Racism, Institutional or Otherwise, in America
To my progressive friends, I am getting nervous.
Can Harris really pull off a win?
Trump's last term was a dumpster fire, yet inspite of that he did relatively well in 2020. Joe Biden's advantage is that he had connections with middle American and had earned their trust and respect over many years, that certainly helped to tip the balance in his favor. Candidate Harris does not have that advantage, but she was wise to select Mr Walz as a running mate to attempt to address it, but will it be enough?
After Trump made a fool of himself on national television in what I consider the poorest performance from any candidate in the history of these debates, the needle seems to have changed little. So, his continued allure obviously has nothing to do with any competence on his part.
When all the usual factions take their respective side the Harris candidacy is challenged.i am counting on the votes of white women to bring a variable into this equation that can push Harris over the top. I can't speak for you and I won't try. But, if I were among your number I would find the patriarchal attitude of Trump and the Republicans enough to not give them so much support this year. After Roe and Dobbs and disaster in so many states regarding principles of rights regarding reproductive control, will you abandon the politics of your husbands, sons, uncles, etc?
We are going need you to get over the top as to what should be an overwhelming advantage for Harris.Can Harris pull off a win? Yes, yes she can.
Haley was right...
"If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, we will get a president, Kamala Harris. You mark my words. He cannot win a general election. He can't get independents. He can't get suburban women."
But also,Trump and the Republicans lose because they re-nominated a loser. There's a reason that doesn't usually happen.
I'm also confident that a majority see Trump as mentally, morally, and physically incapable of serving as president.
Lastly, it looks like Trump's electoral map in terms of a path to victory is shrinking. North Carolina is now a toss-up. She also has very strong pulling and states that Dems haven't won in decades.So, there is hope.
The GOP made a mistake in keeping Trump, Haley had a better chance in the general election considering all the baggage associated with Trump.but he attracts an inordinate amount of brooding and sad sack men, looking for an excuse and a shoulder to cry on over their failed lives.
I hope you are right in confidence that the majority of people will see Trump as mentally, morally and physically incapable of serving as President. Thus far Trump had committed every outrage and he still thrives, what I was believed was just plain common sense, may not be as common as I thought.
Let me hook you up to this graphic that is generally updated daily...
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/ … Sep16.html
Now Trump wants to blame Jewish people, 2 percent of the electorate, if he loses. If the man actually was not so callous and shallow and cracked a book to understand before running his mouth he would realize the Jewish support for Democrats go far beyond the politics of the nation state of Israel. Jews, from history, know what happens when one is targeted and forced to be an outcast.
As the Republicans cling to these sorts of themes, Jews want nothing of it and can be consistently relied upon to vote against it.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-i … =113853150As EVERYBODY knows, even MAGA, he will say what he needs to say to get elected. The TRUTH does not matter to the delusional.
Also, there is a reason why most Jews reject the far-right - they are too close to Hitler.Not only Jews but MOST people reject the far right fringes as they reject the far left fringes of society. Both extremes are dangerous. The average extremist, whether left or right, is devoid of logic.
Agreed. Why don't you don't consider Trump an extremist given his Hitleresque-type rallies, his cats and dogs hate speech which will probably get someone in Springfield killed, "poisoning the blood" of Americans, his referring to almost any black country as "infested", calling Democrats "vermin"?
Research has shown that that kind of rhetoric is intended to brainwash anybody sympathetic to him. Hitler did it. Putin is doing it, Trump makes Putin look amateurish in that regard.Perhaps for the same reasons you don't consider Harris an extremist even though her every goal seems to be to play Robin Hood, taking from one to give to another. Every move is to enrich one person at the expense of another. Little to nothing is designed to better the country, just select individuals while denying others what they have earned and built.
In a country that began with people leaving Europe to start a new life on their own, in a country populated with descendants of people walking thousands of miles through hostile territory to start a new life on their own, in a country of people dedicated to providing for themselves, isn't it more than a little radical to decide that those same people do not own what they build and instead must give it to others, a little radical to decide that 200,000,000 people are but children, unable to care for themselves, unable to make decisions, able only to live off the charity of others?
But no, you do not think that, do you? It is not only not radical it is reasonable and true because they are all victims somehow.There is a huge difference between fulfilling gov'ts function of protecting its citizens from harm, as Harris is proposing, and you object to, and the extremist rhetoric spewed out by Trump and his cohorts. It makes, IMO, for a disingenuous false equivalency.
And the "radical" idea is that people of a society don't owe a debt to the society that protects them and allows them to prosper.Of course they owe a "debt" to the society that protects them. They owe their share of the cost of maintaining that society.
But of course that isn't the discussion - it is the demand that they somehow "owe" a "debt" to those that do nothing to add to our country even to the point they refuse to support themselves. To those individuals, the people of America owe nothing.
(As always I also take exception to your outright lie that I take exception to Harris' plans to protect America. You will not find that anywhere in any of my posts.)Wilderness, Trump sees the nature of the migrants. He knows that they are exhausting American infrastructures. A blind person can see this. Liberals wants to be inclusive of everyone. No no no. Conservatives believing in vetting people to include only those who add to America. These migrants DON'T add to America. They are detrimental to American society & need to be deported to their countries of origin.
The Democrats are socialistic in origin. Because of Democratic policies, there is a plethora of inane social policies which are totally UNNECESSARY. There was the war on poverty which created the welfare state. This resulted in people being entitled & generational welfare. These inane socialist policies have taken the initiative away from able-bodied people who can contribute. Republicans believe rightly in lifting oneself by his/her bootstraps. Republicans believe in work, effort, & making one's way.The impact of migrants on American infrastructure is a complex issue, influenced by factors such as the number of migrants, the geographic area, the type of infrastructure (e.g., housing, healthcare, education), and local policies.
Strains on Infrastructure
Healthcare: Some communities, particularly in border states like Texas, report that the influx of migrants puts pressure on healthcare systems. Emergency rooms in certain areas are seeing more patients, leading to longer wait times and resource constraints(
Brennan Center for Justice
).
Education: Schools in areas with high migrant populations may struggle to accommodate non-English-speaking students or those with interrupted educational backgrounds. This can require additional resources such as English language programs and specialized teachers(
Brennan Center for Justice
).
Housing: In regions where large numbers of migrants settle, there can be a strain on affordable housing. Cities like New York have seen shelters and low-income housing become overwhelmed, leading to temporary housing solutions that put a financial burden on local governments(
Brennan Center for Justice
) .
Why do Conservative Always Overlook this:
Economic Contributions
On the other hand, migrants also contribute to the economy, filling labor shortages, especially in industries such as agriculture, construction, and service. This economic activity can, in some cases, help support local infrastructure through taxes and consumer spending
(Brennan Center for Justice).
Regional Differences
While some areas experience infrastructure strain due to sudden or large-scale migration, other areas benefit from migrants revitalizing local economies, increasing demand for services, and contributing to tax revenues. Studies show consistently that in aggregate, migrants add more to our economy that take away from it. I have provided links to several of those many times in the past.
Overall, while there are regions where the influx of migrants strains local resources, the broader impact of migrants on U.S. infrastructure is not uniformly negative. Many factors, including federal and state policies, determine how well local systems handle migrant populations(
Brennan Center for Justice) .
Springfield, OH, according to its mayor and the Ohio governor, NEEDED that Haitians to fill jobs!!
In many cases, the federal gov't steps in to help the Temporary need of communities with an influx of migrants. Texas and Florida ought to help those communities they force migrants to go to.
It is a good thing we didn't have the kind of "vetting" program that Conservatives want back in the 1800s. Also, be happy Native American's didn't have that vetting program in the 1600s and 1700s.I obviously need to provide the TRUE "origin" of the Democratic Party (I don't think you will find the word socialist mentioned even once.)
The Democratic Party in the United States has undergone significant ideological shifts from its founding in the early 19th century as a conservative, pro-slavery party to becoming one of the most liberal major political parties today. Here's an overview of this transformation:
Early History: Conservative Origins (1828–1860s)
Founding and Jacksonian Era: The Democratic Party was founded in 1828 by supporters of Andrew Jackson. Early Democrats promoted agrarianism, states' rights, and limited government. They opposed centralized federal power and advocated for a laissez-faire economy. The party's base was strongest in the South, and it supported the institution of slavery as a cornerstone of Southern society and economy.
Civil War and Reconstruction (1860s–1870s): During the Civil War, the Democratic Party was associated with the Confederacy and largely opposed the abolition of slavery. After the war, Democrats in the South were the main political force behind the implementation of "Jim Crow" laws and segregationist policies during Reconstruction.
Shifts Toward Progressivism (1890s–1930s)
Late 19th Century: As industrialization grew, the party began to support more populist and progressive policies. Leaders like William Jennings Bryan championed anti-corporate reforms, advocating for the working class and pushing for free silver and opposition to the gold standard. The party still had a conservative wing, especially in the South, but progressivism began to gain influence in the North.
The New Deal Era (1930s): Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s marked a decisive turn towards liberal economic policies. In response to the Great Depression, Democrats embraced government intervention in the economy, creating programs like Social Security and establishing labor protections. This solidified the Democrats as the party of the working class, though the party still had a conservative, segregationist faction in the South.
Civil Rights Era and Liberal Realignment (1940s–1970s)
Post-War Period: After World War II, Democrats increasingly supported civil rights, as the liberal wing of the party grew stronger. Figures like Harry Truman pushed for desegregation of the military, and John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson advanced civil rights legislation.
1960s Civil Rights Movement: The passage of the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) under President Johnson alienated Southern conservatives (Dixiecrats), leading to a major political realignment. Southern conservatives gradually left the Democratic Party and began aligning with the Republican Party, while the Democratic Party increasingly became associated with liberal positions on social justice, equality, and racial integration.
Modern Liberalism (1980s–Present)
Post-1970s: By the 1980s, the Democratic Party had become the dominant liberal party in the U.S. It embraced progressive stances on environmentalism, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and healthcare reform. Economic policies continued to support welfare programs, government regulation, and a more robust social safety net. The party also adopted positions advocating for multiculturalism and diversity.
21st Century: Today, the Democratic Party champions a platform that includes universal healthcare, climate change action, racial and gender equity, and a more interventionist government to ensure economic and social justice. While there are moderate factions within the party, such as the Blue Dog Democrats, the overall direction is solidly progressive compared to its origins.
Key Moments in the Shift
The New Deal (1930s): Shift towards government intervention in the economy.
Civil Rights Movement (1960s): Break with Southern conservatives over race issues.
1970s–1980s: Southern conservatives left the party, and Democrats embraced modern liberalism.
The Democratic Party’s transformation from a conservative, pro-slavery party to a liberal advocate of civil rights and progressive policies was gradual but decisive, driven by major events like the New Deal and Civil Rights Movement.
Sources:
History.com
Britannica
The Atlantic
Yesterday's conservative Democrats was the Party that DENIED you the right to vote while what is Today's liberal Democrats was the Party that won you the right to vote.
Also remember, the original Liberals in America where George Washington, James Madison, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, etc.Data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an arm of the Department of Labor, shows native-born Americans lost more than 1.3 million jobs over the last 12 months, while foreign-born workers gained more than 1.2 million jobs.
First, while I am parsing the data, which I am sure you did as well, are you blaming illegal immigrants or legal immigrants waiting for asylum resolution for all of that?
I'm blaming the Biden-Harris Administration for reversing efforts Trump had made to lower migration and to disincentivize their coming.
The Biden-Harris Administration joined the UN Global Compact on Migration and redirected hundreds of billions of tax-debt to aiding in migrants migrating to America and receiving social services and government support in getting jobs... Americans were sometimes fired from jobs so that migrants in turn could be hired, that the Biden Administration supported and gave incentives to corporations for.OK, so you and Trump would rather have a shrinking US population and shrinking GDP to go along with it? That is the implication of your position to stop or limit immigration.
Why is Native-born American employment declining?
1. Our Native-born population is rapidly getting older and retiring or leaving work due to health.
2. The observed Native-born Non-Institutional population is decreasing.
3. That leads to a observed shrinkage of the Native-born Employment Workforce
4. The reverse of 2 and 3 is true for foreign-born Americans.
Contrary to the belief that foreign-born workers are taking jobs from native-born Americans, studies show that both groups are experiencing job growth. In fact, since 2021, employment for native-born workers increased by about 5.7 million, with foreign-born workers gaining approximately 5.1 million jobs in the same period(
PolitiFact
)(
Check Your Fact
). Labor experts also argue that immigrant workers complement the domestic workforce by filling gaps in industries like agriculture, construction, and healthcare (Economic Policy Institute). Thus, while there may be short-term declines in native-born employment due to retirements or economic shifts, there is no strong evidence that immigration is driving this trend.
See how a little research does a 180 on your preconceived notions?
2.You know as well as I do that the programs funded and supported by the Biden-Harris Administration come at a cost to our economy and add to inflation (as they add to our debt).
Is there long term benefit to this effort to bring in millions of very low-skilled migrants into America?
There is benefits for corporations, there is benefit if the goal is to break down the fabric of what makes a cohesive nation built on similar beliefs and language.
If the goal is a borderless world that overwhelmingly favors the interests of the corporations over the interests of citizens then continuing on the path the Biden-Harris Administration has set us upon is the way to go.
If eroding the benefits of citizenship, or if eradicating the concept of national citizenship in favor of a global citizenry beholden to international corporate interests and a select elite is what you seek... then continuing on the path the Biden-Harris Administration has us fast tracking on is the way to go.
You will own nothing... you will have no rights... and you will be happy.I agree with Ken. These migrants are very low skilled & they add nothing to the American economy. Au contraire, they are exhausting the American infrastructure. An astute middle schooler knows this. The Democrats are becoming more & more socialist w/each decade. It started en masse in 1965 with the war on poverty programs. These programs created the welfare state as we know it. These programs were problematic with middle class taxpayers being taxed to the hilt. The Democratic Party has always been socialist in one form or another. Now, they have taken it to the extreme. Cognizant people won't be voting Democrat as Democrats are destroying America by creating debt. They will be voting Republican.
"I agree with Ken. These migrants are very low skilled & they add nothing to the American economy. " - I have shown where that is NOT true. Can you show me studies that says it is?
"Au contraire, they are exhausting the American infrastructure. " - I have shown and provided the links where that is NOT true in most circumstances and certainly not in the way you mean. Can you show me studies that says it is?
Do you know the definition of "socialism". Hint, it is not welfare. If it were, then ALL nations would be "socialist" because ALL nations provide welfare to their population to one degree or another. Studies show that America falls on the low-end of that scale - 26th out of 35 developed nations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … e_spending - Can you provide something similar that proves that wrong or will you modify your stance?
Creating debt, that is a laugh. Don't you remember that Trump declared himself the King of Debt and then went on to prove it during his four years. His current economic promises will make the terrible job he did between 2017 and 2021 look good by comparison. Are you sure you want to vote for huge increases in debt?
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/ … ebt-224642
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … any-other/
Highest annual debt per year is Trump at $1.95 trillion increase per year in office. The second highest ever was Obama at $1.19 trillion. Will you now agree that Trump, true to his word, is the King of Debt and not the Democrats?
"16 Nobel Prize-winning economists say Trump policies will fuel inflation" - Why do you want more inflation under Trump? https://www.reuters.com/world/us/16-nob … 024-06-25/
Modelling shows Trump want's to raise the national debt by $580 billion per year while Harris's program will increase it by only $120 billion a year. I would go with the candidate that increases the debt by less and actually helps middle class people as opposed to Trump's almost FIVE TIMES bigger increase that helps mostly himself and his wealthy friends. I am sorry to see you seem to want the second option while I prefer the first.
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/28/trump- … t-electionApparently, you cannot provide studies to back up your claims. I didn't think you could.
Now that you have gotten that out of your system, please tell the truth or back up your incomplete, out of context statements with facts. I took the time and effort previously, why can't you now?
Ken, there are people who will vote Democrat no matter what. It is analogous to a German person who saw that Hitler was losing the war yet insisted that Germany will win the war.
I see you are projecting MAGA onto the Democrats again.
No, they are projecting it unto themselves but love using their displacement mechanisms unto the Republicans who want to remedy the mess the Democrats put us in. I know that you vehemently refuse to acknowledge the truth, hmmmm.
Sure, let me pull some truth and facts out of the internet... lets see...
The full picture of our economic well-being is disparaging when considering the (Trump) pre-pandemic economy.
When factoring in real average weekly earnings, the average worker has seen a nearly 4 percent decline in wages after inflation since January 2021.
That value is more than 3 percent lower than it would be if wage growth had continued at the (Trump) pre-pandemic rate.
In contrast to the Biden-Harris Administration's wage growth narrative, stagnant real disposable income per capita and a nearly 4% decline in real avg weekly earnings indicate a substantial decrease in economic well-being.
Statistical data reveals real incomes have either stagnated or declined since Jan. 2021.
The Real Cause of Inflation Is Insane Government Spending
https://www.texaspolicy.com/the-real-ca … -spending/
The Fleecing of America: How an Unprecedented Federal Spending Spree Created Economic Turmoil
https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spe … ee-created
And I am blaming Biden for increasing immigration and increasing our GDP.
Let me remind you what your comment was that I responded to: "Perhaps for the same reasons you don't consider Harris an extremist even though her every goal seems to be to play Robin Hood, taking from one to give to another. "
How can my comment that you object to something be a lie when virtually every word you write points in that direction. Shall I go back and find all the times where you wrote you oppose anti-discrimination laws or social safety nets? If that is not "objecting to helping people" I don't know what is.
This I understand. Thank You, wilderness.
Cred, Jewish people, for the most part, are politically liberal, especially Reform, non-traditionally religious, & secular Jews. Conservative & Orthodox Jews tend to be politically conservative.
Yes, but 70 percent of the American Jews vote for Democrat, so it would appear that as a composite group they fear the excesses of the right over those of the left. And, you know something, I agree with their assessment.
I also agree with their assessment. It was the right wing in America that preached & practiced anti-Semitism. In the 1930s, a rabid anti-Semite, Father Coughlin, preached that the Jews caused the Great Depression. As we all know, Charles Lindbergh, was also an anti-Semite. Also it was the anti-Semites in the 1930s that refuse to increase quotas for Jews fleeing Nazi Europe. We all also know that the right-wing fascist governments in the 1930s lead to the extermination of the Jewish people. There is a book called HITLER'S ALLIES by Norman Ridley which discusses Americans who supported Nazism. Yes, there are those reactionaries who consistently blame the Jews for everything.
But, in spite of this and other examples of out and out bigotry, Trump has quite a following. Anyone bothering to open a book can understand the Jewish affinity for Democrats. Trump's stable genius is full of holes. He is too dumb to realize that he is just as much an advocate for anti-semitism as any of the personalities 80-90 years ago. Trump and HIS followers wear the mantle of reactionary.
"... he is just as much an advocate for anti-semitism as any of the personalities 80-90 years ago. Trump and HIS followers wear the mantle of reactionary.
How so?Read my earlier comments regarding trump blaming the non support of the Jews as the potential cause for losing the upcoming election.
"Trump wants to reinstate his Muslim ban,
putting the blame largely on Jews if he loses the election." willowarbor
Huh?
I guess this topic is over my head.Here is more in case you missed the uttering of an insufferably stupid fellow.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-i … =113853150Okay, thank you. Its all a can of worms to me. (this Jewish stuff)
The world is a very harsh place. I guess its always been like this and I just wasn't aware. I tend to look for the easiest most joyful solution.
I'm starting to realize there is no easy, joyful solution.
The world is a harsh place.
End of story.And your man is making it so much harsher with his paranoia, his hateful rhetoric, and actions he has taken in the past as President, e.g. Muslim ban.
"I'll put it to you very simply and as gently as I can, I wasn't treated properly by the voters who happen to be Jewish," he said. "I don't know. Do they know what the hell is happening if I don't win this election and the Jewish people would really have a lot to do with that if that happens because, at 40%, that means 60% of the people are voting for the enemy. Israel, in my opinion, will cease to exist within two years, and I believe I'm 100%," said Trump as the crowd appeared to chat among themselves.
Keep in mind, Jews, including children who can't vote, make up a whopping 2% of America's population.
And Wilderness and others wonder why I have such a distaste for conservatism in practice.
If you read Russell Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles you will find several of them quite appealing and reasonable. But at least two of them are poison pills.
One is number 5:
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality."
It is the practical application of the bolded section that gives Conservatives permission to support things like slavery in the 1800s and earlier, slavery-adjacent from 1870 - 1964, and then attempting to degrade the Civil Rights Act in the decades that follow. It is that sentence that defines the major difference between Liberals and Conservatives.
As you can tell from his essay, it is the Conservative's position that this "hierarchy" should not be disturbed because these natural differences between people and groups are baked in to the human psyche. And if they are to be disturbed, then it needs to be in slow, small, measured steps. It is that philosophy that permitted conservatives in good "conscience" to defend the practice of people of one race owning people of another. This is why Conservatives are so reticent to fix social problems and worse, rarely even tries.
Liberals, on the other hand, reject that idea wholeheartedly. While Liberals agree that the idea of "hierarchy" is ingrained in the human psyche, they are not afraid to TRY to do something about it. And, for the most part, they want to take pragmatic steps to correct social ills. Liberals, by and large are not revolutionaries as Kirk and other Conservatives claim. In today's America it is true (because you can count them) that while there are plenty of wrong-headed Liberals who want to push things too far, too fast, there are even more Conservatives who want to drag us back to the stone age. (Ironically, from what I have read, the people of the age before agriculture were more egalitarian in practice than what Liberals want in theory.)
The next principle, Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. , further emphasizes the Conservatives desire to leave discriminatory systems in place rather than trying to fix the problem.Thanks, ESO.
5. The only justification for inequality is one that is based upon merit, attained by everybody and anybody who has the talent and the desire to succeed, not preference or privilege. I don't not accept the idea of royalty or that one man is intrinsically better than another.
I always will resist the idea of a caste system as normal.
Just because something falls short of perfection does not justify our resigning ourselves to accept this as the status quo. We would have had no record of any progress in this society with that attitude. Rigid injustice and inequity that persists is a powder keg, the very stuff revolutions are made of, let's look at Paris in 1789.
It's hard to keep up with all the hate these days.
Haitians eating pets, Trump wants to reinstate his Muslim ban, putting the blame largely on Jews if he loses the election and that gem of a senator from Louisiana who told the executive director of the Arab American Institute....“You should hide your head in a bag.”
Us versus them demagoguery. Fear mongering is baked into the cake and it's being served up relentlessly. History has shown us, this generally leads to violence.And the kind of dictatorship Trump wants and advocates for.
And what kind of dictatorship does Trump want and advocate for?
~ what is the "extremist rhetoric spewed out by Trump and his cohorts."?
~ how does "Trump and HIS followers wear the mantle of reactionary."?
Man, I'm confused.GOP congressman tweets racist rant about Haitian immigrants
Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., called Haiti the "nastiest country in the western hemisphere" in a post on social media Wednesday, saying migrants from the Caribbean country, the majority of whom are in the U.S. legally, should "get their ass out of our country."
Higgins' rant on X — which was deleted hours later — came in response to an Associated Press story about a Haitian nonprofit group that filed a citizen criminal charge against former President Donald Trump and Sen. JD Vance for their repeated baseless claims about migrants in Springfield, Ohio, including Trump's assertion at the presidential debate they were "eating the dogs" and "eating the cats."
"Lol. These Haitians are wild. Eating pets, vudu, nastiest country in the western hemisphere, cults, slapstick gangsters… but damned if they don’t feel all sophisticated now, filing charges against our President and VP," he said, referring to Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees Trump and Vance, respectively.
"All these thugs better get their mind right and their ass out of our country before January 20th," the post concluded. That would be the day Trump and Vance would be sworn into office if they win November's election.
Higgins is a staunch Trump ally who has become known for using heated rhetoric, including saying last year of special counsel Jack Smith, "I’ll just say that his days are numbered and American patriots are not gonna stand idly by, good sir, and allow our republic to dissolve."
After a 2017 terrorist attack in London, Higgins said anyone even suspected of being an Islamic terrorist should be killed.
“Not a single radicalized Islamic suspect should be granted any measure of quarter,” he wrote on Facebook. “Their intended entry to the American homeland should be summarily denied. Every conceivable measure should be engaged to hunt them down. Hunt them, identify them, and kill them. Kill them all.”
The musings of a typical MAGA xenophobic racist. SAD for the Republican Party. SADDER for America.
I thought that this article might be of interest to you, IB
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/27/politics … index.html
Did you know that Trump had mentioned about the possibility of selling Puerto Rico, as if the residents have no say or input in all of that. It is forgotten that Trump made a fool out of himself a few years ago by asking Danish authorities if he could buy Greenland, as if the residents there had no say as to how and by whom they are to be governed.I remember that.
About the "comedian". I dont know. Im not offended by their stupidity. But it wasnt funny. He also said offensive/sexual comments about latinos in general, and racist comments about black people.
To have a guy making racist jokes at your rally, when you're frequently accused of being racist, and at a moment when you're trying to get brown and black votes... The stupidity of MAGA. I guess most of them like that stuff.
Continuing to stoke the flames of bigotry and intolerance, this is just how Trump and MAGA work their playbook. How else can such a hateful man manage to remain so prominent for so long? Republicans count on the xenophobic and racist attitudes held by much of American public to get them over the top, and they might well succeed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … nt-threat/A Wisconsin City Welcomed New Refugees. Then the Angry Billboards Went Up.
Eau Claire had a plan. But opponents, mostly from rural areas, were convinced that the newcomers would destroy their Midwestern way of life.
The billboards marked the beginning of a searing monthslong battle in central and western Wisconsin over 75 refugees, mostly from countries in central Africa. Each one had been vetted, often for years, and then invited by the federal government to come to the United States. An evangelical nonprofit would help them settle, at least initially, in Eau Claire, a predominantly white, liberal-leaning city of 70,000, surrounded by a conservative swath of rural Wisconsin.
Standing against the resettlement: a loud protest group, dozens strong, made up in part of evangelical Christians, who said cities and states should be able to say no to refugees coming to their communities.
Often deploying selective facts and misinformation, they insisted the resettlement was unlawful and founded with ill intent, and that the refugees would bring a rise in crime, disease and disorder — along with Shariah law.
When the City Council president, Emily Berge, saw the false accusations plastered last October above a thoroughfare in this river-crossed Midwestern city, her heart sank.
“I was shocked such claims would be made,” Ms. Berge said. “It was so xenophobic, and not at all what we stand for as a community.”
Xenophobic? “Hardly,” said Matthew Bocklund, an avid supporter of former President Donald J. Trump and an activist who helped raise funds for the billboards.
“I don’t want to live in a third-world hellhole,” one protester said at a public gathering.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/28/us/p … tests.htmlSo, what we have in this situation is people who have seen on the News and in Social Media for years now, all the horrible things that can occur when foreign migrants are brought (without informing the populace of that town and gaining their trust and acceptance of such an effort) to a town (rural community) that hasn't experienced this.
IF our media, and our 'leaders', and our government spent as much or more effort in putting out positive messaging and making sure that things appeared fair and reasonable, and taking time to gain the communities support BEFORE shipping in dozens, or hundreds, or thousands...
AND IF our government actually DID vet foreign migrants as well as the above article you provided noted for those particular migrants, and actually DID keep out all the hardened criminals and predators...
You would be 100% right about your perspectives... and how you consider those rural white Americans racist, xenophobic, etc.
But that isn't the case... and you are not near to 100% right.
[EDIT - PART II]
So... now let's consider what our government is REALLY doing, and who they are REALLY spending billions flying in, supporting, and dumping (deliberately chosen word) into unsuspecting communities.
The hundreds of thousands of inadmissible aliens the Biden-Harris Administration authorized to fly over the border into the interior of the country but then determinedly fought to shield from public knowledge.
Florida airports by far led all other states in flight landings of 326,000 immigrants through March of this year.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his top lieutenants have voiced their displeasure that Biden’s government kept the program hidden from them.
“It is a secret because . . . they don’t tell us anytime somebody comes in,” DeSantis complained during an April 4 press conference when asked about the Center’s report of a few days earlier. “They don’t give us any information on it. They are not coordinating with state government at all. If they throw six people on a commercial flight coming from a foreign country, there’s no acknowledgement at all to state or local authorities. That’s just a fact.”
The administration reports that the immigrants are mainly from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
https://cis.org/Bensman/Secret-Finally- … -Thousands
An internal DHS report found massive fraud occurring among thousands of sponsors for the migrants, with the listing of fake social security numbers or phone numbers some of which belonged to dead people.
“Venezuela’s Violent Deaths Fall to 22-Year Low on Migration”. Well, crime is definitely falling in the country since the surge of Venezuelan entrants to the United States began.
On December 28, 2023, Bloomberg reported: “Venezuela’s rate of violent deaths dropped to its lowest level in more than two decades following years of massive migration as both criminals and victims fled the nation’s economic crisis.”
That article quotes Roberto Briceño León, director of the Observatory Venezuelan Violence, which found there were 26.8 violent deaths in the country per 100,000 in 2023, a marked decline from the 35.3 violent deaths the previous year, as “criminals and gangs have emigrated due to the lack of opportunities to commit crimes”.
https://cis.org/Arthur/Venezuela-Sendin … ted-States
So, we have a government that Secretly flies in migrants. Denies the fact, does nothing to quell the fears of Americans as strangers are put into their neighborhoods... and the current Administration was either duped or too dumb, or just didn't care enough to ensure these were not thousands of violent criminals they were letting in.
And then, we have a media and select politicians that call American citizens who get upset about it racist, xenophobic, when another girl is raped, or a gang takes over an apartment building, or a hotel is filled and crime skyrockets in the neighborhood."AND IF our government actually DID vet foreign migrants as well as the above article you provided noted for those particular migrants, and actually DID keep out all the hardened criminals and predators..."
Are you able to discuss the laws and the resulting policy that exists in terms of vetting? How are immigrants vetted? Have these policy/processes changed over the past 4 years? Are they different under this administration versus the Trump administration? Please provide citation of written policy.
If, we as a nation, are unhappy with such policies, should we put pressure on our elected representatives to craft legislation to change such?
What a surprise. Not.
The open, almost proud, xenophobia and racism in US (inc HP) has become a new normal.Predictable... flew right over like a jet plane I see...
If the job was done right, not in a rush, not with 'just check-in and let us know where you want to go' ease of entry...
But its not...
