New Donald Trump thread

[Muda69]

Russian Hackers:  

 

[Wabash82]

On 3/25/2019 at 4:29 AM, Muda69 said:

Should such perceived racism be illegal, Wabash?  Should private companies be forced by law to interview a certain percentage of racial minorities, even though companies in question maintain that the non-racial information on the resume did not meet their internal standards for an interview?

 

 

Not sure who you mean by " the companies in question. " They article doesn't quote companies they targeted in the study. Or are just hypothesized that would be their response? It is not consistent with the fact that the resumes are identical except for the racially identifying information -- if the non-racially identifiable info on the resume was not sufficient, there should be no significant discrepancy in the rate of interview offers. 

As for whether it "should be illegal" to discriminate on the basis of race in employment, it already is. If you instead are just asking me if I agree with the laws that make it illegal to discriminate in employment based on race: yes, I do. It is readily apparent from U.S. history and from studies like this one from Harvard that neither "social pressure" nor "market forces" are sufficient to address the problem. 

[Muda69]

2 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Not sure who you mean by " the companies in question. " They article doesn't quote companies they targeted in the study. Or are just hypothesized that would be their response? It is not consistent with the fact that the resumes are identical except for the racially identifying information -- if the non-racially identifiable info on the resume was not sufficient, there should be no significant discrepancy in the rate of interview offers. 

As for whether it "should be illegal" to discriminate on the basis of race in employment, it already is. If you instead are just asking me if I agree with the laws that make it illegal to discriminate in employment based on race: yes, I do. It is readily apparent from U.S. history and from studies like this one from Harvard that neither "social pressure" nor "market forces" are sufficient to address the problem. 

So the interview process is part of the term "in employment"? 

If so then I propose a hypothetical.  Let's say a private company openly solicits resumes for an open position.   They receive 10 resumes, and based on the non-racially identifiable info on the resume decide to interview 6 individuals.  During the interviews it is discovered that 5 of the candidates are white, 1 is non-white.  Is this a large enough percentage of a racial minority to making a hiring decision, or should the company have to then solicit more resumes until the required number of non-white candidates are successfully interviewed?

 

 

[Wabash82]

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

So the interview process is part of the term "in employment"? 

If so then I propose a hypothetical.  Let's say a private company openly solicits resumes for an open position.   They receive 10 resumes, and based on the non-racially identifiable info on the resume decide to interview 6 individuals.  During the interviews it is discovered that 5 of the candidates are white, 1 is non-white.  Is this a large enough percentage of a racial minority to making a hiring decision, or should the company have to then solicit more resumes until the required number of non-white candidates are successfully interviewed?

 

Per your hypothetical, they selected the candidates to interview on a non-racially discriminatory basis. So I don't understand what you think is the "perceived racism".

If the position was one for a software engineer, and the selection for interviews based on non-racially identifiable information on the resumes resulted in five Indian dudes and one Asian gal being in the pool, I also wouldn't see any reason to require them to go canvass the backwoods of Frankfort for white software engineers to round out the pool. 

Obviously, many companies appreciate the quantifiable business advantages that may come from having a diverse work force, and would choose to promote that by taking affirmative action to include some otherwise qualified white males from Indiana in the interview pool for a position in their software engineering department that currently includes workers predominately of Indian or Asian background. 

 

 

[Muda69]

1 minute ago, Wabash82 said:

Per your hypothetical, they selected the candidates to interview on a non-racially discriminatory basis. So I don't understand what you think is the "perceived racism".

If the position was one for a software engineer, and the selection for interviews based on non-racially identifiable information on the resumes resulted in five Indian dudes and one Asian gal being in the pool, I also wouldn't see any reason to require them to go canvass the backwoods of Frankfort for white software engineers to round out the pool. 

Obviously, many companies appreciate the quantifiable business advantages that may come from having a diverse work force, and would choose to promote that by taking affirmative action to include some otherwise qualified white males from Indiana in the interview pool for a position in their software engineering department that currently includes workers predominately of Indian or Asian background. 

 

 

So what you are saying in your lawyer-like speak is that there isn't current legislation which requires private companies to interview a certain percentage of racial minority individuals for an open position.

And for the record I would be considered a member of a racial and gender minority in the department/group I currently work in.

As an aside this current conversation reminds me of a incident back when I was working at my first job out of college.  I had been working at a Detroit area bank, call it bank "A" for about three years when said bank "merged"  with another larger Detroit area bank, call it bank "B".   Current employees of  bank "A"  had the option to basically re-interview for their current position if they still wanted a job with the new bank "A+B".   

