|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 27 2024 05:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 05:26 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 04:55 WombaT wrote:On July 27 2024 04:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 27 2024 03:30 Introvert wrote:
Also seems like one should able to point to some sort of demonstrated competence. What has she achieved in her role? The media is busy pretending she was never made "border czar" at the moment so I'm curious to find out what she had managed to do. Being senator and AG not quite the same, at least Pence was a governor. Other VPs are picked because they can be legislative liaisons. But she hasn't taken that role either. I think asking if Kamala Harris has helped to address the illegal immigration situation is a legitimate question. I think that's a good-faith, policy-based question that doesn't just make fun of her laugh or her stepfamily or her sex or her race. Here's the information I was able to find on that topic, which firmly establishes what her role actually was, and explains that she was never chosen as a "border czar": "In March 2021, President Joe Biden assigned Kamala Harris a specialized role: to lead diplomatic efforts aimed at addressing the root causes of migration from Central America's "Northern Triangle" countries—Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Her mission was to tackle the socio-economic and political issues that drive people to leave their homes, a task distinct from managing the U.S. border itself." https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/did-joe-biden-make-kamala-harris-border-czar-to-tackle-illegal-immigration-101721982869354.html This second source adds a little more context: "In 2021, President Biden did task the vice president with a diplomatic role to address the causes of migration from Mexico and Central America – such as violence and political instability – and to work with those countries to strengthen migration enforcement at their own borders. The assignment was similar to one Mr. Biden received as vice president in the Obama White House. At the time, President Biden said he asked the vice president “to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help – are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.”" https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2024/0726/kamala-harris-border-czar-axios-biden#:~:text=Mr. Biden tasked the vice,. Harris “border czar.”As a third source, CBS corroborates Harris's role and dispels the myth of Harris being chosen as a "border czar": "In March 2021, when the Biden administration faced the early stages of an influx in illegal crossings at the U.S. southern border, Mr. Biden tasked Harris with leading the administration's diplomatic campaign to address the "root causes" of migration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, including poverty, corruption, and violence. The region, known as Central America's Northern Triangle, has been one of the main sources of migration to the U.S.-Mexico border over the past decade. Harris was not asked to be the administration's "border czar" or to oversee immigration policy and enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border. That has mainly been the responsibility of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and his department, which oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/ So it seems that Harris's specific role was not to shut down our southern border or prevent illegal immigrants from passing through our gates - a description frequently assumed by those who give her the misnomer of "border czar" - but rather to work with other countries and figure out why their residents are leaving in the first place, and how best to address those underlying issues. From a humanitarian perspective, I think Harris's assignment was a noble one. If progress were made, then it could proactively address the reasons people had for leaving their own countries in the first place, and could possibly figure out ways for those families to be happy and prosperous in their own homes before they decide to leave and travel north to us, rather than just reactively turning away desperate, destitute families at our own border. Was any progress actually made, though? Did Harris manage to move the needle, even a little, when it comes to working with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, to address their people leaving their homes for our southern border? And if so, did it help our illegal immigration issue at all? This TIME article, with the headline of "Kamala Harris Was Never Biden’s ‘Border Czar.’ Here’s What She Really Did", states the following about Harris and what she accomplished in her humanitarian role: "Her mandate was much narrower: to focus on examining and improving the underlying conditions in the Northern Triangle of Central America—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—which has been racked by decades of poverty, war, chronic violence, and political instability. The strategy relied on allocating billions for economic programs and stimulating private-sector investment in the region in hopes that these programs would ultimately lead fewer migrants to make the dangerous journey north. ... The so-called "root causes strategy" focused on improving economic and security conditions by creating jobs, combating corruption, improving human and labor rights, and reducing violence. Harris allocated funds for humanitarian relief from natural disasters, and directed more than 10 million COVID-19 vaccines to the Northern Triangle countries. She held bilateral meetings with the region's leaders, as well as meetings with NGOs, business executives and human rights advocates. She worked with the U.S. Justice Department to launch an Anti-Corruption task force focused on prosecuting corruption cases with ties to the region, as well as Anti-Migrant Smuggling task forces in Mexico and Guatemala. Most importantly, Harris spearheaded a public-private partnership that, as of March 2024, had secured commitments from major U.S. and multi-national companies to invest more than $5 billion in the region. The Vice President "put her name on the line with very serious senior CEOs and kind of created a brand appeal for Central America that didn't exist," says Ricardo Zúniga, who until recently served as the U.S. special envoy to Central America. Harris also spent time in Washington communicating with regional leaders. One tangible result, according to two former U.S. officials, was that it gave the U.S. the standing and relationships to help prevent Guatemalan prosecutors from overturning the results of last year’s presidential election, which was won by anti-corruption outsider Bernardo Arévalo. While delayed, the ultimately peaceful transition of power avoided the political instability that Biden Administration officials feared could cause a spike in migration. The U.S. applied public pressure through sanctions and visa restrictions on officials they accused of undermining the democratic process, as well as behind the scenes. Harris's team was directly involved, especially her national security adviser Philip Gordon, who traveled to the region to push for a peaceful democratic transfer of power, according to the two former U.S. officials. ... Much of Harris’s work failed to break through back home. Instead, she became the target of Republican broadsides about the border crisis and was repeatedly criticized for not visiting the U.S.-Mexico border. "She's dealing with a narrative problem," says Zuniga. With immigration topping the list of Americans’ concerns, according to recent Gallup polls, an ongoing humanitarian crisis at the border, and political deadlock on immigration reform and funding, Harris emerged as the most visible scapegoat." https://time.com/7001817/kamala-harris-immigration/As you can see from the above article, Harris did quite a bit to assist the Northern Triangle's emigration issues. And, thankfully, all of her hard work resulted in a reduction of their emigration towards the United States: "illegal crossings along the U.S. southern border by migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have decreased significantly every year since 2021." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/ What about on a broader scale - not just the Northern Triangle countries? Well, for that, we can see how both Harris and Biden deserve plenty of credit in regards to addressing overall illegal immigration and unlawful border crossings: "As the second-highest ranking member of the Biden administration, Harris will also likely face questions over the all-time levels of unlawful border crossings reported in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Those crossings, however, have plunged this year, reaching a three-year low in June, after Mr. Biden issued an executive order banning most migrants from asylum." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/If I remember correctly, Biden's executive order was issued in retaliation to Republicans pulling out of the bipartisan border security bill due to Trump's clarion call. That means that both Biden and Harris deserve significant credit for making some progress in addressing the illegal immigration issue over the past few years, despite Trump and Congressional Republicans' best efforts to worsen the border crisis just so Trump can reference it during his presidential run. Man puts in the research yards! Eh.. better research would be to put the year 2021 in google's search criteria to see what the news was actually saying at the time instead of what the modern day news is telling you they were saying at the time. For example it took me 30 seconds to find this article https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56516332US President Joe Biden has put Vice-President Kamala Harris in charge of controlling migration at the southern border following a big influx of new arrivals.