Tren de Aragua gang started in Venezuela’s prisons now in the US
https://apnews.com/article/tren-de-arag … a893e09e53
'Ghost criminals': How Venezuelan gang members are slipping into the U.S.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigr … rcna156290
This is the failing of the Biden Administration...
It is the job of the American people to be accepting of the people who are in need...
It is the job of the American Government to protect its people, by ensuring it is not letting in thousands of criminals intent on doing harm...
If the Biden Administration cared about the Citizens of America more than catering to an elite class and posturing for political gain, things would have gone much better for those in need, as well as those who received them."This is the failing of the Biden Administration..".
Has Congress given him more funds, additional resources?
Considering our actual immigration laws, what would you have him do? That is legal?Baloney...
Trump refused to join the UN Global Compact on Migration.
Biden joined it on day 1.
Trump made an agreement with Mexico to hold migrants in Mexico until they were properly vetted and gave NO incentive to migrants to come.
Biden rescinded those efforts on day 1.
I could go on, in great detail, documenting how this all went pretty badly because we have idiots (and one corrupt dementia patient) running the show, Biden, Harris, the whole damned Administration is the worst, most incompetent collection we have ever suffered in any Administration since I have been alive.
But I have already done that... over the course of the last 4 years... from Ukraine to Iran, from immigration to government spending, there has never been a worse Administration.
That's why Harris is running a campaign as if she is NEW and different, as if she will bring change and JOY... because they can't run on the truth, that a Harris Presidency will be a continuation of the last 4 years... only worse... because from Ukraine to Iran, Immigration to the Economy, everything IS worse today than 4 years ago.Ken, the amount this administration has spent on the border is outrageous -- bears repeating ---
Yes, money was given for the Border czars project to stop the flow ----In 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris announced a commitment of $310 million in aid to Central America, specifically targeting issues in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. This funding aimed to address the root causes of migration from these countries, including poverty, violence, and corruption. The goal was to improve economic opportunities and security in the region to reduce the flow of migrants heading to the United States.
And how much and where she spent in our Taxes
Guatemala: Approximately $144 million
Honduras: Approximately $60 million
El Salvador: Approximately $45 million
NOW the really ugly part ------
The combined budget for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, and the proposed budget for 2024 is as follows:
Fiscal Year 2021: Approximately $52.8 billion
Fiscal Year 2022: Approximately $54.6 billion
Fiscal Year 2023: Approximately $60.2 billion
Fiscal Year 2024 (proposed): Approximately $61.5 billion
Combined Total for FY 2021-2024
Total: Approximately $229.1 billionThose numbers are drops in the bucket...
The money the Biden Administration gave out to NGOs and the UN to help fund migrants getting here is in the billions.
And they plan on spending much more:
The Biden Administration Wants Even More Money to Distribute Illegal Aliens Throughout the United States - March 2024
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/re … gal-aliens
Key Takeaways
The Biden Administration uses two little-known programs to provide taxpayer-funded aid to illegal aliens encountered along the southwest border.
Originally intended for temporary immediate aid, the Administration now uses the programs to transport as many as two million illegal aliens [each year] throughout the U.S.
Nonprofits Are Making Billions off the Border Crisis - March 2024
https://www.thefp.com/p/nonprofits-make … t-children
How feds use charities to hide the true cost of the US border crisis
https://nypost.com/2022/12/21/how-feds- … er-crisis/"Yes, money was given for the Border czars project to stop the flow ---"
Who is the "border czar? "
"Biden rescinded those efforts on day 1.". Nope.
MPP ran thru August of 2022. And during the time it was being litigated in the courts, The government of Mexico indicated that it would opposes any attempt by the United States to restart the program in the future.
Yes, money was given for the Border czars project to stop the flow ----In 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris announced a commitment of $310 million in aid to Central America, specifically targeting issues in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. This funding aimed to address the root causes of migration from these countries, including poverty, violence, and corruption. The goal was to improve economic opportunities and security in the region to reduce the flow of migrants heading to the United States.
And how much and where she spent in our Taxes
Guatemala: Approximately $144 million
Honduras: Approximately $60 million
El Salvador: Approximately $45 million
NOW the really ugly part ------
The combined budget for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, and the proposed budget for 2024 is as follows:
Fiscal Year 2021: Approximately $52.8 billion
Fiscal Year 2022: Approximately $54.6 billion
Fiscal Year 2023: Approximately $60.2 billion
Fiscal Year 2024 (proposed): Approximately $61.5 billion
Combined Total for FY 2021-2024
Total: Approximately $229.1 billion
Pretty shocking, I would say --- yet you feel more should be added?
How or why do you defend this horrendous mess Biden/Harris have created?
More context.
https://www.wpr.org/news/after-backlash … eau-claire“These people have fled their homes and suffered unimaginable loss,” World Relief staffer Jodi Jewell told her fellow residents. “They’ve had to leave behind careers, cultural norms, homes, family members. However, their past difficulties are not what define them. They are some of the most resilient, driven and joy-filled people that you’ll ever meet.”
Good heart... all the right reasons.
critics of the refugee resettlement claimed a city manager made an agreement with World Relief in secret months before the public knew.
Bad actors... making decisions that impact communities, and the lives of those within, without their consent, without allowing the community any choice.
There is your problem.
And then the Billboard pushes those buttons... conflates an already badly handled situation making it worse.
But there is truth at the heart of it.
"We will put who-ever we want into your community... whenever we want... wherever we want... and go F yourself if you don't like it."
Its the message many are getting... not sure its going to receive any accolades for being a great sales pitch, but, you know, they are deplorables, so who cares what they want or think?
The topic of immigration to the United States encompasses a range of perspectives, with various reasons motivating individuals to seek a new life in the U.S. Many immigrants are drawn by the promise of economic opportunity, believing that hard work can lead to better job prospects and higher wages. Others flee political instability or oppressive regimes, seeking refuge and the hope of greater freedoms and human rights.
Conversely, some Americans express concerns about their rights being usurped by the influx of immigrants. They fear economic competition, arguing that an increase in immigrant workers can drive down wages and limit job opportunities, particularly in low-wage sectors. Cultural integration is another concern, as some worry that new immigrants may not assimilate into American society, potentially leading to tensions and divisions. Additionally, there are apprehensions regarding resource allocation, with some feeling that an expanding population strains public resources like education, healthcare, and social services, which they believe should prioritize citizens. Legal and security issues also come into play, as fears about illegal immigration can heighten concerns regarding crime and national security. Some Americans believe that immigration policies may infringe upon their rights, impacting property rights, public safety, and their ability to voice opinions on immigration.
Bridging the divide requires understanding both the aspirations of immigrants and the genuine concerns of many Americans. Finding common ground may involve promoting policies that facilitate fair immigration processes while addressing security and economic issues. Community engagement and dialogue can foster understanding between immigrant populations and long-standing residents. This complex issue is deeply rooted in historical, cultural, and economic factors, and addressing it requires a comprehensive approach that respects the needs and rights of everyone involved.
Yes, while the emotional appeal of accepting migrants is understandable, it’s essential to recognize that there are significant drawbacks and challenges associated with immigration. Emotional arguments can sometimes overshadow practical considerations, leading to policies that may not effectively address the complexities of the situation.
For instance, while many individuals genuinely wish to help those fleeing hardship, concerns about economic impact, cultural integration, and resource allocation cannot be overlooked. A purely emotional approach may lead to an influx of immigrants that some communities are unprepared to accommodate, potentially straining public services and creating tension among residents.I submit an appropriate article for your reading pleasure...
Will white people people tell me what is the reason for this obsession in America for beating down Black People for so long? Is it really just because they were different? You give Trump a standing ovation today, here and now, for still doing it. I can have no confidence in you nor your motives as a result.
https://www.salon.com/2024/10/06/kamala … formation/
"Its the Same Old Song"
The Four Tops-1965
Here is a little entertainment to go with my diatribe
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CkKJy4UaPHM"Will white people tell me what is the reason for this obsession in America for beating down Black People for so long? "
It's pretty unfair to say that all white people are to blame for the long history of oppression against Black folks in America. The roots of this problem go way back, with things like slavery and segregation shaping our society. When we generalize and put all the blame on one group, we ignore the reality that many white individuals are actively fighting against racism and pushing for social justice. Racism is a complex issue influenced by a bunch of social, economic, and political factors, and it doesn’t help to pin all the responsibility on one race. We all have a part to play in tackling discrimination—everyone, regardless of their background, should be working together to make a difference. Plus, it’s important to recognize that Black experiences aren’t the same for everyone; things like class, gender, and where someone lives can make a big difference. Instead of pointing fingers, let’s focus on having open conversations and finding solutions together. That way, we can build understanding and unity in the fight against racism and inequality.
I can't defend many of Trump's words. But I can offer his deeds when he had the job of representing all Americans. Words can certainly be hurtful, and work to damage relationships. But deeds can work to say, I care, I am working to make things better.
Trump----
Donald Trump's administration, there were significant achievements related to Black employment, especially for Black women. The unemployment rate for Black women reached a historic low of 4.5% in August 2019, which was the lowest rate recorded at that time(
Word In Black). This accomplishment was part of a broader trend where Black unemployment overall declined significantly during his presidency, reaching its lowest point of 5.4% in September 2019
Criminal Justice Reform: Trump signed the First Step Act into law in 2018, which aimed to reform the criminal justice system, particularly reducing sentences for non-violent offenses. The law helped address the disproportionate impact of harsh sentencing on Black communities and led to the release of thousands of individuals from federal prisons, many of whom were Black.
Funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs): The Trump administration increased federal funding for HBCUs, making permanent funding commitments. In 2019, Trump signed the FUTURE Act, providing $255 million annually for HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions.
Opportunity Zones: Established under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Opportunity Zones provided tax incentives to encourage investment in economically distressed areas, many of which were predominantly Black communities. This aimed to spur economic development and job creation.
Low Unemployment Rates: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the unemployment rate for Black Americans reached a record low of 5.4% in August 2019. The Trump administration frequently highlighted this achievement as an indicator of economic progress for Black citizens.
Prison Reform and Pardons: In addition to the First Step Act, Trump issued a number of pardons and commutations for Black individuals who had received long prison sentences for non-violent offenses. He also supported high-profile advocacy efforts by figures like Kim Kardashian to bring attention to and rectify sentencing injustices.
These initiatives contributed to progress in areas such as economic opportunity, education, and criminal justice reform that were aimed at improving conditions for Black Americans.I do appreciate your attempt to engage on this question.
"It's pretty unfair to say that all white people are to blame for the long history of oppression against Black folks in America."
Well most of you were, as you could not maintain a society of systemic oppression without it. What is so complicated about treating people with a degree of respect even though they don't look like you? It is attitude that I associate with primitive thinking and there seems to be a lot of that in the American populace today. Trump and MAGA seems to be bringing it all back.
It is one group that is primarely responsible for what has happened, so I do point fingers and do not generalize.
I hold people responsible for what they say. What you consider beneficial actions toward the Black community by Trump have not been recognized as such by us as confirmed by our voting choices.
-------
"Economists generally credit Obama with getting the recovery solidly underway and Trump with keeping it going until the pandemic recession. The steady job and pay gains in recent years have been the biggest drivers of rising middle-class incomes."
In August and September 2019, when Trump was president, the Black unemployment rate hit a new record low of 5.3%.
But the rate was even lower for several months of Biden’s presidency, hitting its lowest point at 4.8% in April 2023.
------
Like I said, it is the "same old song"
I would have liked to believe that IT could not happen here, but I may well be mistaken….
The parallels between 1937 in Germany and 2024 in America are frighteningly similar.
Yes, the rhetoric you described—referring to an "enemy within," dehumanizing minorities, demonizing migrants, and speaking about concepts like "bad genes"—bears strong parallels to the language and ideology presented in Adolf Hitler’s "Mein Kampf."
In "Mein Kampf", Hitler frequently used such dehumanizing and fearmongering language to rally support for his extreme nationalist and racist agenda. The following key themes are similar:
1. "Enemy Within" and Scapegoating Minorities:
Hitler repeatedly portrayed Jews as a dangerous internal enemy undermining Germany. He claimed they were conspiring to destroy the nation from within, a central idea in Nazi propaganda.
The idea of an "enemy within" often serves to create a sense of moral panic and social division, encouraging people to distrust and even hate certain groups within their own society.
2. "Poisoning Blood" and Racial Purity:
Hitler used the concept of "racial purity" extensively in "Mein Kampf". He viewed the intermixing of different races as "polluting" the Aryan race. The phrase "poisoning the blood" directly aligns with the Nazi obsession with "racial hygiene" and preventing the "dilution" of the so-called superior race by non-Aryans, especially Jews and non-white people.
This rhetoric about "bad genes" and genetic inferiority is part of the pseudo-scientific justification Nazis used to promote eugenics and discriminatory policies against Jews, Roma, and other minority groups.
3. Dehumanization of Minorities (Calling Them "Vermin" or "Animals"):
In "Mein Kampf", Hitler consistently referred to Jews and other marginalized groups as subhuman, often using animalistic language such as "vermin" and "parasites." The dehumanization of these groups was central to Nazi ideology and helped justify violent policies, including genocide.
Referring to groups as "animals" or "vermin" plays on fears and deepens hostility by suggesting these people are not only different but less than human and thus deserving of harsh treatment or eradication.
4. Immigrants as a Threat:
Hitler also portrayed Jewish people and other minority groups as a threat to the social and economic stability of Germany, accusing them of taking jobs, undermining the economy, and spreading crime. This scapegoating of minorities for social and economic problems is a recurring theme in nationalist, xenophobic rhetoric.
The idea that immigrants are not just criminals but existential threats to the nation (suggesting they will "eat our pets" or "eat us") is an extreme form of this demonization, meant to stoke fear and hatred.
5. Racial and Genetic Superiority
Hitler’s belief in Aryan superiority and the "purity" of certain races was central to his worldview. He used genetic arguments to support the idea that certain groups were inherently "inferior" or "dangerous" due to their ancestry. In modern times, any talk about "bad genes" among non-white immigrants echoes this kind of eugenic and white supremacist ideology.Besides Trump's year's long racist actions against Island Bite's home in Puerto Rico, institutional racism is alive and well in Michigan to.
After police doing nothing after multiple reports of racial harassment, Michigan police and justice system effectively allowed one white man to shoot a black man. Fortunately, if it can be called that since he shouldn't have been shot in the first place, the victim survived and it is only attempted murder.
This is what Trump's hateful rhetoric leads to. Racial crimes rose astronomically during and after Trump's term and his continued hate-speech. He puts David Duke, a proud supporter who Trump and his most avid cult members embrace, to shame.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28/us/minne … index.htmlWhile this story isn't about the color of one's skin, it is certainly about how your genes are arraigned, This story is about the long journey of a very conservative Christian couple had in dealing with their gay son.
They found that their gay son was spot on when he told them "There is no hate like Christian love." To be fair, the only Christianity he knew was conservative Christianity, so a better declaration would be "There is no hate like conservative Christian love."!
This is a very long read, but worth every minute of it.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/03/us/conse … index.htmlGreat story. I am continually bewildered how many buy into the idea that God would have them make a choice between him and their child or that they would need to "fix" what he made and gave them.
They leave themselves between a rock and a hard place.
One the one hand, they say God is infallible.
On the other hand, they say God made a mistake when He created gays.
Their way out of that, of course is deluding themselves that gayness is a choice.
Yup, 5,600+ words or over a 20 minute read. Great story! Good thing I had just filled my coffee cup full. I got a lot out of the comments too.
Every once in a great while there is a modicum of justice for institutional racism at work.
In this case, Officer Coy said "Gun, Gun" and immediately pulled the trigger killing a Black man holding a cell phone. He then let his victim bleed out while help arrived.
Coy was fired and the Police Chief was forced out since his department was famous for killing Black men.
Believe it or not, the city had to pass a law forcing police to render aid. It is named after the murder victim.
Coy should never had remained a cop given the number of complaints against him which were ignored by the police chief.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/04/us/andre … index.htmlWe will forever be weeding out bad cops. If America lasts 1,000 years we will still be weeding out bad cops.
And if America lasts 1,000 years we will likely still be demanding and expecting perfection out of our cops. We will still nit pick and second guess them.
(Your link says of that Number of complaints, only a handful were substantiated. That you whine he should have been kicked out because of a handful of complaints over a 20 year span makes my point about expecting perfection.)
Another ramification of racist felon Trump being elected is an increase hate crimes and activity now that these people have a friend in the White House. They didn't even wait until he was sworn in.
Before attack Blacks.
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/07/g-s1-333 … 6FCyWQrXlQWell, we can all hope that Biden's FBI will find the perps and, in typical liberal fashion, slap their wrists and turn them loose. That will surely solve all racial problems, at least until liberal colleges crank up their racist admittance policies.
How is it that one is attributed to Trump (with zero supporting data) and the other is ignored as not happening?At least Biden's FBI will go looking. Trump's FBI will simply ignore it.
Since you never provide supporting data, I thought I would return the favor since data doesn't seem to factor in to your opinions.Deleted
He is so biased --- Trump appointed the current head of FBI. Never sure what he is talking about. I mean Trump has not even been sworn in--- Go figure.
And for supporting data! How can he support that Trump's FBI will as he put it --- "Trump's FBI will simply ignore it."
Maybe a mind reader. LOL Don't give him air...I refuse to do so. Why do they IRRATIONALLY FEAR Trump? Why are they AFRAID? Even when Biden won, I wasn't afraid. My life was good, I didn't suffer. What makes people SO AFRAID of Trump? He is harmless & is looking out for America.
Those discombobulaters are merely jumping to erroneous conclusions.
I guess that's just them exercising.Simple, because of what he did the first time and what he has promised to do this time around. There is a serious question as to whether America will survive as a free country after Trump is done being dictator.
Not afraid, yet you denigrated Biden and the Democrats to death. So, I reserve the right to do the same to Trump and the Republicans. Turn about is fair play, don't you think?
Trump had better watch his caboose, because I will be right on the top of it.What she refuses to understand is the fear half of Americans have of Trump is both RATIONAL and REAL. It is rational based on his previous conduct and the hate speech he spews.
In a later edition of the book which analyzed Trump's mental disabilities, the health care professionals noted that after Trump was elected in 2016, visits to therapists skyrocketed because people, mainly women, were very fearful of what Trump would do to them. Turns out they were right - they lost some of their freedom.
I can't imagine the number of visits these analysts are getting now!Oh gawd . . . The mental image . . . Cred riding Trump like a jockey. In jockey colors (brilliant & shiny silver and blue). His nib held high, like a quill driving down towards a huge caricatured orange butt. Get it out, get it out.
No, wait, he said he'd be riding Pres. Trump's caboose. I can see it now. Cred in full striped-cloth engineer garb, complete with hat, blue neckerchief and oily pocket rag, hunched over riding that caboose (like we've all seen the adult 'engineers' do at kids' amusement parks) with his quill a breaker bar jabbing down at the couplings. That's better, the jockey one was a little freaky.
GA ;-)Yeah....
....
That's two of the three mental images you can come up with
Snarky, still are we? Let your imagination run free.
There is a hot poker waiting for his bum the very moment he gets out line, none of this is anatomical, literal but figurative only.Get it right, bud. That wasn't snark; it was comedic satire (or so I claim). Snark is adversarial, but my satire was fun.
*I bet your favorite was the first one.
GA ;-)Have you not been adversarial in most our debates?
Comedic satire? So, you claim.....Sure I have, and will probably continue to do so. You leave too many open doors in your wanderings. But it isn't always adversarial, like now. Look how much fun we're having with your "caboose" comment (whew! talk about open doors).
Yes, comedic satire. I feel like it was funny and satirical. And you have to respect how I feel. ;-)
So let's get back to the ride; jockey or engineer?
GALet's face it, you are ruby red at heart. The reality is that you are either blue or red and there is not much room for blending, not really from what this forum has shown me. Another backhanded slap against my criticizing Trump? Well, there is a lot more coming and I guess many more "open doors" as well.
I acknowledge how you feel, but respect is something else.
Yeah, but again I asked for it by leaving a door for all sorts of unwanted guests.It was fun for a while. There were no barbs or criticisms intended. The images were drawn from recollections of your past self-descriptions. And I didn't even hint at Ken's suggested 3rd image.
However, your disapproval should at least be aimed at something real. Without scrolling to check, I bet you can't point to any criticisms of your criticisms of Trump in any of my comments. You won't even find a 'between-the-lines' unspoken code message. There were no 'backhanded slaps'.
You only 'read' that because you wanted to. You would also be more correct if you said there is only red & blue, with no middle ground for you. I think it's baloney, but it's no skin off my nose for you to think so.
And then . . . respect was never an inference in my comments. You already had it, even on the nutty parts, so I don't see why you felt the need to read so much negativity into comments edited to be sure there was none.
Oh well, I did hold out hope, right to the very last. I didn't know I was an unwanted guest.
.
GA
.
. .
. . .
. . . *gotcha!*Ok, but you've done better memes and barbs before, this one was a bit off color for me and disturbing, missing the humor.
But, if you have to know, it would be an "engineer"Let's finish with this: I understand you didn't get the same 'mental image' and thought you were being made fun of. My thoughts (about the "image") were laughing with you, not at you.
Come on bud, if you can't make fun of your friends' gaffes, what are they good for?
Wait! Don't jump on the "gaffe" thing, let me jog your memory.
Years ago we were in a discussion about resisting Pres. Trump (this was during Trump's first term), and you said something about your pen being your sword and your 'loins were girded' for the fight. Those were fertile seeds. ;-)
GA
That is the way it works for the Progressive Left... Democrats... thankfully that messaging is doubling down, from what I saw of the MSNBC rants the NYTimes articles and here in the Forums...
So... if Trump is legit... if he lets RFK Jr. and Gabbard and the rest do what needs to be done... and America begins moving in the right direction again... that attitude you espouse will ensure that we really do see a landslide in 2028, it will make this election look like it was close in comparison.
Your side doesn't want to compromise... it wants to fight until it gets everything it wants.
You will continue to label people racists, misogynists, etc. ... keep doing what you are doing, the majority of the country is sick of it, and that majority will continue to grow.As far as labels go . . . yours would be 'Denial.'
Ken's "What if?" has been on my mind since the election. I would guess that it is also, now, on the minds of a significant segement of Trump voters. I think the election analysises (by all the media) illustrates that point.
All the talking heads noted that it was small increases (2020 as a baseline) in many segments for Trump and small to serious decreases in Democrat support, in several segments, for Harris. The details of specific stats and deep study aren't needed to understand that message.
Even the folks that held out to the last minute because they couldn't vote for Trump, ended up deciding they couldn't vote for Harris. Surely you don't include all those folks as stupid and brainwashed too? What about the Dems that didn't vote for Harris, could they have been thinking about Ken's 'What if?'
Ken's description is mostly spot on and your dismissal of it is denial. The proof is in the election results. You would have been parading them as proof of your 'rightness' if Harris had won, but since she didn't it was because of "reversal and projection."
Geesh.
GA
I agree. There is a clear disconnect from understanding what concerns most Americans, and it may be time to acknowledge that the ideologies of the left do not align with the majority's views. If even Bernie Sanders came to recognize this, then it should be comprehensible to most.
Well... Over 71 million people voted for Harris. So there's that. And by no means do all those folks share the same views or "ideologies". It seems as though maga generally prefers to refer to itself as a monolith but I don't subscribe to similar thought when I look at the Democratic party. There's a lot of diversity.
It should be...
But so long as MSNBC still espouses the radical extremist views they do...
And so long as the likes of the NYTimes propagates lies as facts that the 'establishment' stooges feed them...
And so long as there are many regular folks willing to see Trump (and any supporters) as Credence and Eso do, as enemies that must be defeated, never listened to, never given any compromise...
Personally I think it is a good thing... they will continue to push as they have and come across as the extremists they are... they have long been calling Trump and his supporters Nazis and Racists and Sexists...
The more people who are clearly NOT those things... like Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr that joins with Trump in this effort... the more foolish and detached such rhetoric will appear to the majority of Americans."But so long as MSNBC still espouses the radical extremist views they do...
And so long as the likes of the NYTimes propagates lies as facts that the 'establishment' stooges feed them..."
This makes sense, but what’s even more telling is the election results and the poor ratings these propaganda machines are getting—they’re clearly badly weakened. I truly believe a big change is coming for these outlets. They’re losing revenue, and it’s possible they’ll either be forced to stop spreading lies or face a reckoning that could make them find new careers. The public’s frustration is evident, and I think it’s only a matter of time before these networks are held accountable for their role in shaping a misleading narrative.
"And so long as there are many regular folks willing to see Trump (and any supporters) as Credence and Eso do, as enemies that must be defeated, never listened to, never given any compromise..."
Ken, I’m not sure if you spend much time on social media, but I’ve noticed a significant shift among some hardcore never-Trumpers giving up on the fight. I've been saying this for about six months now. Many have looked in the mirror and not liked what they see— Trump didn’t just win with his base. Yes, there will always be Trump haters, but if Trump does well perhaps those who’ve been so resistant will also take a look in the mirror and reconsider their stance. It’s clear that the dynamics are shifting, and more people are starting to question their previous positions.
I also agree it's not all that bad to have some hold out with all the crazy, could not hurt.
The better Trump will cause the stragglers to drift off with tails between their legs."And so long as there are many regular folks willing to see Trump (and any supporters) as Credence and Eso do, as enemies that must be defeated, never listened to, never given any compromise..."
I have never seen the Right compromise, they will take it all now that there is the opportunity. But it will not come without national strife and turmoil, the dust will never settle. Trump can expect a tack in his seat every time he sits or live in fear that there may be one there even when there isn't. Was I not correct on my last wager that Trump would win? Then he will have an excuse to release his jackbooted Storm Trumpers to silence the dissent. That is what I will wait for, as any tyrants' first move.
"Personally I think it is a good thing... they will continue to push as they have and come across as the extremists they are... they have long been calling Trump and his supporters Nazis and Racists and Sexists..".
So, am I an extremist? Trump's past record in regards to what I have against him are documented and cannot be denied. Gabbard and RFK Jr. are kooks denied by the rank and file of Democrats whom I support. Anyone who supports Trump is in one way or another part of those THINGS, or otherwise have no issues with those who do.I think you have become extremist in your outlook...
I also believe you have earned every right to express your beliefs and demand that they be heard, here, or elsewhere.
That others may disagree with some of them, does not make them automatically evil, or racist, or whatever...
Your side right now is doubling down on pushing an insane perspective... from what I have seen from clips of MSNBC and various articles I have seen written from the likes of the NYTimes.
It would be funny if there were not so many unbalanced people pushing so many insane perspectives and ideas... like poisoning, murdering, others... and we are not just talking TikTok'ers... what the talking heads on MSNBC have been spouting is just as deranged...
Not for criminals who have raped and murdered... not for endless wars... but against people who voted... for Trump.Should I not be alarmed, Ken?
Trump Says,
“I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people. Radical left lunatics,” Trump said told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo in an interview on “Sunday Morning Futures.”
Or
“I think it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National These are bad people. We have a lot of bad people. But when you look at ‘Shifty Schiff’ and some of the others, yeah, they are, to me, the enemy from within,” Trump said in an interview on Fox News’ “MediaBuzz” that aired Sunday.Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen,” he added.
So, a sitting member of congress classifies as one of the enemy within?
Or
And Trump’s complaints are clearly about content. In January 2023, he wrote on Truth Social that “FAKE NEWS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ‘STINK UP’ OUR AIRWAVES!” In October 2023, he asked why CBS should “get free public airwaves” for a “highly partisan” episode of “60 Minutes.” In July of this year, he scolded Fox News, writing, “STOP PUTTING ON THE ENEMY!”
What Presidential candidate has ever had the gall to threaten a free press? Just who does he think that he is?
He will follow the rightwing PRoject 2025 like a grade school primer. As a 999 page cookbook for tyranny and authoritarianism, did you not think that all those right wing bobble heads created it just to have it ignored? It is their bible and I suspect that they will deploy it, and being the tyrant that he is, Trump will follow its prescriptions to the letter.
Trump will also lie, and I will bet you on this. You say the Left won't compromise? Watch a Republican congress vote in a national abortion ban, all that States Rights stuff Trumps talks about is bullsh!t. He would sign it as soon as it comes to his desk. Yes, he will protect women whether they want it or not.
There has been no greater threat to our current system, so yes, to resist this man, I am extreme. Regardless of your attempt to spin your way out of it, the man is an unhinged dope in my opinionAs to the above quoted... I 100% agree...
I think it is sick to allow men to compete with women and share their showers and bathrooms.
I think it is sick to give children hormone blockers or sex changes.
This is your side advocating and supporting these things...
Its your side that has the Cheney family with it now....
Its your side pushing for WWIII... Biden has refused to talk to Putin...
Its your side funding all sides of the conflicts raging in the Middle East...
So... we have what your guys are doing and have been doing...
Vs. what you claim Trump will do once in power.
Well... hard to imagine anyone doing more harm and putting us closer to Nuclear War than we have been these past couple years...How about turning off the pilot on your gaslighting, Ken?
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go … 63864.html
The issues Trump took over Schiff has nothing to do with bathrooms.
Your "stable genius" is going to end all the "Democrat wars", yeah. He will fold up before Putin like a law chair.
I am of the opinion what you say is bad now will be worse under Trump and I will wager you on that.
When things start escalating everywhere once Trump is in charge, I am going to call you out on it.
Oh, so WIlderness' comment wasn't mind reading?
How many people has Trump hired that he fired or forced out? I am just playing the odds and Trump's history. He already has said he doesn't like Wrey.
Seems to me you are the one who is very biased not me. I use history, facts, and logic to form my opinions. What do you use?
It's a forum though? I would think that if any members don't want to participate in conversation or debate, it's really easy to leave the forum.
Prove your statement "At least Biden's FBI will go looking. Trump's FBI will simply ignore it."
Looks like you think you're a mind reader. You seem pretty bitter. Many of us predicted Trump's win and highlighted the real issues that the general public was facing. Meanwhile, you kept defending Biden's administration and his positions. It’s clear now that you’re in the minority, and your views have been placed in the category of a minority mindset. Perhaps become more open to other's views.As soon as Wilderness proves "Well, we can all hope that Biden's FBI will find the perps and, in typical liberal fashion, slap their wrists and turn them loose."
or the others on this forum who make wild unsupported accusations prove theirs. They have been asked many times and all we get are crickets.
