Leaderboard

We could argue policy forever, and that's fine. We could also discuss social graces. I get it. There are two things Trump has done for us that would be hard to dispute by anyone honest. 1) He made the Supreme Court have a majority of judges who can actually read and accurately discern our constitution. 2) He has shined a giant spotlight on just how slimy and scandalous D.C. politicians really are. I suspected it before Trump, but not it is crystal clear.

I'm going to take a different approach. "It depends who you ask" What it should be: Equality across all races, lifestyles, genders, beliefs. Best person for the job/role. Ensuring that people are represented to include their life perspective. What it is: Virtue signaling for clout and business news letters to avoid public ridicule and effecting profit margins

Diversity Equity Inclusion these programs are based on the idea that a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace will result in better outcomes for businesses and policy. In theory it’s a very innocuous sounding and positive idea. In reality, they are built on social Marxism and anti-white racism. it’s basically affirmative action on steroids and grifters like Ibram X Kendi and Robin D’Angelo make bank on their corporate and governmental agency workshops, pushing the BS. It’s also the reason universities have gone completely insane and companies like Disney can’t put out a quality product to save their life.

You're talking about Trump right? Your entire statement fits Biden 100%. This makes me believe you would of rather had Hillary, which we would have had if not for Trump in 16', and look what we got in 20'. Take the blinders off and stop letting your feels interfere with your brain, Trump may be rough around the edges but his 16' presidency was great policy wise and expect a better one in 25'.

I simply want the winning team. If they are all women, great. All black, spectacular. All white males, no problem. Just give me the best; not some quota crap.

Replace Trump with Biden in your statement and that's how I feel about the Democrats. Why can't the Democrats put up less progressive people so we can get stuff done? It's because nobody is really in the middle anymore. On either side.

Awesome! But that's not what the Democrats try to send to the white house.

I'm beginning to wonder. So many obvious dumb mistakes, changing members of Trump's security detail at the last minute when they had been warned of a valid threat, failure to notice the guy with a gun. Its almost as if they weren't really concerned with protecting Trump. Is anybody else thinking this or am I just nuts?

Did he show that during his first term? Seems he accomplished quite a bit even though he had the entire establishment against him.

An AR with the appropriate bullet is more than enough to do the job at 130 yards. It’s not about the type of rifle. It was about just being a lousy shot.

I'll respectfully disagree. It depends. In the IT world, there are many a great different ways of doing things. If everyone on the team has all he exact same experience and culture, things can become stagnant. Sometimes, bringing in different lines of thinking from different corners of the world can challenge the status quo in ways never considered. It might not always work or be a positive thing,especially as seen when it is done solely for the sake of being done, but I believe it often is beneficial. It's why I strive so much to keep members that go against the flow on TGO active instead of banned. Otherwise, we'd be a useless echo chamber. I want to sharpen my way of thinking, not bounce it off people that will only agree with me and tell me that I'm right.

Organic DEI works great when correctly harnessed. Look at any army unit and you'll see what DEI is and should be. Different backgrounds, experiences, and processes of thought working for a common goal tends to bring out innovative and adaptive solutions. Forced DEI for metrics or optics is where we have problems. I'm all for striving to achieve it, making sure it's not prevented, even if you select diversity as a deal breaker between two or more candidates who clear the requirements. But when you force it as an absolute requirement over standards, it's a liability, not a positive.

I roll my eyes at pretty much every conspiracy theory I hear, but there’s just too much wrong here. I don’t think Crooks was sent by the Iranians, but maybe SS has become a bunch of crackheads, maybe the DEI chickens came home to roost, or maybe lapses in security were intentional. Or maybe all of the above. The people currently in charge have above and beyond hatred for Trump and I can’t ignore any possible explanation at this point. Some 20 year old dork making the world’s premier executive protection outfit look like the Three Stooges on live tv just doesn’t add up.

Forgot to mention that a 12 ft ladder would have been exactly what the Secret Service needed to thwart the assassination attempt.

I agree 100% with EVERYTHING you just said about hiring practices. If hiring managers choose the best individual, and doesn't base that decision on any of the DEI measures (for or against), they'd get the best outcomes. In the nursing field that might mean most of your labor is female. In engineering most of your labor might be male. I can't think of any circumstance where skin color or sexual preference should be known/considered, let alone be a deciding factor. You nailed it...judge people as individuals and based on their ability only.

I think what he is getting at is generally that sometimes, for certain teams, someone with a different background than others may be the best candidate. He's saying to essentially hire competent people but also purposefully bringing in a diverse teams will increase the critical thinking and effectiveness of a team. He's saying that when you force the issue less qualified people are brought in solely for the purpose of diversification. This is bad. But if you have, generally speaking, two equally qualified applicants in terms of skill/education but one of them could potentially bring a diverse experience, that diverse experience technically makes them more qualified.

But in the business world, it's anything but organic. At my place, an extremely large scale enterprise, I attended an event with around 1000 professionals near the start of the DEI push. We had a leader, celebrated for her role as a minority, take the stage and say "We have a lot of work to do when it comes to diversity, equity and inclusion. You only need to take a look around the room to see there is a problem", as she gestured to all of us in the crowd. From there it was a whirlwind of hires for people that ticked the boxes. I was even personally told I couldn't hire a candidate because "it's not a woman", despite the male candidate being much more qualified. At one point, a leader over a significant chunk of people made the comment that 50% of the US is female, so we're going to move to 50% of our workforce being female. Shortly after that, i discovered that one of my active directory groups that someone added me to had "men" as the label. So on the surface, businesses will grandstand that they're making an impact, but ultimately it doesn't care... the business will can those folks the second it's not popular. If they TRULY cared, they would be supporting the next generation. Funding STEM and inner city. Helping the next generation thrive and progress. But they aren't. It's all for show.

