Americans are happy - media concealing it to 'slow support' for Trump
Happy folks in deep red Nebraska...
https://x.com/Newsweek/status/1902325428624486601I guess points for continuing to get out in front of extremely unhappy constituents??. She was so condescending and dismissive in her responses...in true maga style...gross. this bunch is completely tone deaf and will pay shortly at the ballot box.
https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1902531622655717802Interesting how President Donald Trump's approval rating remains at an all-time high and democrats is at an all-time low.
I think it may be democrats who are tone deaf.
democrats need to hope things change between now and the mid-terms. If it was held today, they'd get destroyed at the ballot box.His approval rating is not at an all-time high against other presidents at the same point in their term. Current numbers are only beating his previous numbers... Which were absolutely dismal.
I hope democrats don't change.
I hope they continue traveling down the path they are on right now.Biden lost on an economy that was the best in the world because Americans just weren't "feeling it" how do you think they're feeling it now that their retirement accounts have been drained? And the economy is in worse shape? Not to mention the fact that Trump is marching us into a dictatorship every day with some new constitutional crisis... Today he is attempting to shut the Department of Education... Unbelievably stupid
Here is your problem.
Biden didn't lose, he was removed from the election process by the democrat party.
The reason he was removed was because biden had significant cognitive issues.
President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise of shutting down the Department of Education. He is fulfilling a campaign promise he made to the millions of American who voted for him.Fulfiling a campaign promise is good. But the negatives out-weights the positives on that specific issue of cost saving, right?
When more people "pull their heads out", they will realize that Trump has had it in for them as well.
Democratic Party stock will rise as a result.
2026 Midterms are coming, I will just have to wait for it...I follow polls closely--- the Polls are really good regarding Trump, and the Democrats don't even have O2 any longer.
Hey Mike, the Silent Majority
just posted this on FB, and I tend to agree with them:
Do we really need to show the video again of your folks beating police officers with flagpoles? Smearing their own crap around? Crushing a police officer in a doorway?
Look again, a little closer, SO much more is finally coming out about that day! But again, I get it, you have to explain away molotov cocktails almost on a daily basis!
Doesn't change the fact that they did what they did... This still happened.
Need we provide some videos and pictures from the George Floyd riots?
Riots where police were actually killed by liberal mobs.Are you really trying to make a genuine argument that all people were "bad" who took part in George Floyd protests and all people were angelic who took part in j6 riots??
The black and white thinking really is a hallmark of maga isn't it.We cannot make that argument because the same "bad people" participated in both, and there's definitely nothing "angelic" about them.
The George Floyd protests was 1,000 times worse than what happed on J6.
Billions of dollars in damage. Parts of cities taken over. Police officers killed. A future VP of the United States working to get the hundreds of criminals bail.
Nothing like that happed on J6.
I don't think anything like that happened because of a boycott of Bud Light.
Bernie and AOC yesterday in Arizona.. I cannot remember any such resistance movement this large, this soon after an election . 15,000 in Arizona... 20,000 in Colorado. People don't get off their couch so easily."Today more people in Vegas came out to see Bernie and AOC than they did to see Trump just 54 days ago. #fighttheoligarchy"
Meanwhile at your local Republican Town Hall...
https://x.com/cwebbonline/status/1902542629541441564In the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump won Nevada, securing approximately 50.6% of the vote, while Vice President Kamala Harris received about 47.5%. This victory marked the FRIST time a Republican presidential candidate carried Nevada since 2004.
It looks like we may have to keep an eye on vegas for 4 years down the road.To keep our win...
Just a Republican telling it like it is... Folks are spitting mad out here
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/19 … 1043524639The word that is missing is "alleged." Without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, they are alleged to be gang members. There was no transparency. They were all deported without due process of the law. Therefore, they are alleged criminals.
One of them was deported on the grounds that he had a gang member tattoo on his arm. It turns out he was not a gang member, but a soccer player. The tattoo that was on his arm was for a soccer team he admires.
The last time I looked we are not at war with the Venezuelan Nation. Therefore, Trump's 1798 Aliens Enemy Act does not hold water. Unless the gang was sent here by Nicolás Maduro to invade the USA.
Trump paid 6 million tax payer dollars to El Salvador to have them deported and jailed for a year without any transparency and due process of law.
Stephen Miller, Trump's advisor for everything is behind all of this, but that is another story.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/roses-real-m … p_catchall
https://apnews.com/article/alien-enemie … a9c125722f
At Sen. Chuck Grassley’s raucous town hall in Hampton, Iowans’ anger with Trump and Musk boils over...
The anger and frustration is real out here!
https://x.com/IAStartingLine/status/1903107013929849013"After the town hall was over, a crowd chanting “Stand up to Trump!” waited outside the courthouse. Grassley egged them on a little as he exited, waving his arms in the air and giving two thumbs-up"
WOW
https://x.com/IAStartingLine/status/1903126199670341671YES BERNIE
"Today,
@AOC
and I had 34,000 people come out in Denver.
It is the largest rally that I have ever had.
And it tells me that the American people will not allow Trump to move us into oligarchy and authoritarianism.
We will fight back. We will win."
The Mile High City does not disappoint, let's hope that the trend can continue.
Isn't that the Pot capital of the Nation?
Where all the old hippies escaped to from CA... when CA became so bad because of the 'Progressive policies' that they had to move to a safer and more affordable State?
On an aside, coming up on my first exploratory trip to Central Mexico, need to find a suitable place to live for when the Pendulum swings the other way, when what we consider civil society in America breaks down completely... especially being of the 55+ community, I am really not interested in making my way through any 'war zone' like turmoil.Hello, Ken, Denver is where I lived and grew up so excuse me if I am rather partial about it.
Yes, Colorado was the first state to legalize Marijuana, but the novelty has worn off over time in the Denver area.
I don't know, I never seriously thought about leaving until now. The Missus wants to return to Hawaii as it is as "blue" a state as ever. I still tell her that The Honolulu area is very expensive and we would have to live in the bush.
I am attracted to Western Europe or even Canada, but she won't be happy with the cold. A relatively peaceful Carribean Island like St.Martin, when I vacationed there a few years ago seemed sort of nice.
We will just have to see where the tea leaves fall.I made several trips last year "up north" thru Oct, Nov, Dec...
Between the weather (grey skies and snow for months on end), cost of living (as bad as CA) and miserable roads (traffic) any thoughts on moving North (NY - New England) are now permanently removed from consideration.
I am sure Colorado and West of the Mississippi in general is different, but the politics and economics probably make them almost as undesirable to my interests.
Having spent a few years of my life living overseas in non-European nations, I know there can be benefits to living outside of the US that simply cannot be met anywhere within the US...
For instance, getting Medical procedures done at a fraction of the cost.
Getting prescriptions that are either illegal in America, or so costly, they might as well be.
The dollar having twice (or more) the buying power that it has here.
And... unfortunately... the growing unrest in America makes safety and security more easily secured in a foreign country where they are catering (protecting) their foreign investors in ways we just cannot expect in America (in most places) anymore... too many States have made crime legal and police afraid to do their jobs and maintain Law and Order.
This is of course merely preparation for the worst case scenario, that Trump's efforts fail, and that the lunatic Left regain control... we saw what they did in the last 4 years... I doubt our economy survives their return, I think the Middle Class dies a tumultuous death if they return prior to a decade of Trump/Conservative leadership cleaning house.West of the Mississippi is more staunchly Red than the East of it. With the noted exceptions of Colorado, New Mexico, the Pacific West Coast, Hawaii and Minnesota, all of the West is crimson Red. Many of these Blue states are only that because while certain areas within these states are geographically smaller they are more populous as staunch Democrat strongholds. That is not really true in Hawaii, thus the attraction.
For me, since January 20th, the "house" is becoming more dirty rather than less.We have always judged things differently...
I put far more concern on the economic... a strong economy... a government spending money wisely...
We don't have that in America today...
I wonder... the collapse of the West... will it propel China, Russia, India into new heights of prosperity like we experienced in the 1990s after the fall of the USSR?
Or will the world just degrade into one big mess... a chaotic mess of 'safe zones' where the elites can live in luxury and 'no go zones' where the rest of humanity fights over the scraps.
Either way... its time for me to consider the viability of living outside the US, or at least preparing an alternative 'home' for the possibility of things going extremely poorly in the not too distant future.
The Pandemic isn't so long ago that I don't remember just how quickly our freedoms could be snatched away... and just how easily they got away with giving away trillions of dollars of our taxpayer debt with no accountability.
The feeling I have at the moment is that "the West" is failing, the rest of "the West" is too far gone to recover... they will succumb to the influence and will of China/BRICS... America is not going to be able to stand against the changing tides forever.
Now is a good time to move into some part of the world that is exploding with new opportunities and new economic growth... Central Mexico is definitely one such area, a part of the world benefiting from the millions of Americans fleeing before the ship capsizes.
EDIT - An interesting perspective:
Democrats’ 10-Part Strategy to Stopping Trump (At Any Cost)
https://youtu.be/D_QAGJ2XiiQ?t=71It is an educated opinion.
Here is another you may like:
Bill Maher vs. Don Lemon - the New Lie of DEI & Equity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPkixVyCad0No one is talking about lowering standards Ken. Maga's interpretation of DEI is just so disingenuous. It's just a fact that the white male isn't always the most qualified candidate that shows up for the job interview. I strongly oppose and find magas ideology of supporting white male mediocrity at all costs very harmful.
The irony of unqualified, mediocre at best, white dudes sh*tting all over the concept of diversity is really quite rich.. most of Trump's cabinet are great examples.I think your comment oversimplifies the issue and misses some key points. First, the debate around DEI isn’t about lowering standards, but about how we define and measure merit. Many who oppose DEI policies don’t reject diversity but argue that diversity shouldn’t come at the expense of qualifications. The concern is that some DEI initiatives can unintentionally prioritize diversity over merit, which could lead to the perception or reality of unqualified individuals being elevated simply based on identity characteristics, rather than experience or expertise.
What’s also troubling is the assumption that only white males support merit-based systems, as if everyone advocating for fairness in hiring or promotions is doing so out of some desire to maintain "mediocrity." People from all backgrounds believe in a meritocracy, but the real challenge lies in how we ensure equal opportunity for all, especially when some groups have been historically disadvantaged. DEI policies should level the playing field, but there’s a difference between ensuring fair access to opportunities and creating policies that could inadvertently reward mediocrity in the name of diversity. Lastly, using Trump’s cabinet as an example is a bit of a misdirection. Critics of his cabinet appointments often point to the lack of relevant qualifications, and the perception that many were appointed for ideological or political reasons rather than merit. But regardless of the political context, the debate about DEI should focus on ensuring that people are given a fair shot at opportunities, without disregarding qualifications or competence. It’s about balance—not the false choice between diversity and merit."No one is talking about lowering standards Ken."
