hypochondriac

It's very clear what he means. He explains it in detail here but you won't watch it because you don't want to understand, you'd rather quote one line out of context and call it racist.

You're being pathetic. It's entirely obvious that his issue was with the concept of DEI in hiring. He has explained it himself in detail and he's absolutely correct.

Because he was discussing a specific DEI policy where United Airlines said they wanted 40% of their pilots to be people of colour or women. They relax standards in order to reach racial quotas so if he sees a black person he's going to hope that that policy is not in place and that that person is qualified.

I mean it's a throwaway line in a long conversation but obviously he as using it to criticise DEI hiring. I think you're just being overly pedantic to try and suggest he was being racist when it's clear what the intent is.

He was saying that he was forced to make negative assumptions about someone based on their skin colour due to the racist hiring practices of DEI hiring. What he was saying was that he wanted DEI hiring to cease so that he didn't have to make assumptions about the competence of the employees and he could be confident that the black pilot got his job on merit.

Yes and I do understand the desire to course correct in America due to their racial issues which have been much greater than ours. I still don't agree with it though. We don't tend to have much of it in this country though thankfully.

I think it's being not very good combined with the air of superiority she exudes and playing the race card whilst coming accross as not particularly bright. See here for a clear example:

Yes. His point was that it was the racist actions of others giving people preferential treatment based on skin colour that meant he was not able to be sure that someone black was not hired due to the colour of their skin rather than their ability. Not racist at all.

His point was that DEI hiring means that it was no longer certain that the most qualified or most competent person was getting jobs anymore since hiring was not necessarily on merit anymore.

I'm cool with that as long as you don't try to murder me with a rifle.

Not sure if you're being serious or not but liberal in the UK typically refers to classical liberals which is more associated with centrism. Liberalism in America is indeed more associated with being further left and progressives.

A liberal in America has a different meaning to the ones over here.

Because many people who are hardcore supporters of both and who claim to be big Christians frequently show support for and act in ways that I consider to be very unchristian.

I don't disagree. I don't think either political party in America really has any business with aligning themselves with Christian values.

Active participant in antifa discord servers apparently. Considered Kirk a fascist. Sounds pretty far left to me regardless of what his family are.

I don't know about all of those but I know for a fact that some of them are blatant misinterpretations of what he said.

As long as we agree that neither deserved to be murdered nor brought it on themselves then great.

I'm not sure who is arguing with who.

I'm not sure he was intending to shock. I think he genuinely believed what he said.

Who said otherwise? I literally said that the killings were completely different. Some were arguing that the actions of Charlie Kirk increased his risk of being killed. The same is true of other people who have been killed including George Floyd. I don't hold either of them responsible for their murders.

He had some views that could be described as extreme. Still doesn't deserve to be shot though.

I think you're arguing with yourself. There's also deranged people in the police too.

The deaths are very different. My point is that if you're going to say-as some on here have-that Charlie Kirk increased his risk of death due to his views and associations with controversial people, then you can say similar about Floyd. To be clear I think both were murdered and I don't agree with either view about Charlie and George

I don't think he'll be in charge for the next election -something that was inconceivable when they got in.

Clearly the more crimes you commit and the more you associate yourself with a world of criminality then I'm sure you bring the odds down. Associating with criminals and drugs is dangerous. I'm not sure why that's a controversial view.