The Biden administration will go down as one of the most successful single term presidency in history. When history looks at it, all the right-wing bias will be removed and the Truth that people like Island Bites, Credence, Valeant, Willowarbor, and many others see is that:
* Like Bush left Obama, Trump left Biden an economy in shambles.
* Biden worked hard and was mostly successful in keeping people alive from Covid while Trump and your side battled him the whole time.
* That Biden built up a very sustainable economy from the rubble he was left.
* That he successfully battled inflation with historians will pin on the pandemic, its rightful place, and not Biden as the Right lies about
* They will report on how successful Biden was in battling through the hate from MAGA and the BDS that is rampant among any Trump supporter to get a whole host of mostly bipartisan bills past that addressed the economic problems Trump left him.
* They will note that Biden past a wonderful bi-partisan Infrastructure bill which Trump, although promised, FAILED to do.
* They will see how Biden brought jobs back big time through the Infrastructure and CHIPS act.
* They will see how Biden protected a citizenry in still crisis from the pandemic with the American Rescue Plan while some on the right would rather have had Americans continue to suffer. Ironically, Trump did the same thing, only bigger yet the Right won't even talk about that for fear of being blamed for inflation.
* They will report on Biden reducing health care costs through his various initiatives that capped the cost of insulin for seniors at $35 as part of the wide ranging and successful Inflation Reduction Act.
GOT TO GO TO A MOVIE. There is so much more to write so I will pick it back up later.Save your energy. Biden has nearly completed his term, and continuing to dwell on him is like beating a dead horse. I’ve already criticized his mistakes thoroughly. As for what Trump would do when sworn in, neither you nor I can predict that with certainty. He was certainly a law-and-order president and supported law enforcement. However, his oversight of the FBI left much to be desired, and he bears responsibility for underestimating its issues. The FBI was not honest when they buried the Hunter Biden laptop story, which further undermines trust. Whether Trump learned from those past mistakes is unknown, but I suspect Wray’s tenure would end. When you say, "Trump's FBI will simply ignore it," it reads as a definitive statement, but it’s more of a prediction.
On the topic of the Biden administration being viewed as one of the most successful single-term presidencies, that is subjective. Supporters like Island Bites, Credence, Valeant, and Willowarbor are entitled to their views, and their beliefs regarding Biden. Myself, I feel history will show he was a poor president on some issues, and perhaps more favorable on others. I am not sure you should speak for others regarding their perspectives. But, have at it.
That said, it’s worth considering that more Americans felt Trump would be more effective than Harris, and we’ll never know what would have happened had Biden remained in the race. The majority has spoken, and it’s essential to respect that. If he has failures there will be time to point them out in real time.
It seems you show little respect for the will of the majority and, by extension, our democracy. While it’s fair to point out real-time issues, predicting failure is speculative at best. What will your response be if he succeeds and fulfills the promises entrusted to him by the people’s mandate?
Is it wise to believe one perspective outweighs that of the majority? You, often revisit the past, making comparisons that no longer hold relevance. Perhaps it would be more valuable to reflect on why the party lost despite massive spending, one billion dollars! What lessons can be drawn from the loss?"As for what Trump would do if re-elected, neither you nor I can predict that with certainty."
He has made a load of promises.. has no one heard them?? His intentions are clear unless people think he's lying.Yes, unfounded and very partisan criticism that was mostly untrue.
What is "subjective" is your opinion that my facts are "subjective". BTW, Where is your proof my claims about Biden are false?
I may not be able to predict with certainty, and neither can you, I can easily use Trump's past actions and words and his current action words provides ample fodder to make Very Educated conclusions as to what he might do.
You are quite right, a majority (for the moment) of Americans voted for Trump. (50.4% at the moment but shrinking as more votes come in. Chances are good that Trump ends up with just a plurality)
As to respect for the so-called "will of the majority" or plurality - those who voted for Trump break down into several groups.
* You have those that like Trump and voted for him because he represents their nativist, racist values. The fact that he is a criminal doesn't phase them because they respect it. Well, no, I don't respect them.
* You have most of MAGA with I claim, for good reason which I have provided support several times in the past, they are essentially brainwashed as any Cult member is. It boils down to "they no not what they do". Those people I have pity for and hope someday the fog lifts from their brains and the neural pathways that Trump changed go back to normal. That generally happens only after some sort of intervention or trauma.
* You have the group of voters who don't really know who Trump is but love his machismo and his false promises of a better economy. They will come around when Trump's economy goes south, assuming he implements the policies he says he will. I understand those voters and feel sorry for them.
I am deeply disheartened that hate and harassment seem to be making a resurgence in our culture. First racist text messages aimed at black children and young adults and now a firestorm of misogyny has taken hold of various social media.
In the past 24 hours (November 8), there has been a 4,600% increase in mentions of the terms “your body, my choice” and “get back in the kitchen” on X.
Female social media users are reporting that accounts are commenting “your body, my choice” en masse on their posts.
On Facebook, the phrase “your body, my choice” is currently trending, with 52,000 posts in the last 24 hours.
On Reddit, users utilized the platform to warn others of offline harassment. One user stated, “Women were being harassed today at UNM and told to ‘go home where they belong’ by groups of men in MAGA gear.”
In some instances, women influencers that cater to “traditional values” joined male counterparts. Their content included videos of women upset by the election loss of Harris, referring to them as “retards;”
Previous calls to repeal the 19th Amendment, which previously spiked on X on October 22, resurfaced online. Posts calling for the repeal of the amendment increased by 663 percent compared with the week prior.
influencer Andrew Tate, in a post on X on November 7, stated: “I saw a woman crossing the road today but I just kept my foot down. Right of way? You no longer have rights.” The post received 688,000 views in under two hours. Another X user, stated: “women threatening sex strikes like LMAO as if you have a say”; the post has received 10 million views.
I think what is most deeply disturbing, at least for me, is that this trend has hit children. Specifically into schools. Young girls and parents have used social media to share instances of offline harassment. They include the phrase being directed at them within schools or chanted by young boys in classes. As young as 12 harassing their female classmates.
I'm horrifically saddened by all of the emboldened men on social media right now. Seeing threats like this and 'Your body, MY choice' over and over on posts... We're slipping backward. What are we going to do about this?
https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispa … ds-online/I copied this from a post I just made on the Presidential Election forum since it fits here as well;
With any luck this "4B" movement will take hold in America. This movement started in South Korea in reaction to male making women subservient in that society. What is "4B" you ask? It is a movement where women basically swear off men. They won't marry them, have sex with them, date them, or have children with them. These women are sick and tired of having men tell them how to run their lives.
To understand this, we need a little history.
Fast forward to America. Like with Blacks, America has a very long history of keeping women subservient - for as long as America has been around. Only in the PROGRESSIVE State of New Jersey were women allowed to own property (if they were single), divorce, and vote. That disappeared in 1807 due to what would be called Conservatives today led revolt claiming there were voter fraud issues and the fear women were being manipulated.
Over the next 200 years, women fought for (with the help of some liberal oriented men) and gained basic human rights. That culminated in 1964 *civil rights), 1965 (voting rights), and 1973 (right to privacy and controlling their own bodies).
Ever since those decisions social Conservatives have campaigned to take those rights away, slowly chipping away at things like protection from abusive husbands and the right to sue for discrimination in federal courts. The straw, as it were, that set off this movement was when social Conservatives finally got their way with the Dobbs decision which put control over women's bodies back in the hands of Conservative legislators (ironically, many of them women).
And women in America have a bleak future given that the three liberal justices on the Court are old so Trump will probably have the opportunity to appoint even more young, socially Conservative Justices to the bench cementing in the oppression of women for years, decades to come. Even if the older Conservative Justices leave the bench, Trump will just appoint younger ones; and with the far-right controlled Senate, those appoints will fly through. Can you blame them?
This "4B" movement might be the last chance women have to become equal with men again.
The question is: can women who join this movement be able to keep their commitment. The urge to have sex, have children, and to have a mate is very strong. I wish them the best.
One word of warning (several, actually) is joining the "4B" movement can be dangerous (sort of proving the point) as this anecdote reflects:
"Abby K., a 27-year-old from Florida, recently broke up with her boyfriend over dismissive comments he made about Trump’s history of sexual abuse. When she posted a video about that and her decision to join the 4B movement, she says men flooded her DMs with death threats and hateful comments about her appearance."
On a personal note, while I sympathize with and support their view, as a liberal man I feel bad about being lumped in with the social Conservatives who are at war with women. But, it is their life and wellbeing they are fighting for.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/09/us/4b-mo … index.htmlWomen should punish MAGA men socially and culturally, since these men obviously missed the political message. No dates, no intereaction, no nothing for the neanderthol, let frigidity reign. Be celibate and present a less social persona before them.
- ...
Yeah... that's funny stuff..,
Saw a lot of that... "I'm deleting all my dating aps" ....
No easy f-them and forget them dates for the chads out there...
Well, one might say it is at the bullying stage or psychological abuse. The question is will it be progressive leading to physical abuse, to violence, followed by sexual assaults, and then leap to rape. A simple Google University search brought up article after article on the new trend, I see. Is it a fad?
I think you’re spot on—this could definitely be called bullying. As someone who navigates social media regularly, I can attest that the issue is mutual. The insults, threats, and genuinely frightening attacks come from both sides. With X embracing free speech, people can push the boundaries of what’s acceptable. On this topic, it’s only fair and wise to acknowledge that the problem exists on both sides. Trusting platforms like Google for a complete picture can be misleading; a quick scroll through social sites reveals what’s really happening. I have even been personally attacked with vile rhetoric. It’s shocking to see how the new president and his supporters are being vilified and subjected to some of the most offensive insults.
I can agree with Willow, "I'm horrifically saddened by all of the emboldened men on social media right now." The threats I have received as a Trump supporter are from both men and women.Is that the same both sides as was in Charlottesville? That there are good Nazi's?
It it is a shame people resort to false equivalencies to justify things. As I see it, saying both sides are doing equivalent things puts murderers on the same level as jay-walkers (where did that term ever come from?). They are both law breakers, after all.I shared my perspective, and I don't see any reason for you to insult it. In fact, I took great care in crafting my response to Tim.
Why do you feel justified in accusing me of using false equivalents? It seems you believe your view is always right, but that’s not how I see it. Have fun with that. It's obvious you're upset that Trump won, but the fact remains that he did.Where did I insult you? I simply asked a question and shard my thoughts about false equivalencies.
Couldn't agree more and they have a great role model in Trump.
The question should be... will the FBI put a stop to it... OR ... is the FBI helping propagate it and stir dissent?
It is simple, IMO, pre-2nd Trump, Stop. post-2nd Trump Propagate.
Is Lynching back?
Dennoriss Richardson, 39, was found hanging in an abandoned house in Colbert County, AL. The local authorities quickly ruled it a suicide, but his wife disagrees. I think she is thinking the local police lynched him in retaliation for a lawsuit he filed against them. The local sheriff, to his credit, asked the FBI to investigate.
Richardson's wife pointed out these discrepancies:
* He filed the lawsuit for police brutality.
* He left no note
* He had no connection with the house he was found in
Colbert County has a long history with lynching Blacks. There were 359 recorded lynchings in Alabama between1877 and 1943 and 11 of them were in that county .
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/02/us/alaba … index.htmlOn the topic of the 2024 vote an interesting article provides great information and an analysis.
The numbers behind the vote for president by Investigative Post (Nov 10, 2024)
Yes, Trump won, thanks largely because of white male voters. But the shift to the right isn't as seismic as some portray when you consider that nearly four in 10 adults didn't cast a ballot. Apathy and disaffection are prevalent."
https://www.investigativepost.org/2024/ … president/
A question: Why the perceived apathy this election cycle of 2024?
"For starters, fewer people voted this year (145 million) than four years ago (158.5 million) despite an estimated growth of 8 million age-eligible citizens. The turnout of registered voters also dropped slightly from four years ago.
This helps to explain why Donald Trump won with fewer votes this year (73.6 million) than he garnered in losing (74.2 million) four years ago. He won because Harris received far fewer votes (69.3 million) than Biden (81.3 million) did four years ago.
Put another way: Trump did not grow his base. Harris lost a chunk of Biden’s."
And . . .
Let’s take a look at the demographics of this year’s vote, based on exit polls reported by The Washington Post.
** Men preferred Trump 55 to 42 percent.
** Women favored Harris 53 to 45 percent.
** Whites voted Trump 57 to 41 percent.
** Harris captured 85 percent of the Black vote.
** Hispanics/Latinos favored Harris 52 to 46 percent.
** Asians supported Harris 54 to 39 percent.
** College graduates favored Harris over Trump, 55 to 42 percent.
** Voters without a college degree voted 56 to 42 percent in favor of Trump.
** Harris fared best among younger voters (ages 18 to 29), winning by a margin of 54 to 43 percent.
** Trump did best with middle-age voters (45-64) by 54 to 44 percent for Harris.
** Not many Republicans or self-described conservatives crossed over to vote for Harris (5 percent Republican, 9 percent conservative).
** Independents and those professing third-party affiliations were about evenly divided, with 49 percent voting for Harris and 46 percent for Trump.
Another source I have been playing with of late is the NBC exit polls sharing information with simple graphics. They reflect the same as above.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e … exit-polls"Put another way: Trump did not grow his base. Harris lost a chunk of Biden’s."
Yep. Hit the nail on the head. Too many folks stayed home.How true, with the stakes as high as they have been that so many were apathetic.
Off topic . . . wanted to get this to you. Today, being Veterans Day I tip my hat to you for your service and sacrifice for our nation!
It's just a thought, but what if the problem wasn't apathy, what if it was a perceived lack of choice? What if the missing voters (both sides?) were ones who insisted on voting for someone instead of against someone, would you view them as apathetic?
GAGA, I don't know as the choices has been more stark today than ever before.
Your point is well taken, we lost a lot of Dem votes from our constituencies of Black Males, and Hispanics generally. Harris had the trouble of the Palestinian issue and maybe failing to realize that you cannot attract the extremes on the left side yet still play the middle.
What votes were lost by Republicans were those that did not like or Trump. The Democrats lost because there was more confusion on our side than on theirs.
As one ostracized group really could not in good conscience vote for the other side, this is where we are.
Confused may well be a better term over apathetic.
Or... considering when you look at the election before and after 2020...
And consider that Trump's numbers were about the same now as in 2020...
The anomaly appears to be 2020... and an absurd number of "mail in ballots" that came in after the election was over... and were not properly vetted, verified, nor had secure means of custody...
Ah well... fool America once, shame on you... fool America twice, and I guess the people wouldn't really deserve America, land of the free, would they?
ESO, I thought that you would be interested in watching a 9 minute video outlining red lining and housing discrimination and its far reaching effects. My spouse lived in
East Palo Alto, CA during the early 1990s and could attest to conditions and what was shown in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geD6kYpGlmwDOGE Staffer Resigns Over Racist Posts
A key DOGE staff member who gained access to the Treasury Department’s central-payments system resigned Thursday after past racist posts from his social media accounts resurfaced.
The resignation came after The Wall Street Journal and NPR reported on posts advocating racism, eugenics, and hostility toward Indian software engineers, which had been archived before the account was deleted.
Marko Elez, a 25-year-old was part of a cadre of Elon Musk lieutenants deployed by the Department of Government Efficiency. Elez also worked for Musk's SpaceX, Starlink and X.
The Wall Street Journal reviewed archived posts from the account, including:
"Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool." (July 2024)
"You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity." (September 2024)
"Normalize Indian hate." (September 2024)
"99% of Indian H1Bs will be replaced by slightly smarter LLMs, they’re going back don’t worry guys." (December 2024)
"I would not mind at all if Gaza and Israel were both wiped off the face of the Earth." (June 2024)
"I just want a eugenic immigration policy, is that too much to ask." (December 2024)
Openly, publicly and not even a month ago.
Disgusting. Racist and most likey inexperienced as well.
"Six engineers between the ages of 19 and 24 are at the center of Musk's DOGE team, according to a new WIRED report. The outlet reports that the young men have little to no government experience..."
Yep, makes me feel real comfortable with them rooting around in our private info...They are disgusting. All of them.
Musk asks X if he should rehire DOGE staffer under fire for racist posts
Tech billionaire Elon Musk took to his social media platform X to ask users if he should rehire one of his deputies who resigned Thursday after racist social media posts of his resurfaced.
“Bring back @DOGE staffer who made inappropriate statements via a now deleted pseudonym?” Musk wrote Friday morning on X , attached to a poll asking users to answer “Yes” or “No.”
As of 10:30 a.m. EST Friday, the post had nearly 2.9 million views and more than 232,000 votes. More than 80 percent of users who answered selected “yes.”
Vance: Bring back DOGE staffer who resigned after racist posts surfaced
Vice President Vance on Friday argued that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer who resigned after social media posts of his came to light that espoused racist beliefs should be hired back.
Vance, in speaking out about the issue, said that social media posts shouldn’t be the reason he is fired, calling the 25-year-old aide to DOGE head Elon Musk a “kid.”
“Here’s my view: I obviously disagree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life,” the vice president said on social platform X, referring to the staffer Marko Elez. “We shouldn’t reward journalists who try to destroy people. Ever. So I say bring him back.”
“If he’s a bad dude or a terrible member of the team, fire him for that,” he added.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/tru … rcna201164
Trump shut down program to end human waste backing into Alabama homes, calling it 'illegal DEI'
A $26 million federal program to help residents of Lowndes County, Alabama, who have dealt with inadequate sewage systems for decades was stopped by an executive order.Under the Biden administration, the federal government—specifically the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency—did not promise direct cash payments to Alabama for the sewage crisis in Lowndes County. Instead, they entered into a civil rights settlement agreement in 2023 with the Alabama Department of Public Health. That agreement required the state to take corrective actions to address the failing sewage infrastructure, particularly because the situation was seen as a violation of civil rights laws, given its impact on a mostly Black and low-income community.
So, yes—the responsibility to fix it was placed on the state of Alabama, not directly funded by federal dollars. However, federal agencies were involved in overseeing and enforcing that responsibility.
"In May 2023, the DOJ reached a settlement with the ADPH following a civil rights investigation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The investigation found that Black residents in Lowndes County faced disproportionate exposure to raw sewage due to inadequate sanitation infrastructure, and that the state had engaged in a pattern of inaction and neglect regarding these risks. The settlement required the ADPH to take several corrective actions, including suspending criminal penalties for residents lacking proper sewage systems, assessing public health risks, conducting educational campaigns, and developing a sustainable infrastructure improvement plan. Importantly, this agreement did not involve direct federal funding; instead, it placed the responsibility on the state to implement these measures, with federal oversight to ensure compliance.
Alabama Daily News
"For a detailed account of the 2023 settlement and its stipulations, you can refer to the Associated Press article published on October 4, 2023: EPA to investigate whether Alabama discriminated against Black residents in infrastructure funding. This article provides context on the broader environmental justice efforts in Alabama, including the DOJ's settlement with the ADPH." https://apnews.com/article/alabama-wast … cbb70ad0ad
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/02/politics … at-matters
And you know what pisses me off the most? IT Is that conservatives think that I would be so stupid as to even considering giving this man any support.
Are they supposed to be clever, persuasive? They anger because I cannot acknowledge their heroes as the genuine articles. What I said remains true, anyone affiliating themselves with Donald Trump is by that very act, tarnished goods in my opinion and that includes, Mr. Money Bags, “Elon Musk.The CNN article is a prime example of ideologically slanted reporting masquerading as journalism. To claim Trump is launching the “biggest rollback of civil rights since Reconstruction” is not only hyperbolic but also intentionally misleading. There’s a vast difference between removing bloated, race-based DEI programs and dismantling actual civil rights protections. CNN deliberately blurs that line to stir outrage and demonize dissent. Rejecting DEI isn’t rejecting diversity, it’s rejecting state-enforced ideology and returning to the principle of equal opportunity regardless of race. Protecting religious liberty, including for Christians, is not a threat to civil rights; it is a civil right. The accusation that accepting White South African refugees somehow reflects racial favoritism is a disingenuous smear that ignores their legitimate claims of violence and persecution. And let’s be honest here, it’s not conservatives who are consistently the ones expressing outrage and bitterness. One only needs to read leftist screeds like this article to see where the real anger, resentment, and contempt are coming from. The left no longer wants equality of opportunity; they want enforced equity through ideological conformity, and anyone who resists gets labeled a bigot. That’s not journalism. It’s narrative warfare.
"And you know what pisses me off the most? IT Is that conservatives think that I would be so stupid as to even considering giving this man any support." Cred
I have to laugh—seriously, come on. Conservatives, as a rule, tend to be pretty aloof and focused on living their lives, not out crusading to convert everyone who disagrees with them. That kind of militant evangelism? That’s coming from the left, which increasingly seems unable to comprehend that disagreement doesn't equal hatred. Sometimes, we just don’t share your views, and frankly, we don’t need to, and often don’t care to. The assumption that everyone must fall in line with a progressive worldview is not just arrogant, it’s delusional.Oh REALLY, Before you start on your verbose explanations supporting everything Trump may do however vile, consider this?
——
Alabama Rep. Terri Sewell, a Democrat who represents the area, said in a statement that the DOJ’s reason for abandoning the deal was weak.
“This agreement had nothing to do with DEI,” Sewell said. “It was about addressing a public health crisis that has forced generations of children and families to endure the health hazards of living in proximity to raw sewage, as the DOJ itself documented. By terminating it, the Trump Administration has put its blatant disregard for the health of my constituents on full display.”
When announcing the results of the 2023 investigation, former Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said the Justice Department found evidence that suggested Alabama’s Department of Public Health showed “a consistent pattern of inaction and/or neglect concerning the health risks associated with exposure to raw sewage.”
Sewell added that the burden to “remedy this injustice” fell to the Alabama Department of Public Health. But the ADH said in a statement to NBC News that “the installation of sanitation systems and related infrastructure is outside the authority or responsibilities.”
A second statement from ADH said the department had received $1.5 million of the funds from the Biden agreement and used it in part to pay for three septic tank installations. With the remainder of that money, ADH will pay a contractor to complete more work by May 2026, according to the statement. Trump killed the agreement before any additional funds could be distributed toward fixing the water infrastructure.
————
What does helping preserve a safe environment have to do with DEI? Sounds more like anti-black to me. Why did Trump deliberately kill money already set aside for the cleanup? So, as long as it is black it is ok to subject residents to a form of environmental terrorism without correction. So, don’t shoot the messenger, the fault lies in the message. For conservatives, anything not Fox, Brietbart or Trumps lying clarion, Truth Social is not “real news”.
Yes, I am being honest, regarding immigration, why do white South Africans receive preferential treatment above the many dusky skinned people that can complain about injustice that Trump treats as vermin? Both my eyes are open and cannot easily be dissuaded by conservative spin. Yes we want equality of opportunity and not equity, but has to be more than just lip service. Conservatives offer plenty of this in place of programs and intiatives toward that end.
Anything published that attacks conservative positions is automatically biased, isn’t that what your precious Trump is advocating?
Conservatives, in defiance of democratic principles and the rule of law as advocated by their “agent orange” in the flesh, Donald Trump are already changing society or attempting to in a most negative light. Aloof is hardly the word I would use to express the reality of Trump;s subversion of what I thought was Americas bright spot, Democracy and the rule of law, and Trump makes a mockery of both.
No, we do not have anything in common, unfortunately. We can always share a cup of copy if we avoid discussing politics. It is as the late and unlamented Rush Limbaugh said in 2009 regarding Obama, “I hope he fails” I have the same sentiment regarding Trump as what he proposes is retrograde and deleterious, as his idea of change is unacceptable.
But I count on a screw-up, either an entanglement with the Courts or a failed economy; recession or inflationary pressure they used to call it stagflation, or both. After midterms, He will be disarmed by a Democrat Congress, neutralizing him politically. From this, he will be revealed as either a tyrant, resisting court orders or a consummate liar in regard to his promises about his “happy” economy.
You don’t have to look hard to see that the kind of stuff Trump is doing is staunchly anti-black and minority and when more Americans get shanked by
Trump policies, they will begin to understand and appreciate our position if not for our benefit, for theirs.
So, if Trump policies are explicitly anti-black that means that they are anti-ME. I am under every obligation to bring this man down, without mercy as a matter of survival.
thanks for your attention…….Noted your reply. I took some time to research the issue myself, and here’s what I’ve gathered: there’s definitely another side to this coin, and plenty of blame to go around. But let’s be honest, it all starts with the Biden administration. My God, these people needed urgent, immediate help, and they were, and still are, being ignored.
So if you’re going to direct all your anger at Trump, maybe take a moment to share some of it with your own guys, too. Or just ignore the facts that don’t suit your narrative.
The issue you're referring to highlights the situation in Lowndes County, Alabama, where there is a sewage crisis affecting primarily Black, low-income residents. Under the Biden administration, federal agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not directly allocate federal funds to solve the problem. Instead, they entered into a civil rights settlement agreement with the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) in 2023.
This settlement arose because the sewage crisis was seen as a violation of civil rights laws, particularly under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. The investigation revealed that Black residents in the county were disproportionately exposed to raw sewage due to inadequate sanitation infrastructure and that the state had not taken sufficient action to address the problem.
As part of the settlement, the ADPH was required to take several corrective actions, such as suspending criminal penalties for residents lacking proper sewage systems, conducting health risk assessments, implementing educational campaigns, and developing a plan for long-term infrastructure improvement. Importantly, this settlement did not involve direct federal funding. The responsibility to fix the issue was placed on the state of Alabama, which would need to implement the changes with federal oversight to ensure compliance.
The federal government did not provide direct funding to fix the problem. Instead, they used legal mechanisms to hold the state accountable, enforcing corrective actions that would ultimately be funded by the state, not the federal government. This approach shifts responsibility onto the state while ensuring that federal oversight is in place to monitor the situation and ensure civil rights are upheld.
In essence, the federal government played a role in pushing for action but did not provide direct financial assistance for the crisis. They leveraged civil rights laws to address the situation, with Alabama required to take action and ensure residents' rights were protected.
Some argued that Merrick Garland and his department have focused on enforcing civil rights laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in cases like the Lowndes County sewage issue. While this has brought attention to the disparity and civil rights violations, critics argue that the DOJ could have been more proactive by not just overseeing the situation but by providing direct assistance or funding to fix the infrastructure, especially in light of the state’s failures.
The lack of direct federal financial intervention has led some to blame the DOJ for taking a more hands-off approach, essentially placing responsibility solely on the state of Alabama to fix the problem. This strategy, critics claim, may have delayed more immediate solutions and left residents in the community without quicker relief, despite the significant federal recognition of the issue as a civil rights violation.
In essence, the criticism centers on the view that the DOJ, under Garland's leadership, should have done more than simply settle the issue through a civil rights agreement and perhaps used its power to demand direct action or funding from the federal government.
'm not sure how this reflects on the current administration or the current Attorney General—Rep. Terri Sewell’s comments are confusing to me, since this crisis came to a head under the Biden administration. I remember the scandal well.
To be honest, I haven’t seen evidence that the Biden administration actually did anything meaningful to resolve the issue. There were no direct promises of federal help and certainly no funding that could be "canceled." The responsibility was pushed to the state, and the federal government stepped away.
This crisis should have been fully addressed under Biden. Now, all I can do is hope the federal government, under any administration—finally steps in and does what’s necessary to permanently fix the problem. It's heartbreaking that this kind of severe public health issue, affecting American citizens, has been allowed to fester. People should be in the streets demanding justice.
But maybe this just isn’t important enough to attract protest. I mean, the left is pretty busy with—oh well, you know.
If we’re going to point fingers, the first one goes to the Biden DOJ for failing to follow through with a real solution. Then it falls on Alabama for not fulfilling the commitments made under the civil rights settlement. And now, it’s up to Trump’s administration to step in and do the right thing for the people of Lowndes County.
What’s odd, at best, is how some seem to see only one villain here. That’s just not how this happened. There’s enough blame to go around, and avoiding accountability helps no one, especially the people still living in these unacceptable conditions."The federal government did not provide direct funding to fix the problem. Instead, they used legal mechanisms to hold the state accountable, enforcing corrective actions that would ultimately be funded by the state, not the federal government."
That is incorrect. Biden took significant steps to address the longstanding sewage issues Alabama.
The Administration, through the DOJ and HHS opened formal investigations into the sewage crisis.
In 2023, the DOJ reached a settlement agreement with ADPH aimed at rectifying the sewage and sanitation deficiencies in the county. This agreement suspended criminal penalties for residents with inadequate systems and mandated the development of a comprehensive wastewater management plan...
The Administration allocated nearly $26 million towards rebuilding the county's water infrastructure, aiming to provide durable sanitation solutions for affected residents...
"Despite the Biden administration's $26 million commitment to address the problem, the Trump administration later canceled the deal, citing "illegal DEI," further delaying the much-needed infrastructure improvements and perpetuating the environmental injustice faced by the residents."
"Alabama’s Department of Public Health stated it would continue working with existing funds until they are exhausted but identified that the installation of sanitation systems legally exceeded their authority, creating uncertainty about future remediation efforts"
To sum it up??
The Biden Administration identified and addressed the sewage problem in in Alabama with a historic, civil rights-based federal intervention that sought to provide basic human sanitation infrastructure to a marginalized community and trump came in and carelessly wiped it out...simple as that.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/tru … rcna201164Yes, Sharlee, it is as simple as this:
The Biden Administration identified and addressed the sewage problem in in Alabama with a historic, civil rights-based federal intervention that sought to provide basic human sanitation infrastructure to a marginalized community and trump came in and carelessly wiped it out...simple as that
In addition, Trump has more than expressed a disdain for Civil Rights and its related legislation referring to it as “woke” and DEI. What does that have to do with the Alabama situation? That is a simple question requiring an answer.
Trump in his actions by taking funds that were already earmarked for the project just exacerbated the problem, and relegating it to the Alabama state is just a cop out. Biden did not do that.While there were federal initiatives and environmental justice grants related to sanitation and wastewater in Alabama (especially through broader infrastructure programs), no direct, earmarked federal funds were given specifically to fix the Lowndes County sewage crisis itself. Instead:
The 2023 civil rights settlement brokered by the Biden DOJ did not provide direct federal funding to install or repair sewage systems.
Instead, it required the Alabama Department of Public Health to address and remedy the problem, effectively shifting the financial and logistical burden to the state.
Critics argue this left the underlying issue, unaffordable or failing sanitation systems in rural Black communities. unresolved, as the state has historically lacked both the infrastructure and will to tackle it seriously.
