The Biden/Harris Administration Accomplishments Thread

[norrislakevol]

Things are looking grim for them in the next election so controlling the "truth" could be seen as an advantage.

Of course, there's also the risk of a move like this (we don't yet know exactly what this will look like in practice) blowing up on them and driving even more people away. Hell, if they really do screw this up even moderate liberals that value the 1A are going to say "I'm not going to vote R but I can't support this current administration any longer either.".

The dems are going to be purged out of congress this November, and it can't happen to a more deserving bunch of losers. They (even the so called moderates) are driven by the far left woke crowd. They know their goose is cooked, so at this point they just don't care. The new Ministry of Truth won't survive the courts. It will be funny to see them lose again.

 

[luthervol]

That’s because you run in circles filled with other liberal dolts like yourself

I wish.
I'm actually surrounded by a pretty good representation of the complete spectrum.

 

[luthervol]

… sometimes, there’s just no accounting for taste.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[luthervol]

Is it really? Is it really necessary to make things so nuanced people think you are nuts?
It’s really not, seek the most qualified or settle for mediocrity and nuance.

It really is.
How would you define the most qualified hospital administrator? How would you rank and weight the top five qualities in order of importance? Do you think all employees in the hospital would agree? Do you think every hospital would be using the same criteria? Do you think every hospital should use the same criteria?
Do you think you would agree with the people who are actually charged with making the decision?

 

[hndog609]

Is it really? Is it really necessary to make things so nuanced people think you are nuts?
It’s really not, seek the most qualified or settle for mediocrity and nuance.

It really isn't complicated at all. If you go in saying "This will be a black woman hire." you are excluding roughly 94% of the population.

This in no way means you can't make a good hire but it puts a lie to "best available" even being a search criteria.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Somehow your level of ridiculousness still surprises me.

You have to admit, this thread contains some of his finest efforts at it.

 

[luthervol]

It really isn't complicated at all. If you go in saying "This will be a black woman hire." you are excluding roughly 94% of the population.

This in no way means you can't make a good hire but it puts a lie to "best available" even being a search criteria.

No it doesn't. It is stating that based on the criteria being used, the best available will by definition be a black woman.
Not everyone uses the same criteria when picking "best available".

If your criteria is that it must be someone with a law degree, you just excluded 99.5% of the people from consideration.
If your criteria is that they must have at least 20 years of experience, you just excluded 50% of those with law degrees.
If your criteria is they must have previously served as a judge........etc

 

[GVF]

No it doesn't. It is stating that based on the criteria being used, the best available will by definition be a black woman.
Not everyone uses the same criteria when picking "best available".

If your criteria is that it must be someone with a law degree, you just excluded 99.5% of the people from consideration.
If your criteria is that they must have at least 20 years of experience, you just excluded 50% of those with law degrees.
If your criteria is they must have previously served as a judge........etc

Except you left out all those criteria are legal and necessary in defining the scope and experience required for a job. Stating the race or demographic of candidates that will only be consdiered is clearly illegal and openly violates EEO laws.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Except you left out all those criteria are legal and necessary in defining the scope and experience required for a job. Stating the race or demographic of candidates that will only be consdiered is clearly illegal and openly violates EEO laws.

You can always tell when a “feelz” liberal lacks the understanding to operate in a real world scenario because he/she never has had to

 

[luthervol]

Except you left out all those criteria are legal and necessary in defining the scope and experience required for a job. Stating the race or demographic of candidates that will only be consdiered is clearly illegal and openly violates EEO laws.

It's called a court and has 9 justices for a reason.
If you had a single supreme justice who ruled as an individual, a diverse court would obviously be a non issue.
There was nothing at all illegal about Biden promising to appoint a black female to the court.
If so, someone should take it to the supreme court, now that would be an interesting case.

 

[GVF]

It's called a court and has 9 justices for a reason.
If you had a single supreme justice who ruled as an individual, a diverse court would obviously be a non issue.
There was nothing at all illegal about Biden promising to appoint a black female to the court.
If so, someone should take it to the supreme court, now that would be an interesting case.

Then there should be nothing illegal about me promising to hire only white southern born males, and hot chicks.

 

[luthervol]

Then there should be nothing illegal about me promising to hire only white southern born males, and hot chicks.

Sure that should be illegal.
He didn't say only black females should be on the supreme court, he said at least one should be.....big difference.

 

[luthervol]

You can always tell when a “feelz” liberal lacks the understanding to operate in a real world scenario because he/she never has had to

You obviously can't tell.

