Separating the wheat from the chaff

01 February 2025, 18:22

Steve Ahrenberg

quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
But when a person is appointed or nominated BECAUSE they're black or gay or a woman, then I have issues.

I don't think much of the recent interpretation of DEI by some Dems and private entities, but nothing in your posts have convinced me that Pete was appointed because he was gay, or that he wasn't qualified for the position.

Again, I don't agree with DEI as now being applied. An organization I belong to (Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America) has been handing out grants to BIPOC and other minority writers solely because of their status as such. I've objected to the policy, and some now consider me a radical conservative.

To expand on my thoughts; When President Biden announced that his pick for the Supreme Court would be "Woman of Color", that , by definition is a diversity hire. You have limited the pool of the very best, very brightest to a single demographic and single sex.

My point with Pothole Pete, vs Hegseth; Hegseth is far more qualified in his area of competency, than is Pete. Being the mayor of South Bend Indiana doesn't qualify you for shit.

You guys are saying that Kristi Noem isn't qualified to be the DHS sec, even though she has been a Governor for multiple terms, yet Pete somehow was?

01 February 2025, 18:53

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by JTEX:
So Roland.... You approve of DEI until it affects you....how...uhm...liberal....

well, he is an "elite", jim -- ah, the disgust of "soft racism"

01 February 2025, 19:23

Steve Ahrenberg

quote:
Originally posted by jeffeosso:
quote:
Originally posted by JTEX:
So Roland.... You approve of DEI until it affects you....how...uhm...liberal....

well, he is an "elite", jim -- ah, the disgust of "soft racism"

"The soft bigotry of low expectations."

01 February 2025, 20:16

jeffeosso

thanks for that, steve -- i forgot the wording

01 February 2025, 21:32

RolandtheHeadless

quote:
Being the mayor of South Bend Indiana doesn't qualify you for shit.

Yet according to your party, being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska qualifies you to be the vice president candidate.

01 February 2025, 21:50

Steve Ahrenberg

quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Being the mayor of South Bend Indiana doesn't qualify you for shit.

Yet according to your party, being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska qualifies you to be the vice president candidate.

McCain was a terrible candidate and made an equally terrible choice making her VP. She was a diversity pick for sure. She was the Governor by the way. I believe Governors make better Presidents than to Senators or Congressmen. They are CEO's of their states.

See how easy that was?

01 February 2025, 22:23

LHeym500

And she was a bad governor who squanders her chance to advance by not putting in the work.

Sen. McCain was a good nominee. Better than we deserved. It did not matter who was nominated the Bush Years ending w an economic crisis guaranteed no R was going to win that election.

01 February 2025, 22:55

Scott King

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Being the mayor of South Bend Indiana doesn't qualify you for shit.

Yet according to your party, being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska qualifies you to be the vice president candidate.

McCain was a terrible candidate and made an equally terrible choice making her VP. She was a diversity pick for sure. She was the Governor by the way. I believe Governors make better Presidents than to Senators or Congressmen. They are CEO's of their states.

See how easy that was?

I think McCain was far and away the best choice in 2000 and the mess that "W" left in the M.E. is the easy example. It's 25 years later and we're still reeling from the disaster of "W" there. Syria now Taliban. Afghanistan still Taliban. The only bright spot is Gaza an that's only because our president couldn't mount an effective defense of the Islamic terrorists.
I think Palin was a surprise failure, I was certainly surprised. Palin had so.e success and was popular in Alaska, I at least thought she had potential and a future as governor here. I was disappointed she accepted the nomination. I didn't think it was right for Alaska nor her time then. We all know Palins fall since then and I'm very comfortable with that. Alaska has largely turned it's back on Palin and I think we're all happy to see her move on.

01 February 2025, 23:05

Steve Ahrenberg

quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Being the mayor of South Bend Indiana doesn't qualify you for shit.

Yet according to your party, being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska qualifies you to be the vice president candidate.

McCain was a terrible candidate and made an equally terrible choice making her VP. She was a diversity pick for sure. She was the Governor by the way. I believe Governors make better Presidents than to Senators or Congressmen. They are CEO's of their states.

See how easy that was?

I think McCain was far and away the best choice in 2000 and the mess that "W" left in the M.E. is the easy example. It's 25 years later and we're still reeling from the disaster of "W" there. Syria now Taliban. Afghanistan still Taliban. The only bright spot is Gaza an that's only because our president couldn't mount an effective defense of the Islamic terrorists.
I think Palin was a surprise failure, I was certainly surprised. Palin had so.e success and was popular in Alaska, I at least thought she had potential and a future as governor here. I was disappointed she accepted the nomination. I didn't think it was right for Alaska nor her time then. We all know Palins fall since then and I'm very comfortable with that. Alaska has largely turned it's back on Palin and I think we're all happy to see her move on.

I'll take exception to McCain. But he WAS the best choice for that election cycle. Far better than Obama.

If you remember, for some reason he decided to suspend his campaign, right in the middle of an election. His poor decision was due to the economic collapse. It may be what lost him the election. But Obama was a powerful force back then as well.

