Trump attending black journalists meeting in Chicago

[tjreese]

Well the counter to that is that there are a lot of white people who aren’t the best who get hired as well, thereby “weakening the system” as well, right? So what’s your point?

no doubt there are some white people that were not the best hired, but nobody announced a desire to hire one due to being white. When you state you are looking for a certain demographic you tip your hand your desire and it has nothing to do with merit. THAT is wrong. It is racist or sexist. There is nothing we should expect equal outcomes. We don't even get equal outcomes in siblings where the social effects are as equal as possible. Equal outcomes is and was never a reality. It is a figment of a weak mind and it is not aimed at you, but a blanket statement of reality for anything outside of breathing and we even know that to not have equal outcomes.

 

[BNIBoiler]

no doubt there are some white people that were not the best hired, but nobody announced a desire to hire one due to being white.

They didn't have to. That's the whole point.

 

[tjreese]

They didn't have to. That's the whole point.

that is a hypothetical, racist and/or sexist thought that may or may not be true and "more true if true" in more common employment for menial tasks There is no hypothetical thought when it is announced prior to filling that it will be a certain demographic. Therein lies a HUGE difference. If there was "randomness" in play in selecting a person unannounced for a prominent position, then the pool of available candidates meeting the criteria desired in some form of merit affects the odds of selection

 

[bonefish1]

The white girl.

So, what purpose does DEI serve?

 

[tjreese]

So, what purpose does DEI serve?

I could answer that as could other honest people, but I'll refrain at least for now.

 

[Riveting]

The 4 black women that Biden considered for VP had outstanding credentials. Just because he said what he was going to do it's DEI. Similarly with Justice Brown. As soon as she was announced as a nominee, this board and Faux News went crazy saying that she was not qualified this. DEI that. Justice Brown's qualification was just as good or better than the other justices.

It appears her qualifications were not as strong as 13 other judges just in the US District Court in DC where she served, based on rates of decisions being overturned. So your statement seems dubious.

Loading…

firstliberty.org

 

[tjreese]

It appears her qualifications were not as strong as 13 other judges just in the US District Court in DC where she served, based on rates of decisions being overturned. So your statement seems dubious.

Loading…

firstliberty.org

not to distract from your request because it is important, but there is a HUGE gap in Biden's appointment. People would contend that as an outlier and not part of the population, but striking out 30% of the time generates questions or should. I mean didn't Biden do something of worth to mainstream America and not the foreign countries or his friends?

 

[Riveting]

not to distract from your request because it is important, but there is a HUGE gap in Biden's appointment. People would contend that as an outlier and not part of the population, but striking out 30% of the time generates questions or should. I mean didn't Biden do something of worth to mainstream America and not the foreign countries or his friends?

He did when he dropped out of the race in 1987 for plagiarism, but otherwise I can't think of anything.

 

[BNIBoiler]

So, what purpose does DEI serve?

It does what the acronym says it does. Y’all always assume when a black person, seemingly mostly black women are nominated or appointed to something that they are not qualified. That’s why you went straight for the scenario of the white girl with better grades. You mentioned no scenario where the black and white girls have equal grades or the that the black girl had better grades.

 

[tjreese]

It does what the acronym says it does. Y’all always assume when a black person, seemingly mostly black women are nominated or appointed to something that they are not qualified. That’s why you went straight for the scenario of the white girl with better grades. You mentioned no scenario where the black and white girls have equal grades or the that the black girl had better grades.

If grades are the important criteria or metric, in the requisite major and there is no reason to believe that grade inflation is a difference between schools, then that metric of grades in the "relevant" domain should be more heavily weighted for the hiring no matter the sex or race and DEI would again have no significance. Unless Purdue has changed, they tried to stay clear of grade inflation and used class rank inside a given school while focusing on specific classes in conjunction with a standardized score of SAT and ACT to arrive at the best fit.

Whatever the metric you hope some weighting is known in advance what is needed for admittance and that we are well pass the days of race and sex favoritism. If not government ran, but a private sector job you would think that company unlike the government pays the price for being wrong in the marketplace and attempt to hire the best person. The government pays no price for being wrong and can hire who they want regardless of merit

 

[bonefish1]

It does what the acronym says it does. Y’all always assume when a black person, seemingly mostly black women are nominated or appointed to something that they are not qualified. That’s why you went straight for the scenario of the white girl with better grades. You mentioned no scenario where the black and white girls have equal grades or the that the black girl had better grades.

If the black girl had better qualifications, every single conservative, Republican, MAGA and Trumper would say she deserves the final spot over the white girl. Every single time.
You see, that's the fundamental difference: skin color doesn't matter.

I'm really surprise more lefty libs and Dems don't adhere to Dr. King's teaching: "Judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin".......