After this interview process was explained to us a co-worker said to me "They will have to take me, regardless of how I interview, because I'm black, I'm a women, and I'm a single parent."   Yay for affirmative action and the entitlement mindset it can create.

 

[Wabash82]

24 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So what you are saying in your lawyer-like speak is that there isn't current legislation which requires private companies to interview a certain percentage of racial minority individuals for an open position.

And for the record I would be considered a member of a racial and gender minority in the department/group I currently work in.

As an aside this current conversation reminds me of a incident back when I was working at my first job out of college.  I had been working at a Detroit area bank, call it bank "A" for about three years when said bank "merged"  with another larger Detroit area bank, call it bank "B".   Current employees of  bank "A"  had the option to basically re-interview for their current position if they still wanted a job with the new bank "A+B".   

After this interview process was explained to us a co-worker said to me "They will have to take me, regardless of how I interview, because I'm black, I'm a women, and I'm a single parent."   Yay for affirmative action and the entitlement mindset it can create.

 

The law says you cannot discriminate on the basis of race in employment, which includes the job interview process. The law does not say, "This means you are legally required to interview  non-qualified candidates solely because of their race", which is what you seem to be suggesting I said. What if does mean is that you cannot legally decide not to interview a candidate who otherwise meets all your criteria for the position only because that candidate is of a particular race (or religion or sex). The focus is on intent.

In your hypothetical, all the candidates given interviews were selected based on non-racial criteria. The fact that only one of them turned out not to be non-white did not magically create some discriminatory intent when they selected the interview candidates (based on non-racially identifiable qualification). 

As for your anecdotal incident, this woman obviously had all the qualifications to fit the job -- as you explained, she already had that job at Bank A. So it sounds like she was saying that if her qualifications and those of the other candidate were equivalent, she had a leg up under the company's diversity in hiring policy. Hopefully, the person in her position at Bank B was not also equally qualified AND a black single-parent woman with a disability!

 

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

As for your anecdotal incident, this woman obviously had all the qualifications to fit the job -- as you explained, she already had that job at Bank A. So it sounds like she was saying that if her qualifications and those of the other candidate were equivalent, she had a leg up under the company's diversity in hiring policy. Hopefully, the person in her position at Bank B was not also equally qualified AND a black single-parent woman with a disability!

 

Oh yes,  due to this individual's race and gender she was a big "plus" to the diversity metrics of Bank "A+B".  So if she was up against an equally qualified white married male from Bank "B" for the same position who do you think Bank "A+B" would choose?

 

[Guest]

Bull$hit

That is all. 👋 

[Wabash82]

7 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Oh yes,  due to this individual's race and gender she was a big "plus" to the diversity metrics of Bank "A+B".  So if she was up against an equally qualified white married male from Bank "B" for the same position who do you think Bank "A+B" would choose?

 

They'd choose her.  There is only one open slot, and two candidates, so one will get it and one won't. Per your hypothetical, she and the white guy have EQUAL qualifications. However, she additionally would bring more diversity to the employer's workforce, which you noted the employer views as a positive for its business.

Seems like a no brainer for the employer to me, but maybe I am missing something. Does this have something to do with your sense of "fairness" or some other touchy-feely thing like that?

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

They'd choose her.  There is only one open slot, and two candidates, so one will get it and one won't. Per your hypothetical, she and the white guy have EQUAL qualifications. However, she additionally would bring more diversity to the employer's workforce, which you noted the employer views as a positive for its business.

Seems like a no brainer for the employer to me, but maybe I am missing something. Does this have something to do with your sense of "fairness" or some other touchy-feely thing like that?

So the white male candidate is being discriminated against because he can't bring "diversity" to the workforce.  Got it.  And because this "diversity" is mandated by law we once again have government picking the winners and losers.   Frankly I would prefer an actual coin toss in order to choose the candidate in this scenario rather than government fiat.

 

[gonzoron]

[Wabash82]

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

So the white male candidate is being discriminated against because he can't bring "diversity" to the workforce.  Got it.  And because this "diversity" is mandated by law we once again have government picking the winners and losers.   Frankly I would prefer an actual coin toss in order to choose the candidate in this scenario rather than government fiat.

 

So if I said to you, there is one open slot, we had two equally qualified candidates, and we chose Bill over Bob because we flipped a coin and Bill won, you'd say that was discrimination against Bob? 