Right. Tell that one to the college admissions group. Or the special forces of our military, the group(s) that have done just that in order to get women in.
"It's just a fact that the white male isn't always the most qualified candidate that shows up for the job interview."
And he never will be...if you just wait long enough and interview enough non-white and non-male candidates. It might take a few hundred, a few thousand or a few million interviews but eventually you will find a candidate equally well qualified for every job on the planet that is neither white nor male.
And that is what it is all about. Look until you find one, no matter how long it takes; it is the return of discrimination, the return of racism and the return of sexism, all put into one neat label of DEI.So, you are saying candidates that are not white and male are virtually impossible to come by? Only white male qualified candidates are readily easy to obtain.
People who think like you are part of the problem.
Your attitude comes through loud and clear and I have got your number….
I support a "meritocracy"
We ignore an individual's gender, race, sex life, and only focus on who is most qualified for the job.
DEI focuses on all of these things instead of who is most qualified.
DEI = Didn't Earn ItYour argument is completely disingenuous because you are not correctly defining what DEI efforts actually are and mean.
I support a "meritocracy"
We ignore an individual's gender, race, sex life, and only focus on who is most qualified for the job.
That's why Trump has appointed the most unqualified people into his administration. It certainly wasn't for meritocracy. It was to destroy the agencies that they were appointed to run. The only qualification they need is loyalty to Trump.The "most unqualified" in your opinion. As you won't work with them, don't know what was required and would only accept liberals in any case, your opinion is completely without value.
(I would agree in the case of Kennedy, though!)Most people are unqualfied, and had work to do in their private capacity. Their eat their bread and butter, and had a nice time.
Without diversity, there is no novel thought. Without novel thought, there is no innovation. Without innovation, nothing new is invented. Even Musk has novel thought or he wouldn't be able to invent what has. He probably has a diverse staff of engineers working for him..
Nature never does anything in a straight line. That is what gives us survival of the fittest because human beings are diverse and can adapt to new and different things..
America is for Americans only is BS. Trump took the Navajo Code Talkers out of history documents. They are the true Americans and helped us win WWII. The rest of us are the immigrants. I bet you the name Burgess is not indigenous to this land.. .
America is for Americans only, is like Hitler saying Germany is only for the Aryan race. Everybody else is sent to concentration camps. Please define what color is an America?... .You're kidding, right? A population must be diverse racially to invent anything? Just who do you think brought about the industrial revolution? The handful of black/hispanic people in Europe? Five Asians living in Britain?
The Navajo Indian tribe are the true Americans? A group of people that, until well after Europeans showed up, had never heard of America? Do you truly believe that Navajos evolved from the primordial slime in North America, that they did not immigrate from Africa (with stops along the line)? Or even that the Garden of Eden is somewhere in North America?
"America is for Americans only, is like Hitler saying Germany is only for the Aryan race. Everybody else is sent to concentration camps. Please define what color is an America?... ."
This appears to be saying that Americans cannot determine who can and who cannot enter their "house". I, and 300,000,000+ other Americans, would disagree with you. We have an absolute legal, ethical and moral right to make that determination.Here is something that supports your view.
It's a shame it took the a ruling by the Supreme Court to get liberals to listen.
"Supreme court rules in favor of white firefighters in racial discrimination case
High court says Connecticut fire department unfairly blocked promotion of 17 whites and one Hispanic
It is the latest recent ruling in which the divided high court has curtailed public efforts to push for minorities' societal and economic advancement. Affirmative action opponents argue Barack Obama's election as president shows such measures are no longer necessary.
"The court ruled that if you design a test that's race-neutral but you get results that seem race-biased, you're supposed to follow the test results," said Tom Goldstein, an instructor of supreme court litigation at Harvard and Stanford law schools. "The rule is designed to give employers confidence that they won't be second guessed."
In a five to four decision, the court ruled in favour of 17 whites and one Hispanic who passed an assessment test but were denied promotion when the city of New Haven, Connecticut refused to certify the results.
The city said it feared a lawsuit at the hands of black firefighters who had fared poorly on the test.
At a press conference on the steps of city hall in New Haven, firefighter Frank Ricci said the ruling showed that "if you work hard, you can succeed in America."
In 2003 more than 100 New Haven firefighters took a competitive exam for promotion to lieutenant and captain. Seventeen whites and two Hispanics won eligibility for promotion. A group of black firefighters complained the test was flawed because no blacks had passed, and the city declined to certify the test results. Led by white firefighter Frank Ricci, the whites and one Hispanic who were denied promotion sued, alleging the city had discriminated against them on the basis of race.
The supreme court today overturned two lower courts and ruled the plaintiff firefighters had been victims of discrimination."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/ … reme-courtI bet you didn't expect me to read your link. Here is the part you left off.
"Dissenting justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg noted that US fire departments have a history of racism. She said that the court has effectively ordered that New Haven, a city in which blacks and Hispanics make up 60% of the population, be served by a fire department with few minorities among its top ranks: "The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract this court's sympathy," she wrote. "But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."
I'll ask you the same question. Stephen Miller Trump's Chief Advisor said," America is for Americans only." How do you define an American?She didn't come right out and say so, but Ginsberg's intent and goal is absolutely transparent: hire blacks before quality. Ignore qualifications in favor of skin color.
It is the definition of "equality" to liberals country wide. Color first; anything else last.
MEANWHILE
Maine voters held a town hall, and
@SenatorCollins
was invited but was a no-show. Well, they had one without her. This gentleman asked a few questions, but she wasn’t there to answer them. I’m sure somewhere, she is quite concerned...
How long can they hide from their constituents? Reckoning day is coming folks
https://x.com/1zzyzyx1/status/1902551024285728879Oh man, the anger at the Scott Perry Town Hall... Which he hid from also.
https://x.com/pennslinger/status/1902481023704666342So much accomplishment. So much success. So much of what voters voted for. WHY ARE THESE REPS RUNNING FROM IT??
KnoxvilleHoller
HAPPENING NOW IN KNOXVILLE… empty chair town hall in
@RepTimBurchett
’s district without Burchett
Looks like the small crowd my grandson gets at his ball game, LOL!
You do realize people are individuals, and I'm sure Knoxville has some Democrats—though not many by the looks of it. Yes, it's rude for representatives not to show up, but we all know politicians are focused on their base to secure and maintain votes. In this case, it seems like they figured these are a handful of people they don't represent and decided not to bother with those they know will never vote for them.
I get a kick out of how you skirt the internet for this kind of stuff. Not sure why, though.That's a Republican Town Hall... Constituents showed up and their representative didn't. They can hide but the anger is really growing out here. For as angry as maga was during Biden's administration, they never got up off their couch... But now we have a bipartisan movement of extremely motivated disgruntled voters
Really? A town hall is for everyone to come together, period. I guess you think you know who showed up. It seems like we have many disruptive individuals at our town halls these days, some even getting combative, disrupting with their slogans and getups. It’s funny how the leftists always seem to feel the need to make a bit of a silly fuss. I could post example after example of such behavior, but that would just make me look as silly as they do.
I prefer looking at more important issues that truly affect our Nation. I mean I think we all have become accustomed to people acting up at Town Halls. In the end, the people every four years are heard, and heard loudly. Between now and then, the president will succeed or fail.The town halls are in such contention over this administration's policy may well be the just "canary in the coal mine". It is a mistake to write all of this off as merely Liberal agitators by the Republicans.
Let's see just how much more of this continues?
DEI stands for **Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion**. These three principles are central to creating environments where individuals from different backgrounds, identities, and perspectives feel valued, respected, and empowered.
- **Diversity** emphasizes the presence of various identities, such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, ability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic backgrounds, among others.
- **Equity** focuses on fairness and addressing systemic imbalances, ensuring equal access and opportunities for everyone.
- **Inclusion** is about fostering a sense of belonging, where everyone feels welcome and their voices are heard.
The concept of DEI has gained prominence in recent years as organizations and societies recognize the need to tackle discrimination and inequality. However, the roots of these ideas stretch back to movements advocating for **civil rights, social justice, and equality**, such as the fight against racial segregation, women's suffrage, and LGBTQ+ rights.And DEI has lost almost 100% of it's support more recently. As it's true goals came out the support dried up rather quickly.
As just one example, I watched 60 minutes last week, with a main story being about a band (orchestra?) of young people that were to play with (I think) the Marine band. They were built on the concept of DEI, and Trump's order that such a thing does not exist ended up cancelling the whole thing. Something along the lines that the government will not participate in any form of DEI.
CBS cried crocodile tears, repeating it was all about inclusion and diversity and we should all jump with joy about a band of young people coming together like that to share their music with all!
There was not a single white face in that entire band of perhaps 75 students.
I don't think there was a single Hispanic or Asian either. This is the "inclusion" of DEI. This is the diversity of DEI. And CBS made a great deal of both "facts".
DEI is not about inclusion, it is not about diversity and it is certainly not about equity. It is about increasing the participation of one specific race above all others.You left out the fact that they showed that even though the band was cancelled, retired members of the band held the event for those very talented kids.
So your one example of very talented black musicians children getting an opportunity to play with the Marine Band is an example of discrimination and invalidates DEI?
So in other words in order for DEI to work, every event has to be one of a mixture of ethnic groups or there is no inclusion and no equity.
Thank you for your very narrow, conservative, racial outlook of DEI.You need another example? Check the court records about colleges skewing entrance availability, where Asian students sued the college for their DEI garbage. And won.
And yes, for DEI to work, to actually mean something beyond "only black people need apply" it must apply to every case. The absolute hypocrisy being shown by those participating in that farce is apparent and obvious discrimination.
(Let me know if you need more examples of DEI being used to produce discrimination. With or without media/liberal congratulations when it succeeds in doing so.)I am glad you asked.
1. **Workforce Representation**:
- Many tech companies, such as Microsoft and Intel, have focused on diversifying their workforce by increasing representation of women and underrepresented minorities in leadership roles. Intel, for example, achieved full representation in its workforce, matching the diversity of the available talent pool.
2. **Inclusive Hiring Practices**:
- Companies like SAP implemented Autism at Work programs, employing individuals on the autism spectrum and creating environments that leverage their unique skills, such as attention to detail and analytical thinking.
3. **Educational Access**:
- Programs like Girls Who Code provide young women with opportunities to learn coding and enter STEM fields, helping to bridge the gender gap in technology.
