DEI Programs

[cole256 17,084]

It's hilarious that whenever this topic comes up nobody ever acknowledges why it had to be created in the first place.....always straight to the you aren't hiring white guys and that's whose the best candidate for the jobs!

Truth is you'll never be able to stop the nepotism and racism until the majority lose the numbers and it becomes closer to an even keel. It won't be in anybody's lifetime but there's no way this infrastructure will stay the same either.

[PUB78 1,361]

1 hour ago, cole256 said:

It's hilarious that whenever this topic comes up nobody ever acknowledges why it had to be created in the first place.....always straight to the you aren't hiring white guys and that's whose the best candidate for the jobs!

Truth is you'll never be able to stop the nepotism and racism until the majority lose the numbers and it becomes closer to an even keel. It won't be in anybody's lifetime but there's no way this infrastructure will stay the same either.

 

[cole256 17,084]

22 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

 

Nope. Every single day the minority catches up. It's actually funny watching it happen. You'll have some color soon

[PUB78 1,361]

1 hour ago, cole256 said:

Nope. Every single day the minority catches up. It's actually funny watching it happen. You'll have some color soon

Which is fine. However, for some folks, like Coffee, everyday is 1965.

[Leftfield 2,617]

2 hours ago, PUB78 said:

 

How did you even get this out of his post? Or were you just dying to use this one so you could "own" somebody?

Stay classy.

[alexava 6,973]

4 hours ago, cole256 said:

It's hilarious that whenever this topic comes up nobody ever acknowledges why it had to be created in the first place.....always straight to the you aren't hiring white guys and that's whose the best candidate for the jobs!

Truth is you'll never be able to stop the nepotism and racism until the majority lose the numbers and it becomes closer to an even keel. It won't be in anybody's lifetime but there's no way this infrastructure will stay the same either.

The DEI programs I’m speaking of have absolutely nothing to do with hiring. They put employees who don’t have any input on hiring through it. Lol. That was covered in the 60s. This has more to do with keeping certain people feeling oppressed and hopeless. Keeping straight, white men feeling guilty for being productive and successful. It’s a scam being sold to people without any ability to reason or or balls to call it out. forking out big $ for it. 
    

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Funny how those who love "capitalism" seem to despise equality and democracy.

Is capitalism still an appropriate term for a country that spends incredible sums to subsidize the wealthy and, further their interests?

[GoAU 1,600]

16 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Funny how those who love "capitalism" seem to despise equality and democracy.

Is capitalism still an appropriate term for a country that spends incredible sums to subsidize the wealthy and, further their interests?

Not exactly sure who this was internet for, but I’m all for equality In opportunity, but completely despise trying to force equality in outcome.   It’s just a fact that some individuals will work harder, study more, sacrifice the short term for the long term, etc.   Those individuals deserve the fruits of their labor.  
 

The Marxist / Socialist views you constantly seem to push have always, 100% of the time, resulted in an authoritarian government and loss of individual freedoms.   I know the common answer is that all the other countries that subscribe to these principles have just “never done it right before”, but in reality it’s just human nature.   Giving a government too much power just results in having a government with too much power.  

[icanthearyou 4,463]

6 hours ago, GoAU said:

Not exactly sure who this was internet for, but I’m all for equality In opportunity, but completely despise trying to force equality in outcome.   It’s just a fact that some individuals will work harder, study more, sacrifice the short term for the long term, etc.   Those individuals deserve the fruits of their labor.  
 

The Marxist / Socialist views you constantly seem to push have always, 100% of the time, resulted in an authoritarian government and loss of individual freedoms.   I know the common answer is that all the other countries that subscribe to these principles have just “never done it right before”, but in reality it’s just human nature.   Giving a government too much power just results in having a government with too much power.  

I do not believe you understand where power resides in this country. 

I do not push socialistic or Marxist views.  I would love to restore capitalism and, the government of the people.  I would love to end socialism for the wealthy, "capitalism" for everyone else.  You have to remember,,, the capitalists are, have always been, the real enemy of capitalism.  You do remember the robber barons, do you not?  The capitalist's goal is monopoly, not competition. 

It does not matter if the government owns the means of production or, those who own the means of production own the government (where we are now),,, the masses will suffer and, given time will revolt, even call for socialism/communism.  People like yourself learned nothing from the Great Depression.

In order for capitalism to fulfill it's promise,,, the capitalists must be restrained, relative equality is essential, the government and the private sector must be distinctly separate. 

 

[Leftfield 2,617]

11 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

It does not matter if the government owns the means of production or, those who own the means of production own the government (where we are now),,, the masses will suffer and, given time will revolt, even call for socialism/communism.

In order for capitalism to fulfill it's promise,,, the capitalists must be restrained, relative equality is essential, the government and the private sector must be distinctly separate. 

 

These are actually brilliant paragraphs.

[I_M4_AU 7,889]

40 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

if the government owns the means of production

 

40 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

the masses will suffer and, given time will revolt, even call for socialism/communism.