 

[Wireless1]

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.

BS, there have been dozens of women run and be nominated from Victoria Woodhull in 1872, through Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. While most were in minor parties, they were on ballots with opportunities to be elected.
Even in your world of History According to Democrats showing how great Democrats are this is not even close to accurate.

 

[luthervol]

BS, there have been dozens of women run and be nominated from Victoria Woodhull in 1872, through Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. While most were in minor parties, they were on ballots with opportunities to be elected.
Even in your world of History According to Democrats showing how great Democrats are this is not even close to accurate.

Give me the score for the two major parties.
59 presidential elections.......128 vp picks.

I said call it 125 to 3.
Let me know how far off I actually am......PLEASE!!!!

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Because most common sense Americans are sick and tired of all the looney liberal wacko BS going on in the country.

Way to completely miss the point. Thanks.

 

[luthervol]

BS, there have been dozens of women run and be nominated from Victoria Woodhull in 1872, through Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. While most were in minor parties, they were on ballots with opportunities to be elected.
Even in your world of History According to Democrats showing how great Democrats are this is not even close to accurate.

Okay.........I'll help.

List of unsuccessful major party candidates for Vice President of the United States - Wikipedia

It's 3. (out of 128)

 

[Wireless1]

Give me the score for the two major parties.
59 presidential elections.......128 vp picks.

I said call it 125 to 3.
Let me know how far off I actually am......PLEASE!!!!

You seem to miss the point, yes, we can cull and frame the data to make our point (we all do that - and my argument is reframing your point) but over the last 150 years the American people have had the opportunity at the polls to elect women and in the booth chose not to. Now if Bernie Sanders wants to play the card that a bunch of white men in a smoke-filled room make deals to cull the ballot options (I'm assuming Hillary is identifying as a male to be in that room) I might agree, but the American people for 150 years "could" have voted for a woman if they felt she was most qualified.

 

[allvol123]

No it doesn't. It is stating that based on the criteria being used, the best available will by definition be a black woman.
Not everyone uses the same criteria when picking "best available".

If your criteria is that it must be someone with a law degree, you just excluded 99.5% of the people from consideration.
If your criteria is that they must have at least 20 years of experience, you just excluded 50% of those with law degrees.
If your criteria is they must have previously served as a judge........etc

Your list of examples is based on accomplishments. Getting the picture?

 

[luthervol]

You seem to miss the point, yes, we can cull and frame the data to make our point (we all do that - and my argument is reframing your point) but over the last 150 years the American people have had the opportunity at the polls to elect women and in the booth chose not to. Now if Bernie Sanders wants to play the card that a bunch of white men in a smoke-filled room make deals to cull the ballot options (I'm assuming Hillary is identifying as a male to be in that room) I might agree, but the American people for 150 years "could" have voted for a woman if they felt she was most qualified.

My claim was that neither of the two major party nominees considered picking a female (or POC) as their VP.
Male 125 vs Female 3
White 127 vs POC 1

Frame that anyway you wish but it's obvious that a presidential candidate's criteria of picking a VP is primarily "who will give me the greatest chance of winning". Using that criteria - females and POC were eliminated from the pool because they were female or a person of color.

125 to 3.

 

[luthervol]

Your list of examples is based on accomplishments. Getting the picture?

So experience is an accomplishment?

 

[allvol123]

I’d love the see the job posting where it says “only white heterosexual females need apply”.

Wouldn’t happen. But that is what our POTUS did.

 

[allvol123]

So experience is an accomplishment?

Yes. Maintaining employment. Generating a customer base and/or value for your firm.

Sorry, I know where you work it is just get your foot in the door and you’re there forever, regardless of performance.

 

[hog88]

It's called a court and has 9 justices for a reason.
If you had a single supreme justice who ruled as an individual, a diverse court would obviously be a non issue.
There was nothing at all illegal about Biden promising to appoint a black female to the court.
If so, someone should take it to the supreme court, now that would be an interesting case.

Race, religion or gender shouldn't matter when it comes to justice.

 

[Majors]

Except you left out all those criteria are legal and necessary in defining the scope and experience required for a job. Stating the race or demographic of candidates that will only be consdiered is clearly illegal and openly violates EEO laws.

But this is also the same party that blames old white males for the problems in America but also voted for the oldest white male to lead. But to your point, yes you can't openly discriminate the hiring process for the simple reason of minorities being left out in the process. Process does not change even in debates.