What is the problem with hiring the most qualified candidate?

How dare you assume them/their gender based on how they look. WTF is wrong with you ? Are you one of those white males ? See how easy it works

Listen to what the man says and watch what he does, or attempts to do; not what the media tells you about him. I expect you’ll be surprised.

Almost everybody is thinking that

I have owned several GP100's and they all were absolutely fine handguns but I could not shoot accurately with the frame design- I have a S&W 686+ that for me is easier to shoot and I have no clue as to why- My absolute favorite was a Dan Wesson model 15 pistol pack-man I wish I still had it- Now I seriously doubt that most of us shooters on the average would actually wear any of these .357's out- Porn

My point stands. The type of rifle wasn’t the issue. That was what I was really responding to.

The shot wasn't bad. A target as small as a head moving around at 130yds is not easy. Trump turning his head as the bullet came in was the completely uncontrollable part. If the shooter aimed for the body, different story. Trump was more or less in the same area with his body mass, and a shot that goes in through the ribs could have changed history. I doubt candidate Trump is traveling with the same level of trauma support he did while President. But for a 20yr old, I'm guessing a head shot was something he thought was what all the good snipers do.

They are hired because they are the best at what they do, race be damned (and that’s how it should be).

No, I am saying the opposite. The best talent is on the floor because a certain desired racial makeup is not a requirement.

I never said DEI was a good practice or oft implemented in a beneficial way, only that I see how the idea could in theory make a team more flexible and capable. Never once would I argue that a less qualified candidate should take priority over more qualified, but to eliminate that issue we would have to do away with the good-old-boy buddy system and nepotism as a whole. Hopefully someone can tag me in a post once all of that is out of the way.

Simply using race as an indicator of vastly different backgrounds can be flawed. Three highly qualified candidates - two kids from wealthy families, one white, one black, went to expensive schools, a third white candidate from a broken family, grew up in a trailer park and worked their way through school. Who will have different life experiences and lines of thinking? Which one will be “diverse?”

I wish politicians would quit making laws period. They suck at it. We gotta quit putting the biggest liars on the planet in charge.

I would agree on the good ole boy reference. You wind up with an echo chamber of confirmation bias. Diversity is helpful, as long as the talent is qualified.

I understood what he said. I was, and still am challenging the validity of the statement. That old line “diversity is our strength” is horsechit.

Definitely a DEI hire.

In a picture...

Diversity, Equity, inclusion. Wiki has a pretty good explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusion#:~:text=These three notions (diversity%2C equity,be decoupled in some cases.

Too weighty for my checkbook.

, I looked closer and it was just dirty. I never even thought about it. Looks to had 40 year old gun grease or something

I don't think he walks away unscathed.

I wouldn’t want to be any kind of entertainer for any amount of money. You have to make lots of money to take of yourself and your team. They’re constantly under scrutiny, and success is hit or miss. Too much stress, unless you get lucky and become a superstar, and that brings a new set of problems. I’m not a lover of money, so it’s an easy pass for me.

The stock of the Texan as it was when I got it and after removing the poly finish and going back with hand rubbed oil finish. One reason I was interested in it was I could see the potential beauty in the stock.

So in a fit of weakness, I picked up three new (to me) Marlins over the course of about a week and a half. First is a Marlin 336TS Texan from 1984. 30-30, straight stock, 18.5” barrel. The second is a Marlin 1894C in .357 Mag. The last is a Marlin 336 Saddle Ring Carbine in .30-30. Basically a Texan, but 20” barrel instead of 18.5” barrel and a saddle ring. Of course I found it last. I had to buy it because it was made in 1969 (my birth year) and will go with the 336 in 30-30 and the 336 in 35rem I also hand from ‘69. I may move the Texan when all is said and done. It is the only one I have in hand. It has really nice wood on the stock. Once I am done cleaning it up (and the others once they are in hand) I will post photos.

I've been prowling about the internet and I am distressed over (what appears to be to me) the naked wickedness of man. One group of folks had a burst of joy that someone tried to murder another human being whom they hated. Another group was satisfied; didn't exactly want another human being murdered, but he sure as heck got his comeuppance. A few more, down right disappointed that another human being was not murdered or at least, horribly maimed and comatose. That's a lot of hate and pretty harsh retaliation towards someone you simply don't know, you don't like and you don't trust. I pray the Lord would touch their hearts and minds so they would wish to seek out Him, his Son and the Spirit. Lord, before we act or react, please give us your wisdom, the peace of Christ and the words of the Spirit.

Honestly, I never cared for the GP-100. The thing has the ergonomics of a brick. Never felt comfortable in my hands. But that's just me. However, I'm a huge fan of the older "Six" Series DA revolvers and own 3 of them. You have nothing to fear. Rugers are built like a tank. I doubt if you could hurt one if you tried.

Would have been nice if the federal government would have adhered to this procedure.

I think they are hired as entertainers just like certain other businesses that can hire for certain perks.