 

[BNIBoiler]

If the black girl had better qualifications, every single conservative, Republican, MAGA and Trumper would say she deserves the final spot over the white girl. Every single time.
You see, that's the fundamental difference: skin color doesn't matter.

I'm really surprise more lefty libs and Dems don't adhere to Dr. King's teaching: "Judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin".......

Nope. This is exactly my point. If that black girl with the better qualifications was a progressive, she would still be labelled a DEI hire.

White women have historically been the largest benefactor of affirmative action more than any group. Why haven’t y’all complained about them being DEI hires?

 

[tjreese]

If the black girl had better qualifications, every single conservative, Republican, MAGA and Trumper would say she deserves the final spot over the white girl. Every single time.
You see, that's the fundamental difference: skin color doesn't matter.

I'm really surprise more lefty libs and Dems don't adhere to Dr. King's teaching: "Judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin".......

every single person that spends any time on this forum knows I have great respect for Thomas Sowell. It is not virtue signaling, it is that I highly respect his thoughts. I would think he was great if he were white. We need more people to value thinking rather than believing it is too hard and just faltering to what they are told or imagining the magical powers of a certain race or sex to know the right answers absent their cognitive abilities. We don't seem to have the problem in understanding physical inabilities, but that mental thought process is hard to see without focus.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Assuming that your black friend's daughter is K-12 right now, I wonder if by the time she applies for college and she got in because of DEI, would he turn down that offer of admissions. You know because that DEI is so horrible.

Actually she's an honor student so he doesn't have to worry about that.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Nope. This is exactly my point. If that black girl with the better qualifications was a progressive, she would still be labelled a DEI hire.

The only people that would think that would be people that are unaware that she had better qualifications. If DEI or Affirmative action didn't exist, then there would NEVER be this question of whether or not the person deserved it.

 

[BNIBoiler]

Actually she's an honor student so he doesn't have to worry about that.

Yea she does. That’s the whole point of DEI and affirmative action. DEI/affirmative action ensures that she will get in.

 

[BNIBoiler]

The only people that would think that would be people that are unaware that she had better qualifications. If DEI or Affirmative action didn't exist, then there would NEVER be this question of whether or not the person deserved it.

If racism never existed there would never be a reason for affirmative action and now DEI.

 

[tjreese]

The only people that would think that would be people that are unaware that she had better qualifications. If DEI or Affirmative action didn't exist, then there would NEVER be this question of whether or not the person deserved it.

it gets worse when someone says they will appoint someone due to calling out specific demographics in advance. Then, the intention isn't debatable.

 

[bonefish1]

Nope. This is exactly my point. If that black girl with the better qualifications was a progressive, she would still be labelled a DEI hire.

White women have historically been the largest benefactor of affirmative action more than any group. Why haven’t y’all complained about them being DEI hires?

If you're talking about a quantifiable measure. In this case: Who is the stronger student? Then you can't argue with performance, outcomes and results (grades, class rank, SAT scores, etc).

What you're talking about is completely different: ideology. In which case, again, skin color doesn't matter. Republicans and conservatives do not, not like someone because of these skin color, the don't like them because of the ideas and politics they represent.
Do you think people liked Hilary Clinton more than Harris because she's white? C'mon man....

 

[tjreese]

If you're talking about a quantifiable measure. In this case: Who is the stronger student? Then you can't argue with performance, outcomes and results (grades, class rank, SAT scores, etc).

What you're talking about is completely different: ideology. In which case, again, skin color doesn't matter. Republicans and conservatives do not, not like someone because of these skin color, the don't like them because of the ideas and politics they represent.
Do you think people liked Hilary Clinton more than Harris because she's white? C'mon man....

You mean...I cannot like Kamala and yet like Thomas Sowell? Does that work for white people too? Can I dislike Waltz and like JD Vance? You may be on to something? Maybe someone should call "rent a riot" Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or is that a wasted effort since it would severely cut their pay check.

 

[Telling The Truth]

You mean...I cannot like Kamala and yet like Thomas Sowell? Does that work for white people too? Can I dislike Waltz and like JD Vance? You may be on to something? Maybe someone should call "rent a riot" Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or is that a wasted effort since it would severely cut their pay check.

Just saying - you don't just "like" Thomas Sowell, you act like you want to have some really-old guy sex with him.

 

[tjreese]

Just saying - you don't just "like" Thomas Sowell, you act like you want to have some really-old guy sex with him.

What is old guy sex?

 

[Telling The Truth]

What is old guy sex?

Thomas Sowell is 94 - if you get your wish to boink Thomas Sowell? That would be old guy sex.

 

[tjreese]

Thomas Sowell is 94 - if you get your wish to boink Thomas Sowell? That would be old guy sex.

