President Trump

[irvinehomeowner]

Life‘s a bitch, put your head down and push on through. The whole Kumbaya thing and hoping that others are going to do it for you in this world is Folly and a sure way to go through life envious, resentful and angry.

Typical morekaos response with hyperbole and blame (sounds like someone), it's not about envy, resent or anger.

Your kumbaya do it yourself strategy doesn't work as well when there is bias.

Maybe that's why you work for yourself because you have control... but for the vast majority that is not the case.

Let me exaggerate in response... who of you can go up to a person who is experiencing bias when they are just as if not more qualified and tell them "LIfe is a B?".

Oh wait... when stuff doesn't go your way you say it was rigged or you storm the capital (see I even brought it back on topic).

 

[morekaos]

I don’t think you understand the basics of Capitalism and why it is the most successful system. At its basest Capitalism recognizes that humans are basically selfish, self-centered beings. Self interest (for you and your family) means you care about micro-success and the rest be damned. Communism, socialism, collectivism… whatever you want to call it, assumes humans are charitable, selfless and think as a group….WRONG. Self interest drives individuals to achieve, innovate and succeed, socially and materialistically. That success lifts others and motivates them to attempt to replicate that success… This basic assumption of true human nature is why it works and why collectivism fails….Worry about you, not what others see you as or if they succeed or fail for that matter. Be selfish it’s in your nature.

 

[irvine buyer]

Morgan Freeman nailed it almost 2 decades ago

 

[sgip]

So continue to turn a blind eye.

Easy to say for those who are not on the other side.

Afraid to break it to you, but everyone alive today started out "on the other side" The Donald, Musk, you name anyone born into money could have just as easily spun out of control and wiped out. RFK Jr. Is a great example - born of privileged, became a heroin addict, cleaned up and stayed at it. There is a 50/50 chance for each of us through are own activities to end up on either side of life's balance sheet.

I'm all for helping the hobo's, the addicts, and the mentally ill however possible.

I don't want a blue hair who believes men can get pregnant to be advanced in their employment only because the are of a "protected class".

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Afraid to break it to you, but everyone alive today started out "on the other side" The Donald, Musk, you name anyone born into money could have just as easily spun out of control and wiped out. RFK Jr. Is a great example - born of privileged, became a heroin addict, cleaned up and stayed at it. There is a 50/50 chance for each of us through are own activities to end up on either side of life's balance sheet.

I'm all for helping the hobo's, the addicts, and the mentally ill however possible.

I don't want a blue hair who believes men can get pregnant to be advanced in their employment only because the are of a "protected class".

And I thought you understood.

It's not advancement because of your "class" but because of your qualifications despite your class.

You really miss the point, it is not 50/50 from birth for many people. The more you all try to counter just emphasizes what I'm saying. Especially @irvine buyer ... do you even understand what Morgan Freeman is trying to say?

To put it politely, the lack of empathy here is surprising. Life is a B right? Maybe that B stands for something else.

 

[irvine buyer]

Especially @irvine buyer ... do you even understand what Morgan Freeman is trying to say?

To put it politely, the lack of empathy here is surprising. Life is a B right? Maybe that B stands for something else.

Morgan Freeman is denouncing identity politics, the very thing you embrace with DEI.

Also, to put it politely, empathy is a two-way street. For some people it seems to only run in one direction

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Morgan Freeman is denouncing identity politics, the very thing you embrace with DEI.

Also, to put it politely, empathy is a two-way street. For some people it seems to only run in one direction

See this is where all of you fail to understand... DEI is not identity politics.

So what empathy am I not having? What is one directional about equality and inclusion?

This is the problem, you've politicized something so it's not even what you think it is. Just like Covid, EVs, climate etc. This is why my perspective is different because it's not based on party ideology.

 

[sgip]

......What is one directional about equality and inclusion?

...when it's being forced by Government.

Sure we have housing, employment, and credit laws that restrict discrimination based on generalized Race, Religion, National Origin, etc, but now we have specific "protected groups" determined by melanin content as measured by Government.