4. **Community Empowerment**:
- Starbucks launched the “100% Pay Equity” initiative, ensuring employees across gender and racial lines are paid equally for the same work. They also established community stores in underserved areas, providing job opportunities and economic growth.
5. **Policy Change**:
- In the entertainment industry, organizations like Time's Up and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have introduced inclusion requirements and guidelines to ensure diverse representation in films and awards.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives can lead to tangible financial benefits for organizations. Here are some key financial outcomes observed from successful DEI efforts:
1. **Improved Profitability**:
- A McKinsey study found that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 25% more likely to achieve above-average profitability compared to companies in the bottom quartile. Similarly, ethnic and cultural diversity was linked to a 36% likelihood of outperforming profitability benchmarks.
2. **Increased Market Share**:
- Inclusive companies can better understand and serve diverse customer bases, leading to increased market share and customer loyalty. For example, Procter & Gamble reported growth in their business units that focused on inclusive marketing campaigns.
3. **Greater Innovation Revenue**:
- Boston Consulting Group found that companies with above-average diversity in management reported 19% higher innovation revenue—revenue from products or services launched in the past three years—compared to companies with below-average diversity.
4. **Enhanced Employee Retention and Lower Costs**:
- DEI initiatives improve workplace satisfaction and reduce employee turnover, which can save organizations significant costs associated with hiring and training new employees. Gallup estimates the cost of replacing an employee is 1.5 to 2 times their annual salary, making retention strategies critical.
5. **Attracting Investors**:
- Investors increasingly favor companies with strong DEI commitments as part of their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria. This improves access to capital and enhances the organization’s valuation over time.
These financial outcomes demonstrate the tangible value of prioritizing DEI, not just from a moral standpoint but also as a strategic business advantage."DEI initiatives improve workplace satisfaction and reduce employee turnover"
Just one of your points, but proof please that employees like knowing they were hired on the basis of skin color and will remain with the hiring company longer because of that?
PP, you're going to have to go a long, long way to convince me that rebuilding the discrimination of the past, just with different color of those discriminated against, is good for anyone. The people, the business, the state or city, or even the country. I simply do not believe it.Where does it say anything about skin color in my reply? Whether you realize it or not, you are making racists comments when you are talking about skin color. I'll ask you again. How do you define an American?
I'm absolutely positive I'm making racist comments when talking about skin color. That's the entire point; DEI is all about color, and is all about racism and discrimination.
It is even worse than the old "affirmative action" concept that was absolutely racist, with it's entire being about hiring based on color. At least it didn't try to hide it behind fine sounding rhetoric, though; it made no bones about what it was about, unlike the DEI stuff we hear today.Amen and hear, hear! If PP doesn’t hear, hear… and refuses to see the “entire point”, it is because of the corner that he (and so many others) have painted themselves into.
That IS the problem. So many simply hear those fine sounding words and assume they will not be used to discriminate.
They are wrong. The concept sounds wonderful, like something everyone should believe in and support. Unfortunately it IS used to discriminate, it IS used to promote racism, sexism and most any other form of discrimination you can think of.You are not seeing the entire point. What if the person is qualified to the job and their skin is not white or they are gay?.
What you people are leaving out of DEI is how about those, regardless of their skin color are qualified for the job they are hired for? That is more than a remote possibility>
1 in 6 Hiring Managers Have Been Told to Stop Hiring White Men
Over the past several years, companies big and small have been making public their efforts to improve DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives. As detailed by Glassdoor, many companies have made the connection that DEI is not only good for society, but also good for business.
However, in recent months there has been a buzz around what some are terming “reverse discrimination” in hiring, wherein companies are passing over members of racial and gender majorities in service of meeting DEI benchmarks. And with the Supreme Court again hearing arguments against affirmative action, these same issues continue to be debated across multiple realms.
To find out how many believe “reverse discrimination” is really an issue affecting their workplace, in November ResumeBuilder.com surveyed 1,000 hiring managers across the U.S.
Key findings include:
52% believe their company practices “reverse discrimination” in hiring
1 in 6 have been asked to deprioritize hiring white men
48% have been asked to prioritize diversity over qualifications
53% believe their job will be in danger if they don’t hire enough diverse employees
70% believe their company has DEI initiatives for appearances’ sake
52% of Hiring Managers Believe Their Company Practices “Reverse Discrimination” in Hiring
More than half of hiring managers whose companies have DEI initiatives in place ‘somewhat’ (29%) or ‘strongly’ (24%) believe their company practices “reverse discrimination” when it comes to hiring.
Additionally, 48% say they have been told to prioritize diversity over qualifications when considering an applicant.
“In this evolving and competitive workplace, companies are having to respond to the demands of workers, which includes modifying their hiring practices,” commented career expert Stacie Haller.
“With all of the rapid changes organizations need to meet, it’s mostly middle management that implements the policies, and with many organizations, the support and tools provided to them are not there yet, especially when it comes to DEI” she continued.
Sixteen percent of hiring managers surveyed say they have been told to deprioritize white men when evaluating candidates, and 14% have been told to deprioritize hiring white women. This is a consistent finding with past reports of “reverse discrimination”.
For example, according to Bloomberg “A lawsuit claims former Google and YouTube recruiter Arne Wilberg was unlawfully fired because he didn’t reject white and Asian male job candidates, which he said the company pressured him and other recruits to do for diversity purposes.”
“Hiring practices regarding diversity are also evolving and workers will notice if companies are treating these practices as simply the means of getting to the desired end,” advised Haller.
53% Believe They Could Be Fired if They Don’t Hire Enough Diverse Employees
More than half of hiring managers ‘somewhat’ (28%) or ‘strongly’ (25%) believe that their job will be in danger if they don’t make enough diverse hires.
Fifty-nine percent say they feel ‘some’ (39%) or ‘a lot’ (20%) of pressure to hire diverse candidates. Forty-seven percent of this group say this pressure comes from company higher-ups and 45% from their boss. Additionally, 35% say they feel pressure from customers and 31% from co-workers.
DEI does not equal affirmative action. Can you give an example of actual DEI initiatives that are in place, anywhere and how they actually shape recruitment? I would like Maga to give some real world examples of actual DEI and the reality of how corporations or organization/institutions use them.
This perspective on DEI presents a compelling case for its benefits, particularly in terms of workforce representation, profitability, and innovation. However, it only tells one side of the story. While these initiatives can lead to positive outcomes, the other side of the coin—the concerns of those who see DEI as potentially divisive or prioritizing identity over merit—deserves acknowledgment as well. Many argue that DEI, in practice, sometimes leads to hiring and promotion decisions based on demographic factors rather than qualifications, potentially undermining workplace cohesion and fostering resentment. Others question whether forced diversity measures in industries like entertainment and tech truly reflect organic shifts in talent or if they risk becoming performative checkboxes. Ignoring these concerns doesn’t make them disappear; instead, a more balanced discussion would recognize both the successes and the unintended consequences of DEI policies.
If merit is consistently overlooked in favor of identity-based criteria, we risk creating a society where excellence is diminished, innovation slows, and institutions lose credibility. When people perceive that success is no longer based on skill or effort, it can erode trust in businesses, academia, and government, ultimately leading to inefficiency, frustration, and stagnation. A strong and thriving society depends on ensuring that opportunity is open to all while still maintaining high standards of competence and performance."If merit is consistently overlooked in favor of identity-based criteria, we risk creating a society where excellence is diminished, innovation slows, and institutions lose credibility.
Agreed, Pete Hegseth and RFK Jr. Are great examples.It’s interesting that you bring up Pete Hegseth and RFK Jr. as supposed examples of identity-based selection over merit. Unless I missed something, neither of them was handed their careers based on DEI policies. Hegseth, a Princeton and Harvard grad, built his platform through military service and political commentary—whether you agree with him or not. RFK Jr. comes from a political dynasty, sure, but his influence is tied to his family’s legacy, legal career, and controversial activism, not because someone pushed him forward for diversity’s sake.
If you’re trying to be sarcastic, it doesn’t really land. The issue at hand isn’t about people rising due to connections or name recognition—that’s always been part of politics and media. The concern with DEI policies is when identity becomes a primary factor in hiring, admissions, or promotions rather than qualifications and performance. When merit takes a backseat to checking boxes, it undermines institutions and ultimately hurts those who worked hard to earn their place.
It seems very easy in today’s society, especially behind a keyboard, to critique individuals who have achieved significant milestones. I always find it odd, considering the people being criticized often have extensive education, career recognition, and have truly thrived. At the end of the day, they will leave a lasting footprint—whether one agrees with them or not. The same can’t always be said for those taking cheap shots from the sidelines. If you have a real counterpoint, I’d be happy to hear it. But if you just want to throw out sarcastic jabs, you’ll have to do better than that.Can you define DEI policy? I mean a specific policy that is written and in use by any organization of your choice. I would like to see at least one policy in writing that specifically States the goal of prioritizing gender or race above merit
Not sure why you would even go there--- LOL
The Biden administration
The Biden administration has implemented a number of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies that prioritize identity-based considerations over strictly merit-based selection. Here are some key examples that contrast with your merit-based concept:
Federal Hiring and Promotions Based on Diversity Goals
Executive Order 14035 (June 2021): Biden signed an order directing federal agencies to prioritize DEI in hiring and promotions. While the stated goal was to create a more inclusive workforce, it raised concerns about whether merit was being sidelined in favor of demographic quotas.
Agencies were required to develop strategic plans to increase diversity among employees, which critics argue could lead to hiring based on race, gender, or identity rather than qualifications.
DEI in the Military and Service Academies
The Department of Defense implemented policies emphasizing DEI training and leadership, including efforts to increase racial and gender representation at leadership levels.
West Point and other service academies were sued for allegedly using race-based admissions criteria, which some argue lowered meritocratic standards in favor of diversity targets.
Race-Based Infrastructure and Economic Programs
The Biden Infrastructure Plan included provisions that prioritized contracts for minority-owned businesses. While the intention was to level the playing field, it led to concerns that companies were being awarded federal contracts based on identity rather than competitive merit.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) under Biden pushed loan programs that gave preferential treatment to minority business owners, excluding many White and Asian applicants from early rounds of funding.
Supreme Court Nomination Based on Identity First, Merit Second
Biden explicitly stated that he would only consider a Black woman for the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Breyer. While Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is highly qualified, critics argue that the process should have been open to the most qualified candidates regardless of race or gender.
DEI in Higher Education and the Student Loan Forgiveness Push
The Biden administration supported race-conscious admissions (affirmative action), even after the Supreme Court ruled against it in 2023.
The administration’s student loan forgiveness programs had provisions that disproportionately benefited minority borrowers, raising concerns about fairness for all students who took on debt responsibly.