So while federal attention and enforcement pressure were applied, actual repair costs were pushed to the state, which many locals and activists saw as inadequate.
Here is the agreement
"As a result of ADPH’s decision to enter into this interim voluntary resolution agreement, the departments have agreed to suspend their investigation. Under Title VI, the Justice Department is required to informally resolve an investigation that indicates noncompliance. If ADPH does not comply with the agreement, the departments will reopen their investigation." the agreement in question did not allocate any federal funds to address the sewage issues in Lowndes County. Instead, the DOJ's settlement required Alabama's Department of Public Health (ADPH) to take specific actions to improve sanitation systems in the region. These actions focused on suspending penalties for residents without proper sanitation and creating a plan for improving infrastructure. However, no direct federal financial resources were provided to fund these improvements. Not sure where you found that the Biden administration directed any funds to fix this problem. Could you offer a source?
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr … hatgpt.com
As of now, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has not reopened its environmental justice investigation into the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) concerning the sewage crisis in Lowndes County.
Regarding the sewage crisis in Lowndes County, Alabama, as of May 2025, the Trump administration has not issued new statements or announced additional federal actions specifically addressing this issue. Previously, in April 2025, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi terminated a civil rights settlement that had been established under the Biden administration to address sanitation problems in the region. The new administration does not see this as a civil rights problem
I hope they finally see this for what it really is—a massive issue where Americans are living in sewage! These people need help, not a call to defend civil rights, but a call to defend American citizens! The Biden administration turned this into a civil rights issue, but maybe they should have been more outraged by the fact that fellow Americans are enduring this and focused on actually solving the problem. This is a clear case of what liberals do best --- F things up.
Believe what fits your narrative, I believe the factual agreement. And the fact that the problem in no respect has been solved. As I said, I truly hope the Trump administration will step up and fund the project. This is not how Americans should be living. I will let Willow and you continue the conversation--- I have shared my view. Biden left a big ass problem--- I hope it does not go ignored with the new adminstration--- I will be looking out for what they do or do not do.This is not true.
"While there were federal initiatives and environmental justice grants related to sanitation and wastewater in Alabama (especially through broader infrastructure programs), no direct, earmarked federal funds were given specifically to fix the Lowndes County sewage crisis itself"
The Biden administration's DOJ settlement allocated nearly $26 million to Lowndes County, Alabama, to rebuild water infrastructure and address sewage problems....
Curtis Bunn. (2025). Trump canceled “illegal DEI” program to stop raw sewage from ... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/tru … rcna201164
I stated that no federal funds were specifically allocated to directly address this issue, nor were any new resources committed to solving the problem. Although Alabama received funds through the American Rescue Plan, how those funds were used was left entirely up to the state. It’s clear that the state did not fulfill its obligations, and the Biden administration failed to reopen the investigation as outlined in the agreement. This is fundamentally a human issue, not a racial one. Sadly, the Biden administration chose to present it as a short-lived civil rights case, using the suffering of poor Black communities for political theater. These Americans deserved action, not symbolism. They needed relief from living in raw sewage. This was, and remains, a public crisis. It should sadden anyone with a conscience, not lead to vague excuses for such indifference, or worse, cruelty. This form of attitude is nauseating, in my view.
How are funds through the American rescue plan not federal funds? Yes, federal funds were allocated specifically to address this problem and Trump has shut this all down...
The Biden Administration sued Alabama because investigation showed the the state neglected its obligations to protect residents’ health and ensure safe and sanitary living conditions, thereby prompting federal intervention to compel state action....also, Alabama was taken to task because they had the nerve go after folks without sewage systems with punitive enforcement actions like fines and criminal penalties...all on residents unable to afford proper septic systems. These were the reasons for the suit.
Yeah, nauseating.
What is really nauseating is that Trump has turned his back on these people. It is amazing the twisting and turning that takes place to absolve Trump and hang something on Biden...in trump world it was wrong for Biden to hold Alabama accountable in addressing the sewage issue and it is a-okay that Trump gets rid of the program...
Yep up Is down and down is upI stated that no federal funds were specifically allocated to directly address this issue, nor were any new resources committed to solving the problem. Although Alabama received funds through the American Rescue Plan, how those funds were used was left entirely up to the state. Read and let the context tell the story.
"The Biden Administration sued Alabama because investigation showed the the state neglected its obligations to protect residents"willow
Yes, a civil rights case... as I of mention.
Did they allocate funds directed at the clean up or did they leave it to the state to use funds at their discretion?
In the settlement, it was factually written that the investigation would be dropped, and if the agreement was not complied with reopened?
It was not complied with--- did the Biden DOJ reopen the investigation?
As I said, this was nothing but a case that used poor black Americans -- who are still sitting in muck. But you see Trump as turning his back on these people. I find your view skewed, and now the conversation has turned nonsensical, in my view. ByeAnd Trump shutting down the program to end human waste backing into Alabama homes is a positive move? And yes the funds came from the federal government... I provided the citation in the court document.
"Alabama sought and received federal funding, particularly from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to address sewage backup issues in Lowndes County. The agreement, which was later terminated by the Trump administration, involved a settlement to rectify long-standing sanitation problems, including the provision of wastewater treatment to homes where traditional septic systems were not feasible. "
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1104 … .%E2%80%9D
Can you give an example of DEI policy or initiatives that are currently in place at a corporation or and describe them and how you feel they are inappropriate? Maga continues to portray these initiatives incorrectly.
Clearly, there are no examples where DEI policies were detrimental. If there were, this page would be full of them.
The anti-DEI war is simply an attempt to drag America back to the 1950s White males were in charge.Agreed, it's all Maga hyperbole.
And welcome back!
At the end of the day, the Biden Administration sued to hold Alabama accountable and to put some legal teeth in enforcement in rectifying the sewage issue... LOL somehow that is despicable? What is really despicable is that Trump comes along and obliterates the efforts.
Let’s be clear about what DEI actually means—and what it means to oppose it.
Diversity refers to the presence of differences within a given setting—this includes race, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, religion, and more. It's about the range of perspectives, experiences, and identities that individuals bring to an organization.
Equity is about fairness. It recognizes that people have different circumstances and needs, and it ensures that everyone gets the resources and support they need to succeed. Equity aims to level the playing field, especially for those who have historically been disadvantaged.
Inclusion is the practice of ensuring that everyone feels welcomed, respected, supported, and valued. It means creating environments where all individuals—not just the majority or the familiar—can fully participate and thrive.
To oppose DEI is to argue that diversity is a weakness, that fairness is misguided, and that inclusion somehow harms rather than helps. There’s no middle ground here—it’s a binary position.
Why DEI Matters
Diversity drives performance: Organizations like Accenture, Cisco, Delta Air Lines, Innovestor, and Schneider Electric Finland have all reported gains in innovation, employee satisfaction, and retention as a result of prioritizing diverse teams. These outcomes directly strengthen their bottom line.
Equity is both moral and strategic: Fair treatment isn’t just the right thing to do—it fuels innovation, broadens the talent pool, improves retention, and strengthens leadership development. It's how organizations tap into their full potential.
Inclusion reinforces success: Beyond fairness and access, inclusion enhances brand reputation, fosters trust, and creates a culture where every employee can contribute their best work.
There have only been a handful of legal cases challenging DEI policies in organizations. About half were dismissed for lack of standing or merit—meaning the plaintiffs couldn’t demonstrate any real harm.
In the remaining cases, there were some concerns about whether merit was appropriately considered. But considering how widely DEI has been adopted across the public and private sectors, that’s an extraordinarily small number of issues. For both society and the organizations that implement DEI properly, the legal record is, frankly, a strong endorsement.
And yet, despite this, political figures—especially conservatives and Donald Trump (who, it must be said, is a convicted felon and found liable for sexual abuse)—continue to wage an aggressive campaign to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
That effort cannot be explained by legal concerns or organizational outcomes, which have largely been positive. So we’re left with the question of motive. And the only consistent one that remains is this: a desire to restore and protect systems where White men hold disproportionate power.Preach it, Brother!
My biggest concern is how many years is it going to take to repair the damage from these four years?
Make America Good Again - in 2028Economically, we should rebound right after Trump leaves office. Socially, it will, I think, take a couple of generations to regain our personal freedoms and liberties Trump has taken away. It will need a change at the Supreme Court, assuming there is still an independent one existing in 2028.
There is also the question of which demographics of our population won't be allowed to vote.
Just offering my view--- the other side of the coin.
Let’s take a step back and talk about DEI, because while the goals of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion sound noble in theory, there’s a valid other side to this conversation that’s worth considering. For starters, opposing certain DEI initiatives doesn’t mean someone is against diversity, fairness, or welcoming people. That’s a false binary. Many critics simply question the way DEI is often implemented, sometimes rigidly, sometimes ideologically, and occasionally at the expense of merit, open dialogue, or even legality.
Yes, diversity in thought and background can be enriching, but when organizations obsess over demographic quotas or race- and gender-based hiring goals, it can lead to resentment, reverse discrimination, or the devaluing of individual achievement. Critics aren’t saying diversity is a “weakness”; they’re saying it shouldn't be the overriding lens through which everything is judged. Sometimes the best person for the job doesn’t check a DEI box, and that shouldn’t be controversial.
Equity, too, sounds fair until it's enforced through unequal treatment. “Fairness” in practice often turns into preferential treatment based on identity rather than performance or need. For example, when scholarships, promotions, or job opportunities are explicitly reserved for certain groups, others are excluded, not because of what they lack, but because of who they are. That's not leveling the playing field; that's distorting it.
And inclusion? Of course, workplaces should be respectful and welcoming. But when “inclusion” requires ideological conformity or silencing dissenting viewpoints under the banner of “harm,” it stops being inclusion and starts becoming indoctrination. Critics of DEI often point out that the programs designed to make people feel more included can actually divide people further into categories and identities, encouraging grievance and suspicion over unity and shared purpose.
Also, let’s be honest, there have been legal and practical issues with DEI. The claim that only a handful of cases exist or that most are without merit, in my view, glosses over a growing pushback across the country, including high-profile court rulings that have struck down race-conscious practices in college admissions and hiring. Just because a policy hasn’t been overturned in court doesn’t mean it’s fair or productive.
It's disappointing (and telling) that the argument ends by attributing opposition to DEI to racism and sexism. In my opinion, that kind of accusation shuts down meaningful discussion. Not everyone who has concerns about DEI is a bigot or clinging to some outdated power structure. Many just want systems that focus on individual merit, equal treatment under the law, and a shared identity that transcends race or gender.
You can support equality and fairness without supporting the current DEI model. There’s a middle ground, one that values real diversity, helps people in need, and insists that the best ideas and talents win, regardless of skin color or political correctness."Many critics simply question the way DEI is often implemented, ..." if you had used the word "occasionally" rather than "often", then it would agree with the facts. Do you have support for the world "often"?
"Equity, too, sounds fair until it's enforced through unequal treatment." - When that is the case, then it is not really equity is it? So if an organization implemented what they "called" a DEI program, and it has the characteristic you describe, then it is not a "real" DEI program and does the idea of DEI a disservice.Read my opening line—that should clarify the context of everything I said. I shared my perspective, and I have no obligation to explain it further. You're free to accept it or not. I exercised my right to free speech, nothing more. This comment was meant to be polite, yet truthful.
Likewise, I exercised my right to free speech in pointing out errors. I am sorry, but using the word "often" as you did, is anything but "truthful". Instead, I would argue that it misleads.
As to the "equity" comment, I just put it into context.
"You can support equality and fairness without supporting the current DEI model.
The current DEI model? AS DEFINED BY WHO? Conservatives framing of these policies are completely disingenuous.
Your post makes many assumptions about what you believe DEI to be. I do not find the conservative portrayals of such initiatives to match actual reality and I have asked many times on this forum for folks to provide actual examples of real life corporations with stated DEI policies....no one has done so. Let's take a look at a corporate darling....Apple.
Apple's DEI policies focus on creating an inclusive workplace where all employees feel valued and respected, with a particular emphasis on supporting underrepresented groups. This is achieved through various initiatives, including employee groups, training programs, and mentoring opportunities. Apple also advocates for the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and actively hires and supports U.S. veterans.
Apple has employee-led groups called Diversity Network Associations that foster a culture of belonging through education, leadership programs, and networking. These groups include Accessibility@Apple, Amigos@Apple, Black@Apple, Pride@Apple, and Women@Apple, among others.
Apple provides comprehensive training programs and mentorship opportunities to support underrepresented employees and promote a more dynamic and engaging work environment
Apple is proud to hire and support U.S. veterans, recognizing their valuable leadership, technical skills, and collaborative spirit.
Apple is committed to building accessible technology and designing products and services that are inclusive for all users.
Apple fosters a sense of community and belonging through various initiatives, including celebrating cultural moments and deepening relationships with Latin American and U.S. Hispanic communities
Apple is deeply committed to pay equity and has achieved and maintained gender pay equity for all employees since 2017.
Apple has a racial justice initiative that provides support to historically Black colleges and universities in the U.S.
"Apple CEO Tim Cook has stated that the company has never had quotas or targets for diversity, emphasizing that its strength comes from hiring the best people and fostering a culture of collaboration.
Does this match the conservative narrative of DEI? A false narrative is being pushed that does not match reality.
I can continue to list real life policies of our biggest institutions if need be...
https://www.apple.com/diversity/"Apple's DEI policies focus on creating an inclusive workplace where all employees feel valued" - [i]I might have inserted ", unlike Tesla, ", lol.
"Your post makes many assumptions about what you believe DEI to be. I do not find the conservative portrayals of such initiatives to match actual reality and I have asked many times on this forum for folks to provide actual examples of real life corporations with stated DEI policies....no one has done so. Let's take a look at a corporate darling....Apple." Willow
Yes, I shared my personal view—just as Eco did, and now you have as well. It seems a bit contradictory to suggest that your view is somehow more valid than mine. You might consider reflecting on the definition of a "view" or "opinion": "A personal view is an individual's belief or perspective, shaped by their own experiences and understanding. It is inherently subjective and not intended to be mistaken for an objective truth."
Here are just a few companies that have DEI practices. I could write a book--- suprized you would bring this up in light of all the media coverage some of these companies have recieved over the past few years.
Marriott International
Marriott has maintained a strong commitment to DEI principles. CEO Anthony Capuano reaffirmed this stance at the Great Place to Work for All Summit, emphasizing the company's dedication to creating inclusive opportunities across its global operations. Following his remarks, Capuano received an overwhelming response from employees, highlighting the positive impact of Marriott's inclusive values.
Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs launched the "One Million Black Women" initiative, committing $10 billion in investments and $100 million in philanthropic support to advance economic opportunities for Black women. However, in response to legal and political pressures, the firm has recently modified the program by removing explicit references to race, while still aiming to support low- and moderate-income populations.
American Airlines
American Airlines had implemented DEI hiring practices aimed at increasing diversity within its workforce. In December 2024, the company abandoned these practices following legal action from conservative groups alleging that the airline prioritized race and gender over merit in hiring and promotions.
McDonald's Corporation
McDonald's had established specific diversity goals, including requirements for suppliers to commit to certain DEI targets. In early 2025, the company announced it would sunset these specific diversity goals and cease participation in external surveys measuring corporate diversity, reflecting a shift in its DEI strategy.
Ford Motor Company
Ford had been actively involved in DEI initiatives, participating in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index and supporting various employee resource groups. In August 2024, Ford announced it would stop participating in external diversity surveys and evolve its employee resource groups to focus on networking and mentorship for all employees, citing the evolving external and legal environment.
Starbucks' DEI Initiatives
Pay Equity: Starbucks is committed to achieving 100% gender and race pay equity in the U.S., focusing on eliminating barriers to equal pay for equal work.
About Starbucks
Workforce Diversity: As of late 2024, Starbucks reported that over 51.9% of its U.S. retail partners and more than 37.9% of its corporate roles are held by individuals from diverse backgrounds.
About Starbucks
Training and Education: The company offers programs like "To Be Welcoming," developed with Arizona State University, to equip employees with tools to create inclusive store environments.
About Starbucks
Community Investment: Starbucks launched the Community Resilience Fund, investing $100 million through Community Development Financial Institutions to support economically disadvantaged communities.
About Starbucks
Walmart
Walmart has scaled back its DEI initiatives, including eliminating DEI roles and ceasing sponsorship of non-business activities such as Pride festivals and voting campaigns. The company has also stopped submitting data for the Human Rights Campaign index. This decision follows weeks of online conservative backlash against the retailer.
AP News
John Deere
John Deere announced it would no longer sponsor "social or cultural awareness" events and would audit all its training materials. This move is part of a broader trend of companies reevaluating their DEI policies amid political pressures.
Lowe's
Lowe's has rolled back several of its DEI initiatives, including ending relationships with organizations like the Human Rights Campaign. The company has also ceased participation in external diversity surveys. These changes reflect a broader trend of companies reassessing their DEI commitments.
These examples illustrate the dynamic nature of DEI policies within major corporations, reflecting both steadfast commitments and strategic adjustments in response to external factors.
If you need further information or assistance in crafting a response that incorporates these references, feel free to ask.
Costco has remained steadfast in its commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, even amid increasing political and legal pressures.
Key DEI Initiatives at JPMorgan Chase
JPMorgan Chase's DOI strategy encompasses several initiatives:
Black Enterprise
Advancing Black Pathways: A program aimed at expanding economic opportunities for Black communities through education, career readiness, and business growth.
Diversity
Advancing Hispanics & Latinos: Focused on increasing access to banking services, education, and career opportunities for Hispanic and Latino communities.
Diversity
Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs: Dedicated to advancing equitable opportunities for the LGBTQ+ community within the organization and globally.
Home | JPMorganChase
Supplier Diversity: An initiative to increase business with diverse suppliers, including minority-owned, women-owned, and veteran-owned businesses.
Diversity
Apple's DEI Initiatives
Apple's DEI efforts encompass several key programs and policies:
Racial Equity and Justice Initiative (REJI): Launched to address systemic racism and expand opportunities for communities of color in education, economic empowerment, and criminal justice reform.
Apple
Pay Equity: Apple ensures pay equity for all employees, achieving and maintaining gender pay equity since 2017 and extending this to race and ethnicity in the United States.
Apple
Supplier Diversity: The company focuses on ensuring equal opportunities for all suppliers, fostering greater economic opportunities for everyone.
Apple
Employee Resource Groups: Apple supports various internal groups, such as Pride@Apple, to foster an inclusive workplace culture.
Wikipedia
Shareholder Support for DEI
In February 2025, Apple shareholders overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to cease the company's DEI efforts, with over 97% voting against it. This strong support underscores the company's commitment to its DEI initiatives.
Please keep in mind that some of these companies have done away with or modified their DEI initiatives due to President Trump's policies. I know Goldman has.What I said? I find the Maga views or opinions of DEI initiatives to be wildly inaccurate. And I have asked repeatedly for folks to list corporate policy specifically that support their expressed views of DEI. You know, the views that generally say DEI policies focus on quotas and not merit. When people express the notion that DEI is somehow unfair, I would like to see actual corporate or organizational policy that supports that view.
I specifically went to Apple's website and copied the DEI policy to back up my view with a real time, real world example rather than vague accusation. Are folks here insinuating that because Apple has such policies that they hire for quota and not merit?This is what you asked -- "Your post makes many assumptions about what you believe DEI to be. I do not find the conservative portrayals of such initiatives to match actual reality and I have asked many times on this forum for folks to provide actual examples of real life corporations with stated DEI policies....no one has done so. Let's take a look at a corporate darling....Apple." Willow https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ost4368939
First -- I provided a long list of companies that adopted DEI practices.
As your above statement requested. In the paragraph I quoted from your comment.
I see nothing of the words you know share, and I quote " And I have asked repeatedly for folks to list corporate policy specifically that support their expressed views of DEI. " Willow
The companies I listed certainly ALSO work to contribute to how I formed my view of DEI.
"What I said? I find the Maga views or opinions of DEI initiatives to be wildly inaccurate. " Willow
And that is your view. I could have said the same, but I don't think it's polite or intelligent to assume my view is any more relevant than someone else's.
I also listed Apple as a company that clearly again in my view, clearly has DEI policies.
To set the record straight once again. I view Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives with skepticism because I believe they prioritize group identity over individual merit. I think these policies often lead to hiring or promotion decisions based on race, gender, or other demographic factors instead of individual qualifications and abilities. While I support equality of opportunity, I resist equity-based policies like quotas or affirmative action, which aim for equal outcomes. To me, these equity measures create unfair advantages for certain groups and undermine a merit-based system. I also believe in race-blind policies, as I think the government should be color-blind and that race-conscious initiatives tend to perpetuate division rather than promote unity. I'm concerned that DEI programs can stifle free speech, as employees and students may fear backlash for expressing views that don't align with progressive ideologies. The growing bureaucracy around DEI also bothers me, as I think resources could be better spent on tangible improvements like job training or community development. I also feel that symbolic gestures, like renaming buildings or mandating implicit bias training, distract from real issues such as poverty and failing schools. Lastly, I believe cultural diversity can sometimes marginalize immigrants, and I think focusing on assimilation into the broader society is essential for national unity. Overall, I see DEI as a divisive and ineffective approach, and I would prefer policies that focus on individual merit, unity, and practical solutions to societal problems."While I support equality of opportunity, I resist equity-based policies like quotas or affirmative action,..."
Who employs these sort of measures? You do realize these are illegal?
' I view Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives with skepticism because I believe they prioritize group identity over individual merit.
What corporate or organization stated policies can you point to that support this opinion? Again, Apple has a policy, Microsoft has a policy, I could go on and on... Because they have dei policy does it mean they aren't interested in merit?
"I think these policies often lead to hiring or promotion decisions based on race, gender, or other demographic factors instead of individual qualifications and abilities.
Again, do you have a specific example of a real life corporate policy that leads to hiring based on race or gender rather than merit?
There are a lot of sweeping generalizations made about DEI but I find that they are generally not backed up actual DEI policies that currently exist across this country...
DEI policy or programs are not what maga says they are. That is just the reality.I’ve shared my perspective, and you’ve shared yours. It’s clear that we see this differently, so let’s respectfully agree to disagree. I think you might find it more rewarding to converse with those who have similar views.
While DEI is not explicitly defined in U.S. federal law, it is supported by various policies and executive orders. For example, Executive Order 13985, signed in 2021, focuses on advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government.
Wikipedia
Additionally, organizations like the UN Global Compact advocate for DEI as a means to tackle inequality and eliminate discrimination worldwide.
UN Global Compact
In summary, while there isn't a singular, official definition of DEI codified in law, the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion are widely recognized and implemented across various sectors to foster fair and inclusive environments. And that is what MAGA disagrees with.
Well said, Esoteric, welcome back, you have been sorely missed. Now lets us get back to work.
What sharlee and the conservatives dance around is the fact that Trump is doing NOTHING when compared with the Biden Administration regarding the issue of environmental terrorism outside of identifying it as DEI, nothing more than the latest racial slur for the Trump advocates.
Trump has, in so many words, said that he will not do nothing about the issue. Do I really think that he will pressure Alabama to deal with this travesty at the state level? If you do, then I have beach front property in Colorado to sell you. I am happily fomenting dissent by asking my folks to pay attentions to these sorts of slights by the current administration.
Mom raises more than $500K after saying racist slur at child in viral video
The website hosting the fundraiser said it restricted comments after many donors expressed racist rhetoric over the incident filmed at a Minnesota playground.
A video of a Rochester, Minnesota, mom appearing to hurl a racist slur at a Black child on a city playground earlier this week has been circulating widely across social media, garnering criticism from many viewers and a half-million dollars in donations from others. A video taken at a Minnesota public park this week shows a white woman apparently admitting she used a racist slur against a 5 years old autistic Black boy she accused of taking an item from her 18-month-old's diaper bag. When a man confronted her about using the slur against a child, she laughed and stuck her tongue at him as she carried her own child on her hip.
The online donations poured in alongside notes expressing far-right and racist sympathies, prompting a decision to mute comments by the "Christian" crowdfunding service hosting the campaign, which has been used to raise money for Daniel Penny, Luigi Mangione and Kyle Rittenhouse.
A fundraiser on GiveSendGo titled “Help Me Protect My Family” was started by Shiloh Hendrix, who identified herself as the mother who appeared to use the slur in the video. "I called the kid out for what he was", the woman says in the description of the fundraiser.. Hendrix’s fundraiser attracted accounts signing off with names and comments referencing Holocaust denial and white nationalism.
Jacob Wells, the founder and chief executive of GiveSendGo, told The Washington Post in a statement that his team was aware of the concerns surrounding Hendrix’s fundraiser and restricted comments “due to the volume of inappropriate remarks that violated our policies.”
Her fundraiser is currently at $602,604.
It is not "only" a white racist woman. US is still full of racists.
SMHAnd they all voted for Trump, a felon and sexual predator.
Is the "all" like the "often" in
"I am sorry, but using the word "often" as you did, is anything but "truthful". Instead, I would argue that it misleads."?
They do appear to be much the same...It is, but as you know that is satirical, not fact. Using "often" is meant to imply reality.
But, since you made me look - What is true, and is what is behind the satire, is:
Survey Findings on Attitudes Among MAGA Supporters
Racial Resentment and Perceived Discrimination: A 2023 YouGov poll found that 73% of Trump 2020 voters believe racism against white Americans is a problem, suggesting a perception of reverse discrimination among a significant portion of MAGA supporters. (While perceptions of reverse discrimination exist, particularly among certain demographics, empirical evidence supporting widespread systemic reverse discrimination is limited. Most studies indicate that systemic discrimination continues to disproportionately affect minority groups. )
False Belief in Replacement Theory: A 2022 Yahoo News/YouGov poll reported that 61% of Trump voters believe that "a group of people in this country are trying to replace native-born Americans with immigrants and people of color who share their political views," reflecting alignment with the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory.
Views on Immigrants and Minorities: According to a 2016 Pew Research Center survey, 69% of Trump supporters viewed immigrants as a burden on the country, and 64% believed that American Muslims should be subject to more scrutiny solely based on their religion
Need I say more?
The Problem with DEI
Background
Most DEI (Diversity, Equity & Inclusion) programmes are failures. Recent research also shows that DEI training simply does not work. One of the highest attrition rates is for the role of DEI head. The bad news just keeps coming. Even the Harvard Business Review (HBR) published an article on this phenomenon as recently as April 2024.
DEI has been in play since the 1960’s as a direct response to the civic and social justice movement. While the intent has been good, its entry into the professional corporate domain has been burdened with a lack of clarity, a lack of budget, and a lack of talent. The domain today is puffed up with buzz words like ‘authenticity’ and ‘collaboration’, and ’safe space’, etc. No one really understands what is being said, and no one really trusts what is being communicated. It is also not uncommon for the workforce to view DEI as a zero-sum game where those who were previously seen as privileged are having their ‘advantages’ taken away to be given to those who were under-privileged; a holdover from its social justice roots. It’s being increasingly perceived as ‘reverse discrimination’ or ‘reverse racism’.
What is almost never talked about is the data side of DEI. How do we know if something is not diverse? You can’t expect to change what you don’t understand. And so I’m dedicating my 38th weekly article to calling out some of the bad thinking I see in the DEI movement.
(I write a weekly series of articles where I call out bad thinking and bad practices in data analytics / data science which you can find here.)
Kill the Buzz (Words)
I quote from the aforesaid HBR April 2024 article: “Diversity efforts build workforces that reflect the communities they serve by giving everyone a fair chance to enter and rise through each level of our organisations. Equity efforts design organisational systems and processes that prevent discrimination and equip everyone with the resources they need to succeed. Inclusion efforts create working environments where everyone is treated respectfully and is valued for their unique contributions and backgrounds.” Sounds great, but how do you measure “fair chance”? How do you know what is “unique contribution” and whether they are “valued” for it?
And this is precisely the issue with DEI — it lacks practical definitions. Terms like ’diversity’, ‘equity’, and ‘inclusion’ are what we call latent variables in data analytics. Latent variables are either hypothetical constructs or they are unobservable, and we need to identify or create proxies to be able to measure them. A classic latent variable is ‘satisfaction’ and we proxy-measure it in part through the number of compliments received. So, DEI needs to be better defined in data-specific terms to enable us to properly measure its progress objectively.
Too often, we default to convenient shorthands on diversity by narrowly focusing on ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. But for countries that are more culturally homogeneous, like Japan or Korea, we can do better in the way we define and support diversity in the workplace. This narrow focus unfortunately plays into the narrative of social injustice, which distracts from the broader objectives.
Data Savvy
The other main issue is that DEI officers are rarely data savvy. In my data analytics consulting work, I have almost never come across an interaction with a DEI officer looking to use data to deep-dive into their work. With AI the headline of the day, I am seeing DEI officers scrambling to understand if this new technology breakthrough will negatively affect their DEI agenda. They are worried that AI will scale and reinforce the existing bias in workforce decisioning. DEI officers are compelled to be data sensitive or fade into irrelevance.
The objective of DEI is about correcting for negative imbalances by either neutralising it or creating positive imbalances. We cannot simply rely on our observational senses to ascertain those negative imbalances. We can’t be chasing ‘red herrings’. DEI is therefore naturally aligned with data analytics. In fact, it requires a high level of data fluency (not just literacy) to be successful in the job. Consider if you are the DEI officer in the civil service. Is the objective of DEI to reflect the same ethnic ratio as the population mix within the workforce (i.e. equality) or is it to over-weight in favour of the disadvantaged minorities (i.e. equity)? And if we over-weight to correct for inequities and non-inclusions, how much do we over-weight to be ‘fair’? Without structured data-oriented thinking, DEI simply devolves into experimental policies and programmes without any clear understanding of the causes and effects.
I fired off a prompt into Google’s Gemini (Gen AI solution) and got back some useful answers in terms of how to measure progress on DEI. One such recommendation was to see if the ‘diversity ratio’ of employees remain constant throughout the seniority pipeline — e.g. if we are hiring 50% women into the workforce as fresh graduates, do we continue to have 50% women in middle management and senior management? But if you are not data savvy, simply relying on such stock approaches can lead to all kinds of misinterpretations. Men and women are drawn unequally to different academic disciplines. And once hired, those unequal disciplines have different career growth opportunities in any given organisation due to both corporate-macro and organisation designs. So men and women will rise at unequal rates and achieve unequal seniorities. Unless you are a statistician or work with one, you won’t know how to factor in these considerations in your assessment of whether ‘diversity ratio’ is maintained. Just because you observe fewer women in senior positions doesn’t mean there is gender discrimination going on. Our brains are not tuned for conditional probabilities.
