Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chris Wallace interviewed Vice President elect on Fox News Sunday and asked him about criticism that so far Mr. Trump's choices appeared to be "all white men," and showed little "racial and gender diversity."
Shouldn't the focus be on finding the best possible team to govern and accomplish the task before them? Why is "diversity" so important to some people.
The failure of the last eight years is partly because of too much focus on "diversity" and not enough on finding the best people for the job. We go two A.G.'s (Holder and Lynch) who were intent on promoting "social justice" and not "blind justice," and an incompetent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, because she was female.
The purpose of government is not to create some Utopian paradise, but to govern effectively, and fairly, and to see that justice is "blind," not favoring one group because of some view that they have been victimized in the past. Neither is it the purpose of government to promote "gender equality," which is a meaningless term.
Whenever you have a choice between two people of equal experience, education, and talent, must you always choose the person based on gender, ethnicity, or race? Or should you pick the person that you feel you can best work with, whom you feel most closely shares your views?
I don't care if they are or are not gay, white, brown, yellow. As long as they are the best at what we need for the red, white and blue.
Under any Presidency.
Chris Wallace interviewed Vice President elect on Fox News Sunday and asked him about criticism that so far Mr. Trump's choices appeared to be "all white men," and showed little "racial and gender diversity."
Shouldn't the focus be on finding the best possible team to govern and accomplish the task before them? Why is "diversity" so important to some people.
The failure of the last eight years is partly because of too much focus on "diversity" and not enough on finding the best people for the job. We go two A.G.'s (Holder and Lynch) who were intent on promoting "social justice" and not "blind justice," and an incompetent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, because she was female.
The purpose of government is not to create some Utopian paradise, but to govern effectively, and fairly, and to see that justice is "blind," not favoring one group because of some view that they have been victimized in the past. Neither is it the purpose of government to promote "gender equality," which is a meaningless term.
Whenever you have a choice between two people of equal experience, education, and talent, must you always choose the person based on gender, ethnicity, or race? Or should you pick the person that you feel you can best work with, whom you feel most closely shares your views?
I"m not sure how to answer you because you seem to have a lot of prejudice above against people you felt didn't do a good job and that there were better candidates who were white men so I'm not sure there's a point in me answering. But I'll give it a shot. This coming from an old, white lady.
So, for one, I am totally with you that the focus should be on finding the best "team" to govern and accomplish the tasks before them. But keep in mind that this "team" needs to be as blind as a human being can be to prejudice and they must take into consideration the needs of ALL people in the country. Now, on an objective level, I don't care if that team consists of "all white men" if the background of those "all white men" shows that they have done objective work/assistance on the part of minorities, women, etc. and they have great talent. Conversely, if minorities are chosen for the team, they need to demonstrate that they have more interest at heart/mind than their chosen causes.
This particular team that is being formed has not demonstrated that. In fact, some of the picks have demonstrated civil rights issues in their past. I honestly don't care if the team ends up to be all one race or gender if they can prove they care for all. I don't think this team is proving that at all and therein lies a big problem.
Diversity is important for teamwork. And I am not just pointing to racial/gender diversity. I think age diversity on a team is also important. It is good for a team if they have a ton of talent but come at things from different perspectives. That type of group will tend to normalize and modify radical viewpoints of the group in any direction.
Whenever you have a choice between two people of equal experience, education, and talent, must you always choose the person based on gender, ethnicity, or race? Or should you pick the person that you feel you can best work with, whom you feel most closely shares your views?
Not necessarily, but they should at least receive equal consideration, and I think a team should be as diverse as possible. It feels a little strange to actually have to say this, but the reason is because we live in a diverse society.
As for picking only those who most closely share your values, that is just picking yes-men. Sometimes a team gets the best results when there are a variety of ideas represented, and fresh solutions brought to the table.
Chris Wallace interviewed Vice President elect on Fox News Sunday and asked him about criticism that so far Mr. Trump's choices appeared to be "all white men," and showed little "racial and gender diversity."
Shouldn't the focus be on finding the best possible team to govern and accomplish the task before them? Why is "diversity" so important to some people.
The failure of the last eight years is partly because of too much focus on "diversity" and not enough on finding the best people for the job. We go two A.G.'s (Holder and Lynch) who were intent on promoting "social justice" and not "blind justice," and an incompetent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, because she was female.
The purpose of government is not to create some Utopian paradise, but to govern effectively, and fairly, and to see that justice is "blind," not favoring one group because of some view that they have been victimized in the past. Neither is it the purpose of government to promote "gender equality," which is a meaningless term.
Whenever you have a choice between two people of equal experience, education, and talent, must you always choose the person based on gender, ethnicity, or race? Or should you pick the person that you feel you can best work with, whom you feel most closely shares your views?
....." appeared to be all white" what does 'appear' mean to you? it means, 'looks like, but maybe or maybe not"
Is Trump finished assigning jobs?
Diversity these days means gender and skin color, hardly the source of diversity needed to run a business or country.
the diversity neeeded is the diversity of ideas and to that end Trump is now widow shopping as no other politician or corporation in modern times. Trump is providing diversity and so many can't recognize it.
It is the individual that brings diversity of ideas not skin color or gender.
I don't want our government to conduct a socially correct experiment in the face of a gloabal crisis and failing economy.
Any federally protected species who does get picked, will be proud and everyone will know they weren't a token or a bow to the social justice gods and their media lapdogs.
This particular team that is being formed has not demonstrated that. In fact, some of the picks have demonstrated civil rights issues in their past. I honestly don't care if the team ends up to be all one race or gender if they can prove they care for all. I don't think this team is proving that at all and therein lies a big problem.
So, you think Jeff Sessions is a racist, even though he prosecuted the KKK? Even though he considers Rosa Parks an American Heroine?
I guess in your view he is a bigot because he was opposed to "gay 'marriage.'" I am too, but I don't consider a position of upholding traditional marriage as bigotry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineVA
Diversity is important for teamwork. And I am not just pointing to racial/gender diversity. I think age diversity on a team is also important. It is good for a team if they have a ton of talent but come at things from different perspectives. That type of group will tend to normalize and modify radical viewpoints of the group in any direction.
I don't think "diversity" is important for teamwork at all. Teamwork is everyone pulling to achieve the same goal. That doesn't require either "diversity" or lack thereof. The term "diversity" to Leftists means "race and gender" only. Diversity of ideas is how you are using it here, which is fine. That works for me. But that isn't what Chris Wallace was asking about.
As to your first comment to my post, I consider Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch to be racists. They both demonstrated this in their expressed opinions, and failure to prosecute certain crimes (the "New Black Panthers" in Eric Holders case). Their "diversity" resulted in racial division and failure to exercise "blind justice."
....." appeared to be all white" what does 'appear' mean to you? it means, 'looks like, but maybe or maybe not"
Is Trump finished assigning jobs?
Diversity these days means gender and skin color, hardly the source of diversity needed to run a business or country.
the diversity neeeded is the diversity of ideas and to that end Trump is now widow shopping as no other politician or corporation in modern times. Trump is providing diversity and so many can't recognize it.
It is the individual that brings diversity of ideas not skin color or gender.
I don't want our government to conduct a socially correct experiment in the face of a gloabal crisis and failing economy.
Any federally protected species who does get picked, will be proud and everyone will know they weren't a token or a bow to the social justice gods and their media lapdogs.
Agree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
