What IF

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 12 days ago

   
   If Kamala Harris was president, how would America be better?   How would Kamala Harris' policies be far more humane than Trump especially in terms of the migrant issue?  Also, Kamala Harris would broaden DEI policies in terms of pure meritocracy? How would Kamala Harris created a more inclusive, better America? Your thoughts

   replyreport
   1. 76

      wildernessposted 12 days agoin reply to this

      If a "dinosaur killer" fell on Omaha, how would America be better?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Kyler J Falkposted 12 days agoin reply to this

         Not the corn! Anything but the corn! America needs her corn!

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Ken Burgessposted 12 days agoin reply to this

            What would have changed IF...
            
            Well, there would be no tariff wars....
            
            Migrants would be coming in at between 3 and 4 million a year, easily.
            
            Rights of Parents to protect their children would continue to be assaulted.
            
            Men would still be able to compete against women in women's sports.
            
            Our ability to vent our opinions online would be eradicated, and we would be facing serious criminal charges, like they do in the UK, for voicing anything considered 'wrong speak'.
            
            Florida would be under direct assault as the Fed targets this state in particular as it is one of the few remaining bastions of sanity and reason.
            
            Etc. etc.

            replyreport
2. 83

   Sharlee01posted 8 days ago

   Just my view ---The idea that Kamala Harris would create a “more humane” immigration policy might sound appealing on paper, but it doesn’t hold up under pressure. What’s humane about incentivizing millions to flood the border, overwhelming cities, draining social services, and creating chaos in local communities? Under Biden-Harris policies, we've seen record-high illegal crossings, and Kamala, tasked with solving the border crisis, was notoriously absent. Her so-called “root causes” strategy was more of a PR move than a solution, pouring U.S. taxpayer money into corrupt Central American governments instead of securing our own border. That’s not humane; that’s negligence wrapped in buzzwords.
   
   And let’s talk about DEI. Harris’s vision of “diversity” is identity-based redistribution of opportunity, not actual merit-based success. Stripping degree requirements from federal jobs or prioritizing candidates based on race, gender, or sexual identity over qualifications isn’t meritocracy; it’s soft discrimination. It undermines excellence and creates resentment. Trump, for all his bluntness, prioritized results over ideology. He didn’t care who you were if you could get the job done. That’s real equality: treating people the same and expecting performance, not pandering to check boxes.
   
   As for “inclusivity,” the left uses that word to push top-down cultural engineering. Harris supports policies that crush dissent in the name of “equity.” Whether it’s speech codes, ESG mandates, or the censorship of so-called “misinformation,” her agenda would grow the surveillance state in the name of fairness. Trump, on the other hand, pushed for free speech, deregulation, and putting America first, not apologizing for it.
   
   So no, a Kamala Harris presidency wouldn’t be more humane or inclusive; it would be more bureaucratic, more divisive, and more chaotic. If you care about borders, law and order, the Constitution, and rewarding hard work, Trump’s leadership offers accountability and a clear direction. Harris offers soft slogans that disguise hard failures. As she said,  “There is not a thing that comes to mind… I’ve been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact.”

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Willowarborposted 7 days agoin reply to this

      And let’s talk about DEI. Harris’s vision of “diversity” is identity-based redistribution of opportunity, not actual merit-based success. Stripping degree requirements from federal jobs or prioritizing candidates based on race, gender, or sexual identity over qualifications isn’t meritocracy; it’s soft discrimination.
      
      But that was never her vision at all. Not in any stretch of the imagination.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         wildernessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

         Then she should never have supported DEI.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Willowarborposted 7 days agoin reply to this

            The framing of DEI by conservatives  is disingenuous.  People can keep repeating these false narratives but it will never make them true in reality...
            
            Diversity hiring, in its intended meaning, does not imply hiring based solely on identity markers at the expense of qualifications. Instead, it refers to eliminating biases from the recruitment process to ensure that all candidates are evaluated fairly and have equal opportunities to be considered based on their skills and merit... Conservatives continue to frame and diversity initiatives as affirmative action, which was abolished quite a long time ago...

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

               "The framing of DEI by conservatives  is disingenuous.  People can keep repeating these false narratives but it will never make them true in reality..." Willow
               
               Conservatives tend to view DEI initiatives as misguided efforts that prioritize identity over merit. From their perspective, DEI often undermines the principle of meritocracy by emphasizing race, gender, or other demographic factors instead of individual qualifications and performance. They argue that this shift erodes fairness and weakens institutional standards. Many also believe that DEI fosters division by framing people primarily as members of identity groups rather than as individuals united by shared values. Conservatives typically support equality of opportunity, ensuring everyone has a fair shot, rather than equity, which they see as forced equality of outcomes that can lead to reverse discrimination.
               
               Mandatory DEI training and policies are often criticized for suppressing open discourse and promoting a narrow ideological agenda that threatens free speech. The bureaucratic costs of DEI programs are another common concern, with critics arguing that taxpayer dollars should be spent on practical, results-driven services instead of symbolic gestures. Most conservatives aren't opposed to fairness or inclusion; rather, they advocate for individual achievement, personal responsibility, and identity-neutral policies that benefit all Americans.
               
               This outlook stands in sharp contrast to liberal perspectives, which often embrace DEI as essential for correcting historical inequalities and ensuring representation.. It is important to recognize that conservative beliefs about DEI differ fundamentally from liberal ones, and they have just as much right to hold and express those beliefs. To label their views as "false narratives" is not only dismissive, it’s also deeply unfair. 
               
               To me, the liberal attitude toward DEI often seems so rigid that even expressing a different viewpoint is treated as offensive or unacceptable. Just questioning the effectiveness or fairness of DEI policies is often met with accusations of bigotry or ignorance, rather than with open discussion. That kind of response shuts down meaningful dialogue and replaces debate with moral condemnation.
               
               It sends the message that if you don’t fully embrace their definition of equity or inclusion, you’re automatically labeled as part of the problem. That’s not tolerance, that’s ideological bullying.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Willowarborposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                  "Conservatives tend to view DEI initiatives as misguided efforts that prioritize identity over merit.
                  
                  Well conservatives either don't understand what dei actually is or they are purposefully portraying it incorrectly.  In reality, it is almost nothing that conservatives portray it to be.  I do not believe that anyone on this forum has ever given real world examples of dei policy that align with the conservative talking points...

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                     I went to great lengths to present a conservative perspective on DEI.
                     
                     I strongly disagree with the claim that conservatives either don’t understand DEI or purposely misrepresent it. The criticism from many conservatives isn’t based on ignorance or distortion but on observed outcomes and practical effects of DEI initiatives as implemented in many institutions.
                     
                     It’s not about rejecting diversity or fairness—many conservatives support equal opportunity, but about questioning whether certain DEI practices create new forms of unfairness or divisiveness. When real-world examples include cases where more qualified candidates are passed over in favor of meeting demographic targets, or where open dialogue is stifled because it challenges prevailing DEI narratives, these are valid concerns, not baseless conservative rhetoric.
                     
                     So, the conservative view is not a misunderstanding or a mischaracterization; it’s a reasoned critique based on how DEI is often applied, and it deserves to be engaged with honestly rather than dismissed outright.

                     replyreport