Conclusion
The whole DEI movement has been poorly conceived. It claims to be evidence-based, but it is anything but. The lack of data-anchored definitions leaves DEI officers grabbing at straws. The lack of data savviness prevents DEI officers from shifting the needle in the right direction. Instead, the DEI efforts results in distrust and dissent.
During my time as the country CAO in a large international bank, I ran one of the most diverse teams in the organisation. We were labelled as a mini ‘United Nations’. I had at least 7 different nationalities in my relatively small team. I wanted a multi-national team to prevent the occurrence of small pocket-groups, so that everyone had to learn to trust each other and work together. And to ensure that we had a broad perspective to problem-solving, I hired them from a variety of backgrounds. It was engineered diversity. Was I supporting DEI? I was definitely thinking about how diversity would make for a more cohesive and capable data analytics function, and I had certain notions of how to achieve that. But I certainly wasn’t thinking about how to objectively measure the outcomes. But then, I wasn’t the DEI officer.
https://eric-sandosham.medium.com/the-p … 81d1053543This is all vague accusation. Can you identify real life, real world policies that are in effect in any corporation or institution in this country that you find are examples of unfair practices? Many corporations have policies and they are very clearly delineated.
Have you forgotten so soon that Harvard was sued for their racial, discriminatory DEI practices? And lost under the SCOTUS?
Nearly everything about DEI is racist and discriminatory based on race. It is not, and never was, about anything else.And all DEI initiatives or policies that exists in institutions and corporations today are identical? No they are not. There are well-established laws that forbid racial discrimination in both educational admissions and employment.
Did you forget that the Conservative Court had to overturn YEARS of precedent (something they are famous for) to achieve that ridiculous outcome. Now we will have to wait several generations before the Court can undo the damage it has caused.
To say "Most DEI (Diversity, Equity & Inclusion) programmes are failures" is simply not true.
"Recent research also shows that DEI training simply does not work." - Was this a single piece of research out of a bunch that said DEI, properly constructed, works? I bet it is.
" No one really understands what is being said, and no one really trusts what is being communicated." - OR could it be that you don't understand it and everybody else does? I for one do understand the purpose of DEI.
" Is the objective of DEI to reflect the same ethnic ratio as the population mix within the workforce (i.e. equality) or is it to over-weight in favour of the disadvantaged minorities (i.e. equity)?" - IT Would be helpful to be accurate and understand the terms "equality" and "equity"
The ACTUAL "objective" of DEI initiatives is to promote fair treatment, equal access, and full participation for all individuals within organizations, particularly those from historically underrepresented or marginalized groups. THAT is a far cry from "reflect[ing] the same ethnic ratio as the population mix within the workforce"
What is "equality" really? It is treating everyone the same, regardless of their starting point.
What is "equity" really? It is acknowledging unequal starting points and giving people what they reasonably need to reach an equal outcome. - I don't see the loaded words "over-weight" in that definition, do you?
It is a False Binary choice being presented here. The question presents an either/or scenario: either DEI aims to mirror society's demographics (implying fairness), or it overrepresents minorities (implying unfairness). - It is neither of those things. The AIM is, however, to
They aim to:
1. Reduce structural and interpersonal barriers for historically marginalized groups.
2. Foster inclusive environments where all individuals have the opportunity to thrive.
3. Improve organizational outcomes through diversity of perspective, not just numerical representation.
Examples of where DEI quantitatively worked are Intel's RISE Strategy, IBM's IBM-HBCU Quantum Center, and ZUP Innovation's Hackathon for Developers with Disabilities project.
Where did it fail? Walmart's DEI Rollback, Hollywood's inconsistent DEI initiatives, and Big Tech who were brow-beat by conservatives into abandoning their efforts.
Because of all of the above, the "Conclusion" is way off the mark.DEI should stand for "Didn't Earn it"
It's not necessary.
Simply get the best individual for the position with no regard to skin color or an other factor.
The students with the highest test scores get positions in the college. The people with the best backgrounds and most experience get the job. Race shouldn't play into it. At its core DEI is simply a racist program.
This is from the National Review
"DEI Doesn’t Work—Taxpayers Shouldn’t Pay for It"
The evidence has been mounting for years: Diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, ironically enough, don’t make people more tolerant of individual differences. So why aren’t the “experts” who say racism is still omnipresent calling for different solutions?
Likely because they are the ones spreading—and benefiting handsomely from—the DEI gospel.
Ibram X. Kendi, for example, whose proposed remedy for discrimination is more discrimination, makes $20,000 or more for presentations before public-school districts. He has also presented for the DEI offices at Georgia Tech, the University of Virginia, Lehigh University, the University of Southern California, UC Davis, the University of Illinois, and elsewhere. Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, who makes between $14,000 and $30,000 for her speaking engagements. She has spoken at DEI departments at Cornell, the University of Michigan, Ohio State University, and Seattle University. The list goes on, but, at some point, the press releases become repetitive.
Then there are the consulting companies, which can charge up to six figures for their services. The Racial Equity Institute lists dozens of colleges, K–12 school districts, and businesses as its clients, including Arizona State University, Duke Divinity School, Ben & Jerry’s, and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district in North Carolina. In case there is any question about DEI’s roots, another training company called The Equity Collaborative has a presentation titled “Introduction to Critical Race Theory,” which was used, for instance, to train teachers in Loudoun County, Va.
And yet, a growing volume of research demonstrates that professional-development programs and other trainings in DEI are abject failures.
The evidence is so strong that even the home of the racially obsessed 1619 Project, and mainstream outlets that have published Kendi’s commentary, are printing critiques of DEI. Last week, Jesse Singal asked in the New York Times if diversity trainings are “doing more harm than good”: “The specific type of diversity training that is currently in vogue—mandatory trainings that blame dominant groups for D.E.I. problems—may have a net negative effect on the outcomes managers claim to care about.”
Singal has long pointed out the problems with so-called antibias efforts. In 2017, he wrote in New York magazine that the “implicit association test,” launched in association with researchers at Harvard to measure test-takers’ levels of implicit bias, was not reliable. “A pile of scholarly work, some of it published in top psychology journals and most of it ignored by the media, suggests that the IAT falls far short of the quality-control standards normally expected of psychological instruments,” Singal said.
In the Washington Post, which has featured Kendi’s condemnation of federal civil-rights laws and the civil-rights movement, writer Jena McGregor also argued, back in 2016, that DEI training programs “do more harm than good.” In 2020, Education Week lamented DEI’s failings in a headline that read “Training Bias Out of Teachers: Research Shows Little Promise so Far.” In 2022, the corporate consultants at McKinsey & Co. warned executives with an article titled “Don’t Train Your Employees on DE&I. Build Their Capabilities.”
McKinsey encourages businesses to promote diversity but has also released reports that DEI programs fail at their intended outcomes. In an interview with McKinsey, Harvard professor Iris Bohnet said:
About $8 billion a year is spent on diversity trainings in the United States alone. Now, I tried very hard to find any evidence I could. I looked not just in the United States but also in Rwanda and other post-conflict countries, where reconciliation is often built on the kind of diversity trainings that we do in our companies, to see how this is working. Sadly enough, I did not find a single study that found that diversity training in fact leads to more diversity.
In my book Splintered: Critical Race Theory and the Progressive War on Truth, I reviewed Singal’s and McGregor’s sources and more, and arrived at the same conclusions.
Researchers Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev, for example, surveyed nearly 700 colleges in 2016 and found that 43 percent of the schools had mandatory diversity-training programs for faculty, as well as for most freshman students. But the results of the programs were uninspiring. Hundreds of studies dating back nearly a century find that antibias trainings do not “reduce bias, alter behavior, or change the workplace,” Dobbin and Kalev wrote in Anthropology Now.
A study in the Annual Review of Psychology reviewed hundreds of studies of anti-prejudice training and found that “the causal effects of many widespread prejudice-reduction interventions, such as workplace diversity training and media campaigns, remain unknown.” Another review of the effects of antibias trainings, using the results of some 500 academic papers, finds that the trainings did not “necessarily translate into changes in explicit measures or behavior” and the “effects are often relatively weak.”
Nevertheless, consultants and university officials are clearly doubling down on DEI. New research from the Goldwater Institute finds that 80 percent of the faculty-job postings at public universities in Arizona require applicants to include a DEI statement with their application that describes how their work would contribute to the university’s commitment to the woke orthodoxy. The report also pointed out that nearly three-quarters of the applications for positions at UC Berkeley were thrown out because the applicants did not adequately show their commitment to DEI.
What is to be done? Public money should not be used for DEI offices in public-school districts or on college campuses. For K–12 public schools, where DEI offices are becoming as common as they are in higher education, state lawmakers should ensure that no teacher or student is compelled to profess or believe any idea (especially ideas that violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Such ideas would include the notion that individuals today are automatically guilty of racial crimes committed by others decades ago who happen to share the color of their skin. In public colleges and universities, lawmakers should prohibit school officials from using DEI statements to screen job applicants. Similar prohibitions on compelled speech should also apply.
We cannot expect the self-appointed spokespersons of anti-racism to change course when their (lucrative) efforts fail to reduce bias. Their sermons that discrimination is necessary to spread guilt appealed to radical activists when they were first issued, which should have already caused us to harbor reservations. Now that we see the null effects that DEI trainings have on those exposed to them, there is one more reason to dismiss the DEI orthodoxy.You spent a lot of words yet presented no proof, just unsupported accusations. I, at least, offered three examples of where DEI worked. And in the examples where is didn't, the reason appears to be they were pressured by conservatives to drop the policy. I'll add another that worked then failed - Target.
They had a successful program, and were reaping the rewards from it, until they reversed course under duress and are now paying the price in lower employee moral and worse for them, lower sales due to a boycott.Here is the big problem for those on the left.
President Donald Trump campaigned on doing away with DEI. He made no secret about it. During several speeches he said he would do away with DEI. It is a campaign promise he is fulfilling.
The majority of Americans voted for President Donald Trump and doing away with DEI.
That is the main reason it needs to be eliminated.
It is the will of the American people.Trump presented a false, disingenuous narrative of DEI and the uninformed bought into it. What Maga portrays as DEI is not the reality of DEI policies that are in action at corporations and organizations all over this country right now.
Maybe it is the left who is ignorant of the reality of DEI.
Many large companies are quite happy to do away with it.
"Companies that have recently rolled back DEI policies"
The Brief
Walmart is the latest company to roll back its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.
This year, other corporations announced changes, including Lowe’s, John Deere, and Ford.
Some conservative groups have filed lawsuits criticizing companies over their DEI policies.
Multiple big corporations have rolled back their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, with Walmart becoming the latest company to join the list.
Companies have faced criticism from conservative activists about DEI policies. One outspoken critic on the matter has been conservative political commentator and activist Robby Starbuck, who has attacked corporate DEI policies, calling out individual companies on the social media platform X. Several of those companies announced that they are pulling back their initiatives.
Separately, some conservative groups filed lawsuits making similar arguments about corporations, targeting workplace initiatives like diversity programs, and hiring practices that prioritize historically marginalized groups, the Associated Press reported.
Companies that rolled back DEI policies
Walmart
Walmart’s roll back to DEI policies include not renewing a five-year commitment to an equity racial center set up in 2020 after the police killing of George Floyd, to pulling out of a prominent gay rights index. And related to race or gender, the Associated Press reported that Walmart won’t be giving priority treatment to suppliers.
Ford Motor Company
Ford Motor Company announced in late August that it was stepping back from some of its DEI initiatives.
In a letter from Ford CEO Jim Farley to employees, he told the staff employees that Ford had made the decision earlier in the year to no longer participate in the Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index, which is an annual survey and report used to gauge "policies, practices and benefits pertinent to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ+) employees."
Harley-Davidson
Harley-Davidson announced in August that it was ending diversity and other progressive initiatives at the company. "We are saddened by the negativity on social media over the last few weeks, designed to divide the Harley-Davidson community," the company wrote in a statement posted on X.
The company added in their post that "we have not operated a DEI function since April 2024, and we do not have a DEI function today. We do not have hiring quotas and we no longer have supplier diversity spend goals."
John Deer
In July, John Deere announced it would get rid of all its DEI policies in favor of a quality-based workplace. The tractor company released a statement on its X account on July 16 saying that it will commit to prioritizing quality and customer trust over DEI initiatives.
Catepillar
Catepillar, a heavy equipment maker, made DEI changes in the company that include requiring all corporate training be oriented to focus on business operations, as well as requiring approval from senior leaders for bringing in external speakers or participating in external surveys and awards.
Tractor Supply
The farming supplies retailer announced in June that it will halt sponsorship of "nonbusiness activities" such as Pride festivals and voting campaigns, with intentions to focus more on "rural America priorities," FOX Business reported.
Lowe’s
The home improvement retailer dropped multiple DEI programs. Lowe's ended its participation in surveys for the Human Rights Campaign. The company also reportedly changed its internal policy to no longer sponsor or support parades or festivals.
Moolson Coors
Molson Coors said in September that it was eliminating DEI training now that all employees had completed it. The company also announced it would get rid of its defined supplier diversity goals and, starting next year, will remove "aspirational representation goals" from its executives' compensation plans, FOX Business reported.
Brown-Forman
Brown-Forman, the maker of Jack Daniel’s whisky, announced in August that it was pulling back on its DEI initiatives, amid pressure on social media.
Citing a copy of an internal memo posted on X, the New York Post reported that Brown-Forman would stop linking bonuses and pay to DEI progress, end its participation in an annual ranking of companies with an LGBTQ-friendly environment and throw out its plans to push for a more diverse group of suppliers.
Brown-Forman, which is based in Kentucky, first launched its DEI goals in 2019 and previously tied 10% of executives’ short-term compensation to progress on DEI goals, the New York Post noted, citing a 2023 annual report.
https://www.livenowfox.com/news/compani … i-policiesAnd the multitude of companies that have kept the policies in place? Well they don't look anything like Maga likes to portray them.
"The examples you’ve cited reflect the troubling influence of politicized narratives and a disappointing lack of resolve within much of Corporate America. Companies like Intel and Starbucks, which have maintained their commitment to diversity and inclusion in the face of external pressure, exemplify the principled leadership others should aspire to."
Yes, there is that too. Trump lied about DEI to feed peoples bigotry.
And those people are making their bigotry known for the world to see.
No, the main reason Trump won is people foolishly believed his promise to lower prices. The second reason is his ill-thought out desire to remove 10% of the working population and send them back to where they were fleeing from.
Only hard-right Christian Conservatives cared anything about DEI.
Consequently, Trump's effort to Make Discrimination Great Again. is hardly the so-called "will of the American People".The American people voted for a man who promised to do away with DEI and that is what he is doing. President Donald Trump is fulfilling a campaign promise.
People voted for a merit based system and that is what they are getting.
The delusions and detachment from reality of the left is not going to change it.Mike, I agree, it's time some should consider that a huge majority of Americans sent Trump to Washington.
People across this country voted for a merit-based system, one where hard work, talent, and achievement matter more than identity checkboxes, and that is what they are finally getting. Under Trump, Americans are seeing a shift back to fairness, excellence, and opportunity. This isn’t about exclusion; it’s about empowering individuals based on what they bring to the table, not what box they check on a form.
This is good for businesses, good for schools, and great for a nation that wants to compete and win on the world stage. When the most qualified people rise, everyone benefits. That’s what built America in the first place, and that’s what will restore it.
The delusions and detachment from reality on the left are loud, but noise doesn’t change facts. The American people are wide awake. They’re seeing the results, not the rhetoric. Trump’s leadership is bringing back accountability, common sense, and a culture of achievement. He’s defending the dignity of work and the value of personal responsibility.
It’s not about divisions, it's about unity through opportunity, where everyone has the same shot if they’re willing to earn it.Well said, although I do think you are exaggerating a little. Or a lot, maybe.
When over half of our people are dependent on charity to get by it is NOT "the same shot if they're willing to earn it". We have become a nation of takers and beggars, unwilling to put forth the effort to make our own way in the world.Dan! I can’t even argue the sentiment, because sadly, we’re watching this mindset play out all around us. There’s a portion of the population that’s been completely dumbed down. It’s not even about left or right at this point, it’s about basic awareness.
Too many Americans can’t, or won’t, even acknowledge the mess this country has become. The economy’s shaky, our borders are wide open, crime is rising, and common sense has been thrown out the window. And yet, they carry on like everything’s just fine.
It’s like critical thinking got tossed aside and replaced with slogans and soundbites. But here’s the thing: we do need drastic change. Not just band-aids, not more empty speeches, we need a serious course correction. And until more people wake up and face that truth, we’ll keep spinning our wheels.
But the good news is. (Here is where my optimism kicks in) Millions of Americans have woken up, and they’re not backing down. That’s where real hope lies. Keep a bit of faith, friend.The economy’s shaky, our borders are wide open, crime is rising,
Our economy leads the world. Actually, it's considered to be the strongest. "Open borders"? Easily remedied by legislation. Immigration laws COULD be completely overhauled. Rising crime? Looks like it's dropping actually...
https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in … 24-update/Damn those FACTS, they just get in the way of a good narrative don't they?, LOL.
That is what Fake Fox News viewers get - lots of LIES and misinformation.
You're right - critical thinking is set aside and replaced with fine sounding sound bytes and slogans. Perhaps the best current example is DEI; it sounds wonderful even as it is used to promote racism and hatred. Many ignore that side, though, in favor of pretending that it isn't there, isn't happening. The critical thinking, the actual examination of DEI and it's results, are sorely lacking. It's all pretense and fine slogans without looking hard at results.
The uproar over trans sex is much the same; fine sounding slogans about acceptance and tolerance...without any examination of the results.
But as you say, we ARE beginning to come out of that mindset, just a little and where it most impacts us. Now if we could just expand that a bit to include things that don't impact us, but do touch our neighbor or friend..."Perhaps the best current example is DEI; it sounds wonderful even as it is used to promote racism and hatred.
Are you saying that major corporations, who currently have DEI policy are promoting racism and hatred? Companies like Apple, JP Morgan, Costco, Cisco, Delta airlines, PepsiCo, just to name a few.Yes. When hiring specifications include race it is promoting racism and discrimination. This is by definition, not some Pie-in-the-sky fancy sounding rhetoric, but plain, simple, fact.
Can you point to the policies related to diversity, equity and inclusion for any of those companies that specify including race in actual hiring decisions? All of their policies are laid out in detail.
It would seem to be that you are accusing these companies of promoting hatred and racism for simply having DEI policy.Why shouldn't hiring specifications include race so long as the choice is between equal candidates in order to make up for past discrimination? That is not racism, that is fairness.
In the past (well it still happens a lot today), if one of those two candidates was White, they would hire the White every time. It is because of THAT FACT that we have DEI today (and Whites are pissed because they are not the preferred choice).Are you actually saying that there are some corporations or organizations that specifically outline hiring for particular race? Such a job listing would look like what? The company would name the role it is looking to fill, it's responsibilities it's educational requirements and so on... But somewhere in all of that it would specify only looking for a white male to fill the spot? You do realize we have laws against that?
It looks like affirmative action disguised behind a facade of fine words about equality and equity.
But of course you know and you understand very well all of this. You yourself have said that if a company can't find the race they want they need to expand their search - it is called racial discrimination whether you like it or not, and all the pretty words in the world will not change that very simple fact.
I know we have laws against such a thing. Which is why it is now banned, and is why Harvard lost their lawsuit about admissions based on race."You yourself have said that if a company can't find the race they want they need to expand their search"
No. That is a misrepresentation. The idea is to have an inclusive process to begin with... I have even specifically used an inclusivity example that if a corporation is doing college recruitment or visits, hbcu's should be included right alongside colleges with a majority white student body. After that, you hire in terms of merit/ qualifications.But if you are one of those who believe that minorities, by definition, are less qualified than Whites, then your arguments make no sense to them.
Thank you! Now my two cents ---
It’s time to reconsider the emphasis on race, gender, and sexual preference in hiring and social initiatives. While DEI programs initially aimed to level the playing field, I believe we’ve reached a point in history where these factors should no longer define a person’s potential or worth in the workplace. The focus should shift from identity-based categorizations to merit, skills, and experience. By continuing to frame certain groups as "needy" or "requiring societal help," we risk reinforcing harmful stereotypes that undermine the individual’s true capacity. Many who fall into these categories may find the label of being in need of help offensive, as it reduces them to mere checkboxes rather than recognizing their unique abilities and contributions. We must evolve beyond the notion that someone’s identity automatically determines their worth or challenges. True progress comes when we treat people as individuals, not as representatives of a group in need of special treatment. Society should encourage empowerment, not dependence, and focus on offering opportunities based on ability, not background. It’s time to stop pointing to race, gender, and sexual preference as the primary factors in success or failure and start evaluating people on what they can bring to the table."It’s time to reconsider the emphasis on race, gender, and sexual preference in hiring and social initiatives. While DEI programs initially aimed to level the playing field
But they don't actually emphasize a preference? In the real world, who has such a policy? Again, this is a misrepresentation of the reality of what DEI policy actually encompasses.
DEI policies do not emphasize explicit race or gender preferences in hiring because such preferences are prohibited under federal law, particularly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...
The reality of the focus?
Rather than race- or gender-based preferences, DEI policies focus on:
Broadening recruitment pools to include diverse candidates without excluding any group.
Using standardized, merit-based hiring criteria to reduce bias and ensure fair evaluation of candidates.
Offering inclusive opportunities such as mentorship programs and development initiatives open to all employees, regardless of protected characteristics.
Providing bias awareness training and fostering inclusive company culture instead of applying demographic quotas or explicit preferences.
I'm not sure how real conversations about these policies can take place when one side is denying the reality of what the policies involve. It's not about quotas.This is your view, but I’ve already shared, more than once, a long list of companies that openly admit to using or having used DEI policies. The whole idea was to boost diversity by prioritizing certain candidates. That meant if someone checked a DEI box and was qualified for the job, they were moved to the front of the line. What I think you might be missing is that even when multiple people were equally qualified, DEI often gave one of them an edge based solely on identity, and in my view, that in itself is very unfair.
"I'm not sure how real conversations about these policies can take place when one side is denying the reality of what the policies involve. It's not about quotas." Willow
That comment came off as pretty one-sided to me. When she says, “it’s not about quotas,” it feels like she’s dismissing the real concerns that people, myself included, have about how these policies actually play out. Whether or not quotas are officially part of DEI, some companies do set diversity targets that feel exactly like them. And you talk like your point of view is the only one that matters, like if one disagrees, they are just uninformed. That kind of tone doesn’t invite real discussion, it just shuts it down.
I don't see anyone here denying anything. I see them sharing their own opinions. I do see you ruminating and not open to considering others' opinions. It appears you feel your opinion is the bottom line--- it is with you, but it is not with some others.What I think you might be missing is that even when multiple people were equally qualified, DEI often gave one of them an edge based solely on identity, and in my view, that in itself is very unfair.
Where? When? Who was involved? That's not what DEI is about. Labeling such an action as DEI would not be correct. I don't think anyone has been able to point to an actual real world corporation or organization DEI policy that specifically states preference for race or gender in hiring... What is wrong with broadening recruitment?
And yes, I am saying that misinformation, mischaracterization of the reality of DEI is rampant."What is wrong with broadening recruitment? " Willow
I can only speak for myself, but I truly believe our society has progressed to a point where we no longer need tools that separate people into categories like race or gender. I see people as individuals, and I don’t think it’s appropriate—or helpful—to view them through any other lens. I also wonder how it feels to be constantly looked at as someone who needs help, just because others are championing the idea that “Hey, you’re different, and you always will be without our help.”
"And yes, I am saying that misinformation, mischaracterization of the reality of DEI is rampant." Willow
That’s your view, and I see things differently. Hopefully, that helps make it clear that your view isn’t any more important than mine—we both have a right to our opinions.
Does "we’ve reached a point in history" imply we have more or less gotten rid of discrimination in America? Some here actually advocate that. Others, like me, look at the data. And when I do, I see a definite need for DEI.
- Controlled experiments continue to reveal racial bias in hiring. A 2024 study that sent out 84,000 fictitious resumes found that, on average, White-sounding names received callbacks 9.5% more often than Black-sounding names with identical credentials. On a positive note, however, the study found no significant overall bias in callbacks between men and women, though certain industries showed gender preferences - These findings underscore persistent racial discrimination in hiring, despite legal protections which conservatives keep trying get rid of.
- Workplace Representation: Women now participate in the labor force at nearly the same rate as men and have made gains in management, yet gender gaps in leadership remain. As of 2023, about 41 women led Fortune 500 companies (~8%) – a record high (imagine, 8% is a record!) but still far from parity.
Racial minorities are also underrepresented in top executive roles relative to their share of the population. On the other hand, some trends are encouraging: Black and Hispanic women have seen faster employment growth in the recovery, and targeted corporate diversity efforts (e.g. mentorship and inclusive recruiting) have modestly increased minority representation in professional fields. Still, “glass ceiling” effects persist for both women and people of color in climbing the corporate ladder. (or becoming President).
- Wealth: Median and mean household wealth in 2022 by race (Federal Reserve data). Minority families possess only a fraction of the wealth of White families. The typical (median) White household had about $285k in wealth, over 6 times the median Black household’s $45k, and the median Hispanic household ($62k) had about 20% of the wealth of the median White household
Not to belabor the point, there are many more examples of the disparity between Whites and everybody else in America.
We have a very long way to go and definitely need programs like DEI."- Wealth: Median and mean household wealth in 2022 by race (Federal Reserve data). Minority families possess only a fraction of the wealth of White families. The typical (median) White household had about $285k in wealth, over 6 times the median Black household’s $45k, and the median Hispanic household ($62k) had about 20% of the wealth of the median White household"
And the only reasonable answer to the "why" of this is racism and discrimination by whites, right?
That black families are usually one parent, with no father, does not affect family wealth, right? That black parents do not have the education or skill set of whites does not affect family wealth, right? That a (comparatively) high percentage of blacks live in the ghettos of our nation does not affect family wealth, right? That blacks with that 40 hour/week job, reasonably successful with the white picket fence, are all "uncle Toms" does not have any effect, right?
That an extremely high (comparatively) percentage of Hispanics are illegal aliens, with a really low family income does not affect family wealth, right? That so many Hispanic families are "immigrants" (legal or not) with no education or skills useful in America has no affect on family wealth, right?
The point of all this is that there are a great many reasons for what you are pointing out...and one ONE of them is racism/discrimination, and it doesn't even have the strongest effect! You want to change things, provide education and ensure that it is used (how you will do that is your problem). Ensure that black families, in particular, are two parent families. Get rid of the illegal aliens. Clean up the ghettos, eliminating the crime and gangs.
And when you have done these things, along with a dozen more, you will find that ALL races have improved their circumstances considerably. Whining that white people are all evil, all racist, all discriminatory isn't going to solve or help anything."And the only reasonable answer to the "why" of this is racism and discrimination by whites, right?" - Now you are on to something.
"That so many Hispanic families are "immigrants" (legal or not) with no education or skills useful in America has no affect on family wealth, right?" - I have already debunked that racist stereotype.Of course you have; it is a simple matter to prove that the math of a large number of poor does not shift the average wealth downwards. A simple matter, right?
I could go back and find your quotes - you have said that several times. But why bother? You will only say you meant something else, something that fits within your definition of discrimination.
I am absolutely certain that I have not said that because those aren't my beliefs... But please, if you're going to make accusations then find those quotes
Why? You will just say it means something else, that DEI doesn't mean what it says or does. You've done that over and over with my complaints that you support discrimination with DEI.
I support DEI and the real life policies of corporations and institutions that are being implemented all over this country. What I don't support? Maga's inaccurate characterization of these policies.
I know you do. You support hiring and other practices using race as a determinate factor. A 100% racist viewpoint, promoting discrimination, and I have called you on it before, whereupon you deny it while repeating that race SHOULD be a factor in hiring.
The law, SCOTUS and a large majority (IMO) of Americans disagree, finding that color blindness is the only method not producing discrimination.
That there ARE organizations (such as Harvard) that are NOT colorblind, and use race to pick admissions just as you would, does not mean we should all do that (recall what SCOTUS had to say about the matter?).
The problem, Willow, with DEI is that while it sounds wonderful with it's flowery language, it is used as a method to return to affirmative action, on steroids. THAT is unacceptable; affirmative action was never anything but legal, required discrimination. It may, or may not, have done some good, but the time for discrimination in the name of equality is long gone."You support hiring and other practices using race as a determinate factor. " - IT Simply amazes me how ignore what others write. I can go back and find probably at least a dozen times when Willowarbor has said exactly the opposite - yet you continue to imply she is lying about that.
Thank you! I think I have been abundantly clear in terms of what I support.
You know as well as I do that, in practice, colorblindness is just another way of keeping minorities in check. Given the degree of discrimination by Whites in America proves to me that the only people you want to be "colorblind" are those being discriminated against.
YOU may know that; I know that without colorblindness we will forever have discrimination and racism.
Since so many Whites refuse to be colorblind discrimination and racism will persist. To do nothing also means that discrimination and racism will persist.
Now, what I support--- I hear your support for DEI, and I understand that on the surface, the concept sounds noble: diversity, equity, and inclusion. But here’s where we part ways. I don’t buy the idea that opposition to DEI automatically stems from misunderstanding. Many of us who are critical of DEI aren’t mischaracterizing it, we’re reacting to the real-world consequences it’s had in workplaces, schools, and government agencies. When hiring or admissions decisions start prioritizing identity over merit, that’s not inclusion, it’s pure discrimination dressed in progressive language. It’s not about equality of opportunity anymore, it’s about engineering outcomes based on race, gender, or other categories. That’s not fairness. And it’s not just "MAGA" voters who see this. Americans, across the spectrum, are growing tired of policies that seem more focused on checking boxes than recognizing hard work or individual achievement. You may see DEI as progress, but there are others who see it as a regression, an ideology that divides rather than unites. So let’s not pretend there’s only one valid view here.
There are no DEI policies in place at corporations or organizations that encompass the actions that Maga claims....why? They would be illegal.
Race-based hiring decisions are prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal laws.... That's why they aren't part of any corporate DEI policy
It seems to me promoting racism and hatred is the driving force behind the anti-DEI right-wing movement.
Dredging all this up gives me the same impression. I promise America that peace will remain eternally allusive within this society if glaring inequities continue without abatement and are promoted and advocated as they are now under the Trump regime. Must we return to the 1960s where the dust was not allowed to settle?