I'm not a liberal and so homosexuality is not my thing. That said I do love his research and understandings. I can't think of anyone that wouldn't improve their understandings in some fashion reading that which he writes

 

[Telling The Truth]

I'm not a liberal and so homosexuality is not my thing. That said I do love his research and understandings. I can't think of anyone that wouldn't improve their understandings in some fashion reading that which he writes

If liberals are homosexuals, how are there so many liberals? Especially since you're probably also thinking that liberals are into abortion and conservatives are not.

I guess there's a lot of liberal homosexual adopting of the babies given up by conservatives? Why can't all of those baby making conservatives keep their babies?

 

[tjreese]

If liberals are homosexuals, how are there so many liberals? Especially since you're probably also thinking that liberals are into abortion and conservatives are not.

I guess there's a lot of liberal homosexual adopting of the babies given up by conservatives? Why can't all of those baby making conservatives keep their babies?

oh gawd. you implied homosexuality with Thomas Sowell because I value his thinking. How that was on your mind leads to some questions, but I have no interest in that or you with that. Yes, you would find a higher percent of people not tolerating, but completely fine with homosexuality with the purple hairs and nose rings.

 

[JBoiler23]

I'm not a liberal and so homosexuality is not my thing.

Yes, because, as we know, there are no conservative homosexuals.

 

[tjreese]

Yes, because, as we know, there are no conservative homosexuals.

Something about higher percent appears to be quite confusing. Play the race card like some…that will strike home in a way @bonefish1 tried to explain.

 

[JBoiler23]

Something about higher percent appears to be quite confusing. Play the race card like some…that will strike home in a way @bonefish1 tried to explain.

You didn't say anything about percentages, you said "I'm not a liberal and so homosexuality is not my thing," which would imply that as a conservative, homosexuality CAN'T be your thing because not being liberal apparently disqualifies one from being homosexual. If you weren't trying to imply that one must be liberal to be homosexual, then you could've just said "homosexuality is not my thing" and left political beliefs out of it altogether.

That said, I'm sure you're correct that most homosexuals are more liberal, given that, you know, liberals tend to recognize homosexuals as people who should have rights.

 

[JBoiler23]

Why

I'm really surprise more lefty libs and Dems don't adhere to Dr. King's teaching: "Judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin".......

Why do Republicans only know one MLK quote? And why do they use that single quote to pretend like they would support a person that they would clearly identify as a "radical leftist" were he here today and advocating the same positions and policies he did in the 1960s?

 

[tjreese]

You didn't say anything about percentages, you said "I'm not a liberal and so homosexuality is not my thing," which would imply that as a conservative, homosexuality CAN'T be your thing because not being liberal apparently disqualifies one from being homosexual. If you weren't trying to imply that one must be liberal to be homosexual, then you could've just said "homosexuality is not my thing" and left political beliefs out of it altogether.

That said, I'm sure you're correct that most homosexuals are more liberal, given that, you know, liberals tend to recognize homosexuals as people who should have rights.

Read again... higher percent is UP there

 

[JBoiler23]

Read again... higher percent is UP there

In a post AFTER your "homosexuality is not my thing" statement and also wasn't about the percentage of homosexuals, but rather the percentage of people who are "completely fine" with homosexuality. That I agree with, too. Liberals are more likely to not GAF about someone being gay whereas conservatives are more likely to think there's something wrong with it.

I can't decide if you're lying about what you said or if you just can't understand your own statements and/or the space-time continuum.

 

[tjreese]

Why

Why do Republicans only know one MLK quote? And why do they use that single quote to pretend like they would support a person that they would clearly identify as a "radical leftist" were he here today and advocating the same positions and policies he did in the 1960s?

Since I'll attempt to be a voice for the herd of Republicans...I guess that is the quote most remembered AND quoted by so very many of all stripes it admonished all racism unlike today. Black racism...white racism...red racism...yellow racism...all racism. He wanted people judged by their "character" where the actions of policies were more important than the nice flow of words. He also wasn't a sexist as he loved women as well. However, people have personal flaws and yet can have the proper perspective in what should happen. We see that (personal flaws) today on BOTH sides of the aisle

 

[JBoiler23]

Since I'll attempt to be a voice for the herd of Republicans...I guess that is the quote most remembered AND quoted by so very many of all stripes it admonished all racism unlike today. Black racism...white racism...red racism...yellow racism...all racism. He wanted people judged by their "character" where the actions of policies were more important than the nice flow of words. He also wasn't a sexist as he loved women as well. However, people have personal flaws and yet can have the proper perspective in what should happen. We see that (personal flaws) today on BOTH sides of the aisle

It's the quote most remembered because it sounds good as an ideal and is something that everyone except explicit racists can agree on, so it's a good unifying sentiment. It's also often the only quote from him that gets presented in public discourse. It's for sure the only quote I ever was taught in school. It completely ignores what he thought should happen to bring us to that ideal. Hint: some of them are the very things that Republicans dismiss by using the content of character quote to argue that Dr. King would not support those things. An image has been created of King that doesn't match reality, and it's that image that Republicans use to pretend that they are in line with King's positions.