While DEI policies are often framed as efforts to create opportunity, they frequently replace merit-based competition with identity-based considerations. Your view emphasizes rewarding qualifications, performance, and hard work—something Biden’s policies have, at times, deprioritized in favor of demographic outcomes. These examples show where his administration’s approach to DEI has been skewed, contradicting the principle of selecting the best candidate for the job based purely on merit.
Men in women's sports!
EO's
President Joe Biden has issued several executive orders (EOs) aimed at promoting Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) within the federal government. Critics argue that these initiatives prioritize identity-based considerations over merit-based principles. Notable examples include:
Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (January 20, 2021)
This EO, signed on President Biden's first day in office, mandates federal agencies to assess and address barriers that underserved communities face in accessing government programs. Agencies are directed to revise policies to promote equity, which some contend could lead to decisions influenced more by demographic factors than by individual merit.
Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce (June 25, 2021) This order establishes DEIA as priorities across the federal workforce, requiring agencies to develop strategic plans to advance these principles. While the intent is to create a more inclusive workforce, critics argue that such policies may result in hiring and promotion practices that emphasize demographic characteristics over qualifications and performance.
Executive Order on White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity through Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) (September 3, 2021)
This EO aims to promote educational equity and economic opportunity through support for HBCUs. While supporting these institutions can address historical disparities, some argue that policies focusing on specific racial groups may conflict with merit-based approaches that consider individuals irrespective of race.
These executive orders reflect the administration's commitment to DEI initiatives. However, the debate continues over whether such policies enhance inclusivity without compromising merit-based standards.
Let's have a better look at the non-merit laws that were passed during Biden's term--
During President Joe Biden's term, Congress passed several laws that incorporated Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) principles. Critics argue that these laws prioritized identity-based considerations over merit-based approaches. Notable examples include:
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021
Enacted in March 2021, ARPA provided economic relief in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The legislation included provisions that allocated funds specifically to minority-owned businesses and underserved communities. Critics contended that these allocations prioritized recipients based on race or ethnicity rather than individual business performance or need.
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021
Signed into law in November 2021, the IIJA aimed to revitalize America's infrastructure. The act included stipulations for federal agencies to promote the use of minority-owned businesses in infrastructure projects. Some viewed these provisions as emphasizing contractor selection based on identity factors over competitive bidding processes centered on merit and capability
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022
Enacted in August 2022, the IRA focused on reducing inflation, lowering prescription drug costs, and investing in domestic energy production. The act allocated funds for programs benefiting specific demographic groups, including subsidies for healthcare and energy initiatives targeting low-income and minority communities. Critics argued that these allocations favored certain groups based on identity rather than applying uniform criteria for assistance.
CHIPS and Science Act of 2022
Signed into law in August 2022, this act aimed to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing and technological research. It included provisions to promote diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields by allocating resources to minority-serving institutions and underrepresented groups. Some critics contended that these measures prioritized identity considerations over purely merit-based support for STEM initiatives.
These legislative actions reflect the Biden administration's true biases. And his commitment to integrating his DEI non-merit ideologies into federal policy. However, the debate continues over whether such policies enhance inclusivity without compromising merit-based standards.Absolutely none of that indicates or directs that hiring decision should be based on race or gender over merit. And I am quite certain that if a wide variety of individuals would have been brought to the table, Pete and Bobby would have been completely out done. They are poster boys for mediocrity
I'm thrilled to see DEI come to an end. As for your judgment of these men, I'm not sure you have the right or the knowledge to make that call. However, your comment does reveal more about your character. You clearly sit in judgment and feel you have the full right to demean a stranger's character.
"You clearly sit in judgment and feel you have the full right to demean a stranger's character."
Are you really sure you want to go there? Revisit some of your posts.
And despite what maga may think, DEI is certainly not dead. Trump has no sway over what those in the private sector do in terms of training and hiring. And again, you incorrectly use the term.I think it's fair to say that I point out the flaws in individuals' actions, and I always try to explain the reasoning behind my views when I do so. I don't insult or demean people, but I do frequently criticize the issues and actions of individuals regarding political actions- this is a political forum. Demeaning someone's character without merit is, in my view, unkind and unnecessary.
It's clear from our previous conversations that we have differing views on DEI.
"The concern with DEI policies is when identity becomes a primary factor in hiring, admissions, or promotions rather than qualifications and performance".
And how was identity as a white male not a primary factor or goal in these hirings? Ultimately the push to eliminate DEI is effectively affirmative action for white men... eliminating programs that help corporations attract and retain qualified minorities and women helps to maintain very mediocre white men in their positions .So we assume that all successful non white candidates were beneficiaries of DEI? That screams to me "Whites Only" and that any white candidate no matter how inept and incompetent has earned their place? Hardly...
Merit-based hiring, to me, is all about choosing the best person for the job based on their skills, experience, and qualifications, rather than factors like race, gender, or other personal traits that don’t really have anything to do with the job. When I think about it, the whole point is that everyone should have an equal shot at a position, regardless of their background. It’s not about whether you're white, black, male, female, or anything else—it’s about who has the experience and skills that matter most for the role. To me, this approach just makes sense because it’s color-blind and gender-blind, meaning hiring decisions are made purely on merit and not influenced by anything unrelated to the job. It’s a way of ensuring fairness and minimizing bias, making sure that the most qualified candidate gets the job, no matter who they are or where they come from.
How does accusing Kamala Harris or Barrack Obama as DEI imply that they were not deserving based on merit? I have heard accusations like this from Republicans frequently. Sounds a lot like unjustified bias to me.
That's a fair perspective. Obama won the presidency twice with strong electoral support, which suggests that voters saw him as the best candidate, not just a "DEI pick." As for Kamala Harris, she has held multiple high-ranking positions, including senator and vice president, both of which required substantial voter backing. While some might argue that race and gender played a role in how they were perceived or promoted, their educational backgrounds, political experience, and electoral victories indicate they achieved success through merit. It would indeed seem unfair to dismiss their accomplishments as anything less than earned.
By the way, Harris received 81.2 million votes as part of the Biden-Harris ticket in 2020, the most in U.S. history.
In my view, they earned their positions through merit. It would be unjust to claim that they achieved their success through anything other than their own qualifications and accomplishments."In my view, they earned their positions through merit. It would be unjust to claim that they achieved their success through anything other than their own qualifications and accomplishments"
If the view of your party reflected your view, we would not need to discuss this as it is in line with the other thread that you courageously addressed. You are approaching the answer as to why I dislike and distrust the Republican, conservative, trumpian point of view on things. I simply don't see such a brazen affront from my side. How can I be asked to see anything virtuous about this?I understand that you distrust the Republican, conservative, and Trump-aligned perspectives, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that bias exists on both sides. You say you don’t see such a “brazen affront” from your side, but that could be because you're more aligned with their viewpoints, making their actions seem more reasonable or justified. From a conservative perspective, many would argue that the left has engaged in similar—if not worse—tactics, whether it’s suppressing dissenting voices, pushing extreme policies, or rewriting history to fit a particular narrative.
Politics is messy, and both sides have engaged in rhetoric and actions that can seem like an “affront” to their opponents. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t valid points in conservative or Trump-aligned policies. Whether it’s merit-based hiring, border security, or economic policies, many of Trump’s positions are rooted in pragmatism, not just ideology. You may not agree with them, but dismissing them outright as lacking virtue ignores the fact that millions of Americans see them as necessary solutions to real problems.
I mean, individuality must play a part in all of this too. Not every conservative or Trump supporter thinks the same way, just as not every Democrat follows the same beliefs. Grouping people into one collective ideology without recognizing personal reasoning and nuance is a mistake. If the goal is real understanding, it has to start with recognizing that neither side has a monopoly on truth or virtue.
I believe Barrack Obama earned his two terms as president. He debated fellow democrats and won their primary twice. He ran two successful presidential campaigns. Republicans had nobody who was better at speaking or articulating ideas than Barrack Obama. He earned his his success from merit.
I think he was a lousy president, but he earned the right to be the president in fair elections.
K. Harris is the poster child for DEI.
biden decided he was going to pick a running mate based on her gender and skin color, not her qualifications. K., harris got a lot of her previous political success from dating a well-connected San Francisco politician Willie Brown. Brown is the one who got her in touch with the right people and put her in key government jobs. She didn't get it because of her skill or political abilities.
K. Harris was a bad prosecutor. That's the reason Tulsi Gabbard was able to destroy her during a primary debate when K. Harris made her one run for president. K. Harris dropped out shortly after that and never got a single delegate.
Then, as VP, K. Harris did next to nothing. biden put his cognitive decline on display during a debate for the world to witness. Then the big democrat donors said he had to go. Then, K. Harris, not earning her party's nomination to be a presidential candidate from winning a primary, like every other democrat presidential candidate, was coronated into being a presidential nominee. She didn't earn it. Every other candidate before her had to win the democrat primary to be a presidential candidate. K. Harris was given this.
She was a horrible candidate. She seriously changed her positions on many important issues including fracking and more. She refused to give interviews with the press and when she did K. Harris looked less than intelligent. She could not clearly articulate her position on a single issue. She provided word salads as answers. The VP she chose let a lot to be desired. He had NO ability to appeal to a national audience. This is on her as it was her choice.
THAT is why DEI is awful.
Barrack Obama - Earned everything. VERY successful
K. Harris - DEI nominee - Given everything because of her gender and color and a political disaster.From USA Today
Harris’ main advantage over Vance is experience. According to the White House, she has led multiple initiatives for the Biden administration related to women’s health and immigration and has taken more than a dozen trips abroad in her role. Before becoming Vice President, Harris represented California in the Senate for three years and was the state’s first female attorney general.
Vance, meanwhile, has served in the Senate for less than two years and has no prior political experience.
Joel Goldstein, a vice-presidential scholar at Saint Louis University, told USA TODAY that Vance is “the least experienced person selected as a major party running mate in the last 80-some years.”
———
Funny how Harris is so DEI, while Vance is seen as fully qualified on merit? Is that not racism and sexism on full display?K. Harris got the job of VP because of her gender and skin color and that's it.
Biden said, "It is a fact that the road to the White House is powered by Black women and Black women are the key to a Democratic victory in 2020,"
All men and women of every other race were ignored no matter what their qualifications. THAT is DEI. She didn't have to compete against men or women of any other race.
JD Vance had a disadvantage. He wasn't able to date a Willie Brown to get him success in the political world. K. Harris being a female was able to date Willie Brown, who was married and 31 years her senior, to engineer her a political career.
Remember JD Vance is ONLY 40 years old.
He dated NOBODY to advance in his political career.