Depends on the subject: For this, it is at least the 50s and I could make a case for the 1880s. For trade, it is back to the 1920s we go. For Trump's Ugly America initiative, it would be 1958.
You want equity and equality then live the life, walk the walk to get there. It really is that simple, however much you will complain otherwise.
As it goes through one ear and out the other, I will leave you content with your fantasy as to how the world actually works………
I know. But I said it anyway - there is always hope that you might listen.
That kind of Pollyanna view presumes that everyone will "walk the walk". Well, American history has proven that way too many in America are not built that way and will happily discriminate against women and minorities. They must be stopped.
LOL Didn't mean to discriminate. But you knew that, didn't you?
Ignore race and only focus on qualifications.
Seems like a pretty simple solution.
Again, If DEI is so great, let's have it in the NBA. It should be required to be a more diverse sports league. More whites, Latinos, and Asians need to be represented. After all, like the libs like to say, diversity is our strength....right?
ChatGPT on the "wide open borders" myth promoted by the "dumbed down" Right.
The characterization of the U.S. borders as "wide open" during President Biden's administration is a political assertion rather than a reflection of policy or enforcement realities.
Do these FACTS (from ChatGPT) change your mind?
Food Insecurity: Approximately 13.5% of U.S. households experience food insecurity, equating to about 47 million people. Organizations like Feeding America and its network of 198 food banks and 60,000 food pantries play a crucial role in addressing this issue.
Government Assistance: Various government programs support Americans in need:
Medicaid/CHIP: 23.3% of Americans
SNAP (Food Stamps): 11.7%
Free/Reduced School Lunches: 8.8%
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): 5.9%
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): 2.9%
Energy Assistance: 4.4%
Housing Assistance: 3.6%
Workers Compensation: 0.9%
Unemployment Benefits: 0.2%
These figures indicate that while many Americans receive some form of assistance, it's not accurate to state that over half are dependent on charity. (Before you try, you can't add those numbers together since there is a lot of double, triple, and quadruple counting)
Do you have ANY evidence of what you just said is true? If so, we would love to see it.
The majority of American voters did not vote at all.
How many times do you have to be told this fact?Here is a fact you may not like.
If you don't vote, you're not a voter.
So, the majority of American VOTERS voted for President Donald Trump and his agenda including getting rid of DEI.You are still WRONG, aren't you. The majority of "voters" DID NOT vote for Trump, only a small plurality did and they were looking for lower prices and didn't give a damn about DEI.
Incorrect... when you negate states like CA which include millions of fraudulent unverified mail-in ballots in their fabricated tallies... then Trump won the election by millions of REAL voters.
The looney left has to stick to their fabricated and phony propaganda... its all they have left... the lies they have built their reality on."Incorrect... when you negate states like CA which include millions of fraudulent unverified mail-in ballots in their fabricated tallies... then Trump won the election by millions of REAL voters."
Can you prove that, Ken or is this just more of your opinion?
It is just solid proof that facts don't matter to MAGA
can’t speak to the viability of the DEI “programs”, but “smart companies do not ignore the concepts that underlie it.
DEI in the 1960’s was more like affirmative action, initiated by President Kennedy. It was not a social justice movement more than the insistence that qualified people should have the opportunity to be hired and promoted regardless of their gender and skin color and believe me, in America that was quite a real problem and was not happening.
this society bear the burden of structural racism and the price that it exacts for correction. I never heard whites complain about anything as long as they had the unfair advantage, so they are not innocent. All of this horrendous history and background does not just go away at the twinkle of your nose.
rather than convoluting everything, this is not about “quotas” but a requirement especially at the federal level, of equal opportunity hiring and promotion instead of the old game of hiring white males only and disqualifying everybody else, regardless of their qualifications and abilities. That was the reality for a long time, until the disparity was brought to the public forum and enlightened leaders recognized that the American credo was mere lip service without an attempt to address glaring systemic inequities to the greatest extent possible. Not necessarily all the world’s problems.
I am not talking about outcomes, I am talking about reasonable efforts to include all qualified individuals. Conservatives seem to associate merit and earning such with WASPs males only, DEI is to automatically be associated with tainted, unqualified candidates artificially hired and promoted to fill a quota.
There is NOTHING to factor in. A firefighter has to be able to lift so much dead weight to be effective in their job and that requirement has been shown to be relevant to job performance. So instead of saying “male” only, use the standard to eliminate or consider applicants, male or female. It is not quota because there would most likely be more men than women who could meet the standard. But there are women that could. The film “Trading Places” is apropo in reflecting the true nature of American society and its ideas of merit and privilege.
At least as Trump reveals, he says that DEI was responsible for the plane crash in Washington not long ago. Was he attacking minorities, since DEI is a code word for women or people of color? Could it actually be possible that the “DEI” was just as qualified as anyone else and it was just a tragic accident? Those kinds of stupid assumptions is one of the many reasons why I virtually loath Trump and wish him bad luck in the future. But is that not the conservative narrative as a whole?
No one is mandating the firms have to have DEI as a principle, but I resent Trump for trying to outlaw it in realms where he has no business being involved.But, as you know, in the conservative mind, insuring equality and equity is just another name for discrimination against Whites. Conservative Whites are just pissed off because their ability to discriminate against others is being curtailed.
For most people DEI is a noble goal - until it keeps a white man from getting something he thinks he has a presumed right to get. Just look at who opposes it.
A group of white privileged men.Last I heard it was a group of Asians trying to get into Harvard. No white men involved, and certainly no "privileged" white men.
Forgive me I had tom do this --- lol
As of 2025, the most recent data available pertains to Harvard University's Class of 2028, which entered in the fall of 2024.
Racial Composition of Harvard's Class of 2028
Asian American: 37%
Hispanic or Latino: 16%
Black or African American: 14%
White: Approximately 31% (calculated by subtracting the percentages of other groups from 100%)
Native American: 1%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: <1%
Did Not Report Race: 8%Then you might want to expand your horizons to include the real world.
Why do Trumpers have say lies like this: "Mike, I agree, it's time some should consider that a huge majority of Americans sent Trump to Washington."
So, if that is a lie, what is the TRUTH? Trump won by a SMALL PLURALITY that wanted LOWER PRICES (which they won't get).
Doesn't that kind of fake news discredit anything else that follows?MAGA is in full meltdown over the new Pope, you’d think they’d just watched someone give food to a starving child...
The new pope once stated...
"We are often preoccupied with teaching doctrine ... but we risk forgetting that our first task is to teach what it means to know Jesus Christ".
The Cardinals gave us the right Pope for the times...According to the channel I watched, the new Pope has very seldom participated in discussions of a political nature. What you quote him as saying sounds right, but that should not (and will not) upset MAGA. No matter what you claim.
Here is another example of why good Americans need to keep fighting discrimination.
Alabama PURPOSEFULLY diluted Black votes in their redistricting plan. Sounds like something Trump would do.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/08/politics … urt-ruling
BTW, Alabama's discrimination was so egregious that two Trump-appointed judges said it was clear Alabama lawmakers were intent on preventing Black votes from counting.Someone who apparently is clairvoyant and, at the same time, doesn't comprehend the written word states with conviction that another person on this forum " ... supports hiring and other practices using race as a determinate factor. "
That is disinformation of the highest order when that other person has written at least a dozen times that she does not believe race should be a determining factor. Yet words are put in her mouth that are probably defamatory.You find racism and sexism in every country. As it is basically my tribe against yours. This however isn't an excuse to let it be.
The US, which was founded by Europeans in a time that slavery and classes where a normal thing, still has to shackle of it's history.
Slavery was a common thing among the Greek society where Aristotle and Plato dominated western thought and who influenced the Christian ideas greatly.
I'm also listening at the moment to a podcasts about the Vikings where slavery was a normal thing. And actually all over the world slavery was used to dominate. The slaves that worked on the fields with the US were captured in central Africa by local tribes and sold to traders and shipped off. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Although the US had a civil war about the morality of slavery, it is only since 1955 with the action of Rosa Parks that the US was forced to change it's policy towards colored people.
This is only 75 years ago. 75 years is not a long time for changing peoples mind about equality of race and gender.
Hollywood films have over and over shown to be racist. The hero was always white, the villain South American looking or black or Chinese. Black people die in movies, white seldom. If a black person smokes a cigarette you know he's going to die. (of course there are exceptions.)
This image created by Hollywood and TV commercials showed an America that was wonderful for white people. But left black people out of the equation.
In the 70's this changed. With power of music and tv programs like Soul Train and Civil rights movements.
These movements where quickly killed (literally) by the US government. MLK and Malcolm X killed.
Today, the US is still closely connected to it's violent past. (the gun ownership is a classic example of this violent past, promoted by Wild West Hollywood movies etc, romanticized.) And racism hasn't gone away.
So what to do about it should be a honest reflective question.
And as racism is a deeply rooted idea in de American society it has to be rooted out with drastic measures.
Personally I think to get rid of racism you have to do a lot of things. Educate the poor and stimulate education among the black population for example. Create a bigger middle class (The opposite of what's happening today) Or stimulate companies to have more diverse personal. (What many big companies already do, as Apple doesn't want to sell it's phones only to white people - but I've doubt about small companies)
Racism doesn't go away by itself in just a decade or two. You have to work on it. And that's the job for the Government, influencers and religious leaders. To set positive examples.Looks like you did some research...
Racism has been repackaged and repurposed for the 21st century...
It is one of the primary engines of the "progressive" or "woke" or whatever label you want to put on the extremes being programmed into the younger generations, especially those wading through Ivy League indoctrination camps.
Its nonsense... we live in a Class world just as always and ever before... race and sex impacts that wherever you go, in the West, less than it ever used to, but in most of the non-Western world... as they abandon their desire to be part of the West, to be part of the Dollar system/structure and join alternatives like BRICS... they will revolt, almost violently, against the social/civil 'progressive' Western ideals and norms.
We might even see a major uptick in human trafficking and slavery... oh, wait, we did see a huge surge in that... funny how allowing in millions of people, undocumented, unverified, leads to things like billion dollar sex trafficking industries gaining power and kidnapping of young women skyrocketing along the border.
Ah well, lets not look too deeply at realities... lets just stick to surface level, feel good platitudes about being open minded, open bordered... a borderless world is a non-racist non-sexist world.Bravo.
I recently learned that Beyonce's great-grandmother was a slave - THAT was not very long ago.Presumably she was American, and born before 1866. That makes her slavery at least 159 years ago - a long, long time ago in our culture, where 50 years is a long time.
Since de facto slavery lasted a long time after it was "officially" ended, Beyonce's mother, Tina's account is plausible. Beyonce's great-grandmother, Odelia, was born in 1864.
Yes, Peter, it is a human trait to favor your own tribe over others. But, in the interests of civility necessary for a cohesive society of diverse members, people need to think about treating others how they themselves would want to be treated. Is that really that hard, just because someone does not look like you?
American slavery was savage and unique in the fact that slaves were denied their humanity, when I compare that institution with say, South America. Catholicism there respected the family unit of slaves at least. The Protestants in America were hypocritical and used its tenets to justify slavery and its brutal treatment of human beings.
Yes, I see that you have done your homework. The U.S changed its racist pattern only through the gavel and the bayonet. Any of the current threats to democracy we experience today will affect African Americans first and foremost as they always have.
I was alive when Rosa Parks took her stand in the bus, so, yes, we are not talking about the Middle Ages.
The medium encouraged much of the bigotry so long associated with American society. People like to point to popular entertainment, TV, cinema and the like today as proof of progress. But TV rather than being the window on the world is more like a funhouse mirror. What you see is not actually the reality.
the issues surrounding equality are based on power to control your destiny and possession of and the ability to accumulate wealth, anything else is just a distraction placed by those in power who are basically, status quo.
While we can’t change the way people think, our institutions should be promoting equality by law and people need to rethink to change the bigotry on the ground which was part of the custom. It may be an ideal that will never be attained to but needs to be an objective for constant improvement. I, as a black person, living through the Reagans and the Eisenhowers always believed that in spite of America’s glaring faults, we were moving in the right direction, that is until January 20, 2025.Peter, I want to address something here. The poor in America are poor because of negative habits. The poor have a psychology that is different from the middle & upper classes. The poor believe in being irresponsible. Opportunities abound in America; however, the poor elect not to participate in such opportunities. They would rather continue in their negative behavioral patterns.
The poor believe that other people OWE them & they BLAME others for the dire socioeconomic position they are in. They also have a poisonous attitude toward money & success. They contend that being poor is somehow noble. They LOVE struggling. They consider being middle & upper class superfluous. They even feel that the middle & upper classes are soft while they are more real. The poor are where they are due to their own making, no one else.The "poor" are no more of a homogeneous group than the "left" or the "right".
I hope you realize that there is not a single study that supports your viewpoint, not one.
If fact, virtually all studies of the issue contradict your assertions.I agree with your thoughts, and took some time to have a look at what's out there on the subject. I note you were trolled on the subject. Here is what I found -----
The perspective you've shared echoes longstanding ideas in sociological and psychological literature, particularly the concept of a “culture of poverty, a controversial framework suggesting that persistent poverty stems partly from values, behaviors, and attitudes passed down within impoverished communities.
Here are just a few sources and studies that reflect or contribute to this kind of thinking:
1. Oscar Lewis – “Culture of Poverty” Theory
Source: Lewis, Oscar. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty—San Juan and New York (1966).
Summary: Oscar Lewis coined the term "culture of poverty" to describe values and behaviors he believed were common among the poor—fatalism, present-time orientation, lack of impulse control, distrust of institutions—which he argued perpetuated poverty across generations.
Relevance: This theory underpins the idea that poverty is not merely structural, but also cultural and psychological.
2. Charles Murray – “Losing Ground” (1984)
Source: Murray, Charles. Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980.
Summary: Murray argues that government welfare policies encouraged dependency and eroded work ethic and personal responsibility among the poor. He criticized the welfare state for incentivizing idleness and irresponsibility.
Relevance: Murray’s work supports the idea that negative behavioral patterns, rather than a lack of opportunity, often perpetuate poverty.
3. Thomas Sowell – Various Works
Source: Sowell, Thomas. Wealth, Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective (2015).
Summary: Sowell often argues that cultural attitudes toward work, education, family, and responsibility matter greatly in economic outcomes. He rejects the idea that inequality is solely the result of systemic barriers.
Relevance: Sowell emphasizes the role of personal behavior, decision-making, and cultural values in escaping poverty.
4. Ruby Payne – “A Framework for Understanding Poverty”
Source: Payne, Ruby K. A Framework for Understanding Poverty (2005).
Summary: Payne discusses hidden rules of economic class and how people raised in generational poverty have different mental models about money, relationships, and responsibility. She emphasizes how attitudes and patterns of thinking differ by class.
Relevance: Widely used in education and social work circles, Payne’s work explores the “psychology” of the poor in practical terms.
5. “The Role of Non-Cognitive Skills in Explaining the Education Gap” – Heckman & Rubinstein (2001)
Source: Heckman, James J., and Yona Rubinstein. The Importance of Noncognitive Skills: Lessons from the GED Testing Program.
Summary: The paper shows that factors like motivation, perseverance, and social skills—often labeled "non-cognitive"—matter more than raw IQ or ability in long-term success.
Relevance: Reinforces the idea that attitudes and behaviors play a significant role in economic achievement, not just intelligence or opportunity.
6. Lawrence Mead – “The New Politics of Poverty” (1992)
Summary: Mead argues that the poor in America are not just economically disadvantaged but also culturally disengaged. He stresses that poverty in modern America is sustained by a lack of work ethic and personal responsibility rather than by a lack of opportunity.
Relevance: He suggests that welfare programs have reduced the social pressure to work and behave responsibly, thus reinforcing poverty.
7. Dr. Jordan Peterson (Clinical Psychologist)
Core Idea: Personal responsibility, meaning, and order are keys to escaping chaos and dysfunction, including poverty.
Relevance: Peterson frequently discusses how attitude, habits, and values affect success. He argues that many poor individuals suffer from disorganized lives, weak family structures, and lack of purpose—factors that are psychological and behavioral, not merely economic.
Quote: “Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.”
Notable Work: 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
8. Dr. Angela Duckworth (Psychologist and Professor at UPenn)
Core Idea: Success is driven more by grit (perseverance and passion) than by raw intelligence or circumstance.
Relevance: Duckworth’s work shows that non-cognitive skills like resilience, discipline, and determination strongly influence outcomes—even in the face of poverty. These traits can be lacking in environments of generational poverty.
Notable Work: Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance
9. Dr. Martin Seligman (Founder of Positive Psychology)
Core Idea: Learned helplessness and pessimistic thinking can trap people in cycles of failure and poverty.
Relevance: Seligman’s research shows that when people believe they have no control over their lives, they stop trying to change their circumstances—a mindset often seen in multigenerational poverty.
Notable Work: Learned Optimism and Authentic Happiness
10. Dr. Carol Dweck (Psychologist, Stanford University)
Core Idea: People operate from either a fixed mindset or a growth mindset. The former sees abilities and situations as unchangeable; the latter sees them as improvable with effort.
Relevance: Dweck’s “growth mindset” concept is highly relevant to the poor, who may remain in poverty due to a belief that nothing they do will change their fate, rather than a lack of actual opportunity.
Notable Work: Mindset: The New Psychology of Success
11. Dr. Roy Baumeister (Social Psychologist)
Core Idea: Self-control and discipline are the foundation of success and well-being.
Relevance: Baumeister’s work on willpower and decision-making suggests that poor individuals often experience "ego depletion" from constant stress, leading to impulsive choices that can perpetuate poverty (e.g., spending instead of saving, dropping out, poor parenting).
Notable Work: Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength (with John Tierney)So if the poor are a homogeneous group, with the same logic then so is maga? So is "the right"?
Some psychologists would agree with you that MAGA is a homogeneous group. So I have no reason to debate your thought.
My response/my post, was meant to correct ECO’s inaccurate comment directed at Grace. I wasn’t sharing an opinion, simply providing information that directly contradicted the vague insult he aimed at her. It appears ECO believes that anything he says is beyond question. Grace, like anyone else, has the right to express her perspective without someone dismissing it as implausible in such an indirect and condescending way.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ost4370736Yes, he believes that he is infallible. He is dismissive of those who have a different opinion from his although his findings are erroneous & fantastical, not based in reality. If one observes poor people, h/she would see how poor people are passive towards life, blaming society rather than themselves. I remember when I was a supervisor, there were civil service tests for higher clerical positions, many of the clerks who were struggling, stated that they didn't want the responsibility yet they complain about their meager salaries. Yes, poor people are poor because they refuse to be socioeconomic grown ups but continuously want others to give, give them.
But, as most of the people Sharlee referenced say, there is much more behind the curtain than what you see on the cover. That is why almost all of them disagree with your thesis.
I am dismissive of those who have different opinions if they 1) can't back up their claims with facts or 2) well reasoned logic.
You and I know I do not think of myself as infallible, but before I say something, I generally have lots of facts, which I offer most of the time, to back me up. So, I can see why it might "seem" that way.
Willowarbor, maybe I am being dense, but did I insult Grace, vaguely or otherwise?
Also, do you think that when I back up things I say with facts, as I try hard to do, that I have a reason to be confident in what I say?Eso, the feigned outrage and insult claimed by the otherside has a partisan base and are not related to facts and reality. This is how Trump rules.
"Already, the erosion of U.S. influence is manifest in recent criticism of this country, unprecedented in its bitterly acrid tone, even among longstanding allies. “Europe is at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is slipping away,” warned veteran French legislator Claude Malhuret in a March 4th speech, from the floor of France’s Senate that soon won a remarkable 40 million views worldwide.
“Washington has become Nero’s court, with an incendiary emperor, submissive courtiers, and a ketamine-fueled buffoon in charge of purging the civil service.”I believe you have responded with facts and citations . I sure didn't pick up on any insult toward Grace. Conversely , I've had several occasions that I needed to remind folks to address the content of my post rather than what they believe I'm thinking. When posting a thorough fact check here, it often leads to a personal assault. I sure have been on the receiving end as well.
Is this what you thought was "vaguely insulting" and inaccurate?
I hope you realize that there is not a single study that supports your viewpoint, not one.
If fact, virtually all studies of the issue contradict your assertions.
What you presented shows how accurate I was, so long as you agree that when I refer to "study", I am talking about well-done, rigorous studies and not opinions based on cherry-picked data points.
I guess your reference to "vaguely insulting" is about the fact that I disagreed and pointed out why.
To answer your question. I have deep thoughts on the subject. I don’t think it’s fair, or accurate, to compare the psychology of people who support the MAGA movement to those living in poverty. They’re coming from completely different places, both in terms of life experience and motivation. MAGA supporters include a wide range of people, including middle- and upper-class individuals, yes as well as the poor. Their reasons for supporting the movement tend to be rooted in political beliefs, cultural frustration, or a sense that the country is heading in the wrong direction.
That’s not the same mindset as someone who’s dealing with poverty, where survival, long-term stress, and lack of opportunity shape day-to-day decisions. Poverty often creates what's called a "scarcity mindset," where the brain is so focused on immediate needs that it becomes harder to plan long-term or take risks. People in poverty are often stuck in their situation due to generational disadvantage or systemic barriers, not because they chose a certain belief system. And treating either group like they’re all the same only muddies the water. Poverty is complex and so deeply rooted, and political movements, whether you agree with them or not, operate on a totally different psychological wavelength. So, trying to draw a one-to-one comparison oversimplifies both and ends up missing what makes each group unique.Is that what you were doing Willowarbor, trying to equate MAGA with the poverty class?
I guess on definition of "trolling" is presenting facts that contradict others assertions.
Since you took the time to produce that list, I took the time to peel back the onion at bit on each:
Lewis: Importantly, Lewis did not say that the poor are poor because they’re lazy or love irresponsibility.
In fact, he was often critical of structural inequality and tried to explain rather than blame:
“The people I describe are not responsible for their poverty. What is important is that we understand how poverty perpetuates itself culturally.” - This is exactly what those not on the right say.2. Charles Murray – “Losing Ground” (1984):
Murray blames personal behavior, particularly decisions around work and family, for sustaining poverty. He ties these behaviors to perverse incentives created by the welfare system — not innate inferiority, but policy-driven moral hazard.
He does not go so far as to say the poor inherently "believe in being irresponsible," (as is claimed above) but he does argue that the system has discouraged responsibility by removing consequences for “irresponsible” behavior.The problem is this - Murray does not have any empirical evidence to back up his opinion. He relies SOLELY on aggregate government data and deductive logic, not on direct fieldwork or the voices of the poor themselves.
He DID NOT do:
1. Randomized study trials.
2. He did NO in-depth interviews or ethnographic studies of poor people
3. He paid limited attention to systemic racism, segregation, education inequality, or labor market shifts.
So, in my opinion, the best you can say is Murray has an opinion not well supported by facts.
He is also the co-author of the The Bell Curve,which, among other things, argue that Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites. It is refuted because it only considers an IQ gap from one set of data at one time period and totally disregards other factors such as poverty, stress, education access, and racism.I remember the controversy during the 1990s, how pseudoscience was allowed to make the headlines for a time regarding “The Bell Curve” Conservatives love to find inherent inferiority explanations for why one group lags behind them, it gets them and their policies and attitudes off of the hook.
So, Murray has to be considered as far from infallibility as one could possibly get.
Who is next? 3. Thomas Sowell – Various Works:
Like Murray, Sowell is very conservative. Like Murray, he used census data and historical comparisons. Like Murray, he DID NOT use any formal, peer-reviewed studies. Instead, he relies on theoretical logic that incorporates his own pre-conceived beliefs rather than data-driven logic.4. Ruby Payne – “A Framework for Understanding Poverty”:
Your synopsis seems about right. Again, her conclusions aren't data-driven, but they don't be. Simple observation should lead to the reasonable conclusions she came up with.
It should be noted that she doesn't come close to supporting the main thesis that began this tread: The poor believe in being irresponsible.5. “The Role of Non-Cognitive Skills in Explaining the Education Gap” – Heckman & Rubinstein (2001):
This source definitely DOES NOT support the main thesis here, that The poor believe in being irresponsible. If anything, it argues against it. It is also very data-driven.Exactly, there is such a thing as a culture of poverty. I read various books on the culture of poverty. I majored in Sociology in college. People are poor in the United States because of a negative mindset. They want to take the easy way out-they refuse to strategize & sacrifice in order to live a middle class life. There are many opportunities for people to be educated & improve themselves but to many poor that would be hard work. They would rather lead an easy life of poverty. They don't want to be successful. Poor people DO pass their culture to their children & so on.
Curious, do these theories cover ALL poor people?
The majority of poor people in the United States. Hint: I stated the United States.
I completely agree. For example, it’s clear on social media that some people are overreacting to Trump’s very reasonable changes to Medicaid, acting as if it’s some kind of disaster where millions will lose coverage. What they don’t seem to understand is that the new rules are actually quite lenient, with built-in exemptions to ensure that anyone who genuinely needs Medicaid will still receive it. Yes, able-bodied individuals are expected to work 80 hours a month, and I think that’s a great idea. It encourages those who are capable of working to get back into the workforce, which benefits everyone. We need to get more off the rolls, working, thriving, and improving their lives.
You can believe that if you want to, but I stand by the experts and "actual experience" from states that tried it.
The TRUTH is only 8% if Medicaid recipients who could work and aren't currently exempt don't work.
Doing back of the envelope math we find that if all 8% (6.4 million) are disenrolled that would save Medicaid $38 billion/year. Unfortunately, Trump is planning on cutting at least $63 billion/year!
Again, doing simple math, we end up with an additional 4.2 million people disenrolled for a total of 10.6 million.
And this doesn't count all those people who currently work but are unable to to jump through the bureaucratic hoops to remain enrolled (the Arkansas experience), especially in states who don't want you enrolled in the first place.
Keep in mind, there are those in Congress who want more cuts to Medicare.
Conclusion - millions who truly need Medicaid will lose it.
6. Lawrence Mead – “The New Politics of Poverty” (1992):
Another old source from a strong conservative that is NOT even close to being data-driven. He clearly agrees with the thesis that it is the poor and only the poor's fault they are poor.
To come to this astounding conclusion Mead used Labor statistics, Welfare enrollment trends, Ethnographic studies and interviews, and Policy analysis.
It is worth noting that Mead's, who is a political scientist and not a Sociologist, work has been heavily criticized as paternalistic, racially coded, and dismissive of structural inequality — especially by scholars of poverty and race.7. Dr. Jordan Peterson (Clinical Psychologist):
Had to dig deeper with Dr. Peterson for, in his field, his data analysis is rigorous. But the application to poverty is not. What can be said is this:
* He supports the idea that poverty is sustained by dysfunctional behaviors.
* He roots this dysfunction in psychological development, not laziness or willful irresponsibility. - which is the premise here.
* His solutions are personal, moral, and existential, not structural or redistributive.
* His strength is in understanding individual transformation, not in explaining population-level poverty trends.8. Dr. Angela Duckworth (Psychologist and Professor at UPenn):
She is highly regarded for her influential research on grit and self-control, which has had a lasting impact on both psychology and education. Her focus is not, however, on poverty broadly speaking. As to this thread one can say about her work is that:
* Poor people do have a different psychology due to environment and not to inherent flaws as is presumed here.
* She agrees that poor people sometimes lack perseverance or discipline — but caused by stress, trauma, and instability
* What she DOES NOT agree with is that poverty is due to personal failure nor do they ELECT not to pursue opportunityOK, Let's finish up.
9. Dr. Martin Seligman (Founder of Positive Psychology)
Dr, Seligman also doesn't buy into the conservative myth that poor people want to be poor. Instead, his studies, first with animals and then humans, that "The poor may appear to make self-defeating choices, not because they are lazy or irrational, but because they’ve internalized powerlessness."
Seligman would say that poverty can cause psychological damage (e.g., learned helplessness, depression, pessimism), which in turn reduces the likelihood of escaping poverty. But that damage is caused by circumstances, not bad character. as is suggested by conservative myth.
Seligman is one of the very few in the list to have used empirical methods to reach his conclusions that it is ridiculous to think that 1) "The poor believe in being irresponsible.", 2) "the poor elect not to participate in such opportunities.", 3) "They would rather continue in their negative behavioral patterns"., 4) "The poor believe that other people OWE them & they BLAME others for the dire socioeconomic position they are in.", 5) "They have a poisonous attitude toward money & success.", 6) "They contend that being poor is somehow noble. They LOVE struggling. They consider being middle & upper class superfluous.", and 7) The poor are where they are due to their own making, no one else.10. Dr. Carol Dweck (Psychologist, Stanford University)
Also, rigorously derived conclusions which refute the main thesis of this particular thread. Dweck thinks the following:
1. Do the poor lack motivation or character? - NO — mindset is shaped by opportunity, feedback, and support
2. Do the poor choose not to pursue opportunity? - Generally not, buy when they do it is usually because of past signals that effort is punished or futile
3. Does psychology causes poverty? Not really, but that psychology is environmentally shaped, not a moral failing
4. Can the poor rise if they try? Most definitely, and often do when given support, encouragement, and tools.And Finally, 11. Dr. Roy Baumeister (Social Psychologist)
Like most of the others, especially those that did real research, doesn't blame the poor for being poor. Instead, he things these things:
1. Are the poor poor because of bad habits? Generally true, but maintains that those "bad habits" are shaped by stress and scarcity related to being poor.
2. Do, as claimed here, the poor choose irresponsibility? NO — they are often cognitively overwhelmed, not morally deficient
3. Is it true that the poor don’t take opportunities? Maybe, but can often by explained by impulse control limitations under chronic stress
4. Is poverty behavioral? Partly — but he emphasizes how conditions erode self-regulation
Bottom Line: Baumeister doesn’t support a purely “blame the poor” framework — rather, he presents a behavioral-psychological model in which poverty creates the very conditions that undermine willpower. He’d likely argue that helping people escape poverty requires reducing cognitive load and building habits, not moral condemnation.
If my count is right, there are only two out of the eleven examples offered that subscribe to the "Blame the Poor for Being Poor" hypotheses of the conservatives. But neither arrive at that conclusion based on data-driven evidence, just a pre-conceived notion for which they cherry-pick anecdotes and data to support.
None of the other eight or nine buy into the conservative theory but look to real-world explanations for what appears on the surface to be case that was described at the beginning of this thread.
In my opinion, based on the sources offered here the myth that the poor want to be poor is thoroughly debunked!