If Ivy League schools said they would admit only students earning a top 2 percent score of the ACT or SAT, many "protected groups" would never enter an Ivy League school. Is that high standard prejudicial against "protected groups"? No. It's an absolutely color blind standard. Most Leftists would disagree and force through government actions these organizations to alter their score models to reach "equity". Is that prejudicial? Yes. If an overwhelming people group earns a higher score than other people groups, whose fault is it? Not those who chose to work at a goal rather than those who consider their melanin levels to be a hardship.

Just because my melanin count is very low doesn't mean I should get a break for being "oppressed", even though every day I am prejudiced against. The same should be true for everyone else.

 

[irvine buyer]

See this is where all of you fail to understand... DEI is not identity politics.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/identity-politics

Read the link about identity politics as it seems you are the only who doesn't seem to understand what identity politics is.

To add to what SGIP said, most activism coming from the left is one way. The very same activists who preach tolerance are likely to be highly intolerant if you don't share their ideology or cause. The people preaching inclusion are the ones who exclude or ostracize you if you don't agree with them (Hollywood is a great example of the hypocrisy). Having empathy is having the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. How are statements such as "You are either with us or you are against us" and "If you don't support our cause then you are part of the problem" tolerant, inclusive or empathetic? They are nothing but divisive.

You preach empathy but perhaps you should re-read your previous posts and see if your comments, just in this DEI discussion, fit that of someone that practices empathy.

DEI is far-left ideology. Poll after poll has shown that the majority of Americans do not embrace it. One of the reasons Trump won in 2024. You may think you're an independent thinker but most of what I've seen you discuss is Democrat talking points. Like I said before, without your comment about being an independent I would have pegged you for a Democrat.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

This is a good explanation of why many don't understand DEI from Reddit:

<<
CMV: Arguments against DEI collapse under their own weakness

This topic is inspired by Mark Cuban and Elon Musk going [back and forth on X over DEI](https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1742690628465484204).

I feel that often the arguments against DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) are facile and given in bad faith from people who have not taken the time to try to understand DEI. Instead, they start from definitions shared by others who are at best ignorant of these concepts and at worst are cynically manipulating people to preserve a status quo. I think arguments against DEI tend to fall along these lines, none of which are very strong:

1. **We should admit and hire based on merit instead of having diversity hires and admissions.** This falls apart like an undercooked oatmeal cookie upon further inspection. First, merit has to be defined, which leads to the question of *who defines merit*? That leads to a dichotomy. You can either have an exclusive group determine what merit is, which necessarily means creating a standard which favors the point-of-view of one group over another and is, thus, discriminatory, or you can reach a broad consensus on merit by including the perspectives of everyone within an industry, ***which requires*** ***diversity and inclusion***. This perspective also suggests that a person for whom their diverse background is seen as beneficial necessarily lacks merit, which is a false dichotomy. These things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
2. **Racism doesn't exist anymore, so there doesn't need to be a remedy.** I feel that this is a bad faith argument because it belies the fact that there have been major cases won or settled against government and industry who have been shown to have been acting with intent to discriminate against minorities. But for the sake of this conversation, let's assume that racist ideology has been eradicated. That doesn't eliminate the ongoing impact of the racism of the past. I recently came across a [report my hometown generated on the desegregation of schools in 1977](https://www.google.com/books/edition/School_Desegregation_in_Tulsa_Oklahoma/OLxEu1K8MoQC?gbpv=1), and it was a brutally honest assessment that acknowledged the impact that the decisions made in the first half of the 1900s had on racial segregation in the second half of the 1900s. If Bank of America was pushing minorities into worse mortgages at a higher rate leading up to the Great Recession, then the opportunity cost, alone, would have a disproportionate and lingering impact on minorities. Remedying these kinds of injustices ***requires committing to equitable outcomes for all, which should not be a difficult thing to support.***
3. **It's straight, white men who are the ones who are being discriminated against.** For the sake of this discussion, let's say that straight, white men *are* being discriminated against. ***Well, the solution to that is diversity, equity, and inclusion***. By ensuring straight, white males are represented in places where decisions governing their lives and livelihoods are taking place, they will be able to contribute their perspectives to work towards equitable outcomes for them, which would mean equitable outcomes for all. Bonus thought: If you recognize the injustice that arises from scenarios where straight, white males would be discriminated against, then you are arguing that racism does exist, and if you then argue that racism is only happening against straight, white males, then the corollary to that thought is that *only white males are enlightened enough to be incapable* of discrimination... which... well, I'll let you be the judge of whether that is racist.

