The Biden/Harris Administration Accomplishments Thread

[AirVol]

What will dementia Joe accomplish first, a 15% inflation rating or 15% approval rating. It’s gonna be close.

 

[C-south]

Even you see the stupidity of that statement.

It's amazingly difficult to get some of you guys to see what is obvious to others.

 

[luthervol]

I thought this was an accomplishments thread.

Highest appointment of federal judges since Reagan
Biden has appointed 41 federal judges in his opening year at the White House. This is more than double those appointed by his predecessor Donald Trump and is the most a president has appointed in their freshman year since Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The president has also been mindful of issues of representation in his appointments over the last year, as 80 percent of the new federal judges are women and 53 percent are people of color.

 

[luthervol]

Your scenario is stupid. When you get the best trainer, the schedule will be full. No one will give a F if they are male or female.

That is beyond clueless.

 

[allvol123]

That is beyond clueless.

Your contention is you have the best trainer but can’t fill the schedule at the facility because they are the wrong sex?

 

[McDad]

Your contention is you have the best trainer but can’t fill the schedule at the facility because they are the wrong sex?

Perhaps his contention is the athletes and their parents are so bigoted and racist they will only train with people who look like them.

 

[hndog609]

What if being a woman is a top requirement for being the best for the job?

This doesn't contextually work with the arguments presented here. If you were a WNBA coach you don't actually have access to the best BB players. Literally any NBA player would go to the WNBA and be the best player at their position in the league. Your scenario is entirely predicated on the "merit" in question stemming from an original prerequisite. If someone needed a sperm donor there's no point in having female applicants, right?

The discussion we've been having has jack all to do with the criteria you're trying to insert here. If the position is unambiguously supposed to be available to anyone on a meritocracy basis then any qualifier other than merit diminishes the talent pool. If the original requirement is already subject to a qualification then it is a given that the starting point is less inclusive and you are left with what is available from the smaller pool. (whatever that may be)

 

[Rickyvol77]

By everyone's standards.

But your standards aren’t “everyone’s”. Not even close

 

[luthervol]

Your contention is you have the best trainer but can’t fill the schedule at the facility because they are the wrong sex?

My contention is this; market research (or parents saying it directly) has shown that many parents will only allow their young daughter to be trained by a female - then is having being a female a qualification for at least one of your trainers appropiate.

I'll simplify more for those still in need.
You run a medical facility - it is know that x% of females will only see a female gyno. - should you hire a female gyno.?

 

[luthervol]

This doesn't contextually work with the arguments presented here. If you were a WNBA coach you don't actually have access to the best BB players. Literally any NBA player would go to the WNBA and be the best player at their position in the league. Your scenario is entirely predicated on the "merit" in question stemming from an original prerequisite. If someone needed a sperm donor there's no point in having female applicants, right?

The discussion we've been having has jack all to do with the criteria you're trying to insert here. If the position is unambiguously supposed to be available to anyone on a meritocracy basis then any qualifier other than merit diminishes the talent pool. If the original requirement is already subject to a qualification then it is a given that the starting point is less inclusive and you are left with what is available from the smaller pool. (whatever that may be)

.
Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

There are ALWAYS multiple criteria to be considered.

 

[allvol123]

Perhaps his contention is the athletes and their parents are so bigoted and racist they will only train with people who look like them.

Seems like his kind of people.

But seriously, that only matters if that constitutes so much of the customer base that there aren’t enough customers of the opposite persuasion. The ones who, just simply, want the best value.

His views boggle my mind and just simply aren’t rooted in business I have participated in or viewed on a personal level.

 

[McDad]

Seems like his kind of people.

But seriously, that only matters if that constitutes so much of the customer base that there aren’t enough customers of the opposite persuasion. The ones who, just simply, want the best value.

His views boggle my mind and just simply aren’t rooted in business I have participated in or viewed on a personal level.

There's a reason he isn't in the business world.

 

[allvol123]

My contention is this; market research (or parents saying it directly) has shown that many parents will only allow their young daughter to be trained by a female - then is having being a female a qualification for at least one of your trainers appropiate.

I'll simplify more for those still in need.
You run a medical facility - it is know that x% of females will only see a female gyno. - should you hire a female gyno.?

Sorry about your bad market research.

I have attended a training facility staffed by males that is booked solid with young girls getting training.

You’re essentially fos and can’t back up a single claim you make.

Open a business. Staff it with the best person you can find. Watch the dollars flow.

 

[hndog609]

.
Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

There are ALWAYS multiple criteria to be considered.

D4H worthy deflection.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

What if the best has to be a woman? Is it okay to make being a woman a qualification?

