Assassination Attempt - Secret Service - DEI

[ceeboo]

Don't be sad, Res.


My limited understanding of grievance politics would be the opposite of politics solving. I didn't think I was being political in the thread, I honestly wanted to consider what, if any, consequences DEI might have on SS agents. While I knew that the current administration was promoting DEI, I never really gave it much thought as it relates to positions like SS until the assassination attempt and the video I linked in the OP.

Given the role of the SS agents that protect the life of past Presidents and the current President (and other public officials) I would think that every American would want to know more and get some answers.

The more I read and learn about this entire thing, the more concerned I am getting over what seems to be quite the cluster-fuk. That's why I am not really interested in having a discussion with you about your concerns relating to how corrosive grievance politics are. I am much more focused and interested in a discussion about WTF happened concerning the attempted assassination. I guess I consider that topic much more important at the moment.

OK, how did the two female agents play any causal role in the shooting?

Why do you keep bringing up these two female agents? I don't remember talking about two female agents. I do remember asking a question about DEI policy and what impacts, if any, are rooted in said DEI policy.

To answer your question, as far as I can tell, the two female agents played no role in the shooting. Furthermore, I would say the causal role of the shooting rests on the shooter and the shooter alone. The question, as I see it, is how on earth was the shooter allowed to get the shot off? How was the shooter allowed to be on that roof? (or as the Director of the SS said - that "slopped roof" that was too dangerous for agents to be on). WTF!

The more I read about the events, the more and more bothered I become by the apparent failures of the SS.

And I still believe the American people (we who pay for these agencies) have the right to address the issue and get some answers. I do not believe that is projecting entitlement,

[Morley]

OK, how did the two female agents play any causal role in the shooting?

Why do you keep bringing up these two female agents? I don't remember talking about two female agents. I do remember asking a question about DEI policy and what impacts, if any, are rooted in said DEI policy.

To answer your question, as far as I can tell, the two female agents played no role in the shooting. Furthermore, I would say the causal role of the shooting rests on the shooter and the shooter alone. The question, as I see it, is how on earth was the shooter allowed to get the shot off? How was the shooter allowed to be on that roof? (or as the Director of the SS said - that "slopped roof" that was too dangerous for agents to be on). WTF!

The more I read about the events, the more and more bothered I become by the apparent failures of the SS.

And I still believe the American people (we who pay for these agencies) have the right to address the issue and get some answers. I do not believe that is projecting entitlement,

I completely agree. What i don't understand is, since you believe the two female agents played no role, why are you pivoting to DEI? What evidence is there that DEI contributed to the problem? With a sumptuous menu of possible reasons for disfunction that could include inadequate training, faulty procedures, chain of command breakdown, lack of interagency cooperation, leadership disfunction, inadequate funding, and promotion and tenure issues--why would you isolate DEI as the probable cause? What made you pick DEI as your primary suspect?



edit: All that, and I'll add that I'm still not sure why you think strength and size are significant factors for SS agents. Other than as meat shields.

[ceeboo]

Why do you keep bringing up these two female agents? I don't remember talking about two female agents. I do remember asking a question about DEI policy and what impacts, if any, are rooted in said DEI policy.

To answer your question, as far as I can tell, the two female agents played no role in the shooting. Furthermore, I would say the causal role of the shooting rests on the shooter and the shooter alone. The question, as I see it, is how on earth was the shooter allowed to get the shot off? How was the shooter allowed to be on that roof? (or as the Director of the SS said - that "slopped roof" that was too dangerous for agents to be on). WTF!

The more I read about the events, the more and more bothered I become by the apparent failures of the SS.

And I still believe the American people (we who pay for these agencies) have the right to address the issue and get some answers. I do not believe that is projecting entitlement,

What i don't understand is, since you believe the two female agents played no role, why are you pivoting to DEI?

I'm not pivoting to anything - The thread has evolved from the OP - I am still interested to learn IF the DEI policy has had an impact on SS - Including this event. I am not talking about these two specific females on camera footage. I am interested in the entire hiring procedures. I have no idea if the DEI policies are negatively impacting this federal orgaization, but I would like to find out. Perhaps, if the director ever decides to address the nation, we might learn something about what seems to be a complete failure and we might begin to learn something surrounding why a 5 foot 2 inch human being ( the gender of the 5 foot 2 inch human makes no difference) was the one placed in a position to shield a much larger man (in this case, the President)

 

What evidence is there that DEI contributed to the problem?

At this point none. How could there be evidence when the key players haven't said anything yet? Would you like to have some answers or are you good with where things stand at the moment?

With a sumptuous menu of possible reasons for disfunction that could include inadequate training, faulty procedures, chain of command breakdown, lack of interagency cooperation, leadership disfunction, inadequate funding, and promotion and tenure issues--why would you isolate DEI as the probable cause? What made you pick DEI as your primary suspect?

I want answers to all of the above. I made reference to DEI in my OP because it was brought up in the linked video. As I have mentioned, I knew that DEI policies where being pushed in the current administration (while I think it's silly at best - I think merit should rule) I never really considered, what, if any, impact this might have on the roles of SS agents. Now, I am interested to learn more, and I hope a day will come that brings transparency to the American people. Unfortunately, I am skeptical that day will come because politics are in play and when politics are in play, people seem to place their efforts on protecting political policies above all else and ignore the elephant in the room.

