ex-President Trump

but he said he would do it on day one!

eagerly looking forward to when Trump ends the war in Ukraine in a few months and Dems complain about it.

Just like people complained about Trump bringing peace to the middle east and ending decades of conflict with north korea.

I love a good Home Alone reference. Very well done.

Of course she got some votes for and against her because of both racism and sexism, but you think when you net those votes out they played a bigger role than her campaign strategy?

Is your point that someone can be competent and qualified even if they are hired because of their sex and/or race?

So lets say you have 10 candidates you think are competent and qualified for a job you are trying to fill - you are suggesting that hiring someone outside of who you think are the top 3 best candidates because you are racist/sexist and want someone who fits your race and sex preferences doesn't mean your #4 isn't qualified/competent because you think everyone in your top 10 is qualified/competent.

Which he pivoted away from last night when he was signing orders and was asked. He said he has to meet with Putin first, but was very, very clear that it wouldn't have started if he had won in 2020 😃

How was she qualified most of her career advancements came from special favors she performed for Willie Brown . She barely made a dent in the first campaign other than calling Biden a racist

Though I would call Tim Walz a DEI hire as well . She was appointing a white male no matter what

Nonsense like this just weakens the whole "anti-DEI" argument. There is no one person that is the "best candidate" for P or VP. Vice presidents have always been chosen to fill some demographic gap that the president and/or party thinks will get them the most votes. And similarily, in the end, presidential candidates are chosen based on how electable their party thinks they are - this may come as a shock to you guys, but their gender and the colour of their skin are factors in that.

For better or for worse, Biden decided that the gender of his candidate was the most important criteria. Not the colour of her skin lozen, you're thinking of what he said about the next Supreme Court justice. Not that it matters, either seems fine to me.

The choice couldn't have been that bad for VP, or at least it didn't cost them the election.

Are there examples of "DEI hires" out there in the world that resulted in poor hires? Yeah, I would expect so. Does it happen so frequently that the resulting anti-DEI backlash is warranted? I highly doubt it. There are probably some organization and corporations that could examine their hiring practices, but this simplistic anti-anything that smacks of DEI movement has taken things WAY too far the other way, where some people feel empowered to scream DEI any time someone who isn't a white male is hired. And it's just silly when people get upset about it for politicians, boards, executive teams, etc. where the qualifications can be more nebulous and it's perfectly legitimate to make diversity one of the hiring criteria in order to be more electable/seen as responsive to customer demographics/bring in perspectives that allow them to be more responsive to demographics.

bobo, i'm sorry but that's just crazy strawmanning to claim you can't find any examples of dei hires not panning out

if you want to be taken seriously, you need to acknowledge some basic tenets first

to begin with, if they are a good candidate, then by definition it's not a DEI hire but a normal hire

now we can debate whether a hire was DEI or not, but that's not what you're doing at all here

If that were true, I don't believe strawmanning is the term you're looking for. But that doesn't matter, because it's not true. As I said:

That's basically my point - DEI is being used as some sort of catch-all for a lot of people, like the two I quoted.

i'm unsure what you're getting at, can you elaborate?

If our next government here can get half of what Trump has done in one day in the five years they'd get I'd be delighted

I believe I did so pretty extensively in the first post. A lot of people yell "DEI" at every opportunity now, often when it's very unwarranted. The particular example I was keying in on here was Kamala Harris as VP, and then a P candidate.

Trump revoked the EO that allowed for sanctions against citizens performing inhumane acts in Gaza

He also revoked the hold on 2000 pound bombs going to Israel

I've already thrown out a 6 month prediction but I wouldn't be surprised if something happened in the next couple of weeks

Ah yes, insisting that an objectively successful career politician only got their success from banging a man in the 90s.

Based take. Not exactly countering my point in the slightest but I appreciate you being honest

You mean making billions in one day from scamming their countrymen?

yes i got that, i agree there's probably a good number of people who are not dei who get that label

i was talking more about your claim that dei candidates do a good job

Now I'm a little lost, because I don't recall making that claim, so I assume I wasn't clear about something, and/or you've misunderstood.

As you well know, this isn't how the conversation goes in the conservative derposphere. If you hire Person X (not a white guy), and Person X turns out to be incompetent, then Person X is deemed by the conservative derposphere to have been a DEI candidate who predictably turned out to be incompetent. If you hire Person Y (a white guy), and Person Y turns out to be incompetent, well, that's just the breaks. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, you end up hiring people who aren't competent.

(In the real world, it's often much more pernicious than what I described above. In the real world, if something bad happens in an organization that is believed to be Democratic or liberal, then the conservative derposphere immediately begins scouring the employment roles in an attempt to argue that the bad thing was caused by DEI hires, regardless of whether that claim holds up to scrutiny or not.)

agreed, but it's not our responsibility to give a platform to those ideas by discussing anything with those people, your lives would be much better if you just put posters like bj on ignore like i have

i think you'd rather spar with the derposphere on uncomfortable issues like this because then you can avoid some uncomfortable truths that perhaps we shouldn't be hiring fire department chiefs for the 3rd richest city in the entire world (after nyc and tokyo) who say their chief mission is equality and not putting out fires

This is a criticism of affirmative action that is at least worth discussing.

And this was the beginning of an absolutely awful effort at proving the point you are trying to make.

agreed, it's by no means evidence of anything beyond cabinet appointments, after i wrote it out i considered deleting for this very reason

but without a doubt, we have 2x the amount of black people living in public housing today than we did when affirmative action started, blacks are still just as poor as before compared to other races, still performing just as poorly in testing, still going to prison at the same rates, etc - there's been absolutely zero measurable uplift whatsoever, all we're doing is helping the kids of black dentists get into a better college and helping the occasional mid level manager reach upper mid level management

I spend almost no time sparring with the conservative derposphere on any issue. I don't have an X account. I don't have a substack. Even here, I rarely bother to argue with the run-of-the-mill MAGA enthusiasts like BJ on any issue.

Your continued characterization of me as some sort of knee jerk liberal who can't face the hard truths of the world is a little mystifying to me, but whatever.

my apologies, i honestly have nothing but utmost respect for you and bobo et al, if i didn't i wouldn't bother responding to you guys

i just feel like instead of looking at the heart of some real issues with no clear answers that could be solved in a myriad of ways that warrant discussing you guys instead opt to just dunk on some inane rant by a poster who is surprisingly not on your ignore list

for example, i can disagree with 100% of what bj posts about dei etc (you guys quote responding to him forcing me to see his drivel) while still viewing dei as a major problem that needs to be eliminated

I get that, but I haven't been going back and forth with BJ.

Admittedly, I have some fun with Playbig, but that's mainly because I find discussions with him to be funny because he is so unhinged and nutty.