Announcing Ms Harris's appointment as his immigration czar, Mr Biden told reporters and officials at the White House: "She's the most qualified person to do it, to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle [Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador], and the countries that are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks - stemming the migration to our southern border". So according to the BBC she wasn't a border czar, she was the "immigration czar" tasked with controlling migration at the southern border. I guess that's way different and not just a transparent attempt to memory hole Kamala's role on the border. /shrug The very long post I wrote about that subject makes it clear that the umbrella term of "immigration" contains far more nuance than just guarding the U.S.-Mexico border, and that while Harris's Northern Triangle role clearly falls under the category of "immigration", it absolutely isn't the same as being a "border czar". So yes, it is way different. Just because the word "czar" appears both times doesn't mean that the two contexts are identical or interchangeable. I'm puzzled as to why some people are trying to make "border czar" stick. Is it because "successful humanitarian and significant immigration reformer while being vice president" is too long of a description for Harris, despite it being more accurate?
Being tasked with stemming migration while 10 million migrants came in might have something to do with it
|
On July 27 2024 04:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 04:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 27 2024 03:30 Introvert wrote:
Also seems like one should able to point to some sort of demonstrated competence. What has she achieved in her role? The media is busy pretending she was never made "border czar" at the moment so I'm curious to find out what she had managed to do. Being senator and AG not quite the same, at least Pence was a governor. Other VPs are picked because they can be legislative liaisons. But she hasn't taken that role either. I think asking if Kamala Harris has helped to address the illegal immigration situation is a legitimate question. I think that's a good-faith, policy-based question that doesn't just make fun of her laugh or her stepfamily or her sex or her race. Here's the information I was able to find on that topic, which firmly establishes what her role actually was, and explains that she was never chosen as a "border czar": "In March 2021, President Joe Biden assigned Kamala Harris a specialized role: to lead diplomatic efforts aimed at addressing the root causes of migration from Central America's "Northern Triangle" countries—Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Her mission was to tackle the socio-economic and political issues that drive people to leave their homes, a task distinct from managing the U.S. border itself." https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/did-joe-biden-make-kamala-harris-border-czar-to-tackle-illegal-immigration-101721982869354.html This second source adds a little more context: "In 2021, President Biden did task the vice president with a diplomatic role to address the causes of migration from Mexico and Central America – such as violence and political instability – and to work with those countries to strengthen migration enforcement at their own borders. The assignment was similar to one Mr. Biden received as vice president in the Obama White House. At the time, President Biden said he asked the vice president “to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help – are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.”" https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2024/0726/kamala-harris-border-czar-axios-biden#:~:text=Mr. Biden tasked the vice,. Harris “border czar.”As a third source, CBS corroborates Harris's role and dispels the myth of Harris being chosen as a "border czar": "In March 2021, when the Biden administration faced the early stages of an influx in illegal crossings at the U.S. southern border, Mr. Biden tasked Harris with leading the administration's diplomatic campaign to address the "root causes" of migration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, including poverty, corruption, and violence. The region, known as Central America's Northern Triangle, has been one of the main sources of migration to the U.S.-Mexico border over the past decade. Harris was not asked to be the administration's "border czar" or to oversee immigration policy and enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border. That has mainly been the responsibility of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and his department, which oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/ So it seems that Harris's specific role was not to shut down our southern border or prevent illegal immigrants from passing through our gates - a description frequently assumed by those who give her the misnomer of "border czar" - but rather to work with other countries and figure out why their residents are leaving in the first place, and how best to address those underlying issues. From a humanitarian perspective, I think Harris's assignment was a noble one. If progress were made, then it could proactively address the reasons people had for leaving their own countries in the first place, and could possibly figure out ways for those families to be happy and prosperous in their own homes before they decide to leave and travel north to us, rather than just reactively turning away desperate, destitute families at our own border. Was any progress actually made, though? Did Harris manage to move the needle, even a little, when it comes to working with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, to address their people leaving their homes for our southern border? And if so, did it help our illegal immigration issue at all? This TIME article, with the headline of "Kamala Harris Was Never Biden’s ‘Border Czar.’ Here’s What She Really Did", states the following about Harris and what she accomplished in her humanitarian role: "Her mandate was much narrower: to focus on examining and improving the underlying conditions in the Northern Triangle of Central America—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—which has been racked by decades of poverty, war, chronic violence, and political instability. The strategy relied on allocating billions for economic programs and stimulating private-sector investment in the region in hopes that these programs would ultimately lead fewer migrants to make the dangerous journey north. ... The so-called "root causes strategy" focused on improving economic and security conditions by creating jobs, combating corruption, improving human and labor rights, and reducing violence. Harris allocated funds for humanitarian relief from natural disasters, and directed more than 10 million COVID-19 vaccines to the Northern Triangle countries. She held bilateral meetings with the region's leaders, as well as meetings with NGOs, business executives and human rights advocates. She worked with the U.S. Justice Department to launch an Anti-Corruption task force focused on prosecuting corruption cases with ties to the region, as well as Anti-Migrant Smuggling task forces in Mexico and Guatemala. Most importantly, Harris spearheaded a public-private partnership that, as of March 2024, had secured commitments from major U.S. and multi-national companies to invest more than $5 billion in the region. The Vice President "put her name on the line with very serious senior CEOs and kind of created a brand appeal for Central America that didn't exist," says Ricardo Zúniga, who until recently served as the U.S. special envoy to Central America. Harris also spent time in Washington communicating with regional leaders. One tangible result, according to two former U.S. officials, was that it gave the U.S. the standing and relationships to help prevent Guatemalan prosecutors from overturning the results of last year’s presidential election, which was won by anti-corruption outsider Bernardo Arévalo. While delayed, the ultimately peaceful transition of power avoided the political instability that Biden Administration officials feared could cause a spike in migration. The U.S. applied public pressure through sanctions and visa restrictions on officials they accused of undermining the democratic process, as well as behind the scenes. Harris's team was directly involved, especially her national security adviser Philip Gordon, who traveled to the region to push for a peaceful democratic transfer of power, according to the two former U.S. officials. ... Much of Harris’s work failed to break through back home. Instead, she became the target of Republican broadsides about the border crisis and was repeatedly criticized for not visiting the U.S.-Mexico border. "She's dealing with a narrative problem," says Zuniga. With immigration topping the list of Americans’ concerns, according to recent Gallup polls, an ongoing humanitarian crisis at the border, and political deadlock on immigration reform and funding, Harris emerged as the most visible scapegoat." https://time.com/7001817/kamala-harris-immigration/As you can see from the above article, Harris did quite a bit to assist the Northern Triangle's emigration issues. And, thankfully, all of her hard work resulted in a reduction of their emigration towards the United States: "illegal crossings along the U.S. southern border by migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have decreased significantly every year since 2021." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/ What about on a broader scale - not just the Northern Triangle countries? Well, for that, we can see how both Harris and Biden deserve plenty of credit in regards to addressing overall illegal immigration and unlawful border crossings: "As the second-highest ranking member of the Biden administration, Harris will also likely face questions over the all-time levels of unlawful border crossings reported in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Those crossings, however, have plunged this year, reaching a three-year low in June, after Mr. Biden issued an executive order banning most migrants from asylum." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/If I remember correctly, Biden's executive order was issued in retaliation to Republicans pulling out of the bipartisan border security bill due to Trump's clarion call. That means that both Biden and Harris deserve significant credit for making some progress in addressing the illegal immigration issue over the past few years, despite Trump and Congressional Republicans' best efforts to worsen the border crisis just so Trump can reference it during his presidential run. Man puts in the research yards!
Thanks  I freely admit that I'm not well-versed in immigration reform, so doing some research on this topic can help me better understand the subject while simultaneously learning about some of Harris's vice presidential accomplishments. I think it'd be ideal if Harris could communicate these immigrations wins, either during a debate vs. Trump, during rallies, or during advertisements, because I don't think many people have a good understanding of this.
|
On July 27 2024 05:34 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 05:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 05:09 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 04:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 04:04 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 03:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 03:18 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 01:23 Elroi wrote:
Didn’t Biden say he would choose a black woman for vp before making the choice? That would effectively make it a “diversity hire” by definition (if that were indeed the case, I don’t remember). It seems the best way to shut down the “diversity hire” talk would be to stop going around bragging about how you’re going to hire people for their diversity. Just a thought. Not if Republicans keep bringing it up unprovoked anyway, anytime someone isn't a white man. Not that effective a strat in reality. This ain't complicated. When one group is so outspokenly against diversity, so outspokenly against equity, and so outspokenly against inclusion, they're telling you who they are. Believe them. "I'm only going to consider hiring a black person for this job" "Hey man that's not cool, you shouldn't favor an applicant based on the color of their skin and exclude all other races." "Why are you against hiring a black person you racist fuck" I know you think that makes sense but it doesn't to me. Then I can help. When Biden announced he would be selecting someone of a certain demographic for the Supreme Court if he got the chance, someone with a reasonable amount of skepticism would say "okay, he said X, which makes me worry that Y is going to happen", "Y" being you get an incompetent or under qualified candidate that fits a demographic, and was seemingly chosen only for that trait. At that point in time, I would expect anyone reasonable to hold that position. As surprising as it may be, some people disagree with X and Y. That is, we shouldn't limit a pool of applicants for a job on the basis of skin color, even if the eventual hire of the "chosen skin color" is qualified for the job. And it's the same with Kamala Harris. Knee-jerking with "DEI hire" quips is obviously and obliviously looking past all the real reasons she's a central leader in the Democratic party right now. The real reason she is a central leader in the Democratic party is because she is the VP. A large reason she is the VP is because Biden wanted a running mate that checked certain boxes. Disagree with "X" and "Y" in what way? . That we shouldn't hire/exclude on the basis of skin color. Sorry I can't put it anymore plainly than that. You're just decontextualizing what I said, and repeating what you said at the start. You're being willfully ignorant at this point. A shame.
