manxman1980 Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 27 minutes ago, The Phantom said: May as well tick all those diversity boxes at once. I bet they're desperately hunting for a coloured disabled lesbian that identifies as a duck. I'd always assumed that was the plan with Kamala. Biden would step down during his term and she get's in through the back door. That is until they sidelined her/it turned out she's not very good (although I feel she hasn't really been given a chance). I am not sure whether that is tongue in cheek or not but lets be honest this identity politics has to stop. It is making any discussion around the topics toxic and harmful. If indeed the Democrats presented a candidate as you outlined it would send the conservative US into uproar and would guarantee that Trump becomes the next President. What the USA (and everyone else) needs to focus on is who is the best person for the job and has the competence for the role. Ignore race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc as they are all rather unimportant when it comes to doing a good job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 2 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: I am not sure whether that is tongue in cheek or not but lets be honest this identity politics has to stop. It is making any discussion around the topics toxic and harmful. If indeed the Democrats presented a candidate as you outlined it would send the conservative US into uproar and would guarantee that Trump becomes the next President. What the USA (and everyone else) needs to focus on is who is the best person for the job and has the competence for the role. Ignore race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc as they are all rather unimportant when it comes to doing a good job. Yeah it is a bit tongue in cheek. As I mentioned, I don't think Kamala has been given a chance to prove herself really. I know nothing about Michelle Obama's policies, but I have some respect for Mr Obama and can only imagine she is somewhat aligned. The problem is that diversity and inclusion across the board is definitely not allowing the best person for the job. It's now all quota driven. Did you see the 5'2" female secret service agent at Trump's attempted assignation, who was unable to even holster her pistol first, second or third time? Trump is 6'3" and a unit. Do you think she was there due to her skills, ability to be a human shield for someone twice her size? Or diversity? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 (edited) Duplicate Post Edited July 19 by manxman1980 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 (edited) Duplicate Post Edited July 19 by manxman1980 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 The problem with American politics is that so many jobs are presidential nominations. None of those who Biden has elevated to power will want to see him step aside, unless they can find someone from their ranks to take his place! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 37 minutes ago, The Phantom said: The problem is that diversity and inclusion across the board is definitely not allowing the best person for the job. It's now all quota driven. Did you see the 5'2" female secret service agent at Trump's attempted assignation, who was unable to even holster her pistol first, second or third time? Trump is 6'3" and a unit. Do you think she was there due to her skills, ability to be a human shield for someone twice her size? Or diversity? I saw the clips and reactions online. Frankly, I have no idea what the recruitment process is or was for the secret service. It should be based on the competence to do the job without using any discriminatory factors. You say that she is 5'2" and "Trump is 6'2" and a unit" and question if she could be a human shield. Were all the other Secret Service people in attendance 6'2" or taller and big enough to act as a human shield? Some of the guys look tall but they were also not "units" and probably would not have been able to fully cover Trump anyway. The role should not just be about size and physicality, it should be about observation skills, ability to react quickly and calmly, and being able to predict danger. That again was something apparently missing when you consider where the gunman was and that he had been allowed to carry a weapon to that location presumably through some sort of perimeter security. The bit about holstering her pistol could be a competence issue in which case you would argue that it is not the role for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 8 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: I saw the clips and reactions online. Frankly, I have no idea what the recruitment process is or was for the secret service. It should be based on the competence to do the job without using any discriminatory factors. You say that she is 5'2" and "Trump is 6'2" and a unit" and question if she could be a human shield. Were all the other Secret Service people in attendance 6'2" or taller and big enough to act as a human shield? Some of the guys look tall but they were also not "units" and probably would not have been able to fully cover Trump anyway. The role should not just be about size and physicality, it should be about observation skills, ability to react quickly and calmly, and being able to predict danger. That again was something apparently missing when you consider where the gunman was and that he had been allowed to carry a weapon to that location presumably through some sort of perimeter security. The bit about holstering her pistol could be a competence issue in which case you would argue that it is not the role for them. Holstering a pistol like that is solely down to muscle memory. If you train enough, you could do it in the dark, upside-down, wherever. She clearly wasn't trained sufficiently. All look at least a similar size to him. The gunman didn't get through a perimeter, that's the issue. That building was outside the perimeter. He was spotted with a range finder outside the perimeter near metal detectors used to screen those getting in. They then lost him. But anyway this should probably be in the Trump thread, not Biden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 Doesn’t really matter how well trained they are if he insists on showing his face to a crowd while there’s a threat of being shot. Fucking lunatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 1 hour ago, The Phantom said: Do you think she was there due to her skills, ability to be a human shield for someone twice her size? Or diversity? The selection criteria are rigorous and are not flexible to account for diversity. Do you really think Donald Trump is a woke who would allow someone who doesn't meet the required standard to be part of his protection detail based on diversity? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 17 minutes ago, HeliX said: The selection criteria are rigorous and are not flexible to account for diversity. Do you really think Donald Trump is a woke who would allow someone who doesn't meet the required standard to be part of his protection detail based on diversity? Kimberley Cheatle is Director of the Secret Service (appointed under Biden). Trump has zero say (at the moment) upon who is in his detail. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 18 minutes ago, The Phantom said: Trump has zero say (at the moment) upon who is in his detail. I doubt that, he isn't the sort to not throw a tantrum if they don't get their way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 29 minutes ago, RecklessAbandon said: I doubt that, he isn't the sort to not throw a tantrum if they don't get their way. Trump (the Presidential candidate) doesn’t have any say over the Secret Service detail picked by a Democrat appointed Secret Service Director. Of course that is likely to change in a few months and I’m sure he’ll then appoint some form of handpicked militia/brown shirts/Proud Boys/ a guy in a Buffalo hat. Frankly it’s a win win for the Republicans. If the shooter had been a decent shot and been successful, they would have pushed that it was a Democrat backed plot and probably started a civil war. The shooter was not successful, so now if you were a not too bright undecided voter, would you vote for a guy who gets shot, stands up and shouts “USA, USA, fight, fight” or someone who is unable to navigate a flight of stairs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 7 hours ago, La Colombe said: Harris-Buttigieg would qualify for that too. It's doing some rounds. This is not a winning ticket. If it had been deSantis or anyone other than Trump Gavin Newsome might have gone for it. He's probably the Dems best hope, even though he's probably awful too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascarino Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 9 hours ago, Mr. Sausages said: Can you name some who you think will beat trump? Anybody should be able to if it was based on character and policies, but they seem to just vote based on charisma. RF Kennedy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted July 19 Author Share Posted July 19 1 hour ago, TheTeapot said: This is not a winning ticket. Agreed, but it is being floated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.