As you can see, for all of the arguments that are ostensibly against DEI, DEI is actually the solution to the problem that has been stated. That's why I believe these arguments all crumble.

The one argument that I would accept is that DEI programs and policies are sometimes poorly implemented by institutions that are just checking boxes, and they are sometimes sandbagged by employees who do not wish to participate or acknowledge their value. Regardless of why a program may be a failure, it fails because it of a lack of a commitment to the underlying principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, which are that in order to have the best outcomes for *everyone*, you should have a population that is representative of our population (including straight white men), those people's backgrounds should be valued and their perspectives given fair consideration, and everyone should work together to ensure that everyone has an equal *opportunity* to have the best outcomes. This does not mean that everyone will have the same outcomes - just that they have the same *opportunities* for success and that their success is commensurate with their contribution.

>>

Trying to politicize my comments is a reflection of you not me. Show me in my comments about DEI where I have no empathy. Maybe you don't know what empathy is either.

Or maybe there is a trailer of empathy that was rerouted somewhere.

 

[irvine buyer]

Show me in my comments about DEI where I have no empathy.

-Or are you going to pretend to be obtuse like morekaos?
-Typical morekaos response with hyperbole and blame
-do you even understand what Morgan Freeman is trying to say?

Empathetic people don't make comments like that. They would point out their difference of opinion and leave it at that. They don't accuse those that disagree with them of being ignorant and obtuse or just attacking someone because his viewpoints consistently don't agree with yours (morekaos).

 

[someguy]

This is a good explanation of why many don't understand DEI from Reddit:

<<
CMV: Arguments against DEI collapse under their own weakness

This topic is inspired by Mark Cuban and Elon Musk going [back and forth on X over DEI](https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1742690628465484204).

I feel that often the arguments against DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) are facile and given in bad faith from people who have not taken the time to try to understand DEI. Instead, they start from definitions shared by others who are at best ignorant of these concepts and at worst are cynically manipulating people to preserve a status quo. I think arguments against DEI tend to fall along these lines, none of which are very strong:

1. **We should admit and hire based on merit instead of having diversity hires and admissions.** This falls apart like an undercooked oatmeal cookie upon further inspection. First, merit has to be defined, which leads to the question of *who defines merit*? That leads to a dichotomy. You can either have an exclusive group determine what merit is, which necessarily means creating a standard which favors the point-of-view of one group over another and is, thus, discriminatory, or you can reach a broad consensus on merit by including the perspectives of everyone within an industry, ***which requires*** ***diversity and inclusion***. This perspective also suggests that a person for whom their diverse background is seen as beneficial necessarily lacks merit, which is a false dichotomy. These things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
2. **Racism doesn't exist anymore, so there doesn't need to be a remedy.** I feel that this is a bad faith argument because it belies the fact that there have been major cases won or settled against government and industry who have been shown to have been acting with intent to discriminate against minorities. But for the sake of this conversation, let's assume that racist ideology has been eradicated. That doesn't eliminate the ongoing impact of the racism of the past. I recently came across a [report my hometown generated on the desegregation of schools in 1977](https://www.google.com/books/edition/School_Desegregation_in_Tulsa_Oklahoma/OLxEu1K8MoQC?gbpv=1), and it was a brutally honest assessment that acknowledged the impact that the decisions made in the first half of the 1900s had on racial segregation in the second half of the 1900s. If Bank of America was pushing minorities into worse mortgages at a higher rate leading up to the Great Recession, then the opportunity cost, alone, would have a disproportionate and lingering impact on minorities. Remedying these kinds of injustices ***requires committing to equitable outcomes for all, which should not be a difficult thing to support.***
3. **It's straight, white men who are the ones who are being discriminated against.** For the sake of this discussion, let's say that straight, white men *are* being discriminated against. ***Well, the solution to that is diversity, equity, and inclusion***. By ensuring straight, white males are represented in places where decisions governing their lives and livelihoods are taking place, they will be able to contribute their perspectives to work towards equitable outcomes for them, which would mean equitable outcomes for all. Bonus thought: If you recognize the injustice that arises from scenarios where straight, white males would be discriminated against, then you are arguing that racism does exist, and if you then argue that racism is only happening against straight, white males, then the corollary to that thought is that *only white males are enlightened enough to be incapable* of discrimination... which... well, I'll let you be the judge of whether that is racist.

