Governor Kasich

• Bigdogg

  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.

  
  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.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  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.

  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".
• believer

  

  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".

  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.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  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.

  
  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.
• Bigdogg

  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.

  
  That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I will stick to what the experts say.
• I Wear Pants

  The experts say to hire people who you don't feel are the best?
• O-Trap

  

  I believe the experts said that if everything else was completely equal, having a diverse workforce is an advantage.
  
  I don't think any of them would say that it is better to hire someone for diversity if all other things were not completely equal, though.
• derek bomar

  

  big fail dog
• Bigdogg

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

  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.
• O-Trap

  

  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.

  
  I would agree, then, that a diverse workplace is an advantage.
  
  The problem then comes with how you decide what kind of diversity is most important.
  
  Are diverse opinions and/or outlooks on business less important than physical appearance, gender, national heritage, skin color, etc?
  
  The truth is, two white, middle-aged males can still be VERY diverse, even between each other.
  
  People get so prickly when "diversity" is brought up because either (a) they perceive too small a scope of what it means, or (b) they've experienced someone ELSE with too small a scope of what it means. I've experienced the latter, and it's not fun, so I understand the hesitation. However, that doesn't mean that embracing diversity is a bad thing.
• I Wear Pants

  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.

  
  You said we should hire people who aren't the best simply because they're diverse.
• LJ

  

  Was anyone else hoping that the Director of Minority Affairs that was just hired would be white so we could see even more of a blow up? lol
• Ty Webb

  

  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.

  
  What a ****ing joke!!
  
  McCain didn't win because he acted like a bumbling fool at times
• Bigdogg

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

  
  Where? You are full of shit! That's what others on here too stupid to understand claim I said.
• I Wear Pants

  Writer said: "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."
  
  You said: "That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I will stick to what the experts say."
  
  You disagreed that the best candidate should be hired.
• Bigdogg

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

  
  Yes I do, that's how a democracy works.
• I Wear Pants

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

  A democracy doesn't mean you have a right to know everything about every person.
  
  If someone declined a job position they were offered because they didn't want to be in the public light they have that right.
• O-Trap

  

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

  
  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

  

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

  
  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

  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.

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

  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.

  
  Public service is different then private enterprise.
• LJ

  

  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.

  
  That is nothing but a spin and you know it. People not wanting their personal information spread to the public means what about Kasich? Please explain.
• LJ

  

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

  
  Only when you are in public service. These people were not. HUGE difference.
• LJ

  

  Everytime a state university is interviewing coaching candidates and they aren't saying who they are or who they really offered jobs to, I expect you to pitch the same fit.
• O-Trap

  

  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.

  
  What type of person I elected?
  
  I didn't vote for Kasich, so I'm not sure what you think you're trying to prove. My comment was based on what makes sense, not whose reputation it touches. I don't much care for Kasich, and I think he's a shady individual, but I'm NOT going to try to take that further than it is.
  
  I don't know he hired the best. You don't know he didn't. You've essentially implied that he did his hiring based on prejudicial grounds. That sounds like a positive claim, and where does the burden of proof fall?