So-called Anti-Woke, Anti-DEI policy catch-all

[UNCatTech]

Sorry you're upset. Just pointing out the fallacy in your opinion.

I'm not upset at all. You proved nothing by stating that SC has a black representative.
I didn't say that all Republicans are racist, I said that enough are that trump wouldn't have been elected. SC is 1 state in 50, your statement makes no difference nationally.

I'm sick and tired of reading the fence straddling bullshit that you and Zen post. Trump could flat out say that he hates all black people and you two would come back with, oh he probably didn't really mean it, he did support a black person for student council in a high school in Alaska, so...

I'm done. you and Zen are on super ignore. As much as I hate that because I like reading others' opinions, I'm just sick of both of your constant contrarianism style of bullshit fence riding posting.

 

[UNCatTech]

I guess I'll have no more responses on this thread. I've blocked the two people who constantly bring up the same old bullshit. LBGT is all about genitalia and trump isn't really a racist and the maga cult isn't full of racist because they have a black friend, somewhere.

 

[sringwal]

I honestly don't know. Trump is a pretty singular politician in the United states. So it's not like we have the Black version of Trump to compare. Now don't confuse me, I don't compare Obama to Trump in many ways, but they were both charismatic politicians that became president. Obama of course was very tan. So it's not like a black person couldn't become president.

So I'm just not sure where the argument is that if Trump was black he couldn't become president. Republicans have elected black men to other offices. Not many, but it's not impossible.

And of course there's nothing saying that a morally flexible, charismatic celebrity black-Trump couldn't drop the abortion and maybe even the DEI stuff and still run as a Democrat. Isolationism and anti-immigration could be his main platform. Probably be a little tougher to pass a tax break for wealthy people but package it as giving back to the middle class by dropping AMT and supercharging the economy by reducing corporate taxes and slip in some capital gains decreases, and you're right back to White Republican Trump.

I think what I am saying is that a black person who acted like Trump, and said the exact things that Trump says would not be perceived the same as Trump is by some of the MAGA population. I think it would have been enough of a difference that this hypothetical black trump wouldn’t have one the general election and would have had a much harder time coming out of the primaries.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I was responding to your question about whether people should have been upset, given that it was put back up. Of course people (including republicans) were upset during the time after it was taken down and before it was put back up.

And back to the administration lying…Katie Britt tweeted that this was malicious compliance, and Pete Hegseth…agreed! And said it would be corrected.

So…which the fuck is it? Malicious compliance or they took it down for editing (which isn’t necessary and a lame excuse, by the way) and always had every intention of putting it back on the website? Wouldn’t Hegseth know? They lied then or are lying now (probably both).

And as for why they put it back up, I think they realized some of this was just a little too much. Plus, since the republicans were falsely screeching about malicious compliance, they kind of had to put it back, no?

I would hazard a Guess that they lied when they said they took it down for editing. I didn't see that quote but if they said it, I don't buy it.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I think what I am saying is that a black person who acted like Trump, and said the exact things that Trump says would not be perceived the same as Trump is by some of the MAGA population. I think it would have been enough of a difference that this hypothetical black trump wouldn’t have one the general election and would have had a much harder time coming out of the primaries.

I just don't know. Maybe you're right. But I could definitely see someone having similar views and as charismatic as Trump and having plenty of pigment.

I'm just having a tough time figuring out who might fit the bill. But then again, I can't think of any white person who would be able to take the same course as Trump either.

 

[sringwal]

But what I think that I am really saying, though, is that - had Trump been born black, then he would never have been able to become the Trump that ran for president in the first place. A lot of folks had to “look the other way” to allow Trump to get where he is.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

What I am really saying, though, is that - had Trump been born black, then he would never have been able to become the Trump that ran for president in the first place. A lot of folks had to “look the other way” to allow Trump to get where he is.

Maybe. Being rich and famous lets you get away with more stuff. In other words, I can definitely see a rich and famous black guy getting away with the stuff Trump got away with before I could see a poor and unknown white guy getting away with the same stuff.

But could I see a rich and famous black guy getting away with it at all? Cosby, R Kelly and Puffy got away with some pretty terrible stuff until they didn't. I guess we don't really know if any other dark Trump is getting away with stuff.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I was responding to your question about whether people should have been upset, given that it was put back up. Of course people (including republicans) were upset during the time after it was taken down and before it was put back up.

And back to the administration lying…Katie Britt tweeted that this was malicious compliance, and Pete Hegseth…agreed! And said it would be corrected.

So…which the fuck is it? Malicious compliance or they took it down for editing (which isn’t necessary and a lame excuse, by the way) and always had every intention of putting it back on the website? Wouldn’t Hegseth know? They lied then or are lying now (probably both).

And as for why they put it back up, I think they realized some of this was just a little too much. Plus, since the republicans were falsely screeching about malicious compliance, they kind of had to put it back, no?

How many things in various agencies that have been taken down have not been put back up? This isn't just a handful of agencies or items, there have been plenty of news stories since Trump's DEI "crackdown" of minority heroes being removed from websites and public exhibits from many different agencies, organizations, departments, etc. And of course they're lying - all these people are doing is following the directives of Trump and their bosses. I wonder how many LGBTQ people have been removed and not restored? I'd bet a good many, and they won't be coming back.

 

[sringwal]

Maybe. Being rich and famous lets you get away with more stuff. In other words, I can definitely see a rich and famous black guy getting away with the stuff Trump got away with before I could see a poor and unknown white guy getting away with the same stuff.

But could I see a rich and famous black guy getting away with it at all? Cosby, R Kelly and Puffy got away with some pretty terrible stuff until they didn't. I guess we don't really know if any other dark Trump is getting away with stuff.