Wanna bet Trump and his conservative cronies are going to pitch a fit over this obviously racist DEI on White America?
"A Black 18-year-old college student was lynched on a playground 95 years ago. His nephew just accepted his posthumous degree"
Trump will probably cut Morehouse College's funding now.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/25/us/moreh … ert-degreeTrump would be wise to keep his nose out of it. I think this is too close to home for even Trump. He already has institutions like Morehouse on his list, simply because they are black and therefore, woke,
You write as if Trump is rational. We all know he is not.
In his drive to Make America White Again, Trump, a felon and sexual predator, has enlisted a fellow White Supremist to run what once was the least racist institution in America - our military. Why do I say such things? Because of deeply held views like this from Hegseth:
"Hegseth, who wrote in a book published last year that “America’s white sons and daughters are walking away” from military service, says he wants to restore the “warrior” mentality to America’s military.
“I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is ‘Our diversity is our strength,” Hegseth said in February in a speech at the Pentagon."
This article explains why Hegseth is an idiot. (Unfortunately, you will need a CNN subscription to view it.)
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/26/us/dei-m … istory-cecFrom MIlitary.com
Army Sees Sharp Decline in White Recruits
The Army's recruiting of white soldiers has dropped significantly in the last half decade, according to internal data reviewed by Military.com, a decline that accounts for much of the service's historic recruitment slump that has become the subject of increasing concern for Army leadership and Capitol Hill.
The shift in demographics for incoming recruits would be irrelevant to war planners, except it coincides with an overall shortfall of about 10,000 recruits for the Army in 2023 as the service missed its target of 65,000 new soldiers. That deficit is straining the force as it has ramped up its presence in the Pacific and Europe: A smaller Army is taking on a larger mission and training workload than during the peak of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- leading to soldiers being away from home now more than ever.
A total of 44,042 new Army recruits were categorized by the service as white in 2018, but that number has fallen consistently each year to a low of 25,070 in 2023, with a 6% dip from 2022 to 2023 being the most significant drop. No other demographic group has seen such a precipitous decline, though there have been ups and downs from year to year.
Read Next: Inside the Pentagon's Failure to Notify the White House, Congress of Defense Secretary's Hospitalization
In 2018, 56.4% of new recruits were categorized as white. In 2023, that number had fallen to 44%. During that same five-year period, Black recruits have gone from 20% to 24% of the pool, and Hispanic recruits have risen from 17% to 24%, with both groups seeing largely flat recruiting totals but increasing as a percentage of incoming soldiers as white recruiting has fallen.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 … ruits.html
"The US military is making a comeback thanks to Trump"
After years of decline in both recruitment and retention, alongside an air of neglect for our nation’s warfighters, the American military is turning a corner. Renewed leadership under President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is inspiring one of the most dramatic military revivals in recent history.
Under the Biden-Harris administration, the Department of the Army missed its recruitment goals by historic margins. In fiscal 2022, they aimed to bring in 60,000 people and came up 15,000 short. In fiscal 2023, despite increasing the target to 65,000, the Army fell short again, only managing 55,000 recruits — the worst recruiting crisis since the all-volunteer force was established in 1973.
just over 100 days into the new administration, the situation has changed dramatically. With Trump in office and Hegseth leading the charge at the Pentagon, the Army is over 85 percent of the way to its 2025 goal of 61,000 new recruits — exciting data for the service coming up on its 250th anniversary.
One testament to the success is Army Gen. James Mingus’s comments to Congress on March 12, 2025, when he said, “We’ve seen momentum unlike anything we’ve (had) in a decade.”
The Navy’s story is strong too. “We are on pace to exceed recruiting goals in 2025,” said Admiral James Kilby, the Navy’s vice chief of naval operations, in a recent congressional hearing. That goal is 40,600 new sailors.
The Marine Corps is reporting historic retention rates for fiscal 2025, “exceeding aggregate missions for both First Term Alignment Plan and career Marines,” and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin posted on X in March that the recruitment for December, January and February were at 15-year highs — even considering a 20 percent increase in 2025 goals.
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-se … p-hegseth/As is usual, there are explanations for strange numbers such as the one about the first 100 days.
Notably, the Army's implementation of the Future Soldier Preparatory Course in August 2022 under the previous administration played a significant role. This program assists applicants in meeting academic and physical standards, contributing to the Army meeting its 2024 recruitment goal of 55,000 and building a strong delayed-entry pool for 2025. - So it is BIDEN who is responsible for getting to the 85% mark, not Trump or Hegseth.Marine Corp, so it was Biden that led to the high recruitment numbers in December, January, and February that Gen Alvin is referencing.
The Navy - This positive trend follows the Navy's achievement in fiscal year 2024, where it exceeded its recruitment goal by contracting 40,978 future sailors—the highest number since 2003 . The Navy attributes this success to several initiatives, including the establishment of a Recruiting Operations Center, implementation of the Future Sailor Preparatory Course to assist applicants in meeting standards, streamlining of medical waiver reviews, and enhancements in marketing strategies . - AGAIN, under Biden's watch.
Gen Mingus was referring to work done during Biden's administration. This progress is attributed to a combination of factors, including initiatives implemented over the previous 18 to 24 months, such as the Future Soldier Preparatory Course and enhanced recruiting strategies. While the current administration under President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has emphasized a renewed focus on traditional military values, the groundwork for these improvements was laid prior to their tenure .
Sorry to put the correct spin on your implications.
From MIlitary.com January 2024
The Army's recruiting of white soldiers has dropped significantly in the last half decade, according to internal data reviewed by Military.com, a decline that accounts for much of the service's historic recruitment slump that has become the subject of increasing concern for Army leadership and Capitol Hill.
The shift in demographics for incoming recruits would be irrelevant to war planners, except it coincides with an overall shortfall of about 10,000 recruits for the Army in 2023 as the service missed its target of 65,000 new soldiers. That deficit is straining the force as it has ramped up its presence in the Pacific and Europe: A smaller Army is taking on a larger mission and training workload than during the peak of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- leading to soldiers being away from home now more than ever.
This wasn’t a fluke, and this wasn’t a new bonus structure — this was new leadership, inspiring clarity and conviction among our nations’ bravest.
Recruitment and retention are great pieces of the success story, but the 1.3 million active-duty service members know that the military is only as strong as its readiness — and that means building elite warfighters, not checking boxes.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 … ruits.html
Military enlistment has increased under President Donald Trump
"The US military is making a comeback thanks to Trump"
After years of decline in both recruitment and retention, alongside an air of neglect for our nation’s warfighters, the American military is turning a corner. Renewed leadership under President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is inspiring one of the most dramatic military revivals in recent history.
Under the Biden-Harris administration, the Department of the Army missed its recruitment goals by historic margins. In fiscal 2022, they aimed to bring in 60,000 people and came up 15,000 short. In fiscal 2023, despite increasing the target to 65,000, the Army fell short again, only managing 55,000 recruits — the worst recruiting crisis since the all-volunteer force was established in 1973.
The Departments of the Navy and Air Force fared no better. The Air Force missed its recruiting goal for the first time in nearly a quarter-century. The Marine Corps, which typically begins each year exceeding half of its recruitment goal, entered fiscal 2022 with just over 30 percent.
These numbers are even more concerning when you realize the domino effect that followed. In 2024, the U.S. entered in a new year with the smallest active-duty service since the U.S. entered World War II. The trajectory wasn’t good, considering China, Russia and conflicts in the Middle East had all settled in our peripherals.
Today, just over 100 days into the new administration, the situation has changed dramatically. With Trump in office and Hegseth leading the charge at the Pentagon, the Army is over 85 percent of the way to its 2025 goal of 61,000 new recruits — exciting data for the service coming up on its 250th anniversary.
One testament to the success is Army Gen. James Mingus’s comments to Congress on March 12, 2025, when he said, “We’ve seen momentum unlike anything we’ve (had) in a decade.”
The Navy’s story is strong too. “We are on pace to exceed recruiting goals in 2025,” said Admiral James Kilby, the Navy’s vice chief of naval operations, in a recent congressional hearing. That goal is 40,600 new sailors.
The Marine Corps is reporting historic retention rates for fiscal 2025, “exceeding aggregate missions for both First Term Alignment Plan and career Marines,” and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin posted on X in March that the recruitment for December, January and February were at 15-year highs — even considering a 20 percent increase in 2025 goals.
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-se … p-hegseth/One has to wonder if the lower white recruitment rate isn't because more and more Whites can't qualify?
Consider, the largest recruiting grounds for White Americans is from the rural areas. And rural America is largely White.
* Obesity is a continuing problem
* Rural schools are doing poorer jobs at education (for a variety of reasons)
* Young Whites in rural areas are largely conservative and MAGA has gone a long way to instill mistrust of federal institutions, including the military.
* Trump's anti-DEI and the so-called anti-woke campaign are dissuading Whites from joining.
I am surprised the military is doing as well as it is in recruiting white youth.Gee,
Obesity problems going away, young whites from rural areas instantly become smarter under President Donald Trump so they can join the military. It's possible you give him too much credit.
THIS is comedy gold. "Trump's anti-DEI and the so-called anti-woke campaign are dissuading Whites from joining"
I have to say this is one of the most ridiculous things I've read it quite awhile.
Amazing how military recruitment has increased overwhelmingly since President Donald Trump has taken office. I bet that the anti-DEI and anti-woke campaign are things that have helped the increase in military recruitment.
I'm sure having a commander and chief who puts America first is an incentive. The previous president was a dementia ridden individual with cancer and did not inspire confidence in anything. That is the reason military recruitment was so low under Biden.
IN 2024 is it was obvious President Donald Trump would win the election. That probably had more influence on the continued increase in military enlistment than anything you mentioned.It would be nice to have a commander and chief who really put America first rather than this self-centered fraud we have today. I sure miss the days when we had a competent president, even if he did have a few bad days (I started reading Original Sin)
I read it, and yes the case for a diverse military was well made and Hegseth and the Trump regime he serves are idiots to ignore lessons learned over so long a time.
We don't need a diverse military.
We need a military where everyone is required to meet one set of standards like it was when I served.
It doesn't matter your color, race, religion, sexual preference in battle. Those bombs and bullets don't discriminate.
I don't care what a person next to me looks like, has sex with when things get real. I just want someone who knows what they're doing and has met the same standards as me to get there.
We need a military where everyone is required to meet the same standards no matter what.They still did until Hegseth and Trump got there.
You said this wrong "It doesn't matter your color, race, religion, sexual preference in battle. " IT should be "It didn't matter your color, race, religion, sexual preference in battle. Now it does" Hegseth and Trump discriminate now on sexual preference and it should be long before they start setting quotas for Whites.We need a military where everyone is required to meet one set of standards like it was when I served.
———
Yes, it was that way when I served as well, so how is not like that now? So, now you want to recognize Robert E. Lee and shelve appreciation of the service of Colin Powell.
So now the AF Chief of staff, formerly General Brown is considered DEI or is it just black and replaced with a white man who does not check off the boxes of required experience, as Trump waived the requirements.
You conservatives always talk about neutrality in evaluating people, but the female Admiral and the man of 4 star flag rank were fired because they were Not doing the job because conservatives ALWAYS harbor the idea that any racial minority of female gender have not earned their positions. It is a disgusting attitude and agenda which forces me to loath Trump conservatives and not give them an inch in any matter of any significance. Trump blames the plane crash over the Potomac a few months ago on DEI? How does he know that? Accidents happen, so Trumps instincts stinks.
How are standards being lowered as insinuated by DUI Hegseth? Conservatives, regardless of their packaging, never really cease being intolerant and bigoted. And I haven’t been fooled.
Let me ask you a question, a hypothetical one to be sure? If you had a fire department, you would want everyone to meet a minimum standard of fitness and pass all necessary academic tests relevant to successful performance on the job. Can you make opportunities available to all that can meet the standard or are you apt to automatically exclude minorities and women as automatically disqualified, as you have always done, but now have a polished explanation for doing so?
No, I don’t advocate lowering standards as long as the standard is not one excluding everyone without white male genitalia. They did this in the past, and I don’t trust you folks to not attempt to revert to it now. Colorblindness is just a platitude always uttered by conservatives, when we know in reality, that is not simply the case.
I would not advise any of those in my circle to serve in a military where only the white males are considered competent. So, how would the military recover after that, I wonder?
I am still undecided on whether transwomen should compete in women's sports. I am all about fairness and if being trans gives them an Unfair advantage, then I think a new category should be created for trans to compete in.
But, right now, the science and the known facts doesn't support discriminating against trans women. There simply isn't enough data to come to ANY conclusion. The single data point in Olympic competition says that trans women are no competition at all. And in college and lower grade sports, there are so few trans women that are known to compete in girls sports that conclusions can't be drawn yet either.
Since I am a liberal and believe people should be allowed to do what they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone, i.e., personal liberty, my current position is to let them participate.
To those who think transwomen aren't a real thing and that a transwomen in a locker room with ciswomen is putting the wolf in with the chickens, let me suggest you are extremely misinformed of prejudiced.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/29/health/t … -explainerIt depends. Are you talking about phenotype (surface characteristics) or Genotype (both physical and mental makeup)?
NO, it's very simple.
WHAT is a woman? You can either define it or you can't.NO? You are not talking about phenotypes or genotypes? What else is there?
?? Sex is not defined by observable traits or characteristics (phenotype). That leaves genotype, doesn't it?
"The medical definition of a woman is as follows:
Merriam Webster
An adult female human.
An individual that bears young or produces eggs, as distinguished from one that produces sperm.
Sex classification is generally based on reproductive organs and functions.
Female can be defined by physical appearance, chromosome constitution, or gender identification."
I'm surprised at you: any 6 year old knows this. Although, to be fair, some liberals seem to deny knowing it...Whether they actually do not know or just deny knowing is debatable.And I am surprised at you for not knowing that gender is much, much more than having penis or a vagina.
Marriam Webster is, of course, correct for the "medical" definition of a female, but they are very wrong about what makes the gender Woman.
A MODERN definition of a woman might be A woman is a person who identifies and lives as female, shaped by a combination of biological traits (such as sex chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive anatomy) and a deeply held internal sense of gender identity shaped by the interaction of their genetic make-up and environmental influences.
This definition aligns with modern scientific, medical, and sociological perspectives. It avoids reducing womanhood to only chromosomes or reproductive capacity, while still acknowledging the biological foundations and psychological realities that together shape a person’s identity as a woman.
Even your archaic definition is off the mark as XX is not the only combination that presents as a person with a vagina; occasionally other combinations do as well.So, then, can a transgender female have a child? Will they mensurate? Will they go through menopause? These are things that can only be done by an actual adult human female.
As a well-known back politician said, and I agree, "Men can't become women and women can't become men. All you can do, and all that has been done is to chemically and surgically alter a person to provide the illusion they are the opposite sex. It is just an illusion."
This reality of life unable to be grasped by left is amazing. It is either willful ignorance or just plain obtuse.So what if they can't. You are talking about only ONE aspect of femaleness. Obviously, your politician is behind the times - which is a feature of the Right, isn't it.
You know who else doesn't think women are women if that can't or won't have a baby?
1. Conservative religious-types who base that on the Bible.
2. Sen Josh Hawley (R-MO)
3. J.D. Vance
3. Sarah Huckabee Sanders
4.Rep. Justin Humphrey (R-OK)
5. Nick Fuentes
Possibly the politician you mentioned.
How about you? Is that your position as well?"Obviously, your politician is behind the times"
Sorry, times change but people don't.
XX Chromosomes = Female
XY Chromosomes = Male
This is the way it's been since the dawn of mankind and continues today. Simply because the left can't accept reality doesn't make it any less real.
Men who pretend to be women aren't women, they are men pretending to be women.
Transgender woman = MALE
Playing into the delusion of a person who suffers from the mental disorder of Gender Dysphoria helps nobody.
Help them deal with reality is what makes sense.What the Left understands and the Right doesn't is that there is much, much more to being a woman than a pair of Chromosomes.
It seems to me that that view coincides with the conservatives who think women are nothing more than a baby machine. Modern Science has proven differently.
For example: Gender identity is now widely recognized in psychology and neuroscience as a core aspect of human identity, rooted in early brain development.
Some studies suggest brain sexual differentiation in trans people may diverge from their assigned sex in utero—especially in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), a brain region involved in gender identity.
As I said, the Right's viewpoint is from the Dark Ages, as you said, and the Left's viewpoint is from Modern Science."Left's viewpoint is from Modern Science."
If this is the left's view it is from fake science, not modern science.
People haven't changed.
Biology hasn't changed.
The only thing that has changed is we have people who play into a person's mental delusions rather than help them deal with reality.
Again, facts are, a man cannot become a woman, a woman cannot become a man. The only thing that can be done or has been done is to chemically or surgically alter a person's body to provide the illusion of being the opposite sex. It is just an illusion.
These are facts and they are indisputable.If that is what you have to believe to feel good, have at it. It just doesn't make it true in the real world.
What the left does not understand and the right does is that all of those things put together will not negate that pair of chromosomes.
In times past "gender" and "sex" meant the same thing; one of those combinations of chromosomes. The left has decided that "gender" now means "feminine" (or "masculine) or some facsimile thereof andand that's fine and good....as long as we all understand that "gender" no longer means the same as "sex". Unfortunately the left is trying to still interchange them at will. "Gender" has nothing to do with the physical differences or abilities of the two sexes, but when they topic becomes sports participation suddenly the left wants to pretend that it does, AND that there is no difference.
False on the face of it, and to pretend there is no difference simply makes a huge liar out of the one making such a foolish claim.
The left desperately needs to either acknowledge that "gender" no longer means "sex" and stick to it or make up another word to indicate what they mean by using "gender".Your first paragraph is totally correct - as far as it goes. But, what science has clearly shown now is all the other aspects of being a human work to modify the influence of XX or XY. The ONLY things those two chromosomes do is determine with you have a penis or vagina. It does nothing to determine everything else that makes people people.
I understand where you're coming from, and I agree that biological reality is a fundamental truth that has been consistent throughout human history. The fact is, XX and XY chromosomes define female and male in the vast majority of cases, and that biological basis doesn’t change just because society or politics shift.
While I believe in compassion for those struggling with gender dysphoria, it’s important to recognize the reality of biology rather than deny it. Encouraging people to face reality honestly seems like the most practical and respectful approach in the long run.
It’s worth noting what happened to the group that once prided themselves on strictly following facts and science. When facts conflicted with certain social or political agendas, many in that group seemed to shift away from objective reality to accommodate new narratives. This departure from evidence-based thinking has caused confusion and frustration for those who value truth and biological realities. It’s a reminder that true respect for science means accepting facts, even when they challenge prevailing trends. Odd bunch...What of the neurobiology of gender identification?
The prenatal, neurological factors that act to shape the development of the brain and hence the expression of gender identity?
No question, science dictates the physical, an outward expression of gender but one of the neurobiology, the science that we don't see?That’s a fair point, and I agree that neurobiology and prenatal development may influence identity. But I think we need to be cautious about how this science is interpreted and applied. While some studies suggest certain prenatal or neurological factors could play a role in gender identity, the science is still evolving, and it’s far from settled.
At the same time, we can’t overlook the well-established biological differences between males and females, differences in bone density, muscle mass, hormonal profiles, and physical performance. These aren’t just “social constructs”; they’re measurable, biological realities that matter, especially in contexts like sports, medicine, and public safety.
We can and should show compassion toward those who experience gender dysphoria or identify differently. But that compassion doesn’t mean we should abandon science, reality, or fairness in public policy. It’s possible to acknowledge the complexity of identity while still respecting biological truths and the distinctions between male and female that are foundational to society.And right now, the jury is out on whether those things you mention are material in competition between trans women and cis women. I have already listed a couple of examples where a trans women won some events but lost others.
But, the fact is that there are so few instances of trans and cis competing, it is impossible to come to science-based conclusion rather than one based on prejudice.
What about the neurobiology? It has zero to do with physical abilities, and even less to do with the feelings of others when it comes to use of restrooms, dressing rooms, etc.
There is more to gender identity than genitalia.
Not according to conservatives. The only thing that apparently matters are genitalia.
You would probably been horrified and had a heart attack had you been in the airport restroom in Germany when I was taking a leak, when a cleaning lady walked in to do her work. She glanced over at me at the urinal and nodded and then went about her job.
Obviously Trump doesn't care about such things since he occasionally visited ladies dressing rooms, although I read the women were rather upset.
That is old news. Modern science says:
1. “Transgender and gender nonbinary identities are normal and positive variations of the human experience.”
— APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People (2015)
2 "Diverse gender expressions, identities, and roles are part of the normal spectrum of human experience.”
— Position Statement on Discrimination Against Transgender and Gender Diverse Individuals (2018) - American Psychiatric Association
3. “The AMA recognizes that transgender and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression.”
— AMA House of Delegates, Resolution 122 (2019)
4. In removing "gender incongruence" from mental disorders in ICD-11, WHO explained: “Gender incongruence is not a mental disorder and classifying it that way can cause enormous stigma.”
— WHO spokesperson, quoted by Reuters (May 2019)
This realization that the "trans" person is normal is not new, look at the dates. Science came to this conclusion seven or eight years ago.
In my opinion, it is time for conservatives to catch up with life's realities.I believe it is time for the left to grasp reality and not an illusion. The mental disease known as gender dysphoria is very real.
A man cannot become a woman, a woman cannot become a man. The only thing that can be done or has ever been done is to chemically or surgically alter a person's body to provide the illusion of being the opposite sex. It is just an illusion.
These are facts and they are indisputable.In my opinion, it is time for you to catch up with life's realities.
Shar,
THIS is what happens when the delusional left is in charge of making decisions. It's called chaos.
"'Cowardice': Male student 'frequently switches gender throughout day' to ogle girls in shower despite competing in boys' sports
'I never thought I'd have to file a federal complaint just so my daughter could change clothes in a girls' locker room without being stared at by a male student'
The Defense of Freedom Institute (DFI) filed a federal civil rights complaint against the South Colonie Central School District (SCCSD) in New York over a male student who allegedly frequently "switches gender identity throughout the day" to watch girls change in bathrooms and locker rooms.
DFI's complaint alleges the high school boy competes on the boys' track and field team and wears the male uniform, but claims a transgender identity during the school day to access the girls' facilities. Several girls have reported the boy to school officials for "staring at them" while they changed, but the Title IX complaint alleges the school showed "deliberate indifference to that student-on-student harassment."
The district told the Daily Caller News Foundation it was "unable to comment on individual student matters due to privacy laws" but "can confirm that the district responded to this situation accordingly." SCCSD also cited several state laws that require schools to accommodate "gender identity."
"My daughter and her teammates have a right to feel safe in their own locker room," Kevin Martin, the father of a student at SCCSD, said in a statement to DFI. "South Colonie refused to protect them and told them to accommodate the boy instead. That's not fairness—it's cowardice. I never thought I'd have to file a federal complaint just so my daughter could change clothes in a girls' locker room without being stared at by a male student."
https://www.wnd.com/2025/06/its-cowardi … ys-sports/And you think this kid was trans, ROFL. He is simply a male pervert. His actions do not correspond to how a real trans girl acts.
Maybe he is related to Christian Ziegler (Florida GOP Chair) or Mark Robinson (North Carolina Republican Lieutenant Governor) or Mark Foley (Former Republican U.S. Representative from Florida) - although he sent sexually explicit pictures to young male pages instead of peek in women's showers like some of his fellow Republicans did.- or Joe Barton (Former U.S. Republican Representative from Texas)From what my research just showed, this kid is an opportunist and HIGLY unlikely to be a transgender at all.
Here is what Modern science has found out about how transgender girls act in real like and not the fantasies of those who refuse to accept the truth.
1. Transgender girls seek privacy and safety—not voyeuristic access. Most transgender youth, especially girls, experience gender dysphoria, which includes heightened discomfort with their own bodies, not voyeurism toward others.
Trans girls generally report fear of harassment or assault, not the desire to intrude on others.
2. Transition involves consistency, not opportunism such as what this boy exhibits. Being transgender typically involves a consistent and persistent gender identity over time—not switching back and forth situationally for convenience (e.g., boys’ sports but girls’ locker rooms).
While not all trans youth transition the same way, a pattern of “selective identity switching” is at odds with recognized diagnostic criteria (such as those used in the DSM-5 or by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health).
3. Predatory behavior is not linked to gender identity The overwhelming majority of trans women and girls are not predatory, and false claims of being transgender to access spaces are extremely rare, although this may be one of those rare exceptions.
When such incidents do occur, they are outliers, often cited out of context in political debates about trans rights such as is true in this case.
4. Trans communities themselves condemn this behavior
Trans advocates and organizations routinely condemn any exploitation of gender identity for improper access to bathrooms or locker rooms.
They argue that such cases, if true, undermine real trans people’s safety and legitimacy by reinforcing harmful stereotypes such as exhibited in this discussion..There are no such thing as trans "girls."
There are only males trying to provide the illusion of being female.
A trans female is a male with a mental health issue.
This is a fact.
The left makes the stupidest decisions that impact biological women because they aren't able to comprehend this fact. Men in women's prisons, dominating women's sports, being permitted to join all girls colleges, and more.
The left needs to grasp the concept that trans women are men. They need to show some level of intellect and make decisions for women based on this reality of life.Not in your world, obviously, but in the real world there are.
ESO, I too am a liberal/progressive and probably the most strident of them.
It is an interesting question that you pose.
I have to acknowledge that I do not have a uterus. There are innate anatomical and associated biological differences between male and female. If you were born male you are born with the anatomical and biological difference from the female gender. Because of that I resist the idea that biological men should be able to compete in women’s sports.
But, I differ from conservatives who attempt to use those anatomical and physical differences as an excuse to consign women to second class citizenship and make unfounded and unsupported claims regarding their capabilities. I separate nature from nurture, sorting out the bias from indisputable biological facts. Based on this, I resist ideas of culture and social constructs that are not justified. As I have always believed that EVERYONE should have the opportunity to be the best that they can be commensurate with their desire and ability as our lives are so short.
I cannot be accused of not knowing the difference between men and women, the tendency for men to have greater physical strength comes with the XY package. So, allowing (anatomical) men to compete with women in areas where greater strength is the determinant for success is not fair. I get touchy about the bathroom stuff, and can express a little cultural bias here, but not much.
Being fair is not always commensurate with being equal.All understandable, I think Gavin Newsom is where you are.
At the moment, however, until the preponderance of the evidence shows letting transwomen compete with ciswomen leads to predictably unfair outcomes, then I just can't say no letting them compete.Should men who think they are women but are still men deserve the same protections given to women in sports under Title IX?
It depends on whether they gain an unfair advantage in the competition because they were once men. Right now, there is no evidence that they do.
For example, Lia Thomas: During the 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships, Thomas won the 500-yard freestyle but placed fifth in the 200-yard freestyle and eighth in the 100-yard freestyle finals.. I guess being a former man didn't help in that case.
Did not mean to divert from the nature of the discussion, but I consider conservatives as naturally anti-feminist XX or otherwise regardless of the current distractions.
This nasty trend seems to be found in all authoritarian, right wing oriented cultures. Here is an excerpt from a recent Atlantic article focusing on the controversy in South Korea with many similar points in common with what is going on here in America now. It also has me in a state of lament as to how our women in America failed and allowed someone like Trump and his agenda to prevail.
————
Opposition to women’s rights has helped fuel authoritarian movements in Russia, Hungary, Brazil, and the United States. That the same is true in South Korea, which is holding an early presidential election tomorrow, is perhaps less well known. There, the role of anti-feminists is particularly stark, helping to put women’s issues at the very center of the country’s fraught contest.
To appreciate the stakes, recall that just a few months ago, South Korea nearly lost its democracy: On December 3, then-President Yoon Suk Yeol shut down the parliament, banned all political parties, and suspended the free press. His power grab was swiftly defeated by mass demonstrations and a heroic parliamentary effort—members climbed fences to reach the chamber, where they unanimously voted to lift martial law—but the shock remained.
The answer lies in part with the country’s struggle over women’s rights. Even as South Korea has raced ahead economically, gender equality has lagged behind other indicators. Out of 146 countries indexed by the World Economic Forum, South Korea comes 112th in women’s economic participation and 100th in women’s educational attainment (only slightly better than Iran).
For longer than it has had a democracy, South Korea has had a women’s-rights movement pressing to improve these conditions. In the late 1980s, a labor activist named Kwon In-sook filed charges against the government for sexual assault she allegedly suffered at a police station. Dozens of women’s organizations came together to support her in a coalition known as the Korean Women’s Associations United. KWAU wound up playing an important role in the country’s democratic transition, and Kwon herself served as a member of parliament until last year.
In recent decades, women’s rights have advanced steadily, if slowly. Advocates successfully pushed for sexual- and domestic-violence legislation in the 1990s. In 1999, they managed to abolish a system that awarded extra points on civil-service exams to military veterans, who are overwhelmingly male due to South Korea’s male-only conscription. They got rid of the hoju family-registration system, which automatically counted men as the heads of households.
But legislative advocacy has not eradicated violent crime against women, a grim reality that has spurred a particularly dramatic upsurge in women’s activism in the past 10 years. In 2016, a woman was murdered near the world-famous Gangnam metro station in Seoul by a man who complained about being “ignored” by women. In 2019, a criminal network implicated K-pop stars, corrupt police officers, and elite businessmen in a slew of crimes—among them, administering date-rape drugs and nonconsensually filming sexual encounters to distribute online. South Korean feminists have demonstrated against gender violence and objected to its glorification in popular culture.
In recent years, some elements of the South Korean feminist movement have attracted attention for their radicalism; others, for their media-savvy tactics. Adherents to the 4B movement refuse to date, have sex with men, marry them, or have children (these tenets all start with bi, which roughly means “no” in Korean). In 2018, in an action called Escape the Corset, women threw out cosmetic products and cut their hair—making headlines in a country where about a third of women in their 20s have had plastic surgery, largely to meet exacting beauty standards. That same year, a news anchor became the first woman in her field to wear eyeglasses on major-network TV.
The ever-higher profile of the feminist movement has inspired right-wing forces to present themselves as the champions of disgruntled men. The story is a familiar one: South Korea has some of the classic problems of an industrialized society, including a housing crisis affecting young people, a declining birth rate, and a short supply of well-paying jobs. Anti-feminist forces have galvanized supporters by blaming these problems on women and feminists.
According to one poll, a whopping 79 percent of men now believe they are being discriminated against because of their gender.