 

[tjreese]

In a post AFTER your "homosexuality is not my thing" statement and also wasn't about the percentage of homosexuals, but rather the percentage of people who are "completely fine" with homosexuality. That I agree with, too. Liberals are more likely to not GAF about someone being gay whereas conservatives are more likely to think there's something wrong with it.

I can't decide if you're lying about what you said or if you just can't understand your own statements and/or the space-time continuum.

so it says at 4:43 I made the comment about higher percent...before you posted. You can pick anything you want to believe...it doesn't matter. I seek no approval. It's like a fine painting...see it and let your feelings decide what it means to you. It is okay.

 

[JBoiler23]

so it says at 4:43 I made the comment about higher percent...before you posted. You can pick anything you want to believe...it doesn't matter. I seek no approval. It's like a fine painting...see it and let your feelings decide what it means to you. It is okay.

Once again, you apparently can't understand what's being said. I didn't say it was before I posted. I said it was after YOU posted and that it wasn't in regards to the same subject.

3:39 - "homosexuality is not my thing" in response to being ribbed about wanting to have sex with Thomas Sowell
4:43 - "you would find a higher percent of people not tolerating, but completely fine with homosexuality with the purple hairs and nose rings" which is not about the percentage of people who ARE homosexual

I didn't suggest you were seeking approval, either. And it's NOT like a fine painting, it's a statement you made that doesn't mean what you think it does, apparently. You weren't using symbolic language. You said, essentially:

"I'm not a liberal, so I'm not gay." I made a joke about that, because it's ridiculous to suggest that there are not conservatives who are gay. Then you tried to explain that you actually meant something else and presented as evidence another post that came later and that was about something else.

On the plus side, I don't think you're lying anymore, I think you're merely unable to track conversations.

 

[tjreese]

Once again, you apparently can't understand what's being said. I didn't say it was before I posted. I said it was after YOU posted and that it wasn't in regards to the same subject.

3:39 - "homosexuality is not my thing" in response to being ribbed about wanting to have sex with Thomas Sowell
4:43 - "you would find a higher percent of people not tolerating, but completely fine with homosexuality with the purple hairs and nose rings" which is not about the percentage of people who ARE homosexual

I didn't suggest you were seeking approval, either. And it's NOT like a fine painting, it's a statement you made that doesn't mean what you think it does, apparently. You weren't using symbolic language. You said, essentially:

"I'm not a liberal, so I'm not gay." I made a joke about that, because it's ridiculous to suggest that there are not conservatives who are gay. Then you tried to explain that you actually meant something else and presented as evidence another post that came later and that was about something else.

On the plus side, I don't think you're lying anymore, I think you're merely unable to track conversations.

I said "I'm not a liberal and so homosexuality is not my thing" yes left out liberals on my phone in nxt sentence "- "you would find a higher percent of people not tolerating, but LIBERALS completely fine with homosexuality with the purple hairs and nose rings" None of this matters since being against the open border is racist.

 

[JBoiler23]

I said "I'm not a liberal and so homosexuality is not my thing" yes left out liberals on my phone in nxt sentence "- "you would find a higher percent of people not tolerating, but LIBERALS completely fine with homosexuality with the purple hairs and nose rings" None of this matters since being against the open border is racist.

I don't know what the border has to do with anything in this conversation. But yes, the first sentence is you saying you're not gay because you're not a liberal. The second sentence is you saying that liberals are more likely at ACCEPT homosexuality. Those two sentences don't refer to the same idea (characteristics of homosexuals vs. percentage of acceptance of homosexuals).

 

[BNIBoiler]

I said "I'm not a liberal and so homosexuality is not my thing" yes left out liberals on my phone in nxt sentence "- "you would find a higher percent of people not tolerating, but LIBERALS completely fine with homosexuality with the purple hairs and nose rings" None of this matters since being against the open border is racist.

You right wingers were sure fine with that law breaking homosexual congressman from NYC that the GOP failed to get rid of.

 

[tjreese]

I don't know what the border has to do with anything in this conversation. But yes, the first sentence is you saying you're not gay because you're not a liberal. The second sentence is you saying that liberals are more likely at ACCEPT homosexuality. Those two sentences don't refer to the same idea (characteristics of homosexuals vs. percentage of acceptance of homosexuals).

the border is a joke. I listed problems with it and another threw out the race card. It was my own humor which I find a lot in this forum