(12-06-2024, 04:56 PM)WingerDinger Wrote:

(12-06-2024, 04:49 PM)mikesez Wrote: January 6 was a few orders of magnitude more serious/important than the trans identity of a member of the USPHS. Even if Rachel Levine was in a more important job like secretary of the navy, it would still be less important.  I get you might be trying to say Rachel was selected based on trans identity and would not have been selected otherwise, but, you can't prove that.  In fact you presume that anyone who doesn't look a certain way must be less qualified than someone who does look a certain way.  That ain't good, mang.  Prejudice like that is rotten.

Is that like saying that Biden didn't select Kamala as VP because she's a "black" woman? Because you know for a fact he did because he even said he was.. 

He dumped all of his woke DEI bull [BLEEP] on us so he can appease his masters and our country took the fall for it.. And you [BLEEP] know it.

Yes, Biden selected Kamala Harris to be VP because she is a black woman.  And that's the problem with identity politics and affirmative action, DEI, whatever you want to call it.  When we do stuff like that, every single hiring or promotion is subject to the suspicion that it was done for a reason other than merit.  Hiring and promotions should be based on merit and nothing else.  

But what Stroudcrowd said was that apparently, I would prefer [however you want to characterize that picture of Rachel Levine] to a violent military coup, and I said yes, if my choice is between [however you want to characterize that picture] or a violent military coup, I would prefer [however you want to characterize that picture].  

And this conversation makes me wonder how many of you would prefer a violent military coup?  Apparently, Stroudcrowd thinks I should.  And Copycat thinks I have missed some point.

---