Much as Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro did in 2016 and 2018, respectively, Yoon capitalized on men’s grievances in his 2022 run for president, using anti-feminism as a cudgel against the outgoing center-left president. In his campaign, Yoon promised to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. He repeatedly claimed that South Korea did not have a misogyny or gender-violence problem.
======
Sounds familiar? the rightwinger operates from the same playbook worldwide. How can anyone explain how a sexual predator could become President of the United States?To emphasize the "liberal"/"conservative" split, here the most progressive nations when it comes to how they treat women.
Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand, and Canada - all considered liberal. There is one outlier, Rwanda, which is authoritarian but neither liberal nor conservative.
Hmmm, "Yoon promised to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. " - Sounds like Trump and DEI doesn't it.
What is very worrisome is that Trump may not be far from pulling off Yoon's stunt. He has got blind loyalist at the head of all departments including the DOJ, FBI, and DOD. He is stacking military leadership with the likes of Gen Flynn. He has got probably 60-70% of congressional Republicans willing to go along with his coop attempt (remember many supported is first coop on Jan 6).
Scary, isn't it.
As for the sexual predator part, have you noticed not one of the usual suspects have denied that voted for a sexual predator and felon?
A.B. Hernandez, a trans-female athlete in California, won two events in a recent competition. This will drive Trump and MAGA bonkers. What they won't tell you is that she came in second in the long jump. I thought trans-females were omnipotent guaranteed to beat any cis-female. Apparently not.
Also, CIF as a rule that if a trans beats a cis, then the cis can stand on the podium with her.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/31/us/ab-he … hips-trumpMIT bans the Class President from speaking at the commencement while at the same time saying they support free speech. Apparently, because she sides with the people of Palestine - and worse, said so - she is barred.
The only possible excuse is if she came out in favor of Hamas and supported terrorism should she have been barred. Talk about "RIGHT-WING Cancel Culture"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/01/us/mit-g … gha-vemuriThis must be in Mother Russia since we don't arrest people Gestapo style in America do we.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/01/us/video … ted-digvidThis is some more insanity of the left on the trans issue. There is more than one story like this.
"Inmates pregnant at all-women prison after transgender prisoners allowed in
UNION TOWNSHIP, N.J. (TND) — Two inmates who are serving sentences within New Jersey's only all-women prison are reportedly pregnant after they had sex with transgender inmates.
TheNew Jersey Department of Corrections told NJ.com that two inmates at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility became pregnant after having“consensual sexual relationships with another incarcerated person."
The identities of the two pregnant inmates were not disclosed. It also remains unclear if the two pregnant inmates had sex with the same transgender inmate, or with different transgender inmates.
The prison houses over 800 women, according to DailyMail.com, and 27 inmates at the prison are transgender. The prison reportedly does not require transgender inmates to have undergone gender reassignment surgery to be housed there.
New Jersey enacted a policy in 2021 which allows prisoners to be placed in facilities in accordance with the gender identity of their own preference, according to the New York Post.Inmates can provide their gender identity preference at any time during their incarceration, according to the policy.
That policy reportedly came after a transgender woman, who was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Jersey, successfully won a settlement in their civil rights lawsuit against the state after she was forced to reside in a men's prison for 18 months.
However, according to DailyMail.com, two prisoners at Edna Mahan took it upon themselves in 2021 to file a lawsuit seeking the policy's removal. Those women reportedly claimed at the time that transgender inmates were having sexual relations with cisgender inmates.
A union that represents correctional officers at Edna Mahan reportedly decried the policy, calling it "detrimental."
https://wlos.com/news/nation-world/2-in … aby-femaleI guess you missed the word "consensual".
While you at kicking the transgender women out of female prisons because they had consensual sex with another woman, maybe you should kick out the male guards because they often have consensual and nonconsensual sex with the female prisoners. Wanna bet the female guards need to go to because no doubt some of them have gay sex with the female inmates.I suppose you're missing the point that trans women are not women they are men.
They should be in a men's prison.
Prison is not a place designed where women can have sex with men who claim to be women.
The absurdity of this seems to be totally beyond those on the left.
It's a 80 -20 issue. Over 80% of the Americans believe as the Republicans and Conservatives believe on this issue.
I'm just in awe of the absolute refusal to accept reality on this issue by the left.
I've never witnessed such massive denial of reality.
I hope the left continues as this is a huge winning issue for Republicans.Not according to medical science. Having a penis is just one part of being a man, ditto with a vagina for women. Like I presented earlier, ALL medical associations agree with that - ALL OF THEM.
-
As to your misinformation about 80 - 20, here is the REAL numbers. Keep in mind, the science of gender is relatively new, like less than 30 years ago. Also, the old saying of teaching old dogs new tricks is really true when talking about gender. Anyway:
To the Question of whether gender can be different from that assigned at birth:
Age Differences
Younger adults are more likely to believe that gender can differ from sex assigned at birth:
- Ages 18–29: 50% believe gender can be different from sex assigned at birth.
- Ages 30–49: Approximately 40% hold this view.
- Ages 50 and older: About one-third agree with this perspective.
None of them close to your 80% - 20% split.
Education Level
Educational attainment influences views on gender identity:
- College graduates: More likely to believe gender can differ from sex assigned at birth.
- High school diploma or less: More inclined to believe gender is determined by sex assigned at birth.
The more educated you are, the more likely you will follow current science.
Religious Affiliation
Religious beliefs significantly impact opinions on gender identity:
- White Evangelical Protestants: 87% believe gender is determined by sex assigned at birth.
- Black Protestants: 70% hold this view.
- Catholics: 62% agree with this perspective. (I am surprised it is that low!)
Religiously unaffiliated: 58% believe gender can differ from sex assigned at birth.
Atheists: 76% support this view.
Agnostics: 67% agreeAgain, you can quote all the psudo science you like but most people aren't listening.
Again, a fact of life, men can't become women, women can't become men. All that can be done and all that ever has been done if for a person to chemically or surgically alter themselves to provide the illusion of being the opposite sex. It's just an illusion.
Men have XY chromosomes and women have XX chromosomes. It's just that simple. It has nothing to do with a mental disorder or how you identify.
These are fact and they are indisputable. It's called reality.
"Nearly 80 percent of Americans don’t want men playing in women’s sports
(The Center Square) – Surveying nearly an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, a poll taken by the New York Times and polling company Ipsos showed that the majority of Americans do not want transgender-identifying men in women’s sports.
Of those surveyed, 79% answered that men “should not” compete in women’s sports when posed with the following question: “thinking about transgender female athletes – meaning athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female – do you think they should or should not be allowed to compete in women's sports?”
This number has increased from a 2023 The Center Square Voters' Voice Poll that reported 67% of American voters were collectively against men playing in women’s sports.
When the 2025 New York Times-Ipsos poll is broken up along political divides, 94% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats, and 64% of Independents or “something else” answered that men should not be in women’s sports.
The highest bracket that believes men should be allowed to play in women’s sports are Democrats, equaling 31%.
The results of this poll came just before President Trump declared there are only two sexes in America, male and female. The survey was taken from Jan. 2 to 11.
When reached for comment, Ipsos vice president for public affairs Mallory Newall repeated the question posed to respondents and said “we cannot speculate on what people meant or interpreted beyond the wording of the question.”
Ipsos is a global market research and polling company, according to its description in the poll document.
Men in women’s sports has become an issue in recent years, with high school girls such as Payton McNabb getting injured by a male competitor on a volleyball team and former University of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines becoming an activist defending women's-only sports after placing second to a transgender female swimming competitor.
The Independent Women’s Forum senior legal advisor Beth Parlato told The Center Square that “without female-only athletics, the safety of girls and women is endangered, and men will dominate the playing field, which unfairly takes away awards, opportunities, scholarships and roster spots.”
The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) is a nonprofit women’s organization “dedicated to developing and advancing policies” that “enhance people’s freedom, opportunities, and well-being,” according to its website. IWF has taken a staunch stance against men competing in women’s sports.
“Males and females possess unique and immutable biological differences,” Parlato said. “With respect to sports, males have biological athletic advantages over females, as the average male is stronger, bigger and faster.
“Furthermore, allowing males in female-only spaces is an invasion of a women’s right to privacy and threatens women’s safety and well-being,” Parlato said.
“Defining sex-based terms in law and policy is essential to protect women’s sports and spaces,” Parlato said.
Trump’s executive order on two sexes provides “needed clarity to preserve the legal existence of women as distinct from men,” Parlato said. “Protect women’s sports bills at both the federal and state levels must be codified into law to ensure equal athletic opportunities for women and girls."
The NYT-Ipsos survey was “of the American general population” aged 18 and up, interviewing a total of 2,128 people; 1,022 of those polled were Republican/Lean Republican, 1,025 were Democrat/Lean Democrat, and 81 were Independent or “something else.”
In a vein similar to transgender-identifying men playing in women’s sports, the poll showed that the majority of Americans are not for sex changes in minors, either.
Respondents were asked “thinking about medications used for transgender care, do you think doctors should be able to prescribe puberty-blocking drugs or hormone therapy to minors between the ages of 10 and 18?”
A total of 71% of Americans do not think anyone under 18 should have access to such drugs or therapy.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/nationa … 0bf7f.htmlI understand your need to call real science pseudo-science, it is required to sustain your out-of-date belief system.
How long ago was it that most Southerners thought slaves loved being slaves? 150 years, maybe? When was it most people thought adults should be prohibited from drinking alcohol? 100 years ago, maybe. How many years ago did most conservatives consider it a SIN for Whites and Blacks to marry? 75 years ago, maybe? How many years ago was it that a significant number of conservatives felt that two women or two men would be living in SIN if they were married? Actually, that is what they DO FEEL TODAY!
My point, of course, is who gives a damn what 71% of Americans think when their thought violates the rights of others or the parents right to do what they think best for their children (and that is assuming your source used proper statistical methods.)I have already addressed the trans-women competing in cis-women sports. If the data ever shows that being a trans-women gives an ACTUAL competitive advantage over cis-women, then I can support the ban.
But, at the moment, the science doesn't back that up, only prejudice does.
This is where your unsupported bias and prejudice gets you into trouble - what data there is convincingly shows that In head-to-head cases, the results are mixed, with trans women winning some, but not most, of those contests.
A guard havng sex with a prisoner is rape, whether or not you consider it consensual. Is the left going to come out in favor or rape now?
I see he now takes it upon himself to proclaim, " maybe you should kick out the male guards because they often have consensual and nonconsensual sex with the female prisoners." ECO
Really makes you wonder where he got his evidence from. LOLOne of these days you will recognize what sarcasm is.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016 … hite-again
Interesting, the first paragraph explains to me why my month long visit to the European continent many years ago was so liberating relative to my domestic experience as an American. My brother sings the praises of Spain as an expat. With so much turmoil in America these days, maybe I should follow him.
Toni explains the phenomenon of 2016 quite well in her essay.
The need to assimilate under that precept as “American defined” is why so many Hispanics voted for Trump, but black people have always known better. Trump’s immigration policies should prove to them a stark reminder that the rightwinger always knew and would act on the distinction between white and Hispanic once the polls closed.
Isn’t the internet amazing, a virtual compendium of all human knowledge and understanding?What "Trump’s immigration policies" show that the "rightwinger always knew and would act on the distinction between white and Hispanic once the polls closed."
Which of Trumps immigration policies are racist in origin or execution (I assume that's what you are complaining about even though you don't say so.)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbalufzH9Bw
The news report explains my position and yes, it is racist. Have Trumpers really been anything else?Got it. If you claim racism, then there is racism. If you claim something is racist, then it is racist. No need to actually be either one; the claim is sufficient.
Cred, you talk as if you don't know the meaning of the word. Let me help:
"coming from or having the belief that people who belong to other races are not as good, intelligent, moral, etc. as people who belong to your own race :"
"relating to policies, behaviours, rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race :"
<Both from the Cambridge Dictionary> The second appears to be the one in question here.
Nothing whatsoever in our immigration policy, or in the travel ban, has anything to do with race. It is not mentioned, it is not used, it is as colorblind as it is possible to be in this world.
Nevertheless you will call it "racist"...presumably because it gives you a complaint against those nasty, awful, evil and dreaded "Trumpers". Truth and honesty be hanged; it is "racist" because you say so.So, racism is a figment of my imagination, now? Racism as defined is translated into actions based on the initial definition. So, it relates to policies behaviors rules, etc. which is what America has been all about.
What nations have been targeted, what did the Haitians do, to have their nationals banned while the door is open wide for the “poor oppressed” white South African farmers. I know, was it about that damnable Trump believing that the Haitians eat their neighbors household pets? With Trump, conservatives, right wingers and Republicans race is always involved which makes them the people and politicians to distrust and avoid. Just an example….I asked you what was racist about our immigration policies. You replied "it is in the link" - reading the link it said "it is racist". No reasoning, no facts, no thoughtful facts with sources. Just "It is racist!"
Try to be honest: is the Haitian government capable of properly vetting people before coming to the US? That they cannot do that does not make them racist, nor does recognizing that they cannot (or will not) do it. So how is it racist? Because you look at brown skin rather than the problem being addressed and announce to the world that it is racist because of skin color.
Racists will always accuse of others of the offence, while refusing to recognize it in themselves.Sorry - I have never blamed the ills of a person or group of persons on the color of their skin. Nor have I blamed the ills of a group on another, using the color of their skin to determine if they are the cause.
Do you?
The very fact that Trump is banning travel en mass from a given country because HE - TRUMP - is incapable of vetting who gets a visa is racist by definition.
Racism can be interpreted in two main ways:
Intent-based: A policy is racist if it is motivated by racial animus or stereotypes.
Impact-based: A policy is racist if it disproportionately harms people of a particular race or ethnicity, regardless of intent.
As they say, even a blind man can see that Trump's policy is racist if not by intent, they clearly by impact.Your second definition is false to fact. It is not recorded or defined anywhere in any dictionary or other studious writing that way. It's like saying that "Mother Nature" is a racist. Only racists will try to play the "race card" that way.
Next you will claim that sickle cell anemia is a racist disease because it affects primarily black people, right?
And I suppose that the Big Kahuna of South Africa who Trump disrespected and attacked not long ago is qualified to internally vet those poor South African white farmers.
Checkmate, Wilderness, your arguments as usual are full of holes, so yes, "racist" is the correct term.Checkmate, is it? Please define the procedures and actions used by Haiti and South Africa to vet their travelers. Determine, honestly, if they are effective and to what degree. Provide hard data on the number of "undesirables" being allowed to visit the US from each country, and the percentage of the total that fall into that category (and no, skin color does not indicate "desirability" no matter how much you may try to say it does).
At that point you may have something to add, something that is not based on skin color.Now, You know that I would not access to that kind of information to address your comment.
How many times have you been asked to substantiate your comments with proof and in response, you go scurry off somewhere?
I can see the result and preponderance of evidence that support my opinion of the Trump regime’s decisions in this matter.Dan clearly isn't just regurgitating whatever Google spits out. No, no — he offers his own well-rounded takes, straight from the depths of independent thought. You can practically hear the gears turning. Not a trace of algorithmic brainwashing here. So admire this sort of mindset.
Yes, but does his turning wheels imply instant credibility? You provide proof to substantiate your comments, why can he? All of our wheels turn and his “independent thought” does not come across to me as such. ‘Well rounded” is also a matter of opinion.
I can only speak for myself, but I’ve followed this chat for years, and I have to say, he’s a wordsmith like no other. No one even comes close. His comments always cut straight to the heart of the issue and consistently offer real food for thought. He’s sharp as hell, and his common sense always shines through. Honestly, this forum has drifted away from offering real, grounded perspectives; it’s turned into a bit of a Google dumping echo chamber, and I’ll admit, I’ve contributed to that too.
I think the forum was much more enjoyable years ago, back when people actually shared their own views, and you could get to know where someone was really coming from. These days, it feels more like a place that just regurgitates media noise and talking points, rather than genuine conversation.I sorry to hear you acknowledge your concern, I am in my element. I have explained where I come from and from the conservative prospect it is not always pleasant. He is conservative and right wing such explains your affinity for his perspective on things. I do not straddle the fence, or engage in directionless verbosity, everybody knows where I stand and why. And for those who do not, all they need to do is ask.
I am all for genuine conversation, but we are in very perilous times in my opinion. This being a political forum, it is not unreasonable to have that reflected in topics and comments.
But again, this is just my opinion.Hey, not sure you uderstood my context? I was responding to ---
"Credence2 wrote:
Yes, but does his turning wheels imply instant credibility? You provide proof to substantiate your comments, why can he? All of our wheels turn and his “independent thought” does not come across to me as such. ‘Well rounded” is also a matter of opinion."
I just shared my view of how Dan communicates.
"I can only speak for myself, but I’ve followed this chat for years, and I have to say, he’s a wordsmith like no other. No one even comes close. His comments always cut straight to the heart of the issue and consistently offer real food for thought. He’s sharp as hell, and his common sense always shines through. Honestly, this forum has drifted away from offering real, grounded perspectives; it’s turned into a bit of a Google dumping echo chamber, and I’ll admit, I’ve contributed to that too." Shar
I think I would have done the same for you if I saw something that I disagreed with about how you communicate.
Ditch your enormous anti-Trump, anti-conservative bias and you might find that it DOES come across as true or at least likely.
I know you would not, I know you CANnot. So why do you make the comment indicating that either or both DOES vet their travelers and therefore our stance is racist?
You don't have a clue, but make the statement anyway - this is what I said you do. Why? TDS?Since we are not privy to all of the information regarding any particular nations vetting methods of its citizens to the United States, what makes you think that Trump is employing these restrictions impartially? Why should I believe that when the preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise. Is it more of that innate wisdom so many right wing types wish to bestow upon you?
No, the question is why you claim he is not, AND as a result of that claim declare racism?
You have zero evidence indicating racism in Trump's travel ban. If you can produce something with Trump saying blacks cannot come, or Hispanics cannot come, or Asians cannot come, etc. etc. please share that. If your evidence is that a particular country with mostly blacks cannot come but all other black nations CAN come, don't bother. It isn't about racism.
Not wisdom; the idea of innocent until proven guilty. For TDS sufferers, though, Trump is always guilty, proven or not, guilty or not, true or not. Which camp do you fall into?Why say that blacks or Hispanics cannot come when he can simply ban immigration from the countries where most of them live? Your point is well taken though, he has not banned immigration from all black countries, but I don’t Trump so there has to be a malevolent explanation as to why they were not included.
Trump is persona non grata, his behavior and his record points towards his guilt and not his innocence." I don’t Trump so there has to be a malevolent explanation as to why they were not included."
And indeed there is - they do not vet their travelers. Not about race, not about color, not about how rich they are. Just about how they vet travelers.
Why is that so difficult to understand?Why is it so hard to understand "they" don't have to vet their travelers, the nation issuing the visa does.
What Trump implies with his discrimination is that he is incapable of vetting who comes to America.Why is so incredibly difficult to understand that the US does NOT keep a file folder on every person on the planet, that the country of origin is the only real source of information when it comes to vetting a traveler?
Trump, or anyone else in the US government IS incapable of vetting someone without aid from their government. At least in a reasonable time frame and with a reasonable cost; I suppose we could hire a few private investigators to actually investigate each and every traveler wishing to visit our country, but that does not seem a reasonable method of vetting them.Now you are heading in the right direction: "Trump, or anyone else in the US government IS incapable of vetting someone without aid from their government.". If you carefully read my earlier response, you would see I carved out exactly that exception - if it can be shown that the host nation refuses to help the U.S. vet those who want a visa, then Trump or anyone else has a right to refuse providing visas to that country's citizens.
BUT, Trump provided that rational for only TWO of the nations - which I noted at the time. Beyond that it is on the US to make sure the people we let in are vetted.
What is true is that The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) governs visa issuance.
It requires The Department of State (DOS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to screen visa applicants abroad and adjudicate eligibility
Seems to me our own laws put the onus on us.
Yes, we do know how vetting is done for individuals entering the United States, especially regarding immigration, refugee, and asylum processes. The United States government has publicly documented and regularly updates the procedures used to screen and vet foreign nationals. These processes involve multiple agencies and layers of security checks.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 2019_0.pdf
Our Government provides great information on just about everything, one only needs to go to the source.
A clear and detailed explanation of U.S. vetting procedures is provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the Department of State.
Here is a government source directly explaining these procedures:
I feel if Trump spat on the White House grass, he would be charged with it. It is endless, unproven accusations tossed at this man. Would it be wise to stop and really consider facts? The Trump administration has offered a lengthy document on the travel ban.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/ … hatgpt.com
You can disagree with it. However, this act goes well along with the very agenda that got him elected a second time. Make America Safe AgainI thank you for the links.
I don’t care what Trump SAYS, Sharlee. He has always skirted decorum and proper procedures as to how the law is applied. I tend to distrust him and his judgement. Most of the accusations thrown at Trump are more true than otherwise.
If his reign continues, there may well be no America to save, let along make great.
And yes, I do disagree with it.To quote a man of great wisdom: "If his reign continues, there may well be no America to save, let along make great."
Then why is Trump making America so much more dangerous? He is clearly not making it safe.
"Unproven accusations", lol. I guess you missed the 34 felony counts he was found guilty of by a jury of his peers. Or defamation and SEXUAL ASSAULT by another jury of his peers, or Bank Fraud by a judge HE decided to use instead of jury.
Do those ACTUAL CONVICTIONS change your mind about "Unproven Accusations"?
And the ONLY reason Trump wasn't convicted of trying to overthrow an election and mishandling classified material is that he conned people like you to vote for him. There is no question that there was plenty of PROOF, that he was guilty of those things. From your analysis, Al Capone was not guilty of murder either.
Also, you now as well as I that 90+% if his spoken words are a lie as is just a high a percentage of anything he has written about him, e.g. WhiteHouse.gov.
This bears repeating: what did the Haitians do, to have their nationals banned while the door is open wide for the “poor oppressed” white South African farmers.
Here is all you need to know about so-called "white genocide": 1) it doesn't exist, period and 2) Trump Lies.Credence - I know you know this, but others may not. I asked ChatGPT to defend my claim that:
"People who claim institutional racism doesn't exist in America are racist themselves." - and there are several on this forum that make this claim.
This statement can be defended logically by examining what it means to deny institutional racism and how that denial functions in society. The argument rests on three main pillars:
1. Denial of Reality Perpetuates Injustice
To claim institutional racism doesn’t exist is to deny the overwhelming evidence of racial disparities baked into American systems—education, housing, criminal justice, healthcare, employment, and more.
Black Americans are incarcerated at five times the rate of white Americans for similar offenses.
Schools in majority-Black neighborhoods receive significantly less funding, even when controlling for local property taxes.
Redlining, housing discrimination, and unequal mortgage access still shape generational wealth gaps.
Denying these realities doesn’t just reflect ignorance—it actively reinforces systemic inequalities. To look at those patterns and conclude there's no problem is to choose a side—and that side benefits from the status quo of racial disparity.
2. Racism Is About Systems, Not Just Slurs
Many people assume "racist" means personal hatred or prejudice. But modern racism also includes upholding or excusing systems of racial inequality.
Someone who refuses to acknowledge institutional racism is, by definition:
Excusing systems that disadvantage people of color, and
Invalidating the lived experiences of millions who suffer from those systems.
This IS a form of racism, even if unintentional. It’s not always about malice—it can be about willful blindness, and that blindness perpetuates harm.
3. Silence and Denial Are Not Neutral
Claiming that institutional racism doesn’t exist is not a neutral stance—it’s an act of erasure. It erases centuries of history and decades of sociological and statistical research. It also invalidates:
- Testimonies of marginalized communities,
- Data showing racial bias in law enforcement, health outcomes, and wealth accumulation, and
- The many policy initiatives designed to address these disparities.
By denying these truths, one signals allegiance to a system that advantages some and disadvantages others based on race. That is inherently racist behavior, even if not rooted in individual bigotry.
Conclusion
People who deny institutional racism are not just wrong—they are complicit. Whether through ignorance, ideological bias, or racial resentment, their denial sustains a system that marginalizes millions. That complicity, whether passive or active, fits within the broader definition of racism.
So yes—by any meaningful standard, denying institutional racism in America is itself a form of racism.
This includes opposition to DEI initiatives IF THEY are based on:
1. Using anti-DEI to drown out BIPOC voices or protect White privilege
2. Framing DEI as a zero-sum loss for white people (“reverse racism”)
3. Employing racially charged, divisive rhetoricPeople who claim institutional racism doesn't exist in America are racist themselves." - and there are several on this forum that make this claim.
In all fairness, I would say that has been ameliorated to some extent, and while progress was never fast enough for me, at least we have been moving in the right direction, until now. Anyone that says that systemic racism was not a pillar of American law and custom is either racist or woefully ignorant. The effects of past systemic racism reverberates today, which explains much of racial animus and disparity.
——
“Denying these realities doesn’t just reflect ignorance—it actively reinforces systemic inequalities. To look at those patterns and conclude there's no problem is to choose a side—and that side benefits from the status quo of racial disparity”
I think that most of these people know better, but would stand to lose if their advantages were neutralized or taken away. They will lie like a rug before they would ever admit to this idea.
—-
This IS a form of racism, even if unintentional. It’s not always about malice—it can be about willful blindness, and that blindness perpetuates harm.
It is willful blindness, not wanting to admit to unpleasant realities of our system. It is simply easier to look the other way.
————
By denying these truths, one signals allegiance to a system that advantages some and disadvantages others based on race. That is inherently racist behavior, even if not rooted in individual bigotry.
You don’t think that they would be actually open to the necessary changes, they have to fear what would happen if minorities had a level playing field how could they continue to dominate?
DEI is the new racist dog whistle. Why do people continue to try to convince me to ignore the obvious?"1. Denial of Reality Perpetuates Injustice"
You mean by denying that DEI programs are racist and discriminatory by intent? Or is that truth a denial that doesn't count?
Do you mean that by denying cultural norms for some groups promote and lead to the very things (poverty, lack of good education, poor housing, lack of mortgage accessibility, etc.) one is promoting injustice and racism? Do you mean that by instructing small children their skin color defines them as racists is something that can be denied rationally and with harm?
Are people that do these kinds of racist things complicit in spreading racism and continuing it's evil grasp?
I am guessing you haven't read the "travel bans" have you. For your information.
These were put in place, according to Trump, because an Egyptian attacked Jews in Colorado; Egypt is not on the list of banned countries which puts a lie to Trump's reasoning.
Trump, in some cases, also relies on the strawman that the countries don't vet who they issue passports to. In terms of travel to the U.S. that is not their job. INSTEAD, it is the job of the country issuing the visa - the US in this case. So, those you espouse this reasoning are wrong and just passing the buck.
1. Afghanistan (Muslin) - It is racist to blanket ban a whole nation without good cause.
2, Chad (Black) - Chad has a blanket ban because Trump cannot control his own visa process. That is racist.
3. Equatorial Guinea (Black) - Ditto
4. Eritrea (Black) - Trump claims that they will not provide criminal records so that we can vet applicants. Given Trump's track record, there is a high likelihood that is a lie. But, if true, then that is a legitimate reason. If not, then it is racist.
5. Haiti (Black) - Increase in migration or some other nonsense. This is racist.
6. Iran (Muslim) - Fails to help US vet travelers. This may not be racist.
7. Libya (Muslim) - Trump cites things other than not providing information to help vet travelers. This is probably racist.
8. Myanmar (Muslim) - Trump pissed because they wouldn't accept his deportees. Definitely racist.
9. Somalia (Black, Muslim) - Again, Trump did use a reasonable excuse that it is almost impossible to vet travelers from there. Consequently, racist.
10. Sudan (Black, Muslim) - Same as Equatorial Guinea. Racist
11. Yemen (Muslim) - Same as Haiti. Racist
12 Republic of the Congo (Black) - Same as Equatorial Guinea. Racist.
Yeah, I would say Trump travel ban is definitely racist.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 66375.htmlAs if we all did not understand that already……
You have a great list here of reasons that are not racist...but that you call racist anyway. Go back and read the definition of the word and then rethink your entire post.
And when you have digested the actual meaning of the word, rather than your own personal made up definition, consider that the US cannot vet people without the active cooperation and aid of the country of origin. If that country cannot or will not provide useful information then the US cannot vet.
Isn’t this textbook antisemitism, and racism?
Calling Chuck Schumer, a Jewish American, a “Palestinian senator” as an insult, and accusing him of being “against Jewish people” for criticizing Israel’s government isn’t just offensive, it’s also dangerously provocative.
Trump’s tactic is to weaponize identity and sow division.
It’s not just wrong, it’s inciting hate.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1938343088922964201Inciting hate is one of Trump's superpowers - beginning with his discriminatory renting policies decades ago, you know, the ones he was sued over and lost?
Related Discussions
- 36
Odd Facts About European Leaders
by Susie Lehto 6 years ago
What do Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Italy’s Paolo Gentiloni, Great Britain’s Theresa May, Holland’s Mark Rutte, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon, and European Commission’s Jean-Claude Juncker all have in common?The first is they are all leaders of...
- 150
Racism is Rampant Today
by Kathryn L Hill 6 weeks ago
There is proof everywhere you look… For instance... uh… uh….
- 18
The 10 Most Racist Countries In The World
by Grace Marguerite Williams 12 years ago
Youtube presented a video of the 10 most racist countries in the world(the video is in Spanish). These countries are as follows in descending order: Austria(10), Germany(9), Russia(8), Argentina(7), England(6), Rwanda(5), Israel(4), South Africa(3), Spain(2) and in first place, the...
- 103
Boston mayor excludes White people from holiday party
by Readmikenow 18 months ago
Could this be considered institutional racism? The mayor isn't upset at this racism, she is upset the white elected members found out about it."Boston's Democratic mayor has apologized for causing offense with a holiday party invitation that excluded White people.Michelle Wu drew criticism...
- 16
Do you believe that the influx of illegals to America will cause even
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
more discrimination and prejudice towards the Latino population? According to the Daily Press dated 7/13/2014, the continuing influx of Latino immigrants, whether illegal or not, is causing tensions between Latinos and Blacks in the Deep Southern states as there is fiercer competition for...
- 19
What is the correct term? British or English? Scot or Scottish?
by meow48 14 years ago
What is the correct term? British or English? Scot or Scottish?okay, this may be rather silly, but to the folks from england, do you prefer to called British or English???? The same question to those from Scotland, is it Scot or Scottish?? thanks for your participation ahead...