It’s not crapping on women to suggest that the one pictured did not become a Secret Service agent on the merits of her ability to provide protection.
She doesn’t appear to be fit to move quickly and she was obviously not fit to handle her weapon. It seems reasonable to conclude that she was 100 percent a D.E.I. hire, with many far more capable candidates passed up so she could have that opportunity.
Let’s not forget that “D.E.I” is a a dog whistle republicans (typically white) use to undermine achievements of anyone not like them even when they are qualified in the first place.
During the last civil war, the division broke largely along state lines and states themselves had more direct military control, both because of the militia system and because of the regimental structure of the army.
Today, divisions are not so stark across state lines and states don’t have near as much direct control over military forces. That means that it’s much more difficult for large forces to build up in opposition to one another. Moreover, the question of the military and who would control it would be central.
When we say civil war, it’s unlikely to be two sides of insurgents fighting each other. It most likely would be an insurrection side fighting the government. The question as to which side is which probably depends on who wins the next election. Regardless, I think this war is unlikely.
That’s actually one of the great evils of affirmative action and similar race-based lowering of standards.
The people who did earn it, who do belong in that job are often viewed with suspicion that they are not qualified, when they are
I felt terrible for a guy who relocated across the country to take a job that was obviously given to him because of his skin color. He could not perform the task of manufacturing cost accounting management, and was let go after the company did everything possible to salvage the situation.
I disagree. I think the meme provides an accurate observation of reality and frames it humorously, as memes are known to do. There’s nothing hateful about pointing out the easily-predicted byproducts of deeply flawed social engineering policies.
She was on a President’s protection detail. What in the hell are you talking about? Not expected to perform protection? Being fit to protect the president is literally the job she was tasked with.
I’ll take your word for it that you know “many” current and former USSS agents who are out-of-shape. I know precisely one former agent, and the guy is still in great shape in his mid 40’s, can run all day and shoot circles around me.
Not according to the guy I know who did protective details for opposition candidates. His most generous assessment of the situation was that it was a “huge, huge blunder”.
We’ve also had Sheriffs openly state they would refuse to enforce 2a amendment laws and would even go as far as officially deputizing their entire counties to skirt civilian restrictions.
All it would really take is for military factions in tandem with LEO offices to bogart equipment and kick it off officially, with citizen militia faction being secondary.
The SS agents I know are built like Navy Seals. The directors were also very fit. That’s not the point. Not everyone needs to be trained to perform in those types of roles - as evidenced by her weapon. I know it may be difficult for some to grasp but a lot of people in these roles are there because of what’s available from the neck up and not the opposite.
I love how DEI is now the target of ‘humorous memes’. Every government agency is the enemy. ‘bAcK tHe bLuE’ (when it fits the narrative).
Wait, were the agents fit and built “like Navy Seals” or did they fit the stereotype I unfairly used? I’m confused.
This assertion of yours also fails the obvious visual test. Weapons handling is not dependent on physical fitness, but mental fitness.
You also seem to be mistaken about the kind of handguns used by USSS. My friend’s duty weapon in the SS was a Sig P229. Of course he was expected to be competent with it, and he was. I’m not sure why you believe guns are issued to agents, but it isn’t to bolster feelings of female empowerment.
I agree these are hot button issues that are hard to organize homogenously around.
I didn’t quote your general “I’m not killing over trans bullshit” comment, but between that one and the one I did quote, Inalready both agree and disagree with you.
At risk of reopening the bud light/dylan crap and being interpreted as a tranny loving liberal again (I’m not), I also wouldn’t kill a dude for wearing a dress. I wouldn’t invite him to my birthday party, but I wouldn’t kill him.
I would consider action in a scenario where a govt entity was overruling my parenthood as the authority in my daughters life and especially in a scenario where they are introducing, grooming, affirming, hiding and possibly directly enabling trans shit without my input or knowledge.
We are really discussing two things though. The existence of transvestites in public (not my problem, not my concern) and govt overreach/abuse.
Both talking points would wind up under the general trans umbrella, however.
And for the record I think it’s equally overbearing for govt to tell adults making decisions of their own accord they can’t be transvestites, so it gets weird.
A buddy of mine was the only non-white on L.L. Bean’s diversity taskforce. We would make fun of the whole situation because people treated him like he was some special voice of cultural understanding, and not the complete jackass goofball that he was.
I tried to get him to convince all of the white women to hit a gong whenever he entered the room, out of respect for his Asian culture. I’m still pretty sure he could have gotten them to do it.