You made the incorrect assumption that I disagreed with hiring on the basis of race because it meant an unqualified person would be hired. When in reality I disagree with hiring on the basis of race, full stop. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
The fact that Kentaji Brown Jackson is qualified for her position is added context but it's completely irrelevant. You seem to think that people only disagree with hiring people for their skin color because they believe it will lead to less qualified people being hired. I'm letting you know that some people disagree with it because it's discriminatory and racist.
|
On July 27 2024 05:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 05:34 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 05:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 05:09 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 04:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 04:04 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 03:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 03:18 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 01:23 Elroi wrote:
Didn’t Biden say he would choose a black woman for vp before making the choice? That would effectively make it a “diversity hire” by definition (if that were indeed the case, I don’t remember). It seems the best way to shut down the “diversity hire” talk would be to stop going around bragging about how you’re going to hire people for their diversity. Just a thought. Not if Republicans keep bringing it up unprovoked anyway, anytime someone isn't a white man. Not that effective a strat in reality. This ain't complicated. When one group is so outspokenly against diversity, so outspokenly against equity, and so outspokenly against inclusion, they're telling you who they are. Believe them. "I'm only going to consider hiring a black person for this job" "Hey man that's not cool, you shouldn't favor an applicant based on the color of their skin and exclude all other races." "Why are you against hiring a black person you racist fuck" I know you think that makes sense but it doesn't to me. Then I can help. When Biden announced he would be selecting someone of a certain demographic for the Supreme Court if he got the chance, someone with a reasonable amount of skepticism would say "okay, he said X, which makes me worry that Y is going to happen", "Y" being you get an incompetent or under qualified candidate that fits a demographic, and was seemingly chosen only for that trait. At that point in time, I would expect anyone reasonable to hold that position. As surprising as it may be, some people disagree with X and Y. That is, we shouldn't limit a pool of applicants for a job on the basis of skin color, even if the eventual hire of the "chosen skin color" is qualified for the job. And it's the same with Kamala Harris. Knee-jerking with "DEI hire" quips is obviously and obliviously looking past all the real reasons she's a central leader in the Democratic party right now. The real reason she is a central leader in the Democratic party is because she is the VP. A large reason she is the VP is because Biden wanted a running mate that checked certain boxes. Disagree with "X" and "Y" in what way? . That we shouldn't hire/exclude on the basis of skin color. Sorry I can't put it anymore plainly than that. You're just decontextualizing what I said, and repeating what you said at the start. You're being willfully ignorant at this point. A shame. You made the incorrect assumption that I disagreed with hiring on the basis of race because it meant an unqualified person would be hired. When in reality I disagree with hiring on the basis of race, full stop. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. The fact that Kentaji Brown Jackson is qualified for her position is added context but it's completely irrelevant. You seem to think that people only disagree with hiring people for their skin color because they believe it will lead to less qualified people being hired. I'm letting you know that some people disagree with it because it's discriminatory and racist.
I used to not understand the difference, either. Just saying it's racist doesn't make it true. I get that it's really hard to grasp what racism means if all you do is listen to Republicans talk about it though.
|
On July 27 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 04:04 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 03:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2024 03:18 BlackJack wrote:On July 27 2024 01:23 Elroi wrote:
Didn’t Biden say he would choose a black woman for vp before making the choice? That would effectively make it a “diversity hire” by definition (if that were indeed the case, I don’t remember). It seems the best way to shut down the “diversity hire” talk would be to stop going around bragging about how you’re going to hire people for their diversity. Just a thought. Not if Republicans keep bringing it up unprovoked anyway, anytime someone isn't a white man. Not that effective a strat in reality. This ain't complicated. When one group is so outspokenly against diversity, so outspokenly against equity, and so outspokenly against inclusion, they're telling you who they are. Believe them. "I'm only going to consider hiring a black person for this job" "Hey man that's not cool, you shouldn't favor an applicant based on the color of their skin and exclude all other races." "Why are you against hiring a black person you racist fuck" I know you think that makes sense but it doesn't to me. Then I can help. When Biden announced he would be selecting someone of a certain demographic for the Supreme Court if he got the chance, someone with a reasonable amount of skepticism would say "okay, he said X, which makes me worry that Y is going to happen", "Y" being you get an incompetent or under qualified candidate that fits a demographic, and was seemingly chosen only for that trait. At that point in time, I would expect anyone reasonable to hold that position. However, what I would also expect the reasonable person to do is hold off on judgment until they see what happens, and if that is indeed the "Y" they were afraid of. From there, the reasonable person would react accordingly, either with "my concern was justified, this was a bad choice that was made for spurious reasons", OR with "turns out my worry was unfounded, the candidate was not just qualified but is also giving representation to an underrepresented group as a bonus". What we got in reality: Ketanji Brown Jackson, easily one of the most proven and qualified judges in the entire country, and a more than worthy choice for the court by any metric. At this point the reasonable person would stop making the fuss that race and gender were a driving force in the selection process, because obviously other factors were considered.So why we're still banging on about this is beyond me. I have to think it's for some other reason. And it's the same with Kamala Harris. Knee-jerking with "DEI hire" quips is obviously and obliviously looking past all the real reasons she's a central leader in the Democratic party right now, and is instead hoping to make the conversation about a different topic. You don't need too many guesses to figure out what that topic is.
I really like the way you laid out the progression of skepticism and reassurance here, and I agree with you that there must be other reasons why some of these targeted individuals are never fully accepted.
|
What did we learn today kids
1) Setting out to hire a black woman for their diversity does not make the person hired a "diversity hire"
2) Being an "immigration czar" tasked with controlling migration at the southern border is way different than being a "border czar"
3) Excluding potential hires on the basis of their skin color is not discriminatory and racist. If you think that then you don't know what racism means.
Good talk.
|
On July 27 2024 07:02 BlackJack wrote:What did we learn today kids 1) Setting out to hire a black woman for their diversity does not make the person hired a "diversity hire" 2) Being an "immigration czar" tasked with controlling migration at the southern border is way different than being a "border czar" 3) Excluding potential hires on the basis of their skin color is not discriminatory and racist. If you think that then you don't know what racism means. Good talk.
If that's all you've learned from the last few pages of discussion, in regards to DEI and Harris's role in immigration reform, then I'm sorry but you're going to need to repeat the class. Don't pretend to be the teacher, when your bad-faith quote mines are inferior to even the most remedial student trying to sincerely educate themselves.