As you can see, for all of the arguments that are ostensibly against DEI, DEI is actually the solution to the problem that has been stated. That's why I believe these arguments all crumble.

The one argument that I would accept is that DEI programs and policies are sometimes poorly implemented by institutions that are just checking boxes, and they are sometimes sandbagged by employees who do not wish to participate or acknowledge their value. Regardless of why a program may be a failure, it fails because it of a lack of a commitment to the underlying principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, which are that in order to have the best outcomes for *everyone*, you should have a population that is representative of our population (including straight white men), those people's backgrounds should be valued and their perspectives given fair consideration, and everyone should work together to ensure that everyone has an equal *opportunity* to have the best outcomes. This does not mean that everyone will have the same outcomes - just that they have the same *opportunities* for success and that their success is commensurate with their contribution.

>>

Trying to politicize my comments is a reflection of you not me. Show me in my comments about DEI where I have no empathy. Maybe you don't know what empathy is either.

Or maybe there is a trailer of empathy that was rerouted somewhere.

You do realize that most of reddit is filled with entitled verbose children who have never produced anything besides self centered arrogant ignorant complaints via pressing buttons on their keyboard, right?

1) Merit is the ability to effectively and efficiently execute a prescribed outcome. Inalienable attributes like skin color and gender are not in and of themselves merit. People hire me because I effectively execute a prescribed outcome for them. I would not want it any other way. I want the most merit qualified person flying the airplane when I travel 35,000 ft in the sky with my family in an aluminum tube. I want the most merit qualified people building and maintaining that aluminum tube. I want the most merit qualified people performing surgery on me and my loved ones. I give absolutely zero fucks what their race, religion, or gender is. I would be insulted if someone gave me bonus points or deductions for my race, religion, or gender, and I strive to give the same curtesy to others.

2) Strawman. Yes racism exists, but it is far rarer than people like this child think. The cure to racism is not more prejudice disguised as "DEI". Furthermore, no one, and I mean no one, can guarantee equal outcome on a broad social level in this world. Attempting to achieve such has always and will always be destructive on individual and social levels.

3) Another strawman, same counter argument as #2. The cure to discrimination is not more discrimination. Equal outcome is an impossible and destructive end goal. We have limited resources. People and governments are corruptible. People have different strengths and weaknesses. People have continuously evolving unique values and goals. We need a system to allocate our limited resources and skill sets. I don't for one second trust for that power to be given to some DEI officer, DEI policy, or corruptible government individual or entity. The best system we have, while not perfect and does require guardrails, is merit based competition.

 

[sgip]

"...the solution is DEI..." Was there a gas leak in the room when that statement was made?

Find me please an example of DEI that worked in favor of a straight white man or woman over 50. Please - though not a lawsuit forcing that same result - but an actual DEI hire of a SWM/F50+ celebrated by the DEI folks.

Godspeed to you friend on this neverending journey to find The Holy Grail (of DEI equality)

 

[irvinehomeowner]

So if it doesn't fit your definition you insult the source.

If you understood DEI, it's the removal of bias, prejudice and racism.

It's not anti anything... It's accept everything.

 

[someguy]

So if it doesn't fit your definition you insult the source.

