2024 Election prediction/discussion
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
Neither the Military nor the country writ large are like a business. There are no profits to be made. Cutting programs in the name of efficiency is not always the proper solution given the goals of the organization.
I haven’t watched Fox or any news on TV since 2017. Sorry, but I don’t fit into your stereotypes. But keep trying.
I never said the military was like a business. I said they both have organizations that answer to people that they must satisfy by making the organizations efficiently run to meet stated objectives. If you can’t see or understand what programs like DEI does/have done to our military then nothing anybody says will change your mind.
It does have to do with efficiency. Whether our military can face the enemy prepared or face them saying, “look at how diverse we are”? “We might not be able to fight or effectively operate our equipment, but we have 15 different genders and can name everyone’s preferred pronouns.
It’s back to the Alley for me.
You said “the military is like a business” I quoted it.
PS. DEI doesn’t really matter to shoot a rifle, sleep in a trench, or drive a tank. You can be black, brown, green, or almond…. Gay straight, male, female or both. If you pull the trigger and the guy shooting at me dies then what difference does it make to me if you sit when you pee?
What you actually sound like is the country bumpkins in WWII who refused to fight beside a black kid. “All of this diversity is ruining the army!”
PS… if you haven’t checked, most of the Chinese military’s regulars are roughly the stature of my wife.
Last edited:
If you were ever wondering what it felt like to be the night lookout on the titanic… this is pretty much it.
No one can reason with you. DEI doesn’t matter to shoot a rifle, etc. no , but it takes away from time spent training to shoot a rifle, etc.
And I sound like a country bumpkin who refused to fight next to a black kid? lol. I wonder if my black wife, nieces, nephews, stepdaughters, stepson, great nieces, brothers in law and sisters in law think that I would not fight next to them. Aston, you have nothing but pulling the race card. That doesn’t work with this country bumpkin. You're like the kid that wants to keep playing till he wins. I have better things to do.
No more trying to discuss something with you. What a waste of my time.
DEI has become a boogeyman.
Many organizations are stepping back and focusing more on belongingness and acceptance of differences. I strongly favor this approach. We want every producing employee to feel a part of our culture and mission and do not tolerate 1% any demeaning or excluding of people due to race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. If they play by our rules and perform, they are part of the family.
Training that emphasizes these things is part of what we do. The military should do it too IMO.
Last edited:
Honestly, don't care if you have a black wife, etc... what I'm saying is that your criticism of diversity, equity, and inclusion... (basically team building, and taking all able bodied individuals) in the military is the same sort of gripe that actual racist white troops in the 40 and 50's made before Eisenhower integrated the military (There were many conservatives of the day complaining about the 50's equivalent of 'wokeness' when he did that and when he integrated the schools in Little Rock) Just because you're making that argument about a different group of people, doesn't make much of a difference to me.
Somehow the fact that you're making such arguments and you have family who would have historically benefited from liberal reform like DEI in the military (or the 1950's equivalent of it) somehow makes it worse to me. Essentially it's hypocrisy, though I'm sure you fail to see it that way.
Last edited:
DEI is absolutely a boogeyman.
More or less the 'training' that we went through on it at my company was a day long and it more or less said "don't be an asshole", and "try to put yourself in your teammates' shoes". In the military you have to walk a fine line, but you do want to precaution against intra-squad conflicts and descension. It makes units operate at a higher level when you have cooperation and cohesion than when you have tension. The second option is how you end up with friendly fire / fragging incidents, arguments, brawls, court martials, etc...
Again.... if the person next to you can pull a trigger to save your life.... you don't want them second guessing if they actually prefer to save you because you've been a raging dick to them. You don't have to love each other, but you do have to be civil enough to work together to save your own lives and the lives of the rest of your outfit.
I find that most of the DEI discussion typically comes down to women in combat roles.... and many arguments will be made about women's ineffectiveness (can't run as far, as fast, lift as much weight, etc..) but, I think the Israelis have clearly proven that wrong. Not every woman can be an infantry grunt, but it certainly doesn't mean they can't see combat and be effective situationally.
Last edited:
Do reasonable people believe acceptance of our differences is a bad idea? Inclusion is a good thing. DEI gets murky when people are hired or promoted due to their amount of melanin in their skin. Makes for a lengthy discussion with many complexities. Pros and cons on both sides.
I agree such programs probably exist.
But there are many programs that are really about accepting one another in a genuine way at work.
I have heard some very brave employees speak about how they have been shunned in life, sometimes by their own families, who feel they are genuinely part of our team. It is moving and makes me proud to work for my employer. These are really talented and hard working folks too. So the only favor we are providing is insisting on treating effective employees with appropriate dignity and inclusion.
So casually dismissing DEI is a bit tough for me to take. The devil is in the details.
I think the original intent of the DEI programs was to hire / promote people regardless of the color of their skin, or the name on the title of their resume. Also to make us conscious of inherent biases.
The most difficult part about this has really been humor. I was in trainings alongside guys from the lower to middle rungs of the business. They said they would regularly poke fun at each other for various reasons, sometimes for stereotypes, but they also said they had worked together on the same crew for 40+ years and had been to many family gatherings and had to trust each other with their lives on a day to day basis.
