Shooting at Trump rally?

[BigK]

16 minutes ago, Links2k said:

They all will still have different life experiences, because they’re individuals!

My family is not rich, but we sent our kids to two of the four  top private schools in Shelby County from kindergarten through high school. They received excellent educations. While they were surrounded by very bright and good kids, they also had to deal with several assholes who had certainly gotten their opinions about certain things kids shouldn’t have to deal with from adults. So there are also diverse lifestyles and experiences among those living comfortable lifestyles. 
 

A rough and tough upbringing doesn’t make an individual more qualified or more deserving because they made it.  I’m of the opinion that having parents who can provide kids a pleasurable youth and a good education are equally valuable experiences. 
 

At the end of the day, diversity is more than race, money and education. It’s what different individuals bring to the table

 

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.

Edited July 17 by BigK

[deerslayer]

41 minutes ago, BigK said:

 

So you have to have a different skin color, sex, country of origin, or creed to think differently?

Everyone who checks some of the same DEI boxes of the form all think alike?

 

To avoid being racist, we make assumptions and draw conclusions based on someone’s race.  
 

9 minutes ago, Links2k said:

They all will still have different life experiences, because they’re individuals!
 

A rough and tough upbringing doesn’t make an individual more qualified or more deserving because they made it. 
 

At the end of the day, diversity is more than race, money and education. It’s what different individuals bring to the table

 

Completely agree with all three, but DEI uses primarily race and gender to determine these life experiences.  Individual experiences are secondary, or not even a factor.  

[gregintenn]

7 minutes ago, Links2k said:

In our capitalist society, I refuse to believe the majority of real decision makers are leaving money on the table to make a diversity hire. That’s just one more things politicians push out there, because it’s an effective strategy of angering their base. 
 

Read some of Mark Cuban’s comments about diversity. His comments are a mixture of everything being talked about today. In the end, the best qualified applicants get the jobs. 

It's federal law, man! Title 6.

[BigK]

7 minutes ago, Links2k said:

In our capitalist society, I refuse to believe the majority of real decision makers are leaving money on the table to make a diversity hire. That’s just one more things politicians push out there, because it’s an effective strategy of angering their base. 

I pray you're right and also believe the majority of them do exactly as you say. Greed almost always trumps every other factor.

[Links2k]

What kind of jobs are some of you working where a company owner, division director, supervisor, HR manager or others can afford to put their necks on the line, and their family’s well being on the line for the sake of simply making a diversity hire? It can’t be a serious company. 

[Links2k]

15 minutes ago, btq96r said:

Well, we're onto other social issues and conspiracy theories alone rather than the main thread.  Seems this thread has cemented itself in our politics forum. 

Yep!

[deerslayer]

8 minutes ago, Links2k said:

What kind of jobs are some of you working where a company owner, division director, supervisor, HR manager or others can afford to put their necks on the line, and their family’s well being on the line for the sake of simply making a diversity hire? It can’t be a serious company. 

I work at a Fortune 500 company where it’s routine.  
 

Curiously, DEI isn’t a priority in the NBA.  

[GlockSpock]

6 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

I work at a Fortune 500 company where it’s routine.  
 

Curiously, DEI isn’t a priority in the NBA.  

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

[Links2k]

14 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

 

Curiously, DEI isn’t a priority in the NBA.  

Especially in coaching!
But what I hear you saying is NBA owners and general managers aren’t putting the best talent on the floor, because of DEI? Did you see the 2024 draft? The top 30 players chosen in the first round were very diverse, but certainly not to fill some imaginary quota. Several different ethnicities from many different countries.  All are individuals, and all have exceptional God given talent and work ethic. 

Edited July 17 by Links2k

[deerslayer]

12 minutes ago, Links2k said:

But what I hear you saying is NBA owners and general managers aren’t putting the best talent on the floor, because of DEI? 

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

Edited July 17 by deerslayer

[Links2k]

If I weren’t already retired and comfortably lazy, I would put on my Sunday finest and go out to test these vastly differing opinions on DEI and report my findings. The first job I would apply for is head of the Secret Service.
 

I hold two theories about the uproar over DEI. One, people have allowed politicians to push this agenda to keep from actually doing their jobs, and two, some people feel entitled, and feel there is no way someone who is not them beat them out for a position. 

[deerslayer]

1 minute ago, Links2k said:

If I weren’t already retired and comfortably lazy, I would put on my Sunday finest and go out to test these vastly differing opinions on DEI and report my findings. The first job I would apply for is head of the Secret Service.
 

If she changes her story one more time, that spot has to soon be available.    

 

1 minute ago, Links2k said:

I hold two theories about the uproar over DEI. One, people have allowed politicians to push this agenda to keep from actually doing their jobs, and two, some people feel entitled, and feel there is no way someone who is not them beat them out for a position. 