If you understood DEI, it's the removal of bias, prejudice and racism.

It's not anti anything... It's accept everything.

I added context to the source you cited. Agreed though, it was insulting, my bad. I stand by the general claim though - reddit is comprised mostly of young people who have spent most of their lives not producing and not earning. They seem particularly miserable, negative, and anti capitalist. I personally wouldn't put much credence in an opinion from reddit, or at least take it with a few grains of salt, but that's just me.

I also directly addressed the three points your source made. You're welcome to present a counterargument beyond saying I don't understand DEI and that DEI is "not anti anything, it's accept everything".

DEI is quite straight forward. It's not the removal of bias, prejudice, and racism - it's the opposite - it's emphasizing factors that are inherently biased, prejudice, and racist. It does the opposite of what it claims to do.

Without DEI we are left to fill positions based on merit without regard to inalienable attributes. DEI puts people in positions based things like skin color, ethnicity, and gender.

Without DEI if we walk past the cockpit of an airplane and see a woman of color pilot, we can think "good for you, you made it on your own merit, you're qualified for this job because the only factor that got you here was your ability to pilot this plane above the minimum technical standards and excel beyond others who did not get your job."

With DEI if we walk past the cockpit of an airplane and see a woman of color pilot... well.. was she the most technically capable candidate? Is she there because of her skin color? Her gender? Will her skin color and gender help her land the plane safely?

Do you want to fly on planes with pilots selected for race and gender or do you want the most technically prepared pilot in the cockpit?

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I will reply but past experience has shown me it's to no avail, I'll try to keep it short:

You do realize that most of reddit is filled with entitled verbose children who have never produced anything besides self centered arrogant ignorant complaints via pressing buttons on their keyboard, right?

Based on the profile of the poster and the contents of their posts, they are not a child. You can find other editorials and op ed pieces that share their sentiment but I wanted to just cut and paste rather than try to navigate an ad riddled online article.

1) Merit is the ability to effectively and efficiently execute a prescribed outcome. Inalienable attributes like skin color and gender are not in and of themselves merit. People hire me because I effectively execute a prescribed outcome for them. I would not want it any other way. I want the most merit qualified person flying the airplane when I travel 35,000 ft in the sky with my family in an aluminum tube. I want the most merit qualified people building and maintaining that aluminum tube. I want the most merit qualified people performing surgery on me and my loved ones. I give absolutely zero fucks what their race, religion, or gender is. I would be insulted if someone gave me bonus points or deductions for my race, religion, or gender, and I strive to give the same curtesy to others.\

Like other in this thread, I have never said DEI is ignorant of merit. Again they have to be AS qualified if not more so. The problem is merit is ignored due to bias.

2) Strawman. Yes racism exists, but it is far rarer than people like this child think. The cure to racism is not more prejudice disguised as "DEI". Furthermore, no one, and I mean no one, can guarantee equal outcome on a broad social level in this world. Attempting to achieve such has always and will always be destructive on individual and social levels.

Everything can be strawman. Racism exists to varying degrees in almost everyone... the problem is that leads to bias... see #1.

3) Another strawman, same counter argument as #2. The cure to discrimination is not more discrimination. Equal outcome is an impossible and destructive end goal. We have limited resources. People and governments are corruptible. People have different strengths and weaknesses. People have continuously evolving unique values and goals. We need a system to allocate our limited resources and skill sets. I don't for one second trust for that power to be given to some DEI officer, DEI policy, or corruptible government individual or entity. The best system we have, while not perfect and does require guardrails, is merit based competition.

Why do you keep saying it's more discrimination... it's less. And much of society is not merit-based.. that's the fallacy. The best qualified are not always the majority group. This is also why I said it cuts both ways... in a minority-owned or female-owned business... if a white male is the most qualified, the premise of DEI is that they should be hired/promoted.

Not sure if you read their final point but the issue here isn't DEI, it's the policies organizations try to enact or are forced upon them. Just like EV mandates, I don't feel it should forced but holistically encouraged. But because as everyone says "Life's a B" or "Humans will error", this is why policies are made or it will never happen. Were you against desegregation? How about women voters?