Go back and reread the assignment.
|
And in regards to racism, it's a common right-wing ploy to pretend that racism is a purely individual-level action, and that it's not a systemic issue at all. It's a little reductive, but there's the idea that you can't really be racist against white people, at least in American society, because America is built on a framework that systemically benefits white people, and so individual actions are a drop in the ocean by comparison. Similar to how one person can recycle or litter, but it really doesn't compare, even society-wide, to the systemic waste generated by corporations. The systemic component is dominant, and defines the character of the problem.
|
United States41958 Posts
On July 26 2024 19:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2024 19:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:It's such a weird piece of shit to fling, especially since she has two stepkids, and especially since Republicans have been shooting themselves in the foot every time they attack women's bodily autonomy, family planning, and reproductive rights. They've also started calling her a DEI pick/nominee, as if the vice president couldn't possibly be qualified to become president. It's just blatantly misogynistic and racist. It's kind of weird for you to assume being a DEI pick is a racist or sexist attack. Those Republicans you mention were not first who as you say "started" this idea, Joe Biden, the current resident also said the same thing about 2 months ago (this was before the incident). Show nested quote +To me, the values of diversity, equality, inclusion are literally — and this is not kidding — the core strengths of America. That’s why I’m proud to have the most diverse administration in history that taps into the full talents of our country. And it starts at the top with the Vice President.
On Memorial Day, I proudly stood with a Black man — the highest order — the first Black Secretary of Defense; second Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Black woman heads of military units who are overseeing the most diverse, strongest fighting force in the history of the world. (Applause.)
Are you really going to pretend that the right doesn’t use DEI as a racial slur?
|
On July 27 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2024 19:56 oBlade wrote:On July 26 2024 19:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:It's such a weird piece of shit to fling, especially since she has two stepkids, and especially since Republicans have been shooting themselves in the foot every time they attack women's bodily autonomy, family planning, and reproductive rights. They've also started calling her a DEI pick/nominee, as if the vice president couldn't possibly be qualified to become president. It's just blatantly misogynistic and racist. It's kind of weird for you to assume being a DEI pick is a racist or sexist attack. Those Republicans you mention were not first who as you say "started" this idea, Joe Biden, the current resident also said the same thing about 2 months ago (this was before the incident). To me, the values of diversity, equality, inclusion are literally — and this is not kidding — the core strengths of America. That’s why I’m proud to have the most diverse administration in history that taps into the full talents of our country. And it starts at the top with the Vice President.
On Memorial Day, I proudly stood with a Black man — the highest order — the first Black Secretary of Defense; second Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Black woman heads of military units who are overseeing the most diverse, strongest fighting force in the history of the world. (Applause.) Are you really going to pretend that the right doesn’t use DEI as a racial slur?
Just going to preemptively drop this link to support your claim, because I'll be away for the evening and of course conservatives are going to continue pretending like their racist views are completely good faith:
https://youtube.com/shorts/9lXLCFd5thk?si=NPMu05aWCk0cOLSp
|
United States41958 Posts
On July 27 2024 08:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2024 19:56 oBlade wrote:On July 26 2024 19:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:It's such a weird piece of shit to fling, especially since she has two stepkids, and especially since Republicans have been shooting themselves in the foot every time they attack women's bodily autonomy, family planning, and reproductive rights. They've also started calling her a DEI pick/nominee, as if the vice president couldn't possibly be qualified to become president. It's just blatantly misogynistic and racist. It's kind of weird for you to assume being a DEI pick is a racist or sexist attack. Those Republicans you mention were not first who as you say "started" this idea, Joe Biden, the current resident also said the same thing about 2 months ago (this was before the incident). To me, the values of diversity, equality, inclusion are literally — and this is not kidding — the core strengths of America. That’s why I’m proud to have the most diverse administration in history that taps into the full talents of our country. And it starts at the top with the Vice President.
On Memorial Day, I proudly stood with a Black man — the highest order — the first Black Secretary of Defense; second Black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Black woman heads of military units who are overseeing the most diverse, strongest fighting force in the history of the world. (Applause.) Are you really going to pretend that the right doesn’t use DEI as a racial slur? Just going to preemptively drop this link to support your claim, because I'll be away for the evening and of course conservatives are going to continue pretending like their racist views are completely good faith: https://youtube.com/shorts/9lXLCFd5thk?si=NPMu05aWCk0cOLSp
You're overthinking it.
It's not especially hidden.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GDg9CRXXEAALCHA?format=jpg&name=small)
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/9wjgbisgytwc1.jpeg)
![[image loading]](https://preview.redd.it/h3gjmlblzmwc1.jpeg?width=650&auto=webp&s=9c731acd24cc7d911a8855890b668676f6668f6f)
![[image loading]](https://preview.redd.it/j2lm98cvhk4d1.jpeg?width=602&auto=webp&s=921124e4b283ad51a15095808d198787f2dacd52)
Conservatives use DEI because they people complain when they use slurs.