He is a graduate of Yale law school. He was in the Marines for four years and served in Iraq.
After graduating from law school, Vance worked for Republican senator John Cornyn. He spent a year as a law clerk for Judge David Bunning of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, then worked at the law firm Sidley Austin, beginning a brief career as a corporate lawyer. Having practiced law for slightly under two years, Vance moved to San Francisco to work in the technology industry as a venture capitalist.
Between 2016 and 2017, he served as a principal at Peter Thiel's firm, Mithril Capital.
Yes, K. Harris was a DEI presidential candidate.
NO there is no racism or sexism on display.
The only thing I see on display is TDS.Yeah and so?
Every presidential candidate chooses his or her running mate based on what would acquire more votes and advantage. When has that not been true?Trump chose his based on who would more consistently “kiss his arse”. So don’t make it sound like Biden choices were so out of line as the black female demographic were the most loyal of Democratic voters.
Lacking political and experience in Government at any position, a situation for Trump and Vance made them less qualified than either Biden or Harris. So the fact that a top of the ticket chooses a running mate for reasons desirable to them, makes Harris a DEI when Biden made the same choices?
YES, there is racism and sexism on display. The double standard being applied to Harris shows that Trumpers are fundamentally racists under the skin.
DEI does not prioritize race or gender over merit. That is a disingenuous argument. It is a false narrative perpetuated by the right and gobbled up by people eager to believe it for some reason... I have asked several times for anyone on this forum to post DEI policies or efforts by a corporation or an organization of any type and I have seen nothing. It's baffling to me, do folks care about what the truth actually is or no? That may lead to straying from the group? I just keep hearing and reading this party line regurgitated over amd over.
DEI hiring gone awry: The top companies are shutting out white job candidates
The largest and most profitable companies in competitive markets apparently meant it when they promised to interview and hire a lot more minority job applicants.
Hiring data from 2020-21 of 88 companies on Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 100 list bears that out. An eye-opening report from Bloomberg shows these companies increased their workforces by 323,000-plus following the George Floyd protests and riots.
The surge in hiring was dominated by diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. An eye-opening 94% of new hires could be categorized as “people of color (POC).” Whites – just over 70% of the U.S. population – accounted for only 6% of S&P 100 hires.
“White people held fewer [less-senior] roles in 2021 than they did in 2020, whereas thousands of people of color were added to the ranks,” notes Bloomberg. “But the trend continued up the job ladder in top, high-paid jobs too: Companies increased their racial diversity among executives, managers and professionals.”
Many if not most of these companies laid off thousands of employees starting in fall 2022. Numerous reports show that DEI positions (as well as HR employees) were the top 2 choices for cuts. No doubt companies will claim the “last one hired, first one fired” doctrine factored into who they chose to let go if and when they’re sued for discrimination.
DEI policies put smaller companies in a legal bind
S&P 100 companies are not only at risk for class-action lawsuits by recently fired employees who can show race may have been a factor. Tens to hundreds of thousands of white job candidates who got passed over for jobs can more than reasonably claim discrimination.
Starbucks recently took it on the chin for firing a white regional manager in 2020. A New Jersey jury determined the company fired her, in part, due to race, and awarded her $25.6 million. The negative publicity likely stung Starbucks worse than the payout.
Nearly 17% of HR professionals say they’re being told by company executives not to hire white men and women. Maybe the actual percentage is significantly higher. Or perhaps the majority of smaller and private companies are following merit-based hiring practices unlike the biggest, publicly traded companies that clearly aren’t.
To make matters even worse, “at companies where overall employment shrank in 2021, White workers made up 68.5% of the losses, another 16.5% were Black, 9.7% were Hispanic and 2.3% were Asian,” according to the Bloomberg report.
The S&P 100 currently includes companies like 3M, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Amgen, Cisco, Costco, CVS, Goldman Sachs, Meta (Facebook), Microsoft, Mondelez International, Netflix, Nike, Pepsi, UPS, Tesla, Walmart and Wells Fargo.
If Trump were to advertise for jobs for his administration. It would look like this.
I am excited about filling these positions for my new administration. All jobs do not require any qualifications or experience. All jobs do require undying loyalty and adoration to me. I am forming this new administration based on the 900-page Project 2025 created by The Heritage Foundation.
All positions require following my interpretation of the project and my interpretation of the Constitution. All jobs require possession of a red MAGA hat and not use DEI for any new hiring.
Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) This is a new prime position. It does not require any approval by congress. The ideal candidate will be a billionaire, South African rocket scientist who also makes Tesla cars.
Candidate must be willing to dismantle and remove personnel from all the previous administration departments. Empathy and compassion not required. Warning Tesla cars may be torched in global protest.
Border Czar. This is a new position. Requires working with ICE to deport immigrants without cause or due process of law.
Secretary of State. Must have been mercifully demeaned by me in previous campaigns. Able to implement the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed in 1798. These acts were a series of laws enacted during the presidency of John Adams, primarily in response to fears of war with France. They included measures to restrict immigration and limit speech critical of the government.
Requires being able to remove Palestinian students who protest Netanyahu destroying their country, turning it to rubble and creating genocide, and crimes against humanity.
Department of Defense. I deal candidate would be a previous talk show host of Fox News. No defense experience required. When mistakes are made when using Signal. I will put a positive spin on the mistakes until they go away.
Department of Justice. All judges must be willing to remove any evidence of my criminal acts. Any judge not willing to do so will be summarily impeached by me.
Attorney General Office. Must be an attractive blond and have been my previous attorney who delayed and distracted those who wanted to jail me.
There will be more ads coming as I form my new departments. Democrats need not apply.While it’s fair to say that Trump values loyalty—something he’s never hidden—it’s not accurate to claim that he ignores experience or expertise when selecting key officials. Looking at his current Cabinet and top administration picks, it’s clear that many of them have strong credentials in their respective fields.
For example, Marco Rubio as Secretary of State brings years of foreign policy experience from the Senate. Scott Bessent as Treasury Secretary has a background in high-level finance. Doug Burgum, serving as Secretary of the Interior, was a successful governor with experience managing state resources. Even someone like Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, is an unconventional pick, but she has military and legislative experience. These aren’t people who were chosen just because they worship Trump; they have resumes that justify their appointments.
That said, Trump has also selected individuals who are personally loyal to him, which isn’t uncommon for a president. Every administration, Democrat or Republican, tends to fill key positions with people who align with their ideology and whom they trust. Biden did the same, as did Obama and Bush. The idea that Trump’s Cabinet is uniquely filled with unqualified loyalists is more of a partisan talking point than a reflection of reality.
The reference to Project 2025 also misrepresents Trump’s approach. The document was created by The Heritage Foundation as a broad policy guide, not a strict blueprint Trump is blindly following. He has not formally adopted it, though some of its ideas align with his policy priorities.
So, while Trump clearly values loyalty and surrounds himself with allies, his administration includes plenty of experienced and qualified officials. The idea that he’s only hiring blind followers without credentials doesn’t hold up when looking at his actual appointments.
Pam Bondi has a strong legal background that shouldn’t be dismissed. She served as Florida’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2019, making her the first woman to hold that position in the state. Before that, she was a prosecutor for nearly two decades in the Hillsborough County State Attorney’s Office, handling cases ranging from homicide to public corruption.
In terms of education, she earned her law degree from Stetson University College of Law, which has consistently ranked among the top law schools for trial advocacy. Throughout her career, she’s been recognized for her legal expertise and advocacy on issues like combating human trafficking and opioid abuse.
If someone is bringing her up as an example of Trump hiring unqualified loyalists, they’re ignoring her legal credentials and track record. While it’s fair to say she’s been a vocal Trump supporter, that doesn’t erase her extensive experience in the legal field. In my view, she earned her job on merit. Probably did not hurt that she is very stunning.S -While it’s fair to say that Trump values loyalty—something he’s never hidden—it’s not accurate to claim that he ignores experience or expertise when selecting key officials. Looking at his current Cabinet and top administration picks, it’s clear that many of them have strong credentials in their respective fields.
M- it's also fair to say that many of them are not qualified as well
S-The reference to Project 2025 also misrepresents Trump’s approach. The document was created by The Heritage Foundation as a broad policy guide, not a strict blueprint Trump is blindly following. He has not formally adopted it, though some of its ideas align with his policy priorities.
M- You are right, it is a 900 page very broad policy that Trump lied when he said he never heard of it.. I didn't say Trump follows it blindly. I said he interprets it and the constitution and expects other to follow his interpretations of both of them.
S-So, while Trump clearly values loyalty and surrounds himself with allies, his administration includes plenty of experienced and qualified officials. The idea that he’s only hiring blind followers without credentials doesn’t hold up when looking at his actual appointments.
M- What is Musk's qualification for what he is doing? Rubio may have been a long time Senator, but what qualifications does he have to remove college students other than a 1798 law that that was more than likely found by Stephen Miller, Trump's brain. What qualifications does Hegseth have other than being a Fox News host?. The secretary of Defense is usually held by a very experienced general. What experience does the Secretary of Education have other than she is there to shut it down?
S-If someone is bringing Bondi up as an example of Trump hiring unqualified loyalists, they’re ignoring her legal credentials and track record. While it’s fair to say she’s been a vocal Trump supporter, that doesn’t erase her extensive experience in the legal field. In my view, she earned her job on merit. Probably did not hurt that she is very stunning.
M- Your are right she has gotten Trump off the hook for everything he should have gone to jail for. .
"Many argue that DEI, in practice, sometimes leads to hiring and promotion decisions based on demographic factors rather than qualifications"
Can you give any such real world example? And I mean in specific policy or programming related to a corporation, institution or organization. This argument that DEI overlooks merit to "check boxes" has absolutely no basis in reality.
If success was purely based on merit, the demographics of leadership positions would more closely align with the talent pool. Instead,, just 10.4 percent are women, despite women making up nearly half the workforce. Do these figures reflect a lack of merit among women professionals; or do they reflect systemic barriers and biases that have limited their opportunities to advance?
"DEI isn’t about displacing one group to elevate another; it’s about building opportunity and creating structures where everyone, regardless of their background, has a fair shot to succeed. It’s about opening doors that have been historically closed, not to take away, but to add, expanding the pool of leadership talent and enriching our collective potential."
