Writerbuckeye;656897 wrote:Not just the letter...his record. What record he had (inexperience was another huge issue with a lot of us) was VERY liberal. The media purposely didn't do due diligence in finding more about him because what is out there shows him to be so liberal and out of touch with most views of Americans.

I still contend that if the media had not gone all in on this man, he wouldn't be sitting in the Oval Office; Hillary Clinton would be. They purposely didn't dig into his past and record critically like they generally do with every candidate, and certainly all Republican candidates.

Back on topic...

Doggie, deny it all you like, but your own words say you'd pick the minority person if both are equal. That can only mean you've selected based on some arbitrary view of diversity in the workplace. And what's an HR person gonna tell me? That you should have representation from all races, if possible? Again, a blend of affirmative action and quota thinking.

I know, I HAVE hired people (with the state) and was pressured to hire minorities and women, even when they were less qualified.

O-Trap;656904 wrote:Everything you said in terms of his record is true. However, I'd suggest that if that hadn't been the case, most the people who objected to him would have found another reason to dislike him, based on the letter next to his name.

I'm not talking about you specifically, as you may not be in that "most" I'm referencing. As a general trend, though, it's almost laughable how quickly most people will flip sides on a topic depending on the party affiliations involved, and that goes in all directions (even us third-party people are prone to it).

We're our own best spin doctors.

CenterBHSFan;657240 wrote:I look at it more as "Strickland-Fatigue". People were so sick of him, that they pulled a 180. I know (personally) more democrats that voted for Kasich than Strickland, out of pure weariness.
Just like a huge amount of people voted for Obama out of Bush Fatigue.

I doubt that it had so much to do with "R" or "D".

Bigdogg;656954 wrote:What you are saying is contrary to the writings of Henry Ford, Edwards Deming, and many other people that are considered leaders of industry. I bet you don't know more then they do.

Writerbuckeye;657343 wrote:I don't have to know more than them, to understand that hiring is best when the best are hired -- regardless of race, gender or any other factor not related directly to doing the job better than any other candidate.

O-Trap;660668 wrote:I believe the experts said that if everything else was completely equal, having a diverse workforce is an advantage.

Bigdogg;660732 wrote:Exactly what I have been saying. I assume most of you have never had to sort through a stack of resumes. When it comes right down to it there is not much difference in the candidates at the top. Education and experience equal, it's often comes down to interviewing skills. You people act like it's all cut and dried, and it is not. But keep trying to convince yourself.

Bigdogg;660732 wrote:Exactly what I have been saying. I assume most of you have never had to sort through a stack of resumes. When it comes right down to it there is not much difference in the candidates at the top. Education and experience equal, it's often comes down to interviewing skills. You people act like it's all cut and dried, and it is not. But keep trying to convince yourself.

believer;657254 wrote:I agree and here are more reasons:

1. Media Darling Syndrome - The infatuation by the mainstream media with their Anointed One.
2. Electorate Relevance Complex - "I want to be part of history by voting for America's first black POTUS."
3. Clinton Fatigue - Not nearly as intense as Bush Fatigue but even Dems were growing tired of the Clintonistas.

Same thing happened with Strickland but to a smaller scale.

I Wear Pants;660757 wrote:You said we should hire people who aren't the best simply because they're diverse.

LJ;656867 wrote:If Kasich approached them and they declined the job opportunities in order to keep their privacy, no, you don't.

Bigdogg;660886 wrote:Yes I do, that's how a democracy works.

Bigdogg;660886 wrote:Yes I do, that's how a democracy works.

Bigdogg;660886 wrote:Yes I do, that's how a democracy works.

O-Trap;660891 wrote:Not really. As they were never a public employee, you never paid any portion of their salary. Thus, they don't owe you anything, whether explanation or even identity.

LJ;660892 wrote:A democracy works by you getting into people's business?

I declined the opportunity to apply for a job wthin Yost's office because I didn't want my information out there. I feel that because I was approached with the opportunity to apply, not the job being offered to me, you have no right to know my information or who I am.

Bigdogg;660896 wrote:How do you know they hired the best then? Just goes to show you what type of person you elected as a Governor.

Bigdogg;660898 wrote:Public service is different then private enterprise.

Bigdogg;660896 wrote:How do you know they hired the best then? Just goes to show you what type of person you elected as a Governor.