Senator McCain was Incredibly unpopular here in Arizona. He only won his races due to the power of incumbency. I voted for him because he won the primary. I can't even remember who he ran against. I remember he was in last place for a long time, then rallied and won.

My point as to Palin; she was NOT the best, most qualified at the time. She was relentlessly made fun of by the left. Much of what they make fun of her for, never happened. It was the SNL skit type shit that stuck for some reason.

02 February 2025, 00:05

RolandtheHeadless

Palin was governor for less than half a first term.

In Alaska, they call her "Half-Governor Palin."

02 February 2025, 00:30

jeffeosso

I agree, Palin wasn't the best candidate possible. But remember, she was paired off against sniffyjoe, so that weakness wasn't all it looked to be

02 February 2025, 01:37

Scott King

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Being the mayor of South Bend Indiana doesn't qualify you for shit.

Yet according to your party, being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska qualifies you to be the vice president candidate.

McCain was a terrible candidate and made an equally terrible choice making her VP. She was a diversity pick for sure. She was the Governor by the way. I believe Governors make better Presidents than to Senators or Congressmen. They are CEO's of their states.

See how easy that was?

I think McCain was far and away the best choice in 2000 and the mess that "W" left in the M.E. is the easy example. It's 25 years later and we're still reeling from the disaster of "W" there. Syria now Taliban. Afghanistan still Taliban. The only bright spot is Gaza an that's only because our president couldn't mount an effective defense of the Islamic terrorists.
I think Palin was a surprise failure, I was certainly surprised. Palin had so.e success and was popular in Alaska, I at least thought she had potential and a future as governor here. I was disappointed she accepted the nomination. I didn't think it was right for Alaska nor her time then. We all know Palins fall since then and I'm very comfortable with that. Alaska has largely turned it's back on Palin and I think we're all happy to see her move on.

I'll take exception to McCain. But he WAS the best choice for that election cycle. Far better than Obama.

If you remember, for some reason he decided to suspend his campaign, right in the middle of an election. His poor decision was due to the economic collapse. It may be what lost him the election. But Obama was a powerful force back then as well.

Senator McCain was Incredibly unpopular here in Arizona. He only won his races due to the power of incumbency. I voted for him because he won the primary. I can't even remember who he ran against. I remember he was in last place for a long time, then rallied and won.

My point as to Palin; she was NOT the best, most qualified at the time. She was relentlessly made fun of by the left. Much of what they make fun of her for, never happened. It was the SNL skit type shit that stuck for some reason.

I'm thinking McCain in 2000, I think that was against Gore wasn't it? "W" ended up running against Gore and we got The War on Terror. Sure, I voted for McCain over Obama.

As for Palin, she's made her own bed over the last 20years. I don't blame SNL or the media for her downfall. I was disappointed she accepted the nod from McCain since she was so new in her job as governor, but I don't think many outsiders knew how badly she would do until after.

02 February 2025, 02:00

Steve Ahrenberg

https://www.ri.gov/election/re..._preference_primary/

2008

https://www.sos.ca.gov/electio...fied-list-candidates

2000

02 February 2025, 02:06

LHeym500

quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Being the mayor of South Bend Indiana doesn't qualify you for shit.

Yet according to your party, being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska qualifies you to be the vice president candidate.

McCain was a terrible candidate and made an equally terrible choice making her VP. She was a diversity pick for sure. She was the Governor by the way. I believe Governors make better Presidents than to Senators or Congressmen. They are CEO's of their states.

See how easy that was?

I think McCain was far and away the best choice in 2000 and the mess that "W" left in the M.E. is the easy example. It's 25 years later and we're still reeling from the disaster of "W" there. Syria now Taliban. Afghanistan still Taliban. The only bright spot is Gaza an that's only because our president couldn't mount an effective defense of the Islamic terrorists.
I think Palin was a surprise failure, I was certainly surprised. Palin had so.e success and was popular in Alaska, I at least thought she had potential and a future as governor here. I was disappointed she accepted the nomination. I didn't think it was right for Alaska nor her time then. We all know Palins fall since then and I'm very comfortable with that. Alaska has largely turned it's back on Palin and I think we're all happy to see her move on.

I'll take exception to McCain. But he WAS the best choice for that election cycle. Far better than Obama.

If you remember, for some reason he decided to suspend his campaign, right in the middle of an election. His poor decision was due to the economic collapse. It may be what lost him the election. But Obama was a powerful force back then as well.

Senator McCain was Incredibly unpopular here in Arizona. He only won his races due to the power of incumbency. I voted for him because he won the primary. I can't even remember who he ran against. I remember he was in last place for a long time, then rallied and won.

My point as to Palin; she was NOT the best, most qualified at the time. She was relentlessly made fun of by the left. Much of what they make fun of her for, never happened. It was the SNL skit type shit that stuck for some reason.

I'm thinking McCain in 2000, I think that was against Gore wasn't it? "W" ended up running against Gore and we got The War on Terror. Sure, I voted for McCain over Obama.

As for Palin, she's made her own bed over the last 20years. I don't blame SNL or the media for her downfall. I was disappointed she accepted the nod from McCain since she was so new in her job as governor, but I don't think many outsiders knew how badly she would do until after.