If the government owns the means of production; that is socialism/communism.

It has to be a balance

56 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

In order for capitalism to fulfill it's promise,,, the capitalists must be restrained, relative equality is essential, the government and the private sector must be distinctly separate. 

Relative equality?  Is that equity?  You said earlier that it doesn’t matter is government or private sectors own the means of production and now you say it must be separate.  Did I misinterpret?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You said earlier that it doesn’t matter is government or private sectors own the means of production

That is not what I said.  Please,,, please, try, try to understand something beyond your prejudices and presuppositions. 

[Leftfield 2,617]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If the government owns the means of production; that is socialism/communism.

It has to be a balance

Not sure how it quoted me on this, as it was ICHY's post, but I think having a balance was his point.

 

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You said earlier that it doesn’t matter is government or private sectors own the means of production and now you say it must be separate.  Did I misinterpret?

You did. You ignored the second half of his sentence.

[I_M4_AU 7,889]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Not sure how it quoted me on this, as it was ICHY's post

I quoted your quote of ICHY’s post and that is how it *quoted* you.  My bad.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,889]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

It does not matter if the government owns the means of production or, those who own the means of production own the government (where we are now),,, the masses will suffer and, given time will revolt, even call for socialism/communism.

Yes, I did misinterpret.  It still stands that if the government owns the means of production then we would be communist.  I believe the people that own the means of production has a heavy influence on our government, but not totally.  I must be an optimist.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, I did misinterpret.  It still stands that if the government owns the means of production then we would be communist.  I believe the people that own the means of production has a heavy influence on our government, but not totally.  I must be an optimist.

Yes, you must.  Wall St. is the government.  

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I quoted your quote of ICHY’s post and that is how it *quoted* you.  My bad.

 

Sincerely,,, I appreciate that, thank you.

[Leftfield 2,617]

9 hours ago, GoAU said:

Not exactly sure who this was internet for, but I’m all for equality In opportunity, but completely despise trying to force equality in outcome.   It’s just a fact that some individuals will work harder, study more, sacrifice the short term for the long term, etc.   Those individuals deserve the fruits of their labor.  
 

The Marxist / Socialist views you constantly seem to push have always, 100% of the time, resulted in an authoritarian government and loss of individual freedoms.   I know the common answer is that all the other countries that subscribe to these principles have just “never done it right before”, but in reality it’s just human nature.   Giving a government too much power just results in having a government with too much power.  

I think you're still misinterpreting how many on the left feel about this. There are very, very few people out there that are pushing for pure Marxism. The push is simply for government regulation to keep our system from spiraling out of control. Most in this country have been raised to think that government intrusion is anathema, which is certainly understandable to an extent, but the reality is that pure Capitalism is just as much a recipe for disaster.

For years I thought that trickle-down economics was a correct way of thinking, because in my naivety I thought people in control of corporations, capital, and large amounts of money would make sure it would filter down. Over time I came to realize that even if those people in power wanted to (and I think many would), the demands on the system won't let them. There is always a pressure for profit. There is always a pressure to stay ahead of the next company. There is always a demand from shareholders. All these demands leave little room to "do the right thing," until there is finally enough public outcry for it. Often that is too late. 

As an example, and I know many on here won't agree, but when gas mileage and emissions standards for cars are increased, there is always a large public pushback. That's understandable, because it will increase product cost. However, I can pretty much guarantee that the heads of car companies are somewhat relieved when it happens because, even though it means more work and investment for their company, at least all their competitors have to do it, as well. They don't have to worry as much about calculating if the investment to improve mileage by 5 MPG is worth the increased sales (which it almost certainly wouldn't be).

There will always be a middle ground that must be struck between Capitalism and Socialism, but jumping straight to the "slippery slope" argument does nothing to advance it. Yes, there is always a danger in giving government too much power, and it takes constant vigilance to hold it to account, but that doesn't mean any government intrusion is a bad thing.

[GoAU 1,600]

5 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

 

It does not matter if the government owns the means of production or, those who own the means of production own the government (where we are now),,, the masses will suffer and, given time will revolt, even call for socialism/communism.  People like yourself learned nothing from the Great Depression.

In order for capitalism to fulfill it's promise,,, the capitalists must be restrained, relative equality is essential, the government and the private sector must be distinctly separate. 

 

I appreciate what you are saying in the first sentence, and actually enjoyed the way you presented the argument - well played and very succinct.   I do disagree with the second half of your post in some ways though, as it implies that the government is the lessor of the 2 evils, and I'm not at all sure that's true.   

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

I think you're still misinterpreting how many on the left feel about this. There are very, very few people out there that are pushing for pure Marxism. The push is simply for government regulation to keep our system from spiraling out of control. Most in this country have been raised to think that government intrusion is anathema, which is certainly understandable to an extent, but the reality is that pure Capitalism is just as much a recipe for disaster.