It's hard to genuinely discuss these efforts when one side keeps distorting what they actually are.
https://seramount.com/articles/what-is-dei-really/"DEI isn’t about displacing one group to elevate another; it’s about building opportunity and creating structures where everyone, regardless of their background, has a fair shot to succeed. " Willow
They do, on merit.... Merit merit-based approach is rooted in the belief that qualifications, experience, and ability should come before identity factors like race, gender, or political affiliations. So very simple, with no other agenda but merit.Can you describe or give an example of an actual company or organization that has a DEI policy currently in effect? and list what actions spring from that policy? I think it'd be nice to see how these initiatives actually work in the real world
Ro Khanna just slammed Republican Representative David Valadao for not showing up for his constituents. Valadao has refused to host a townhall, so Khanna is doing one in his district... Midterms can't get here quick enough.
https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1903893100872810753Imperial Wizard Hirem Evens of the Ku Klux Klan, in charge of the parade march down Pennsylvania Ave in Washington DC exactly 100 years ago defined the “real American” as White, Anglo Saxon and Protestant.
He said:
We found our great cities and the control of much of our industry and commerce taken over by strangers, who stacked the cards of success and prosperity against us,” Evans would write in the North American Review the next year. “Shortly they came to dominate our government.” Evans was skeptical of the assimilability of Jews, Catholics, and recent immigrants, and believed that Black people were simply naturally inferior to their white betters.
Hmm, with the exception of a tweet here and there, this expresses the sentiment of the Trumpian Right, today. Witness today’s Xenophobia and the threat that these outsiders pose to “real Americans”, and the very certainty that they would never assimilate. Combine that with the racism that is expressed as part of this DEI schtick and you have indistinguishable people from those a century ago who subscribe to Trump philosophy without the white sheets.
Yes, there have been minor tweets and changes to some of the optics but the fundamentals are unchanged even though a century has passed.They just won't leave these poor Republicans alone will they? Representatives continue to run and hide from their constituents...
More than 900 people gathered Saturday morning for what was billed as a People’s Town Hall at the Kentucky Theatre. Many waited in line to address an empty chair on stage next to a sign that said “Reserved for Congressman Andy Barr.”
Why don't they want to show up and talk about all of their wonderful "progress"? My god, so much to be proud of right?
Brady Blanton of Richmond... "I’m not a paid protester; I’m a blue collar worker,” Blanton said. “I am a child of Social Security survivors benefits and Medicaid after my father passed away 15 years ago and they kept my family afloat.”
Blanton, 26, told the Lantern he works for a plastics manufacturer in Winchester. He said he still depends on Medicaid to provide his 2-year-old daughter’s health insurance and that he worries that the cuts to Veterans Affairs will hurt his grandfather, a veteran of the Vietnam War.
Blanton noted that the U.S. House’s budget blueprint would increase defense spending by $100 billion while cutting $880 billion from health and human services such as Medicaid, which covers 196,729 people in the 6th Congressional District or 26% of Barr’s constituents. Almost 1 in 3 Kentuckians are enrolled in Medicaid....OH WELL...
https://www.alternet.org/andy-barr/Congressman Andy Barr Facebook
"I want to address the handful of people who falsely claim they cannot reach anyone in my office or that I “refuse to hold town hall meetings.” Let me set the record straight.
Every day, my staff and I meet with constituents. Every day, we take phone calls, respond to emails and letters, and work diligently to resolve casework—regardless of political affiliation. We host monthly office hours in every county of the Sixth Congressional District as part of my ongoing accessibility initiative. We’ve done this consistently for 13 years, and I’m proud to lead one of the most accessible, professional, and responsive congressional staffs in the country.
What we will not do is provide a forum for individuals more interested in shouting and grandstanding than engaging in a respectful and constructive conversation. Our goal is to foster real dialogue—not theatrics.
That’s why we’re hosting a telephone town hall on Monday—to ensure a productive exchange of views in a civil environment where everyone has a chance to be heard."
Wow this is a unique one...
Simultaneous US/Canada Border Protest Sends Trump Reeling
A simultaneous on both sides of the Detroit River sent a loud message to Trump from both the US and Canada....
Protests are becoming a very regular and growing feature. We haven't seen anything like this in a very long time. So many people, so unhappy.
https://www.thedailypoliticususa.com/p/ … er-protestHere is another one. This is getting to be a habit with the GOP, absentee representatives. Long article, but it appears that people in Montana are pissed off. I lived there for 3 years and trust me, they are no-nonsense people.
So, Bring on the pitchforks, tar and feathers, let the angst spread nationwide. I am delighted….
https://www.alternet.org/montana-town-hall/
There has even been a rumble in staunchly red Utah at another town hall, KUTV Salt Lake City reports.
https://kutv.com/news/politics/utah-tow … ke-kennedyThe representatives did offer statements explaining their reasons for not attending the town hall meetings in Billings and Bozeman.
Senator Steve Daines' office stated that he frequently meets with Montanans through various public forums and that he does not attend events organized by groups like Indivisible. They described the organization as a "far-left group" funded by what they called the "radical wing of the Democrat party." They further explained that Senator Daines' time is committed to engaging with constituents through other means.
Senator Tim Sheehy's office echoed similar sentiments, calling Indivisible a "radical group" and specifically mentioning their opposition to policies like funding the police and abolishing ICE. Sheehy’s office stated that the event was politically biased, which influenced his decision not to attend.
Representative Troy Downing also expressed his decision not to attend these town halls, citing concerns about the political nature of the organizers. His office did not provide a detailed public statement but aligned with the concerns raised by Daines and Sheehy.
The representatives' offices defended their choices, framing their absence as a result of political differences with the event organizers.But again, they could be just excuses from the representatives afraid to face irate constituents with legitimate complaints regarding this administrations policies. These representatives are there to serve all in their district regardless of their political orientation. It is not a good look to be seen as not wanting to engage with those that put you in office. If the ramifications of this continues it can’t be seen as anything other than entirely negative for GOP prospects in the near future.
Your point is understandable—representatives should be willing to engage with all constituents, regardless of political leanings. However, I think it's also fair to acknowledge that town halls have increasingly become less about discussion and more about spectacle, particularly when bad-faith actors seek to disrupt rather than debate. If Republican lawmakers are genuinely concerned that these events are being hijacked by far-left activists who have no interest in constructive dialogue, their hesitation is at least understandable.
That said, avoiding town halls altogether does come with risks. Optics matter, and if GOP representatives are perceived as unwilling to face voters, it could alienate supporters and weaken their standing ahead of future elections. Perhaps a better solution would be to structure these events in a way that minimizes disruptions—controlled forums, moderated Q&A sessions, or virtual town halls that still allow engagement while limiting opportunities for grandstanding.
The reality is that Republicans will always face hostile media coverage, so refusing to engage at all might give the left exactly what they want—an easy narrative about the GOP being “afraid” of the voters. Instead, they should be strategic, ensuring they still connect with their constituents while preventing the left from dominating the conversation for a quick news clip.
I think they should take a page from Trump's playbook—show up, be direct, take questions, and cut through the political act. Voters appreciate honesty and strength, not rehearsed talking points or avoidance.Have you listened to the questioning from constituents at these town halls? Overall the questions are presented in a very calm, very respectful manner by mostly folks who look like senior citizens... I will make sure to start posting footage from these people specifically
I don't focus much on media coverage of town halls, as I feel they often highlight one hyperbolic moment and ignore the rest of the conversation. I prefer to respect journalism that focuses on the full spectrum of discussion. Town halls generally represent a small group of citizens, and I think that those who are most upset tend to be the ones who show up. It's unfortunate, but it leads to a skewed view of the issues at hand. One side of a coin.
That “small group” may well be a representative sample who congresspersons ignore at their own peril. Can they afford to?
Good point—sometimes a small but vocal group is actually a sign of a much bigger issue, and politicians ignore them at their own risk. If the frustrations at this town hall reflect what a lot of voters are feeling, dismissing them could definitely backfire in 2026. But at the same time, there are plenty of reasons why this issue might not have a big impact on the elections.
For one, just because a group is loud doesn’t mean they represent the majority. If their concerns don’t match up with what most voters care about, their influence will be pretty limited. Politicians pay more attention to big-picture trends, like polling and fundraising, rather than isolated town halls. Plus, if this doesn’t get major media attention, it’s unlikely to gain much traction beyond that room. And even if it does, politicians are pretty skilled at shifting the narrative or downplaying dissent.
Another thing to consider is that voter priorities change. What people are mad about today might not even be on their minds in 2026, especially if bigger issues like the economy or foreign policy take over. And let’s be real—partisan loyalty still runs deep. Even if people are frustrated, a lot of them will still vote along party lines, so a congressperson ignoring this group might not hurt them much in the long run.
There are many republicans that attend that take issue with cuts in a way and manner far beyond any expectation as Musk’s chainsaw decimates families along with government services. So, it is not all indignant lefties that protest the administration policies. I think that you will see that as there will be more of these relatively uncivil town halls in surprisingly ruby red states and districts.
In November 2026, all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 33 of the 100 seats in the U.S. Senate will be up for election. Also there will be special elections for two Senate seats in Ohio and Florida.. reckoning day is coming. Constituents will not forget the actions of these representatives.
Maga looney Victoria Spartz, from a deep red Indiana district, presided over an absolutely raucous Town Hall..yeah, happy people everywhere lol.. I was happy to see constituents address the Whiskey Pete signal controversy...
https://x.com/cwebbonline/status/1905829630818259221
https://x.com/MarcoFoster_/status/1905773705525092852
https://x.com/DaniellaMicaela/status/19 … 7921963407DEI has been intentionally misrepresented by maga. They play on tired, dangerous tropes about the scary, incompetent woman or person of color who is trying to take things away from ‘regular’ white people. It's been turned into a slur. Maga would have us believe that DEI is all about and based upon reverse discrimination. It is not.
These initiatives don't mean lowering the bar; they are all about giving everyone a fair shot at the same bar.
DEI does not suggest hiring less-qualified candidates, but meritocracy can only exist when everyone has an equal chance to compete.
A real life corporate example?
JPMorgan Chase..."The ‘e’ always meant equal opportunity to us, not equal outcomes,” COO Jenn Piepszak said in an HR memo. They're not getting rid of DEI but rebranding and more accurately identifying their efforts.
We can't really have a genuine discussion about DEI if one side keeps purposely misrepresenting what it's all about and pretending that it's reality.
https://www.hrdive.com/news/jp-morgan-d … es/743707/
https://www.careercircle.com/blog/post/ … it-mattersA black or white person, even a blue guy, that has achieved educational success...and make they mark significantly in public sphere should be louded, and not accussed of bias. Knowledge and success is not execlussive to any race.