[FLASH_VIDEO] [/FLASH_VIDEO]

McCain lost that primary to Bush.
Yeah, McCain was so unpopular in Arizona that he never lost his Senate seat.

02 February 2025, 02:24

Steve Ahrenberg

quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott King:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
quote:
Being the mayor of South Bend Indiana doesn't qualify you for shit.

Yet according to your party, being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska qualifies you to be the vice president candidate.

McCain was a terrible candidate and made an equally terrible choice making her VP. She was a diversity pick for sure. She was the Governor by the way. I believe Governors make better Presidents than to Senators or Congressmen. They are CEO's of their states.

See how easy that was?

I think McCain was far and away the best choice in 2000 and the mess that "W" left in the M.E. is the easy example. It's 25 years later and we're still reeling from the disaster of "W" there. Syria now Taliban. Afghanistan still Taliban. The only bright spot is Gaza an that's only because our president couldn't mount an effective defense of the Islamic terrorists.
I think Palin was a surprise failure, I was certainly surprised. Palin had so.e success and was popular in Alaska, I at least thought she had potential and a future as governor here. I was disappointed she accepted the nomination. I didn't think it was right for Alaska nor her time then. We all know Palins fall since then and I'm very comfortable with that. Alaska has largely turned it's back on Palin and I think we're all happy to see her move on.

I'll take exception to McCain. But he WAS the best choice for that election cycle. Far better than Obama.

If you remember, for some reason he decided to suspend his campaign, right in the middle of an election. His poor decision was due to the economic collapse. It may be what lost him the election. But Obama was a powerful force back then as well.

Senator McCain was Incredibly unpopular here in Arizona. He only won his races due to the power of incumbency. I voted for him because he won the primary. I can't even remember who he ran against. I remember he was in last place for a long time, then rallied and won.

My point as to Palin; she was NOT the best, most qualified at the time. She was relentlessly made fun of by the left. Much of what they make fun of her for, never happened. It was the SNL skit type shit that stuck for some reason.

I'm thinking McCain in 2000, I think that was against Gore wasn't it? "W" ended up running against Gore and we got The War on Terror. Sure, I voted for McCain over Obama.

As for Palin, she's made her own bed over the last 20years. I don't blame SNL or the media for her downfall. I was disappointed she accepted the nod from McCain since she was so new in her job as governor, but I don't think many outsiders knew how badly she would do until after.
[FLASH_VIDEO] [/FLASH_VIDEO]

McCain lost that primary to Bush.
Yeah, McCain was so unpopular in Arizona that he never lost his Senate seat.

Did you read what I said? "The power of Incumbency"

02 February 2025, 02:31

M.Shy

Incumbency…I never understood why states cannot vote in limiting their own representatives in house and senate
Meaning two terms or three and you cannot run no more

02 February 2025, 02:50

Steve Ahrenberg

quote:
Originally posted by M.Shy:
Incumbency…I never understood why states cannot vote in limiting their own representatives in house and senate
Meaning two terms or three and you cannot run no more

The 17th amendment did more to screw-up states rights and centralize power in DC, that any single act, before or since.

The states used to send Senators to DC based on state governments. They could be quickly recalled and replaced if the state house's/senates were unhappy, or changed.

Now, once in, they're like herpes.

02 February 2025, 04:43

LHeym500

Foolishness.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, you think money plays now. The buying of Senator seats was open.

I know, the 17th Amendment throws sand on the we are not a democracy fire. That slime upsets some people.

Sen. Mc sin was Senator and for as long as he was because he was popular. As primary and general state wide elections proved.

He was so popular that Trump’s attacks of him during his life and death contributed to Trump losing AZ.

Lake wishes she was as popular as Sen McCain was.

I will not accept your personal view of Sen. McCain as the state’s view. At least, the state GOP view pre 2018.

Again, the opposite of Sen McCain is Lake. She can’t win. Sen. McCain did and never lost.

02 February 2025, 05:02

Steve Ahrenberg

quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
Foolishness.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, you think money plays now. The buying of Senator seats was open.

I know, the 17th Amendment throws sand on the we are not a democracy fire. That slime upsets some people.

Sen. Mc sin was Senator and for as long as he was because he was popular. As primary and general state wide elections proved.

He was so popular that Trump’s attacks of him during his life and death contributed to Trump losing AZ.

Lake wishes she was as popular as Sen McCain was.

I will not accept your personal view of Sen. McCain as the state’s view. At least, the state GOP view pre 2018.

Again, the opposite of Sen McCain is Lake. She can’t win. Sen. McCain did and never lost.

I'll not argue the point. Direct election of Senators was a mistake. They simply are impossible to beat in Statewide elections when uninformed/misinformed voters hit the booths. The fact that they are "supposed" to work for the State and not the people says that the old way of picking them was a better. Senators represent the state, Representatives "Represent" the people of their district.

Kari Lake was a stain on Arizona. See how easy it is to not be a partisan hack?

Trump has corrected his stance and has endorsed KTR for Governor and she will win. She would have easily beat Hobbs had lake not won the primary. Karin Taylor Robson will be a fantastic Governor. She comes from old school Arizona