This seems like a particularly good time to discuss affirmative action, DEI, and meritocracy. As Trump nominates some unqualified idiots to important roles in our government, the same people who attacked incredibly well-qualified Black men and women as "affirmative action" or "DEI" hires will not question the "meritocracy" here. Ex. A: Trump picks Fox News host and Army veteran Pete Hegseth to serve as secretary of defense It's a good reminder that the people who whine the loudest about the "meritocracy" are the least invested in actual merit.
“Trump also thinks he has the look,” one source said. That's what it boils down to. He looks right. Also, he'll deploy the military against American citizens if Trump tells him to.
If you want to be angry with someone, be angry with Biden for choosing an unqualified and unpopular woman of color for his VP.
Y'all want an explanation of why America has rejected all of your schemes to treat people by race? First, it's racist and most of us were raised to believe that treating people by race is wrong. Secondly,....when you announce a policy to hire and promote more XYZ people, and then you hire and promote more XYZ people, people are going to know what you're doing....particularly when the people you hire and promote are clearly not up to the tasks (like Kamala). America has spoken.
Disagree. They are all DEI. Some are white, some are black, some are brown, some are woman, some are men. There is equity because a pledge to Trump gets you a ticket to try out. There is inclusion because there is definitely a wide range of skills and backgrounds that don’t fit the typical heads of those agencies. Trump is the DEI guy. Politics itself is a popularity contest and basis no basis in meritocracy. Why should he be beholden to having competent people? Maybe the Senate will do their job? That is on them. Most of his appointments are academically well qualified. Hegseth is probably a smart guy. Is he knowledgeable of DoD matters? Nope. Can he figure it out? Maybe. It’s Trump’s fault for not nominating an insider. Probably more likely Hegseth will get stymied by the weight of the job. Since we will have a pacifist / isolationist in the Oval Office, sounds like Hegseth will be a warm body in the chair. Trump just knows about ST6 for targeted assassinations. We have seen this reality tv show and know the format. The revolving door for Trump is part of his appeal. He gives people a chance. He is the DEI guy.
So you didn't understand the OP's question. Got it. He is pointing out a perceived inconsistency: some who criticize affirmative action hires for allegedly lacking qualifications do not apply the same scrutiny to loyalty based appointments like Hegseth's. This demonstrates a hypocrisy that highlights the anti-DEI arguments about merit based hiring is merely lip service.
Democrats aren't going to like republican hires. Republicans aren't going to like democrat hires. Treating people by race is a different topic. Democrats think it's OK, republicans don't. If you say you're going to treat people by race and then you do it, you're going to get called out.
So hiring unqualified people based on their party card is more acceptable than their gender? At least affirmative action attempt to address historical inequalities by promoting opportunities for underrepresented groups at the expense of merit.
This just goes back to democrats not liking republican hires and republicans not liking democrat hires. You're simply going to think democrat hires are qualified and republican hires aren't.
Harris, with her background and education, not qualified, but Trump in 2016 with no political background and who was a glorified reality tv star = qualified. Got it.
A weekend news anchor is unqualified as Sec of Defense regardless of who nominated him, right? I think this topic may be too complex for you. Perhaps take a chair and let the discussion veer back into productivity.
I would take a white waltz over a white Sullivan any and every day. Hegseth is a an outsider seemingly ready to take on the Pentagon and their rot from a warrior’s POV. I’m all for mixing things up as our military is a mess in its present form. If you don’t understand about the warrior ethos you wouldn’t understand
Immaterial to the topic at hand. Re-read the OP. On what measures are you basing the assessment of our military?