From the Harvard Law Review
Why Diversity Programs Fail
Summary. After Wall Street firms repeatedly had to shell out millions to settle discrimination lawsuits, businesses started to get serious about their efforts to increase diversity. But unfortunately, they don’t seem to be getting results: Women and minorities have not gained much ground in management over the past 20 years. The problem is, organizations are trying to reduce bias with the same kinds of programs they’ve been using since the 1960s. And the usual tools—diversity training, hiring tests, performance ratings, grievance systems—tend to make things worse, not better. The authors’ analysis of data from 829 firms over three decades shows that these tools actually decrease the proportion of women and minorities in management. They’re designed to preempt lawsuits by policing managers’ decisions and actions. But as lab studies show, this kind of force-feeding can activate bias and encourage rebellion. However, in their analysis the authors uncovered numerous diversity tactics that do move the needle, such as recruiting initiatives, mentoring programs, and diversity task forces. They engage managers in solving the problem, increase contact with women and minority workers, and promote social accountability. In this article, the authors dig into the data, executive interviews, and several examples to shed light on what doesn’t work and what does.
Businesses started caring a lot more about diversity after a series of high-profile lawsuits rocked the financial industry. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Morgan Stanley shelled out $54 million—and Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch more than $100 million each—to settle sex discrimination claims. In 2007, Morgan was back at the table, facing a new class action, which cost the company $46 million. In 2013, Bank of America Merrill Lynch settled a race discrimination suit for $160 million. Cases like these brought Merrill’s total 15-year payout to nearly half a billion dollars.
It’s no wonder that Wall Street firms now require new hires to sign arbitration contracts agreeing not to join class actions. They have also expanded training and other diversity programs. But on balance, equality isn’t improving in financial services or elsewhere. Although the proportion of managers at U.S. commercial banks who were Hispanic rose from 4.7% in 2003 to 5.7% in 2014, white women’s representation dropped from 39% to 35%, and Black men’s from 2.5% to 2.3%. The numbers were even worse in investment banks (though that industry is shrinking, which complicates the analysis). Among all U.S. companies with 100 or more employees, the proportion of Black men in management increased just slightly—from 3% to 3.3%—from 1985 to 2014. White women saw bigger gains from 1985 to 2000—rising from 22% to 29% of managers—but their numbers haven’t budged since then. Even in Silicon Valley, where many leaders tout the need to increase diversity for both business and social justice reasons, bread-and-butter tech jobs remain dominated by white men.
It shouldn’t be surprising that most diversity programs aren’t increasing diversity. Despite a few new bells and whistles, courtesy of big data, companies are basically doubling down on the same approaches they’ve used since the 1960s—which often make things worse, not better. Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers. Those tools are designed to preempt lawsuits by policing managers’ thoughts and actions. Yet laboratory studies show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out. As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y, or Z, and I’ll do the opposite just to prove that I’m my own person.
In analyzing three decades’ worth of data from more than 800 U.S. firms and interviewing hundreds of line managers and executives at length, we’ve seen that companies get better results when they ease up on the control tactics. It’s more effective to engage managers in solving the problem, increase their on-the-job contact with female and minority workers, and promote social accountability—the desire to look fair-minded. That’s why interventions such as targeted college recruitment, mentoring programs, self-managed teams, and task forces have boosted diversity in businesses. Some of the most effective solutions aren’t even designed with diversity in mind.
Here, we dig into the data, the interviews, and company examples to shed light on what doesn’t work and what does.
Why You Can’t Just Outlaw Bias
Executives favor a classic command-and-control approach to diversity because it boils expected behaviors down to dos and don’ts that are easy to understand and defend. Yet this approach also flies in the face of nearly everything we know about how to motivate people to make changes. Decades of social science research point to a simple truth: You won’t get managers on board by blaming and shaming them with rules and reeducation. Let’s look at how the most common top-down efforts typically go wrong.
Diversity training. Do people who undergo training usually shed their biases? Researchers have been examining that question since before World War II, in nearly a thousand studies. It turns out that while people are easily taught to respond correctly to a questionnaire about bias, they soon forget the right answers. The positive effects of diversity training rarely last beyond a day or two, and a number of studies suggest that it can activate bias or spark a backlash. Nonetheless, nearly half of midsize companies use it, as do nearly all the Fortune 500.Couldn't disagree more.
Do you know about K. Harris and Willie Brown? He was a married man 30 years her senior whom she dated. It was Willie Brown's influence that created K. Harris political career. She had NOTHING until she started dating a married man three decades older than herself.
I don't care how many votes biden/harris received. She got the position because biden refused to pick any other person as VP unless they were a black woman. Talk about sexism and racism. No man could be picked as biden's vp and no woman who was white, Asian, or Hispanic could be chosen. This makes her VP pick based on DEI.
She was a horrible VP. Accomplished absolutely nothing.
Was GIVEN the nomination to run for president. Unlike every other democrat nominee before her, she didn't even go through a primary process.
She was a horrible presidential candidate.
Her entire political career she has been given things because of her skin color and race or because she dated the right men.
K. Harris is a good example as to why DEI should be terminated.Can you cite a real world DEI policy currently in use at corporation or institution that you can find that uses quotas based on race or gender? I would really like someone, anyone, to point out real life examples of actual documented DEI initiatives that exist at real companies, in the real world. Because all I see right now are inaccurate statements that right-wing individuals often misrepresenting DEI initiatives, leading to misconceptions and a divisive rhetoric.
You need to read some of my previous responses on this thred.
I've provided plenty.No, you actually haven't provided any. Cite a corporate dei policy or initiative that is currently in use. Or alternatively states a commonly accepted definition of the DEI framework. Any company that uses the policy, has it laid out in writing...
Well, Mike we are going to have to agree to disagree.
As far as I am concerned “DEI” is a dog whistle and is coded as basically racial and gender based slurs.
When people who don't appreciate that learn more about it, it will not be a good look for Trumpicans, Conservatives or Republicans….
Purrfect article. I love it, instead of DEI, its WEI, white, entitled and incompetent. So, what do we make of that? Is that not what we are seeing with the F-Troop bumbler associated with Signalgate?
https://www.salon.com/2025/03/31/signal … -hysteria/Yes! I very much enjoy Salon.
"Trump has reinforced that belief, proving Lyndon B. Johnson right when Johnson said, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” I guess you can call Donald Trump the pick-pocketing pied piper…".
I think that this theme of "we hate the same people" undergirds the entire administration. It is his most powerful connection to the base. It resonates with a group who is feeling fearful that they are losing control . It's all about using race based anger to motivate. Trump has always had a nose for victimhood..he has turned white anxiety into a movement. And the byproduct is absolutely maintaining mediocrity.
I think that the debate is not about DEI, it's about power.Thanks, Willow, I confess that it is strong stuff. It is unfortunate that when LBJ made that comment so long ago, so much of it still rings true, DEI is a case in point. Under close analysis, I guess that we have not move forward as far as we all would like to believe.
It is about power and control at the expense of others seeking a greater level of parity.
I am glad that you enjoyed the article as it cuts to the chase as few others have.
"You clearly sit in judgment and feel you have the full right to demean a stranger's character."
She does it all the time.Trump approval falls to 43%, lowest since returning to office, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds...
And this was just before Liberation day.. I'm sure the public is happier today, right? Maga getting what you voted for. Tell us again how much you suffered under Biden's economy..
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 788932007/April 3 2025 Published Apr 03, 2025 at 8:33 AM EDT
Updated Apr 03, 2025 at 10:18 AM EDT
Donald Trump's Approval Rating Is Actually Rising With Democrats
Donald Trump's Job Approval Rating
Polling average for 04/03/25
Newsweek's average of the 10 most recently published polls shows that Trump's approval rating currently stands at 47 percent, while 49 percent disapprove.
It comes as many polls have shown his approval rating on the decline. A poll conducted by Marquette University Law School between March 17 to March 27 among 1,021 adults showed that Trump's approval rating had dropped to 46 percent, while 54 percent said they disapproved. In January, 48 percent approved and 52 percent disapproved. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-a … ls-2054706I think very few people are happy with the tariffs and the Liberation Day celebration. His approval rating is circling the drain from here.
I try not to predict how people feel. Polls only reflect the opinions of a specific group, and while some are more reliable than others, they all have limitations. I also believe we're witnessing a knee-jerk reaction to the tariffs, which I expected would happen.
I recognized that tariffs would cause significant disruption, and they have. All I can do is share my perspective. I voted for change, and I support Trump’s efforts to achieve fair trade. The polls suggest that some people weren’t realistic in understanding that his agenda would bring major upheaval. It seems that some lack the fortitude to wait and see how things unfold—they’re already wringing their hands.
I was surprised he chose a blanket type venue on al that trade with the US, and announced steep new tariffs on all imports with extra penalties for many of America’s top trading partners. In my view, erecting a protectionist barrier around the world’s largest economy in a watershed shift for US international economic policy.
No president has ever done this. It will be very interesting to watch it play out. He did leave the door open for negotiations on placed tariffs. Which I think is possitive.Perhaps trade agreements will emerge with negotiations.
U.S. stocks plunge following Trump tariff shock
President Donald Trump's shock announcement that he would impose historic tariffs on virtually all U.S. imports shattered markets Thursday, an emphatic rebuke by investors of his effort to reorder global trade.
As of late mornings, trillions of dollars were wiped out as the S&P 500 tumbled more than 4%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 3.4%, or 1,400 points, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq dropped more than 5.4%.
Small business are also set to be hit hard by the tariffs. The Russell 2000 Index, which tracks smaller publicly traded companies, was down 6.6%. It has now lost more than 20% since its peak in November.
In the wake of Wednesday's announcement, analysts are already raising alarms about the potential for a recession.
Happy Liberation Day!The general consensus for those not opposed to every step Donald Trump takes, and not on board with Government corruptuon and abuse, nor the U.S. taken advantage of at every turn, for decades... understand that it will take some time to rectify.
How much is your portfolio losing today? I find it really odd that the people who say the market tanking and people losing their retirement savings is a-okay are the same people who were complaining they couldn't live another day paying more for eggs...
And all of this tariff nonsense is fully about funding the tax cut for the wealthy off of the back of the middle class. Nothing more and he thinks people are stupid enough to buy it
I am patient.... except in traffic, with dang tourists, then I am not very patient, I will admit!
"51% of Americans disapprove of Donald Trump's job performance and 43% approve, a net approval of -8. That's down 5 points from last week."
That makes sense when you consider he’s doing an objectively terrible job.. the ongoing tariffs fiasco, the status of retirement accounts and the still-high cost of living while routinely showing up on television babbling like a man in mental decline....
https://today.yougov.com/politics/artic … ougov-pollApril 12 2025
Rasmussen Reports poll from April 11 showed an approval rating of 48%.
A Civiqs Poll from April 10 showed that 54% of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of Trump and 44% had a favorable opinion.
The Economist shows that 45% of people are favorable of Trump and 52% are unfavorable of him, according to the latest update from April 9.