Or third, they see it in person at work.  

[NoBanStan]

2 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

Paste that link in the box here: 12 ft ladder

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

[gregintenn]

17 minutes ago, Links2k said:

If I weren’t already retired and comfortably lazy, I would put on my Sunday finest and go out to test these vastly differing opinions on DEI and report my findings. The first job I would apply for is head of the Secret Service.
 

I hold two theories about the uproar over DEI. One, people have allowed politicians to push this agenda to keep from actually doing their jobs, and two, some people feel entitled, and feel there is no way someone who is not them beat them out for a position. 

You’d likely be vastly more qualified to head the secret service than the gal in the position currently.

There are many, many people better than me at most anything you can name. I am pretty good at a few obscure tasks, however.

[deerslayer]

35 minutes ago, GlockSpock said:

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

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

[Links2k]

8 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

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

Good point about the NBA!

Why do you stay at a company that you feel puts your version of DEI as a priority over what’s best for the company? Secondly, what part of DEI is the problem at your Fortune 500 company and are you allowed to address the issue?

A little further off topic for the last time. I was watching Hard Knocks with the New York Giants the other night. They had a female regional scout. She was in the big meetings, at the NFL Scouting Combine and out drinking and dining with the boys. Not once did I think of her as a diversity hire. I thought she must be one bad mf’er to have obtained a position in that organization. 
 

I’m thrilled to see people doing jobs or running companies that they weren’t allowed to do in the past. I don’t believe the “glass ceiling” was a figment of people’s imagination. I believe that to be the real issue people have with DEI. They’ve never seen a unicorn until a unicorn appears. 
 

Now, as for me, back on topic. Some asshole shot at Trump. 

[Links2k]

17 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

 

 

Or third, they see it in person at work.  

I’m certain other employees also see just as much nepotism and the good ole boy mentality within your company. It goes both ways. 
 

9 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

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

I think that’s mostly how it is. Because a bunch of men don’t like it, doesn’t make it wrong. 

You may respond with the last word, so we can get back on topic. I respect your opinions, because that’s your experience. 

[deerslayer]

2 minutes ago, Links2k said:

Why do you stay at a company that you feel puts your version of DEI as a priority over what’s best for the company? Secondly, what part of DEI is the problem at your Fortune 500 company and are you allowed to address the issue?

1.  “Just leave your job” is a lot easier said than done, and what’s the point in trying to move?  A lot of American companies are currently infested with DEI. 
2.  Not if I like my paycheck

2 minutes ago, Links2k said:

A little further off topic for the last time. I was watching Hard Knocks with the New York Giants the other night. They had a female regional scout. She was in the big meetings, at the NFL Scouting Combine and out drinking and dining with the boys. Not once did I think of her as a diversity hire. I thought she must be one bad mf’er to have obtained a position in that organization. 

If you read one of my posts several pages back, I said I don’t automatically assume a female (or a minority) is a diversity hire. 

2 minutes ago, Links2k said:

Now, as for me, back on topic. Some asshole shot at Trump. 

And thank God it was some moron who bought MSM’s rants about the deadliness of the AR-15 instead of a competent marksman with a bolt action deer rifle. 

[Snaveba]

If he had used a Winchester Model 70 with a decent scope, he wouldn’t have needed a bunch of follow up shots. Or even an AR in 6.5 Grendel, or some other longer range cartridge. 
 

I am surprised there isn’t more anti-“evil black rifle” talk. But I also don’t watch a lot of news. What happens when the next guy uses a hunting caliber rifle (30-06, 7mm win mag, etc ) and a decent can. Then the chits really gonna get crazy. 

[Hozzie]

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. 

[btq96r]

39 minutes ago, Hozzie said:

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. 

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.

[AuEagle]

Mayorkas Is Blocking Secret Service Director From Testifying (townhall.com)

[Hozzie]

16 minutes ago, btq96r said:

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.

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

Edited July 17 by Hozzie

[deerslayer]

1 hour ago, Snaveba said:

If he had used a Winchester Model 70 with a decent scope, he wouldn’t have needed a bunch of follow up shots. Or even an AR in 6.5 Grendel, or some other longer range cartridge. 
 

I am surprised there isn’t more anti-“evil black rifle” talk. But I also don’t watch a lot of news. What happens when the next guy uses a hunting caliber rifle (30-06, 7mm win mag, etc ) and a decent can. Then the chits really gonna get crazy. 

I have been saying that for years.  Somebody’s gonna smoke a politician or VIP at 300 yards with a bolt gun and the left will go berserk about banning “sniper weapons.”  

[deerslayer]

33 minutes ago, btq96r said:

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.

Head swiveling a little or not, that should have been a chip shot with a decent rest.