There is no discrimination against your hypothetical white guy. He was one of two candidates for a job that only one person would get, and he had no better qualifications or other positive attributes to offer the employer compared to  the other candidate. Your concept of discrimination seems to equate to "it somehow feels unfair for a black women who is just as qualified as a white guy to get the job instead of the white guy."

 And the government doesn't mandate diversity. It prohibits racial discrimination, the practical effect of which has been to increase diversity because qualified applicants who previously got passed over solely because of their race or gender are now at least getting looked at based on their merits.

Smart businesses have discovered that diverse workforces bring certain advantages, such as bringing different perspectives to the table in how to solve issues facing the business. So they specifically encourage their hiring folks to look for diversity in the same way they encourage them to look for folks with string prior experience, good test score and grades, etc.

 

 

 

[Muda69]

7 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

So if I said to you, there is one open slot, we had two equally qualified candidates, and we chose Bill over Bob because we flipped a coin and Bill won, you'd say that was discrimination against Bob? 

No, because exactly what personal trait did Bob exhibit which was the catalyst for a discriminatory act?  Unluckiness in coin flips?  Can that be scientifically and objectively be observed and measured?

7 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

There is no discrimination against your hypothetical white guy. He was one of two candidates for a job that only one person would get, and he had no better qualifications or other positive attributes to offer the employer compared to  the other candidate. Your concept of discrimination seems to equate to "it somehow feels unfair for a black women who is just as qualified as a white guy to get the job instead of the white guy."

So how can the hypothetical white guy train for or gain via experience this positive attribute of "diversity"  that the other candidate seems to have, seemingly only through the accident of birth?  And I thought that racial discrimination can go both ways, but systemic racism can only flow from the majority race to the minority race? 

7 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

 And the government doesn't mandate diversity. It prohibits racial discrimination, the practical effect of which has been to increase diversity because qualified applicants who previously got passed over solely because of their race or gender are now at least getting looked at based on their merits.

Smart businesses have discovered that diverse workforces bring certain advantages, such as bringing different perspectives to the table in how to solve issues facing the business. So they specifically encourage their hiring folks to look for diversity in the same way they encourage them to look for folks with string prior experience, good test score and grades, etc.

I fail to see the practical, real world difference in your bold statement.   I have no inherent issue with diversity in the work place.  If candidate A has superior qualifications over candidate B and also happens to be a member of a racial minority, more power to them.  It is the fact that we can have hiring decisions apparently being made due solely on race or gender due to government fiat.  I agree that a diverse workforce can bring certain advantages, but private employers should be free to make such decisions as they see fit without the specter of government intervention hanging over their heads.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Muda69

[Wabash82]

If you do not know the practical difference between the two statements, I am not sure I can help you. But let me try: a law prohibiting discrimination punishes a company if it refuses to hire any QUALIFIED applicants of a particular race or sex or religion or country of origin solely because of their race or sex or religion or country of origin. A law mandating diversity would punish companies for not hiring UNQUALIFIED applicants solely because they are of or have a particular race or sex or religion or country of origin.

There are no federal laws ( or State ones that know of) that mandate diversity -- require that companies hire people based solely on their race, sex,  religion, etc. -- for private businesses. (The U.S. government will favor businesses that have a diverse workforce when it awards contracts, but that is just an exercise of its market force.)

If Bob lost the job to Bill because Bill was equally qualified and is also two inches taller than Bob, and the owner of the business felt that taller people come across better in meetings with his clients, there would be nothing that Bob could do to train or gain experience to make up for that height advantage Bill has over him. But no one would view that as anything more than Bob's bad luck that the employer for whatever reason viewed Bill's greater height as an added plus for his business.

The employer in that situation is hiring the "more qualified" candidate in his opinion by hiring the taller Bill, who otherwise has the same training,  experience, etc. as Bob. Many employers view diversity in their workforces as an added plus for their businesses as well  -- and their reasons for doing so are logical and supported by research. Why that bothers you so much is odd. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Wabash82

[Muda69]

6 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

 But let me try: a law prohibiting discrimination punishes a company if it refuses to hire any QUALIFIED applicants of a particular race or sex or religion or country of origin solely because of their race or sex or religion or country of origin.

Currently how are such laws enforced?  Does a complaint have to be filed by an individual who believe they were discriminated against due to their race/sex/religion?

 https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/01/aa/420483/

Quote

Any time one chooses on the basis of politics rather than qualifications, you are reducing efficiency as well as angering the losers. If we reward people based on ability, it both motivates ability and reduces the value of being a victim. So long as we allow people to declare themselves victim and benefit from it, we will face an increasingly fragmented society as people try to place themselves in a politically benefited group to gain advantages.  

