question is going to move votes, you're wrong. Anyone nutty enough to even consider that important is already firmly in the camp in which they belong.

Need to tie those tap dancing shoes on tighter.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

lol.....
Being the best at helping your organization reach their goal is what matters.
MLK would be in full agreement.

Now make your statement color/sex blind. Spoiler: You can't because of who/what you are.

 

[luthervol]

Need to tie those tap dancing shoes on tighter.

???????????
What tap dancing? I don't get it?

 

[luthervol]

Now make your statement color/sex blind. Spoiler: You can't because of who/what you are.

???????? What?????
That makes no sense.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

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?

Are you currently conscious? Heavily medicated? Nothing else can explain your clear inability to see what these clowns are doing to this country right now.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

???????? What?????
That makes no sense.

Of course it doesn't.

 

[85SugarVol]

Probably. I think more than 51% would agree with the rationale behind Biden's judicial picks.

Well I think that returns us to where we ended yesterday - short term benefits vs long term investment.

 

[luthervol]

Murder was on the books back in 1922 also. Certainly killing somebody by hanging (unless a legal execution) would be murder than and now. Making a separate law is a stupid symbolic gesture - grandstanding for diversity votes. Obviously if a legislature believes there is time to enact this kind of nonsense then they don't need to be in session. Same deal with hate crime statutes ... grandstanding and attempting to drive wedges between people.

It was introduced in 1922 by a republican because southern states were not prosecuting lynchings. The idea was that if it was made a federal crime, the murderers could/would actually be charged and prosecuted.

Seems like a law I would hope my government would enact.

 

[hndog609]

Murder was on the books back in 1922 also. Certainly killing somebody by hanging (unless a legal execution) would be murder than and now. Making a separate law is a stupid symbolic gesture - grandstanding for diversity votes. Obviously if a legislature believes there is time to enact this kind of nonsense then they don't need to be in session. Same deal with hate crime statutes ... grandstanding and attempting to drive wedges between people.

Virtue signalling (and for the record I don't care who is doing it) has been a great friction reducer in facilitating a backwards slide in this country, government and society in general.

 

[luthervol]

Well I think that returns us to where we ended yesterday - short term benefits vs long term investment.

Yea. It's a difficult balancing act, especially when the two are so intertwined.