The loony left can't give the definition of what a person being a woman is these days.
So you don't know what you're talking about in a woman being of qualifications.

 

[Gandalf]

The bigger embarrassment was still being there. Getting out of Afg after 2 decades of nonsense is a positive whether you admit it or not.

Seems you're not really interested in what you claim. Shocking

Oh, I am not advocating that we should have stayed in a hot war there but not to see that how we left, gave the Taliban almost everything that thousands of our soldiers died for and how we left told every single potential US ally that we are completely utterly untrustworthy. And while we were at it, we just gave China almost $1T worth of rare minerals in Afghanistan that the Taliban are now making deals with. Getting out of there did not mean to give up every base and area and arm the enemy with all they would ever need to abuse the populace.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Post the accomplishments of the Biden/ Harris Administration here in this thread please.

Democrats and Moderates. Here is your chance to brag about what you elected into office.

This thread is long overdue.

 

[utvolpj]

Oh, I am not advocating that we should have stayed in a hot war there but not to see that how we left, gave the Taliban almost everything that thousands of our soldiers died for and how we left told every single potential US ally that we are completely utterly untrustworthy. And while we were at it, we just gave China almost $1T worth of rare minerals in Afghanistan that the Taliban are now making deals with. Getting out of there did not mean to give up every base and area and arm the enemy with all they would ever need to abuse the populace.

We don't need to be there. We didn't need to be there for the past 19 years. What happened in the last month was a mess but in no way overshadowed the critical need to leave that country behind. That absolutely means every base that should have never been built and every piece on equipment that should have never been shipped over there.

Give credit where it's due and move on

 

[GroverCleveland]

What if being a woman is a top requirement for being the best for the job?

If, for example, the task is giving birth, you're absolutely right. No one BUT a woman is qualified for that. No matter how much wishful thinking there is by Microsoft icons, no man has ever been qualified to carry a child to birth. Vice versa for males using, for instance, your NFL example. I feel safe in saying the best qualifiers for ILB on a professional football team will always be male, although forever is a long time.

There are some jobs where women tend to be better suited, but it is not a requirement to be the best at the job one has to be female. There are also instances where women on average are better than men, but the very top of the profession is dominated by men, although a good example escapes me (chef?).

 

[GreyWolf1129]

Getting out of Afg is about the only real thing done

And even that was a major disaster…

 

[luthervol]

D4H worthy deflection.

That's because your post contained nothing worthy of response.
The WNBA tangent was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Who said diversity for its own sake. It's diversity for multiple reasons.....maybe there is one of your many misunderstandings.
Having a diversified judicial system increases the confidence in the roll carried out by the judicial system.
They would have a different perspective on the implementation, impact, and enforcement of laws.

This makes zero sense. On one hand you're saying a diversified judicial system increases the confidence in the system while on the other saying diverse judges would have different implementation, impact and enforcement of laws. I do not want a man/woman/white/black/asian/liberal/conservative/etc to have different views of how the law should be applied if I'm being judged. I want to be judged by what the law is. We've had too much of "perspectives" on the law in the past. Encouraging the renewal of such a course is, in my opinion, insanity and detrimental to society.

 

[luthervol]

Sorry about your bad market research.

I have attended a training facility staffed by males that is booked solid with young girls getting training.

You’re essentially fos and can’t back up a single claim you make.

Open a business. Staff it with the best person you can find. Watch the dollars flow.

Do you think there are women who will only see a female gyno?
Is that percentage 5%, 10%, 50%?
Is that percentage growing or shrinking?

Would a medical facility be justified in specifically and intentionally hiring a female doctor?

 

[GroverCleveland]

That's because your post contained nothing worthy of response.
The WNBA tangent was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Says the guy who brought up an NFL example. Logic and consistency is not a forte of Luth's.

 

[luthervol]

If, for example, the task is giving birth, you're absolutely right. No one BUT a woman is qualified for that. No matter how much wishful thinking there is by Microsoft icons, no man has ever been qualified to carry a child to birth. Vice versa for males using, for instance, your NFL example. I feel safe in saying the best qualifiers for ILB on a professional football team will always be male, although forever is a long time.

There are some jobs where women tend to be better suited, but it is not a requirement to be the best at the job one has to be female. There are also instances where women on average are better than men, but the very top of the profession is dominated by men, although a good example escapes me (chef?).

That's simply stupid. I'll break it down again.....
You are in charge of staffing a medical facility. Your staff is to include 5 gynecologists.
Should you knowingly and intentionally hire at least one female?
If you say no, you are insane.
If you say yes, you reluctantly get the point.