According to the latest HarrisX poll, conducted between April 4 and April 7 among 1,883 registered voters, Trump's net approval rating has dropped to -2, with 47 percent approving and 49 percent disapproving. That is down from a net approval rating of +9 points in February, when 52 percent approved and 43 percent disapproved.
How does Trump's approval rating compare with his 1st term?
Trump had a final approval rating of 34% when he left office in 2021. His approval average during his first term was 41%.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po … 049199007/Oh my...the "support" at MTG'S. Attempt at a town hall ..
Cops tazed a man and they manhandled an older guy...
Because nothing says “small government and free speech” like electrocuting dissent in a public forum....
https://x.com/ArtCandee/status/1912296019527889310It appears many were there to shut down free speech, repeatedly disrupting the event—shouting, cursing, and in some cases, resisting police as they were escorted out. To truly understand what happened, one only needs to watch several YouTube videos for the full picture. One X clip does not show what factually occurred.
The speaker deserved the fundamental right to be heard without constant interruptions as she attempted to share her views through free speech. Unfortunately, many on the left seem to believe that shouting down opposing voices and resorting to belligerent behavior is an acceptable way to express their own opinions—even if it means silencing others in the process. But free speech is not a one-sided privilege; it's a cornerstone of civil discourse that must be protected for everyone, even when views differ. If we abandon that principle, we risk losing the very foundation that allows for meaningful dialogue and a truly open society.I watched the entire event as it happened. You don't tase people for making comments... Even if they are out of turn.
This amount of force on an elderly man is completely unacceptable.
https://x.com/sumit45678901/status/1912489515509227981Despite a court order, a reporter and photographer from The Associated Press were barred from an Oval Office news conference on Monday with President Donald Trump and his counterpart from El Salvador, Nayib Bukele.
Last week’s federal court decision forbidding the Trump administration from punishing the AP for refusing to rename the Gulf of Mexico was to take effect Monday. The administration is appealing the decision and arguing with the news outlet over whether it needs to change anything until those appeals are exhausted.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit set a Thursday hearing on Trump’s request that any changes be delayed while case is reviewed. The AP is fighting for more access as soon as possible.
Later Monday, two AP photographers were admitted to an event honoring Ohio State’s championship football team on the more spacious South Lawn. A text reporter was turned away.
Since mid-February, AP reporters and photographers have been blocked from attending events in the Oval Office, where President Donald Trump frequently addresses journalists, and on Air Force One. The AP has seen sporadic access elsewhere, and regularly covers White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s briefings. Leavitt is one of three administration officials named in the AP’s lawsuit.
Until being blocked by Trump, AP has traditionally always had a reporter and photographer among the small group of journalists invited into the Oval Office. McFadden did not order that to be restored, only that no news organization should be shut out because the president objects to its news decisions — under a principle called “viewpoint discrimination.”
“No other news organization in the United States receives the level of guaranteed access previously bestowed upon the AP,” the administration argued in court papers over the weekend. “The AP may have grown accustomed to its favored status, but the Constitution does not require that such status endure in perpetuity.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … ocialshareWhile the narrative suggests that AP reporters were unlawfully barred from a Trump-Bukele Oval Office press conference despite a court order, this claim is not entirely factual or complete. The court ruling in question did not specifically mandate that the Associated Press be granted immediate access to all White House events starting Monday—it addressed the broader principle of viewpoint discrimination. The ruling did not include an injunction forcing the White House to restore AP access by that date; instead, the administration is within its legal rights to appeal the decision and seek a stay, which is exactly what they did. The U.S. Court of Appeals scheduled a hearing for later in the week to consider that request, suggesting that legal proceedings were still ongoing and no final enforcement action was required as of Monday.
Furthermore, the AP was not entirely shut out of all events that day—photographers were granted access to the South Lawn event with the Ohio State football team, which undermines the notion of total exclusion. It’s also relevant that the AP has continued to receive access to White House briefings and some other events, even if sporadic, which weakens claims of complete retaliation. The administration’s argument that no outlet is constitutionally entitled to special or permanent access to the Oval Office also introduces a valid constitutional and procedural question: whether any news outlet, including the AP, has the legal right to preferential access. So while the optics of exclusion may seem retaliatory, the actual legal and factual circumstances are more nuanced than the summary implies.
The Trump administration filed an appeal following a federal court ruling that ordered the White House to restore the Associated Press’s (AP) access to presidential events. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden issued the initial ruling on April 8, 2025, mandating the lifting of access restrictions placed on the AP. The administration filed its appeal shortly thereafter, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit scheduled a hearing for Thursday, April 17, 2025, to consider the administration's request to delay implementing the ruling while the appeal is under review https://www.reuters.com/business/media- … hatgpt.com
Thus far, the administration has gotten a reprieve due to the appeal. I trust the court will rule justly.
Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the U.S. government had offered to provide a plane to “facilitate” Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador, contingent on the Salvadoran government agreeing to release him. She emphasized that the administration understood the Supreme Court’s directive to “facilitate” his return as requiring logistical support—such as offering transportation—rather than forcing another sovereign nation to comply. “President Bukele said he was not sending him back. That’s the end of the story,” Bondi said. Based on her efforts, it appears she has attempted to fulfill the Court’s order. Given El Salvador’s sovereign authority, it’s unclear what more she could realistically do without the cooperation of President Bukele.
LOL, maga are not the ones to talk about free speech at this moment in time... Should we count the ways dear leader is clamping down?
But in terms of marjories town hall, free speech? That's laughable. She screamed the questions ahead of time and screened the people who were to be let in... She wanted sycophants. It backfired spectacularly. This bunch is an embarrassment to the countryI believe free speech truly thrives when individuals are allowed to speak without interruption and given the space to fully express their views, followed by thoughtful and respectful debate. There’s no need for shouting, profanity, or attempts to silence others. In my experience, many liberal protesters have repeatedly shown that they’re not interested in open dialogue—they’re often actively working to shut it down. To me, that’s not a defense of free speech; it’s a clear rejection of it.
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s town hall debacle is less a democratic exercise and more a masterclass in irony...
shutting down dissent while decrying disruptions, all from a stage built on exclusion. Screening questions, locking out constituents, and then clutching pearls when the crowd gets rowdy? That’s not a town hall; that’s a coronation with a side of chaos, complete with tasers for the uninvited. But let’s not pretend this is about principle. While she’s busy playing the martyr, her stock portfolio tells a different story...scooping up shares in a tariff-induced market dip, turning Trump’s trade wars into her personal windfall. Funny how “protecting national interests” looks a lot like protecting her bank account, all on a humble congressional salary. Democracy demands open dialogue, not a curated echo chamber where the only voices heard are the ones cheering loudest...or the ones silenced by force. If Marjorie truly believed in the voting booth, she’d let her constituents speak without fear of being dragged out in handcuffs.How about a cup of coffee or a glass of ice tea. Read a Substack post about Greene's town hall from a source that is not mainstream.
BUTCH-BODIED BANSHEE: MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE’S TOWN HALL ENDS IN TASERS, SCREAMS, AND SELF-DELUSION by Closer to the Edge (Apr 16, 2025)
https://closertotheedge.substack.com/p/ … irect=true
"Welcome to Cobb County, Georgia — where a MAGA matriarch held a so-called town hall in the bluest pocket of her blood-red district and got exactly what she wanted: chaos, cameras, and three arrests.
“I’m glad they got thrown out. That’s exactly what I wanted to see happen,” Greene said after the event, without a trace of irony or self-awareness. “This isn’t a political rally or a protest. I held a town hall tonight. You know who was out of line? The protesters.”
Let’s be clear: this wasn’t a conversation. It was a performance — choreographed repression wrapped in the veneer of public service. IDs were checked at the door. Constituents had to prove their ZIP codes. Reporters weren’t allowed to speak to attendees. And questions? Those were pre-screened, filtered for obedience, and recited like a school play script Greene barely skimmed."
Subheadings
** TWO TASERS, THREE ARRESTS, ONE FASCIST CIRCUS
** MARJORIE’S MARTYR COMPLEX IS SHOWING
** DOGE, DECEPTION, AND DISTRICT DISASTER
** CROSS-FIT FOR THEOCRATS, FANTASY FOR FASCISTS
** TASERS AND THEOCRACY: WHAT COMES NEXT
** THEATER OF THE ABSURDHad to. Nails it!!
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Z4E1L … tid=D5vuizI got a bigger kick out of the one below it.
https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=1492894418030848
Oh gosh .. Bernie and AOC draw almost 10,000 in Montana, similar numbers in Idaho and Utah....I know, I know they're preaching to the choir in those States right? Wow If only they would get out of their safe havens.. LMAO
Related Discussions
- 158
Trump and GOP to slash Medicaid just to line pockets of Fat Cats?
by Credence2 4 months ago
In the ongoing war Trump and Republicans wage on the poor, here is the next installment.After listening to Trump whine endlessly about "Obamacare" saying it needs to be repealed for something better, all we received was a "nothing burger". Now he shows us all what his ideas of...
- 75
Majority Say Biden Seeking to Jail Trump to Stop His Reelection
by Readmikenow 15 months ago
In our new national poll 56% of all voters think Biden really wants to stop Trump from winning by putting him in jail.Democratic constituencies also have a negative view of Biden's actions with African Americans at 41%, Hispanics at 53%, and women at 53% agreeing.Here are more findings of our poll...
- 15
President Donald Trump Keeps Winning for the United States
by Readmikenow 2 months ago
President Trump secured the border in unprecedented fashion.Illegal border crossings have declined to the lowest level ever recorded — down 94% from last February and down 96% from the all-time high of the Biden Administration. In one sector, illegal border crossings are down 99% over 2023.Fox News...
- 116
Danger: Biden's Presidency akin to the Weimar Republic redux?
by Credence2 17 months ago
I was disturbed by an article I had recently read. The main theme emphasizing similarities between the current administration and the period during the 1920's after WWI and before the deluge of Hitler's ascendency in Germany. Yes, the article is from Salon but its content is still food for thought....
- 109
Partisan Divide in Media Trust
by Ken Burgess 17 months ago
Average of various sources over the last 20 months:75% of Democrats trust National MSM news sourcesLess than 25% of lean/Republicans have any faith in MSM news.Roughly 50% of independents say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence.https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads …...
- 1071
Thinking about how to vote in 2024? I Am!
by Tim Mitchell 11 months ago
We all know it will be party-line loyalty for most voters. According to Pew Research, six percent of voters for the 2022 elections crossed party lines. For the mythical independent voter, it is a binary choice for the President. We are fortunate to be able to assess two Presidents based on criteria...