[Kishkumen]

ceeboo,

Could you tell us how you think DEI might have led to the lax security at Trump's rally? Others seem to be assigning a connection to short female agents and whatnot. It would be helpful if you could tell us clearly what you are thinking.

[Morley]

I made reference to DEI in my OP because it was brought up in the linked video.

Ceeboo, it was you who selected and linked the Kelley video. It was you who apparently thought that her focus on DEI as being the probable primary problem was relevant. I'm asking why, out of all the possible causes, you selected this one. Maybe you're being played by Megyn Kelley?

[Morley]

My limited understanding of grievance politics would be the opposite of politics solving. I didn't think I was being political in the thread, I honestly wanted to consider what, if any, consequences DEI might have on SS agents. While I knew that the current administration was promoting DEI, I never really gave it much thought as it relates to positions like SS until the assassination attempt and the video I linked in the OP.

It seems that you think implementing DEI is political, but questioning the implementation of DEI is not political. Yes, no?

[ceeboo]

ceeboo,

Could you tell us how you think DEI might have led to the lax security at Trump's rally? Others seem to be assigning a connection to short female agents and whatnot. It would be helpful if you could tell us clearly what you are thinking.

How could I tell you if I don't know? I would like to know more about the process. I would like to hear from the director of the SS about the events that took place. Should we really need to force the director to provide answers by subpoena and have it done on Capitol Hill and make this all about politicians and their obvious loyalties to their party put on display? That's what all of these turn out to be, no real answers - just political circus. These circuses are not good for America and these circuses do not rise to the level that all Americans deserve.

When hiring a SS agent and/or when deciding who will be placed in certain roles at an event, how much weight is given to the gender of a person? How much weight is given to the sexual orientation of a person? How much weight is given to the color of skin?

If there are several people seeking a job opening at the SS - Is the SS selecting the most qualified applicant? Or are we selecting the 3rd most qualified because they are female? Or are we selecting the 2nd most qualified because of their sexual preference? Or are we selecting the 5th most qualified because of they are both female and sexual preference.

I don't know any of these answers, but I would like to find out. In roles like this (SS protection of Presidents) I would like to have the most qualified people filling the positions. Period!

[ceeboo]

My limited understanding of grievance politics would be the opposite of politics solving. I didn't think I was being political in the thread, I honestly wanted to consider what, if any, consequences DEI might have on SS agents. While I knew that the current administration was promoting DEI, I never really gave it much thought as it relates to positions like SS until the assassination attempt and the video I linked in the OP.

It seems that you think implementing DEI is political, but questioning the implementation of DEI is not political. Yes, no?

DEI is political. Absolutely.

Questioning the implementation of DEI is responsible. If DEI implementation weakens the duty and responsibility of federal agencies, then it ought to be rejected by all Americans. I said 'if', because I do not know.

[Morley]

ceeboo,

Could you tell us how you think DEI might have led to the lax security at Trump's rally? Others seem to be assigning a connection to short female agents and whatnot. It would be helpful if you could tell us clearly what you are thinking.

How could I tell you if I don't know? I would like to know more about the process. I would like to hear from the director of the SS about the events that took place. Should we really need to force the director to provide answers by subpoena and have it done on Capitol Hill and make this all about politicians and their obvious loyalties to their party put on display? That's what all of these turn out to be, no real answers - just political circus. These circuses are not good for America and these circuses do not rise to the level that all Americans deserve.

When hiring a SS agent and/or when deciding who will be placed in certain roles at an event, how much weight is given to the gender of a person? How much weight is given to the sexual orientation of a person? How much weight is given to the color of skin?

If there are several people seeking a job opening at the SS - Is the SS selecting the most qualified applicant? Or are we selecting the 3rd most qualified because they are female? Or are we selecting the 2nd most qualified because of their sexual preference? Or are we selecting the 5th most qualified because of they are both female and sexual preference.

I don't know any of these answers, but I would like to find out. In roles like this (SS protection of Presidents) I would like to have the most qualified people filling the positions. Period!

If there are two people who are absolutely equally qualified, is it wrong to have a policy in place that leads to the selection of an under-represented minority?

[Kishkumen]

How could I tell you if I don't know? I would like to know more about the process. I would like to hear from the director of the SS about the events that took place. Should we really need to force the director to provide answers by subpoena and have it done on Capitol Hill and make this all about politicians and their obvious loyalties to their party put on display? That's what all of these turn out to be, no real answers - just political circus. These circuses are not good for America and these circuses do not rise to the level that all Americans deserve.

When hiring a SS agent and/or when deciding who will be placed in certain roles at an event, how much weight is given to the gender of a person? How much weight is given to the sexual orientation of a person? How much weight is given to the color of skin?

If there are several people seeking a job opening at the SS - Is the SS selecting the most qualified applicant? Or are we selecting the 3rd most qualified because they are female? Or are we selecting the 2nd most qualified because of their sexual preference? Or are we selecting the 5th most qualified because of they are both female and sexual preference.

I don't know any of these answers, but I would like to find out. In roles like this (SS protection of Presidents) I would like to have the most qualified people filling the positions. Period!

Maybe you should write to Megyn Kelly and ask her to do what her segment on this question failed to do. I mean that seriously. She posed the question, and you took her seriously, but she does not seem to have satisfied you with her suggestions. She would perhaps be the best person to ask for clarification or further information.

I don't think most people here would have ever landed on DEI as the reason Trump was in danger. Maybe you are asking the wrong people.