 

6 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

The employer in that situation is hiring the "more qualified" candidate in his opinion by hiring the taller Bill, who otherwise has the same training,  experience, etc. as Bob. Many employers view diversity in their workforces as an added plus for their businesses as well  -- and their reasons for doing so are logical and supported by research. Why that bothers you so much is odd. 

Private businesses valuing diversity in their workforces doesn't bother me, Wabash.  I have said as much in previous posts.    What bothers me are the laws that basically mandate it. 

[Muda69]

On an actual topic concerning Mr. Trump:  As Mueller Finds No Collusion, Did Press Overhype Russiagate? Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston: https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/25/as_mueller_finds_no_collusion_did

An interesting exchange between Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Johnston.

 

 

[gonzoron]

1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

Since he died in 2005, wonder who he was referencing?

Nixon

[gonzoron]

13 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

you used his quote for a Trump thread

If the shoe fits..........

[gonzoron]

3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

To some.

To most. Those of us who aren't Trump Groupies.

[gonzoron]

1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

LOL....nice extremism.  You forget it was the people in the middle, including key swing states that got him elected.  People who didn't want "4 more years" of Obama's policies as Hillary promised.  People outside of California and NY.

Don't have to be a groupie, not to desire heading in a certain direction.  But, let's see who the Dems line up to take him on in a couple of years.....meanwhile, the Dems continue to struggle with identity....some wanting to go further left with socialistic positions, while others just aren't sure....will certainly be entertaining to watch it all unfold.

Nice try at deflection on a Donald Trump thread by talking about past Presidents, campaigns, and future elections instead of the topic at hand. Truthfully what got Trump elected was old white people. I knew who won when I went to the polls and was the youngest person there. Old gullible people who didn't care if a man claimed to be christian, but grabs women by the pussy in public, pays porn starts for sex, uses Russian prostitutes, etc, etc. 

[gonzoron]

[foxbat]

5 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

LOL....nice extremism.  You forget it was the people in the middle, including key swing states that got him elected.  People who didn't want "4 more years" of Obama's policies as Hillary promised.  People outside of California and NY.

Don't have to be a groupie, not to desire heading in a certain direction.  But, let's see who the Dems line up to take him on in a couple of years.....meanwhile, the Dems continue to struggle with identity....some wanting to go further left with socialistic positions, while others just aren't sure....will certainly be entertaining to watch it all unfold.

Not sure how entertaining it will be.  We are already seeing that play out with the GOP over the last three years.  Remember that, if you had mentioned to any dyed-in-the-wool Republican, prior to the end of the primaries, that their idea of being anti-Russian, anti-free-trade, debt-lowering, deficit-lowering, pro-Evangelical, and anti-North Korea, among others, would be completely abandoned by 2016 election night you would have been laughed at as a liberal operative trying to spread a fantasy narrative.  Again, watching a party shift direction quickly has already been seen ... of course, with the Democrats, they've always been in this position ... with the GOP, not so much in the past 50 years until the last few.

[gonzoron]

[foxbat]

1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

Keep on deflecting....Uncle Joe is now having to take on his own party.  Elizabeth believes Lucy!!

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/03/joe-biden-lucy-flores-warren-castro/

Dems are struggling.....

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/01/biden-democrats-1247116

The next Al Franken????

So, realistically, if this is an issue for Biden, shouldn't it also be a problem for the President as well?  Or is it only a problem because Democrats see it as a problem and the Moral Majority/Evangelical, GOP base doesn't anymore?  Frankly, I think that may well be what the issue is.  Democrats are willing to perhaps purge their own over an issue like this, whereas Republican backers don't necessarily care anymore unless it can end up on a flyer or commercial.  The only problem is that it also tends to creep ... see other issues such as tariffs, debt/deficit, tolerance of strongmen, swampiness, etc. 

[gonzoron]

On 4/1/2019 at 12:45 PM, TrojanDad said:

(other than your GID lib posse)

While posse isn't necessarily a bad word, a group of men riding out to string up the bad guy, I prefer lib patnaz. Please use that going forward.

 

2 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Keep on deflecting....

Not deflecting. Pointing out the hypocrisy of you Trump Groupies.

 

2 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Uncle Joe is now having to take on his own party. 

As it should be. The morally bankrupt Trump gets a free pass from his party.

 

2 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Dems are struggling.....

No, they aren't. Biden and Warren will be non-factors in this race. Along with Sanders. It's time to let the younger generations run this country. Nothing is ever going to change until these old men and old ideas die off.