But when an outsider heard some of the ways they talked to each other they might be somewhat appalled, even knowing it was in jest, because a newcomer to that part of the organization might not know how to deal with it.
I do think there needs to be some programs on some people having a bit thicker skin and knowing that even when someone might say something you initially perceive as hurtful, that it may not meant to be taken in the way you have perceived it. The hard part is to tell the difference between when you need to stand up for yourself and when you should allow it to slide.
Last edited:
dei is like minim wage;
productivity, reliability and value to the organization are not part of the equation.
productivity, reliability and value to the organization are not part of the equation.
Of course common sense needs to come into it. The intent of communication matters.
But there is no excuse for hazing in any workplace IMO.
When was the last time you served in the military How many officers in front of the boards got promoted due to DEI Doesn't happen.
Men are mad because some women are more intelligent and better leaders. It's why our military is more lethal. The Israelis have women serving in combat roles all over the place, but you don't have Fox News whining left and right. I am sick of listening to these poop stains every day. The simple fact of the matter is that an outsized number of minorities and lower-income people serve in our military because they view it as a ticket out of poverty, which it can be.
Pete Hegseth is going to be an absolute nightmare. He has never run a large organization and will be dropped into the world's largest. He will be a daily presence on TV, which Trump loves, but that isn't what that job is for.
Tulsi Gabbard doesn't even get history right. She promotes unbelievable conspiracy theories and pardoning Edward Snowden. She has been promoted from the head of a training battalion (based in Tulsa) to the head of our national intelligence. This is insane.
Matt Gaetz diddles little girls and now gets to be AG.
People must have forgot about Trump being a chaos artist. Good god.
Had no idea you were active duty. When did you serve? Which branch? What rank?
^ All of that.
DEI gets a bad rap, and often portrayed as filling quotas mindlessly, which I absolutely agree is a dumb way to run any organization. I also have no doubt that some people or organizations do it that way. What can I say? People are free to make bad management decisions all day and all night, regardless of politics. Can't fix stupid. But I don't think the military is guilty of this in the least, nor do I think that is what DEI is actually about.
I've been interviewing a lot for management jobs at my employer, and the DEI question is always one that comes around. I never know how the person across the table feels about it. No doubt, some feel like Bill Lowery even if they can't say so in that context.
My answer is simply that I don't care who you are or what you look like. If you are the best person for the job (and aren't an a*hole that would cause more problems then you are worth), then you've got the job.
But.
If you fill a room with the 100 best people at ________ in the world (or country), it will decidedly NOT be 100 white dudes, no matter what you fill in the blank with.
So if you look around the office place and notice disproportionately white men, then that is likely a symptom of a poor recruitment effort. In the worldwide (or nationwide) marketplace for talent at X, amazing people will come from literally every single demographic. Black people. Asian people. Women. Even *gasp* trans people. So if no highly talented black people, women, lgbt, whatever, are applying to your open positions, then that probably just means you need to try harder. Go to recruiting events and target those folks. Let those professional societies know that you will take applicants seriously, and advertise open positions in their periodicals. Etc, etc. Don't hire someone if they aren't qualified, period, but make sure that the best of all communities know who you are and are applying. Diversity will come naturally from that point, and a more qualified and better vetted workforce too.
I keep getting called back for more interviews, so I am inclined to believe that it is a mostly well-received answer. Unless you think your organization just plain shouldn't be doing outreach to as broad an applicant pool as possible, it's hard to really object to any of that I think. And if you disagree because you think we should be mindlessly filling quotas, then I am probably not the person you want to hire anyway.
As an addendum, please note that when I say you look around your workplace and see a disproportionate amoutn of demographic X, I only mean it in context of whatever that field is.
For example, if you are Director of Nursing at a hospital, and you look around your staff and see it filled with 75% women, then you clearly don't have any problem recruiting capable male nurses. But if it is 100% women, then you might have an issue with male recruitment and should try harder to get good male applicants.
The question is do you drop your standards for the males applicants in relation to the female applicants?
I have no doubt she will have plenty to spend in retirement. Probably tax free.
Oh look.... another author of Project 2025 put into a roll they shouldn't be in....
This time to ruin the internet.
Cue the clip.... "I know nothing about Project 2025"
This time to ruin the internet.
Cue the clip.... "I know nothing about Project 2025"
It’s time for me follow up on my prediction.
I was hoping to be able to just post “Told ya” and move on, but I must acknowledge that although my 312-226 electoral college forecast was spot-on, I’m ready to take my comeuppance on the popular vote miss.
I had indicated that Trump would win the popular majority.
With only 12 states reporting less 99%, and of that only 5 with less than 97% reporting (including California at 95%) it appears that Trump will fail to get 50%. He is currently at 49.9. I know, I know some are rounding that to 50%. I am prepared for any mocking.
I was hoping to be able to just post “Told ya” and move on, but I must acknowledge that although my 312-226 electoral college forecast was spot-on, I’m ready to take my comeuppance on the popular vote miss.
I had indicated that Trump would win the popular majority.
With only 12 states reporting less 99%, and of that only 5 with less than 97% reporting (including California at 95%) it appears that Trump will fail to get 50%. He is currently at 49.9. I know, I know some are rounding that to 50%. I am prepared for any mocking.
Similar threads