For years I thought that trickle-down economics was a correct way of thinking, because in my naivety I thought people in control of corporations, capital, and large amounts of money would make sure it would filter down. Over time I came to realize that even if those people in power wanted to (and I think many would), the demands on the system won't let them. There is always a pressure for profit. There is always a pressure to stay ahead of the next company. There is always a demand from shareholders. All these demands leave little room to "do the right thing," until there is finally enough public outcry for it. Often that is too late. 

As an example, and I know many on here won't agree, but when gas mileage and emissions standards for cars are increased, there is always a large public pushback. That's understandable, because it will increase product cost. However, I can pretty much guarantee that the heads of car companies are somewhat relieved when it happens because, even though it means more work and investment for their company, at least all their competitors have to do it, as well. They don't have to worry as much about calculating if the investment to improve mileage by 5 MPG is worth the increased sales (which it almost certainly wouldn't be).

There will always be a middle ground that must be struck between Capitalism and Socialism, but jumping straight to the "slippery slope" argument does nothing to advance it. Yes, there is always a danger in giving government too much power, and it takes constant vigilance to hold it to account, but that doesn't mean any government intrusion is a bad thing.

I don't think I disagree with some of the concepts your referring to here, but I do think we probably have some significant differences on where on the spectrum the line should be drawn and the methods in which they are drawn.

For example, the president being able to arbitrarily and unilaterally change things like emissions standards for cars and utility companies.  Another example is the ATF arbitrarily changing gun laws through unilateral "rules" and not legislation - both examples of Chevron Deference are clear overreach.

  Another example would be the selfish motives that are also demonstrated by the government.  Examples include ridiculous amounts of royalties paid to Faucci during COVID and Biden upping the need for electric cars for the above mentioned mileage requirements, despite blocking mining for the components for the batteries domestically, which in turn increase reliance on Chinese materials.  All the while Hunter and Pelosi jr and making money on the endeavor hand over fist.   Not to mention a potential war looming with China..... 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

31 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I do disagree with the second half of your post in some ways though, as it implies that the government is the lessor of the 2 evils, and I'm not at all sure that's true.   

I don't think it is about the lessor of evils.  I think the political class and the capital class are united and that,,, leaves the vast majority with no power.

The fact that we have allowed the government to be sold is the real problem.  The capital class is the de facto government. 

The government should check the power of capital, not be indebted to it, owned by it.

[GoAU 1,600]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I don't think it is about the lessor of evils.  I think the political class and the capital class are united and that,,, leaves the vast majority with no power.

The fact that we have allowed the government to be sold is the real problem.  The capital class is the de facto government. 

The government should check the power of capital, not be indebted to it, owned by it.

I think there is some truth to that for sure.  I also think the idea of career politicians was never intended.

[Leftfield 2,617]

21 hours ago, GoAU said:

I don't think I disagree with some of the concepts your referring to here, but I do think we probably have some significant differences on where on the spectrum the line should be drawn and the methods in which they are drawn.

For example, the president being able to arbitrarily and unilaterally change things like emissions standards for cars and utility companies.  Another example is the ATF arbitrarily changing gun laws through unilateral "rules" and not legislation - both examples of Chevron Deference are clear overreach.

  Another example would be the selfish motives that are also demonstrated by the government.  Examples include ridiculous amounts of royalties paid to Faucci during COVID and Biden upping the need for electric cars for the above mentioned mileage requirements, despite blocking mining for the components for the batteries domestically, which in turn increase reliance on Chinese materials.  All the while Hunter and Pelosi jr and making money on the endeavor hand over fist.   Not to mention a potential war looming with China..... 

Certainly we'll disagree on where the line should be drawn from time-to-time, but as long as we can agree that a line exists, there's hope that we can find a common ground. I fully understand the concept of the "slippery slope," but that is a phrase which is often used to avoid compromise. 

In regards to the unilateral changes you mention, it's actually the organizations and not the president that set those, though I admit that's splitting hairs since the administrations usually set "their people" in leadership roles. However, these organizations exist for a very good reason - they are staffed with experts in their respective fields, and tasked with steering policies that are in the interest of the public good. Certainly these organizations can be abused, but Congress does have the ability to override them. I admit that's unlikely to happen these days considering the amount of polarization and the fairly even split in Congress, so basically each side has to hope they keep the White House. 

I can't disagree with selfish motives among many in Washington, but you'd have to agree there is plenty on both sides. I'm also curious as to what royalties you are referring to that were paid to Fauci - certainly his compensation increased during the pandemic, but I don't think that was unexpected. From what I've seen his overall net worth is about $12.5 million. Quite frankly, considering he's 82 years old and has been one of the top scientists in government for four decades or more, and his wife is a very prominent government scientist in her own right (and also makes quite a bit in salary and investments), I'm surprised they aren't worth more. 

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

We've been down this road before.  Fortunately, a "socialist" was elected president and,,, he saved democracy and capitalism.

Not to mention winning a world war and ushering in the greatest economic expansion in human history.