I’m talking more about the back door deals than the scandals.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I guess I'll have no more responses on this thread. I've blocked the two people who constantly bring up the same old bullshit. LBGT is all about genitalia and trump isn't really a racist and the maga cult isn't full of racist because they have a black friend, somewhere.

Trust me, you're better off. I put both of them on ignore awhile ago and it's a much better experience reading the board. Of course they'll say it's because I only want a "liberal echo chamber", which is bullshit. If there were arguing in good faith it would be different, but they're simply not. They love yanking people's chains here by being deliberately dense and arguing in circles as long as the other poster is willing to keep arguing or posting. It's not worth the time or effort, imo.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I’m talking more about the back door deals than the scandals.

That I agree with. Same with Epstein. I can't think of anyone black and famous that got that kind of pass.

 

[finesse]

I think what I am saying is that a black person who acted like Trump, and said the exact things that Trump says would not be perceived the same as Trump is by some of the MAGA population. I think it would have been enough of a difference that this hypothetical black trump wouldn’t have one the general election and would have had a much harder time coming out of the primaries.

I don't think that a black person could have made the alliance with the Christian Nationalists, the power structure of the Republican Party and/ or the adulation from the rightwing media. It took all three of those to get us here and the foundations were laid when Trump wasn't even a contender. I think everybody is a little surprised by how this played out.

 

[Tarheeljoe]

This is what I have been saying, but you did it better. Which is why I am glad you are here.

Thank you my friend. I finally decided to do a political post and of course no response. Perhaps it was too fact-based.

 

[Tarheeljoe]

Seriously Pete has a wonderful resume. He's highly qualified.

But you are wasting time reading zen for anything other than opinions.

Of course he is, if nothing else because he is highly intelligent and quick on his feet. His experience as mayor certainly gave him at least basic experience with many aspects of transportation. My point is that there was likely someone out there with tons of experience but Pete brings so much more to the table than just that one aspect.

 

[ZenMode]

But then you are back in the conundrum of the post that you didn't reply to from today. I will cut and paste:

"Zen, you keep treating this like the NBA draft and every candidate for a government job can be rank-ordered 1-30. If that were true, it would be easy to say something like "Hey, you picked the #7 ranked cabinet secretary with the first pick because he is black. What a terrible decision!"

But it doesn't work that way for most jobs. It is pretty easy to generate a pool of candidates that have equal qualifications for a given job."

If you have a large applicant pool, there are likely many qualified candidates that would all do the job well. There is no objective measure to decide amongst these folks, so it doesn't matter what criteria you use to make your choice. There is no "one best option." There are tons of judgment calls - this one may write a little better than the others, but that other one is a slightly better public speaker, and the other one over there speaks three languages, but that other one is better at math, that one in the corner gets along slightly better with people they haven't met, and that one is better at delivering tough constructive criticism, that one grew up poor and has demonstrated that they can overcome adversity, this one... And on and on.

If it is not possible to ascertain the "best" candidate for a job but you identify a pool of candidates who would all do a good job, then it doesn't matter what you use as the tie breaker.

(And that is before you take into account that there may be something about their unique background that is a factor that makes them better at the job they are being considered for. There are plenty of management studies that say diversity in backgrounds on, for example, an executive team is a good hedge against groupthink, which can degrade the effectiveness of an organization)

In which cabinet position, or otherwise, is "I'm not sure if I'm a man or woman" or "I want my partner to have the same genitals as me" a relevant criteria?

 

[sringwal]

Are you seriously arguing that the impact on gender of who a politician is attracted didn’t matter until recently?

 

[roostra]

In which cabinet position, or otherwise, is "I'm not sure if I'm a man or woman" or "I want my partner to have the same genitals as me" a relevant criteria?

I am really trying hard to believe that you aren't just trolling in bad faith (which seems more and more likely with each past you make), so here goes:

Aside from the general value of having someone who has maybe had different experiences than many, and thus a different perspective, one example could be the Department of Justice - someone who is a member of a subgroup that has experienced discrimination might have some insight on civil rights.

And again, you bear the burden to show that (1) anyone was hired for a cabinet position solely based on the fact that they were gay (or whatever other characteristic that you find objectionable) and (2) that anyone you assert as hired for that position was not qualified for the job. (and if your argument that they were only the second or third or fourth most qualifies, then who should have gotten their spot).

 

[Zoo_View]

JD Vance....case closed.

Donald Trump, Dubya, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Madison Cawthorn, Matt Gaetz, Mike Johnson, Pat McCrory, Matt Doherty, John Bunting……..

 

[Zoo_View]

Were they really that right to be all upset about it. It came back in what less than a week? Trump didn't have to. Trump has taken plenty of unpopular positions and reveled in it. But the administration put back the Tuskegee airmen and all the others because they either don't really care about individuals breaking some barrier or actually celebrate it.

 

[ZenMode]

I am really trying hard to believe that you aren't just trolling in bad faith (which seems more and more likely with each past you make), so here goes:

Aside from the general value of having someone who has maybe had different experiences than many, and thus a different perspective, one example could be the Department of Justice - someone who is a member of a subgroup that has experienced discrimination might have some insight on civil rights.

And again, you bear the burden to show that (1) anyone was hired for a cabinet position solely based on the fact that they were gay (or whatever other characteristic that you find objectionable) and (2) that anyone you assert as hired for that position was not qualified for the job. (and if your argument that they were only the second or third or fourth most qualifies, then who should have gotten their spot).

I've laid out support for my claims a few times.

Here and here