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
I mean saying as I only ever was familiarised with the DEI acronym (if not the concept) was in comment sections complaining about blacks ruined muh Star Wars or vidya was ruined by womenz, that tracks
|
On July 27 2024 04:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 03:30 Introvert wrote:
Also seems like one should able to point to some sort of demonstrated competence. What has she achieved in her role? The media is busy pretending she was never made "border czar" at the moment so I'm curious to find out what she had managed to do. Being senator and AG not quite the same, at least Pence was a governor. Other VPs are picked because they can be legislative liaisons. But she hasn't taken that role either. I think asking if Kamala Harris has helped to address the illegal immigration situation is a legitimate question. I think that's a good-faith, policy-based question that doesn't just make fun of her laugh or her stepfamily or her sex or her race. Here's the information I was able to find on that topic, which firmly establishes what her role actually was, and explains that she was never chosen as a "border czar": "In March 2021, President Joe Biden assigned Kamala Harris a specialized role: to lead diplomatic efforts aimed at addressing the root causes of migration from Central America's "Northern Triangle" countries—Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Her mission was to tackle the socio-economic and political issues that drive people to leave their homes, a task distinct from managing the U.S. border itself." https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/did-joe-biden-make-kamala-harris-border-czar-to-tackle-illegal-immigration-101721982869354.html This second source adds a little more context: "In 2021, President Biden did task the vice president with a diplomatic role to address the causes of migration from Mexico and Central America – such as violence and political instability – and to work with those countries to strengthen migration enforcement at their own borders. The assignment was similar to one Mr. Biden received as vice president in the Obama White House. At the time, President Biden said he asked the vice president “to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help – are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.”" https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2024/0726/kamala-harris-border-czar-axios-biden#:~:text=Mr. Biden tasked the vice,. Harris “border czar.”As a third source, CBS corroborates Harris's role and dispels the myth of Harris being chosen as a "border czar": "In March 2021, when the Biden administration faced the early stages of an influx in illegal crossings at the U.S. southern border, Mr. Biden tasked Harris with leading the administration's diplomatic campaign to address the "root causes" of migration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, including poverty, corruption, and violence. The region, known as Central America's Northern Triangle, has been one of the main sources of migration to the U.S.-Mexico border over the past decade. Harris was not asked to be the administration's "border czar" or to oversee immigration policy and enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border. That has mainly been the responsibility of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and his department, which oversees the country's main three immigration agencies, including Customs and Border Protection." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/ So it seems that Harris's specific role was not to shut down our southern border or prevent illegal immigrants from passing through our gates - a description frequently assumed by those who give her the misnomer of "border czar" - but rather to work with other countries and figure out why their residents are leaving in the first place, and how best to address those underlying issues. From a humanitarian perspective, I think Harris's assignment was a noble one. If progress were made, then it could proactively address the reasons people had for leaving their own countries, and could possibly figure out ways for those families to be happy and prosperous in their own homes before they decide to leave and travel north to us, rather than just reactively turning away desperate, destitute families at our own border. Was any progress actually made, though? Did Harris manage to move the needle, even a little, when it comes to working with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, to address their people leaving their homes for our southern border? And if so, did it help our illegal immigration issue at all? This TIME article, with the headline of "Kamala Harris Was Never Biden’s ‘Border Czar.’ Here’s What She Really Did", states the following about Harris and what she accomplished in her humanitarian role: "Her mandate was much narrower: to focus on examining and improving the underlying conditions in the Northern Triangle of Central America—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—which has been racked by decades of poverty, war, chronic violence, and political instability. The strategy relied on allocating billions for economic programs and stimulating private-sector investment in the region in hopes that these programs would ultimately lead fewer migrants to make the dangerous journey north. ... The so-called "root causes strategy" focused on improving economic and security conditions by creating jobs, combating corruption, improving human and labor rights, and reducing violence. Harris allocated funds for humanitarian relief from natural disasters, and directed more than 10 million COVID-19 vaccines to the Northern Triangle countries. She held bilateral meetings with the region's leaders, as well as meetings with NGOs, business executives and human rights advocates. She worked with the U.S. Justice Department to launch an Anti-Corruption task force focused on prosecuting corruption cases with ties to the region, as well as Anti-Migrant Smuggling task forces in Mexico and Guatemala. Most importantly, Harris spearheaded a public-private partnership that, as of March 2024, had secured commitments from major U.S. and multi-national companies to invest more than $5 billion in the region. The Vice President "put her name on the line with very serious senior CEOs and kind of created a brand appeal for Central America that didn't exist," says Ricardo Zúniga, who until recently served as the U.S. special envoy to Central America. Harris also spent time in Washington communicating with regional leaders. One tangible result, according to two former U.S. officials, was that it gave the U.S. the standing and relationships to help prevent Guatemalan prosecutors from overturning the results of last year’s presidential election, which was won by anti-corruption outsider Bernardo Arévalo. While delayed, the ultimately peaceful transition of power avoided the political instability that Biden Administration officials feared could cause a spike in migration. The U.S. applied public pressure through sanctions and visa restrictions on officials they accused of undermining the democratic process, as well as behind the scenes. Harris's team was directly involved, especially her national security adviser Philip Gordon, who traveled to the region to push for a peaceful democratic transfer of power, according to the two former U.S. officials. ... Much of Harris’s work failed to break through back home. Instead, she became the target of Republican broadsides about the border crisis and was repeatedly criticized for not visiting the U.S.-Mexico border. "She's dealing with a narrative problem," says Zuniga. With immigration topping the list of Americans’ concerns, according to recent Gallup polls, an ongoing humanitarian crisis at the border, and political deadlock on immigration reform and funding, Harris emerged as the most visible scapegoat." https://time.com/7001817/kamala-harris-immigration/As you can see from the above article, Harris did quite a bit to assist the Northern Triangle's emigration issues. And, thankfully, all of her hard work resulted in a reduction of their emigration towards the United States: "illegal crossings along the U.S. southern border by migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have decreased significantly every year since 2021." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/ What about on a broader scale - not just the Northern Triangle countries? Well, for that, we can see how both Biden and Harris deserve plenty of credit in regards to addressing overall illegal immigration and unlawful border crossings: "As the second-highest ranking member of the Biden administration, Harris will also likely face questions over the all-time levels of unlawful border crossings reported in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Those crossings, however, have plunged this year, reaching a three-year low in June, after Mr. Biden issued an executive order banning most migrants from asylum." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-immigration-biden-administration-border/If I remember correctly, Biden's executive order was issued in retaliation to Republicans pulling out of the bipartisan border security bill due to Trump's clarion call. That means that both Biden and Harris deserve significant credit for making some progress in addressing the illegal immigration issue over the past few years, despite Trump and Congressional Republicans' best efforts to worsen the border crisis just so Trump can reference it during his presidential run.
I've said before but I will say again I almost admire your ability to just swallow whatever has become DNC taking points and repeat them without even the slightest hesitation or skepticism. It's really shining through with this and the DEI thing. The "Biden-Harris" administration, as some have styled it, has overseen the worst border crisis in our history, and even now some of it is only being mitigated by the administration's abuse of the parole provisions in the law to make the numbers go down without actually stopping ad many people as it appears.