All the forward advances made in society are driven by equality and inclusion... let's forget the diversity aspect if that makes it easier... because if people are truly inclusive and base decisions on actual merit... diversity will naturally occur.

And as a bonus I'll respond to your other post:

DEI is quite straight forward. It's not the removal of bias, prejudice, and racism - it's the opposite - it's emphasizing factors that are inherently biased, prejudice, and racist. It does the opposite of what it claims to do.

Again... that's not what is is. Just the definitions of diversity, equality and inclusion should tell you otherwise.

Without DEI we are left to fill positions based on merit without regard to inalienable attributes. DEI puts people in positions based things like skin color, ethnicity, and gender.

That's not how I define DEI, it removes the barriers so more people have a chance.

Without DEI if we walk past the cockpit of an airplane and see a woman of color pilot, we can think "good for you, you made it on your own merit, you're qualified for this job because the only factor that got you here was your ability to pilot this plane above the minimum technical standards and excel beyond others who did not get your job."

Or... with DEI, a woman of color who is just as or more capable flies your family safely rather than some favored drunk guy who knows people and has less skill. Remember... it has to as good as if not better than the best candidates.

With DEI if we walk past the cockpit of an airplane and see a woman of color pilot... well.. was she the most technically capable candidate? Is she there because of her skin color? Her gender? Will her skin color and gender help her land the plane safely?

As I said above, she should be. Without DEI, wouldn't you walk past the cockpit and think she's not as capable? Many would.

Do you want to fly on planes with pilots selected for race and gender or do you want the most technically prepared pilot in the cockpit?

That's not DEI. It's qualifications first and bias last... or never.

Your responses worry me because no one should have that question in their mind. I don't see a person's gender or color and wonder if they are qualified enough. Do you get off the plane if the airline has a DEI policy? Do you change doctors if you suspect DEI? Do your hire only certain races/genders for work on your home?

And let's get back to morekaos' bad example of the NBA. I know what he is trying to get at but does he know who the top 5 players are? In an org based on skill, the most qualified will get the job despite the bias.

Now I know this will not convince anyone of anything. But like many things in life, it's about perception.

Jan 6 is a perfect example. Everyone knows that should not have happened... but based on what side you are on, you rationalize it. Saying you "grab female anatomy" isn't presidential, but it's forgiven. You all think referring to Michelle Obama as "Big Mike" is funny? I dislike the Clintons... does that buy me some favor? If you can't admit politics really does color perspective, that's a bigger problem than DEI and racism. It's sad because it drives wedges between family and friends.

IB can't even accept I'm an independent... that's how bias works. If I were truly far left, I wouldn't be able say any good things about Trump... but I have. Have any of those on the other side admitted anything good about Democrats? Look at Starman and the things he says? You all on board with that?

 

[panda]

 

[morekaos]

And let's get back to morekaos' bad example of the NBA. I know what he is trying to get at but does he know who the top 5 players are? In an org based on skill, the most qualified will get the job despite the bias.

Use a better sample size, try the top 100. It’s 90% black.

Ranking: The Top 100 players in the NBA for 2024-25

HoopsHype ranks the Top 100 players in the NBA for 2024-25, featuring the likes of Luka Doncic, LeBron James, Victor Wembanyama and more.

hoopshype.com

 

[morekaos]

Back to something relevant. So much winning!!!

U.S. Wins Major Concession in Panama Canal, With Trump Picking Up Another Foreign Policy Win​

The U.S. has won a major concession in the Panama Canal, the State Department announced on Wednesday night.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio successfully negotiated a new deal with the nation of Panama that would grant the U.S. the right to pass through the waterway without being charged fees. The move, State said, will save the U.S. government millions of dollars a year.

U.S. Wins Major Concession in Panama Canal, With Trump Picking Up Another Foreign Policy Win

redstate.com

 

[morekaos]

You all think referring to Michelle Obama as "Big Mike" is funny?

it’s better than calling her a Nazi, isn’t it?