I don't want diversity hires operating on me, giving me anesthesia, flying any plane I'm in, teaching my kids, or guarding my president or president to be. I also want the biggest, strongest, most agile, quick thinking and smartest people in the Secret Service to be well trained, well paid and able to have a voice in who their team members are. This is common sense. No place for DEI in any job, especially those that requires extraordinary skill, training and mental/physical ability. If they can't pass the hardest tests, execute at the hightest level, keep themselves in top shape or communicate clearly and accurately, they need not apply. Everyone should have an equal opportunity for a a great education but outcomes should derive from merit alone and nothing else.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (6)
sorted by:
ABSOLUTELY! [to use an overused word]
But in this case, consider that the fumble-inas were not placed on the detail that day because they had to BE fumble-inas [they did not have to mess up as part of the plan, the shot was not expected to miss] but to LOOK like fumble-inas and DEI hires from the bottom of the barrel.
[Also to telegraph: this is what we think of your protection, Trump.]
It creates / supports the Narrative that it was a security failure by incompetent LEs and DEI SSs.
Just as all the numerous sightings of the kid on the grounds and on the roof supported the Narrative that Crooks did it, lone shooter, etc.
The two-pronged Narrative was supported by the numerous very obvious sightings of the kid, and the obvious incompetence of the very noticeable female SS who did not resemble the strack SS in a suit image we expect . . .
I am now thinking that they overplayed the distractions so much, it points directly to obviously orchestrated distractions . . . We were watching a script played out . . .