Notably, no where in what you quoted was any actual causal chain linking what she did to any sort of success. It’s been a busy day so I will just pull one quote from an article kind of like you did
Since 2021, immigration from the Central American countries of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, once the leaders in illegal immigration across the southwest border, has fallen from 86,089 in March 2021 to 25,015 in June 2024, according to Customs and Border Protection data. But immigration experts point out that the decline is most likely driven by other factors, including U.S. policies restricting asylum at the border and an increase in Mexican interdictions of U.S.-bound migrants. And during that time, migration from countries like Venezuela and China — where Harris has no involvement in immigration discussions — has mounted. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna163317
So she was given a narrow remit (that was called immigration czar or border czar, including by places like Axios at the time) and the results are...inconclusive to put it nicely. Meanwhile, you are going to either A) try to detach her from the rest of the "Biden-Harris" administration while still using that phrase, or B) try to give her credit for the little bit she was assigned. And also, I did mention she really didn't have much in the way of accomplishments either before or after becoming VP. To be fair, I did specifically mention thr border, but I'm curious if anyone can off the top of their head think of something she done to demonstrate her ability for the top spot. Now, Obama had even less of a resume than she did and most dems consider him a success, but she can't even give a speech like he can. I would at the very least be worried about her ability to win.
|
On July 27 2024 09:01 WombaT wrote:
I mean saying as I only ever was familiarised with the DEI acronym (if not the concept) was in comment sections complaining about blacks ruined muh Star Wars or vidya was ruined by womenz, that tracks
Its pretty obvious why most people pointed out to be DEI hires would be non-white. It's because that's almost the very definition of "diverse." It's an odd thing to point out because presumably the entire group of, say, straight white males, cannot be diverse or inclusive by definition. So it isn't really that surprising, it's the whole point of the diversity exercise. we could say (and indeed much of left-wing discuss says this either explicity or implicitly) that a white man doing a crappy job failed upwards and may have his race and gender to thank for his station above his ability. It's the same thing from a different angle.
Edit: this doesn't have much to do with what random morons say on social media, we could nutpick both sides to death with that.
Edit2: ultimately I think oBlade and BlackJack are right. If you don't want your VP called a DEI hire, don't say something like "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion begins at the top--with the Vice President." Thats a pretty hard statement to spin, though it hasn't stopped some from trying.
|
United States41958 Posts
On July 27 2024 09:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 09:01 WombaT wrote:
I mean saying as I only ever was familiarised with the DEI acronym (if not the concept) was in comment sections complaining about blacks ruined muh Star Wars or vidya was ruined by womenz, that tracks Its pretty obvious why most people pointed out to be DEI hires would be non-white. It's because that's almost the very definition of "diverse." It's an odd thing to point out because presumably the entire group of, say, straight white males, cannot be diverse or inclusive by definition. So it isn't really that surprising, it's the whole point of the diversity exercise. we could say (and indeed much of left-wing discuss says this either explicity or implicitly) that a white man doing a crappy job failed upwards and may have his race and gender to thank for his station above his ability. It's the same thing from a different angle. Edit: this doesn't have much to do with what random morons say on social media, we could nutpick both sides to death with that.
Random morons on social media is just another way of saying conservative voters.
When conservatives say DEI they just think they've come up with a secret code for slurs that they're mad they can't use anymore. If you're not using it to mean that in conservative circles then I'm afraid you're probably the one using it wrong.
|
On July 27 2024 10:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 09:52 Introvert wrote:On July 27 2024 09:01 WombaT wrote:
I mean saying as I only ever was familiarised with the DEI acronym (if not the concept) was in comment sections complaining about blacks ruined muh Star Wars or vidya was ruined by womenz, that tracks Its pretty obvious why most people pointed out to be DEI hires would be non-white. It's because that's almost the very definition of "diverse." It's an odd thing to point out because presumably the entire group of, say, straight white males, cannot be diverse or inclusive by definition. So it isn't really that surprising, it's the whole point of the diversity exercise. we could say (and indeed much of left-wing discuss says this either explicity or implicitly) that a white man doing a crappy job failed upwards and may have his race and gender to thank for his station above his ability. It's the same thing from a different angle. Edit: this doesn't have much to do with what random morons say on social media, we could nutpick both sides to death with that. Random morons on social media is just another way of saying conservative voters. When conservatives say DEI they just think they've come up with a secret code for slurs that they're mad they can't use anymore. If you're not using it to mean that in conservative circles then I'm afraid you're probably the one using it wrong.
Sorry, I am not interested in what you think of conservative voters. Most of your "experience" witg them probably comes from left-wing Twitter accounts. I could trawl the reverse and find all sorts of heinous things. If you don't want people calling the VP a DEI hire, take it up with the president.
|
United States41958 Posts
On July 27 2024 10:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 10:10 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2024 09:52 Introvert wrote:On July 27 2024 09:01 WombaT wrote:
I mean saying as I only ever was familiarised with the DEI acronym (if not the concept) was in comment sections complaining about blacks ruined muh Star Wars or vidya was ruined by womenz, that tracks Its pretty obvious why most people pointed out to be DEI hires would be non-white. It's because that's almost the very definition of "diverse." It's an odd thing to point out because presumably the entire group of, say, straight white males, cannot be diverse or inclusive by definition. So it isn't really that surprising, it's the whole point of the diversity exercise. we could say (and indeed much of left-wing discuss says this either explicity or implicitly) that a white man doing a crappy job failed upwards and may have his race and gender to thank for his station above his ability. It's the same thing from a different angle. Edit: this doesn't have much to do with what random morons say on social media, we could nutpick both sides to death with that. Random morons on social media is just another way of saying conservative voters. When conservatives say DEI they just think they've come up with a secret code for slurs that they're mad they can't use anymore. If you're not using it to mean that in conservative circles then I'm afraid you're probably the one using it wrong. Sorry, I am not interested in what you think of conservative voters. Most of your "experience" witg them probably comes from left-wing Twitter accounts. I could trawl the reverse and find all sorts of heinous things. If you don't want people calling the VP a DEI hire, take it up with the president.
There are 80 million Trump 2020 voters in the US. Are you suggesting I haven't met any of them?
|
On July 27 2024 10:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 10:14 Introvert wrote:On July 27 2024 10:10 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2024 09:52 Introvert wrote:On July 27 2024 09:01 WombaT wrote:
I mean saying as I only ever was familiarised with the DEI acronym (if not the concept) was in comment sections complaining about blacks ruined muh Star Wars or vidya was ruined by womenz, that tracks Its pretty obvious why most people pointed out to be DEI hires would be non-white. It's because that's almost the very definition of "diverse." It's an odd thing to point out because presumably the entire group of, say, straight white males, cannot be diverse or inclusive by definition. So it isn't really that surprising, it's the whole point of the diversity exercise. we could say (and indeed much of left-wing discuss says this either explicity or implicitly) that a white man doing a crappy job failed upwards and may have his race and gender to thank for his station above his ability. It's the same thing from a different angle. Edit: this doesn't have much to do with what random morons say on social media, we could nutpick both sides to death with that. Random morons on social media is just another way of saying conservative voters. When conservatives say DEI they just think they've come up with a secret code for slurs that they're mad they can't use anymore. If you're not using it to mean that in conservative circles then I'm afraid you're probably the one using it wrong. Sorry, I am not interested in what you think of conservative voters. Most of your "experience" witg them probably comes from left-wing Twitter accounts. I could trawl the reverse and find all sorts of heinous things. If you don't want people calling the VP a DEI hire, take it up with the president. There are 80 million Trump 2020 voters in the US. Are you suggesting I haven't met any of them?
Are you suggesting they are all like the people in the screenshots you posted?
|
United States41958 Posts
On July 27 2024 10:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 10:21 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2024 10:14 Introvert wrote:On July 27 2024 10:10 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2024 09:52 Introvert wrote:On July 27 2024 09:01 WombaT wrote:
I mean saying as I only ever was familiarised with the DEI acronym (if not the concept) was in comment sections complaining about blacks ruined muh Star Wars or vidya was ruined by womenz, that tracks Its pretty obvious why most people pointed out to be DEI hires would be non-white. It's because that's almost the very definition of "diverse." It's an odd thing to point out because presumably the entire group of, say, straight white males, cannot be diverse or inclusive by definition. So it isn't really that surprising, it's the whole point of the diversity exercise. we could say (and indeed much of left-wing discuss says this either explicity or implicitly) that a white man doing a crappy job failed upwards and may have his race and gender to thank for his station above his ability. It's the same thing from a different angle. Edit: this doesn't have much to do with what random morons say on social media, we could nutpick both sides to death with that. Random morons on social media is just another way of saying conservative voters. When conservatives say DEI they just think they've come up with a secret code for slurs that they're mad they can't use anymore. If you're not using it to mean that in conservative circles then I'm afraid you're probably the one using it wrong. Sorry, I am not interested in what you think of conservative voters. Most of your "experience" witg them probably comes from left-wing Twitter accounts. I could trawl the reverse and find all sorts of heinous things. If you don't want people calling the VP a DEI hire, take it up with the president. There are 80 million Trump 2020 voters in the US. Are you suggesting I haven't met any of them? Are you suggesting they are all like the people in the screenshots you posted?
All would be a stretch. But basically, yes. The Trump voters I spend most time with will say nigger if they think you can't hear them.
|
On July 27 2024 10:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2024 10:25 Introvert wrote:On July 27 2024 10:21 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2024 10:14 Introvert wrote:On July 27 2024 10:10 KwarK wrote:On July 27 2024 09:52 Introvert wrote:On July 27 2024 09:01 WombaT wrote:
I mean saying as I only ever was familiarised with the DEI acronym (if not the concept) was in comment sections complaining about blacks ruined muh Star Wars or vidya was ruined by womenz, that tracks Its pretty obvious why most people pointed out to be DEI hires would be non-white. It's because that's almost the very definition of "diverse." It's an odd thing to point out because presumably the entire group of, say, straight white males, cannot be diverse or inclusive by definition. So it isn't really that surprising, it's the whole point of the diversity exercise. we could say (and indeed much of left-wing discuss says this either explicity or implicitly) that a white man doing a crappy job failed upwards and may have his race and gender to thank for his station above his ability. It's the same thing from a different angle. Edit: this doesn't have much to do with what random morons say on social media, we could nutpick both sides to death with that. Random morons on social media is just another way of saying conservative voters. When conservatives say DEI they just think they've come up with a secret code for slurs that they're mad they can't use anymore. If you're not using it to mean that in conservative circles then I'm afraid you're probably the one using it wrong. Sorry, I am not interested in what you think of conservative voters. Most of your "experience" witg them probably comes from left-wing Twitter accounts. I could trawl the reverse and find all sorts of heinous things. If you don't want people calling the VP a DEI hire, take it up with the president. There are 80 million Trump 2020 voters in the US. Are you suggesting I haven't met any of them? Are you suggesting they are all like the people in the screenshots you posted? All would be a stretch. But basically, yes. The Trump voters I spend most time with will say nigger if they think you can't hear them.
I think that's absurd but it's hard to contradict a personal belief except to say you must be extremely (un)lucky. Assuming of course this is not an assumption you are making but is indeed based on overhearing the N word whispered frequently by a large number of individuals. I say unlucky because I have a circle of of people I know who know my own leanings and/or are Trump people themselves and I don't hear them use that word...I will say I'm skeptical but somehow I think most people here will believe you.
But you still seem focused on this, so I guess I have to ask. Does the fact that the president said that Kamala was an example of diversity, equity, and inclusion indicate that he and his whole administration is racist? I mean Harris did call him a racist at the debate so maybe! It would certainly be odd though for Dems from the president to large corporations to use "DEI" if it was a slur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
